Author

admin

Browsing

Welcome to The Campaign Moment, your guide to the 2024 election and the second — and final? — 2024 presidential debate.

(Did a friend forward this to you? If so, sign up here. And subscribe to the Campaign Moment podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.)

The big moment

The 2024 election appears about as tight as can be, meaning the onus was on both Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump as they took the stage for the ABC News debate in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. And the stakes were especially high, given no further debates have been scheduled.

Harris was introducing herself to many casual voters who knew relatively little about her, as she looked to capitalize on her rise in popularity and the polls since taking over from President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. Trump, meanwhile, aimed to stay disciplined and define Harris more than she could define herself — by tying her to Biden and the more liberal positions she took during her 2020 Democratic presidential campaign.

Below are my takeaways.

1. Harris successfully made it all about Trump — and he struggled

If Democrats were concerned about anything amounting to a repeat of Biden’s shoddy debate performance in late June, which led to his dropping out, it was quickly erased. Harris returned to the form that made her the runaway winner of the early 2020 Democratic primary debates.

More than that, though, with a premium on Trump defining the lesser-known Harris, she made sure the debate was overwhelmingly about Trump and his less-appealing traits.

Harris covered just about all of the greatest hits that Biden wasn’t able to get to: Trump’s criminal trials, Project 2025, Jan. 6, his lauding of dictators, his criticism of John McCain and reported disparagement of soldiers, the racist violence in Charlottesville, which he downplayed, Trump’s suggesting that he would terminate parts of the Constitution, criticisms from Trump’s former aides and, perhaps most notable of all, abortion rights.

She also baited him by talking about his often-confusing rambling at rallies and his crowd sizes, as well as citing a negative review of his economic policies from his alma mater, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Trump was frequently on his heels, focused on defending his record rather than hitting Biden’s and Harris’s. He repeatedly cut in to ask for more time to talk about his own vulnerabilities. It was often as if Trump were the incumbent.

And Harris repeatedly tied everything together by offering the prospect of a less chaotic presidency.

“For everyone watching, who remembers what January 6th was, I say, we don’t have to go back. Let’s not go back. We’re not going back,” Harris said. “It’s time to turn the page. And if that was a bridge too far for you, well, there is a place in our campaign for you to stand for country, to stand for our democracy, to stand for rule of law and to end the chaos and to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy because you don’t like the outcome.”

Trump didn’t get to spend much time tying Harris to Biden until late in the debate. And except for a brief moment toward the end, he didn’t really hit her on specific liberal positions she took years ago, like a mandatory gun buyback program and banning fracking.

Trump also got into relatively little detail about his own policies, apart from repeatedly pointing to his plan for tariffs (which co-moderator David Muir of ABC News unhelpfully noted could lead to costs rising on consumers).

The one point Trump hit over and over again was migrant crime and record illegal immigration during the Biden administration — a real liability for the Democratic ticket, even as illegal border crossings have fallen substantially in recent months.

At one point while discussing it, Trump called for action.

“I would say we would both leave this debate right now,” Trump said. “I’d like to see her go down to Washington, D.C., during this debate, because we’re wasting a lot of time.”

It’s almost as if he would rather have been somewhere else.

2. Trump’s fire hose of falsehoods

Trump’s debate performance was, from the start, a fire hose of misinformation.

He falsely claimed or suggested:

  • Democrats support executing babies after birth. (ABC News’s Linsey Davis, the other moderator, correctly noted, “There is no state in this country where it’s legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”)
  • “Every legal scholar” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned.
  • That we recently had the “highest inflation perhaps in the history of our country.”
  • That “crime is down all over the world except here.” (Muir noted that the FBI has reported violent crime has been falling.)
  • That the Justice Department has been involved in every case against him.
  • That Democrats are trying to get illegal immigrants to vote for them.
  • That undocumented immigrants are “taking over the towns, they’re taking over buildings” in Aurora, Colo. (Police say this hasn’t happened.)

But perhaps on no issue was Trump’s reliance on bogus information as pronounced as it was when he referred to ridiculous and dehumanizing rumors that Haitian immigrants are stealing and eating pets in Springfield, Ohio — claims that have taken off among right-wing social media users. Trump broached the subject early and then returned to it later.

“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs,” Trump claimed. “The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating — they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

Except just hours earlier, Trump’s own running mate, JD Vance, had conceded, after sharing the rumor, that it might well be false. Muir noted that officials in the city say it’s baseless.

Trump didn’t back down, though, claiming he had seen people on TV confirming the story.

If there was a moment that epitomized a debate that often appeared to be about appealing to far-right supporters and social-media allies, this was surely it.

“Talk about extreme,” Harris responded.

3. Harris delivered an impassioned case on abortion

Harris drove the argument on abortion in a way that Biden never could.

She repeatedly spoke in passionate terms about the issue, which has cut strongly against the Republican Party ever since Roe was overturned. She noted that overturning Roe has led to many Republican-controlled states banning abortion, sometimes with no exceptions for rape and incest.

“A survivor of a crime, a violation to their body, does not have the right to make a decision about what happens to their body,” Harris said, citing how this could affect 12- and 13-year-olds. “That is immoral.”

She added at another point: “It’s insulting to the women of America. … Working people, working women who are working one or two jobs, who can barely afford child care as it is, have to travel to another state to get on a plane, sitting next to strangers to go and get the health care she needs — barely can afford to do it. And what you are putting her through is unconscionable.”

Trump’s response was to basically disown the results in those red states — to play up leaving the issue to the states — and to cite Democrats not drawing a line on third-trimester abortions, as well as the falsehood about legal executions after birth. (Harris was asked by the moderators whether she would allow any restrictions; she said she supported the standard set by Roe.)

Trump also credited himself with getting Alabama to reverse a state Supreme Court ruling that severely restricted access to in vitro fertilization.

“I’ve been a leader on it,” Trump said. “They know that, and everybody else knows it. I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF.”

4. Trump was all about undocumented immigrants and migrant crime

It was clear from the earliest moments of the debate that Trump was singularly focused on this issue. He almost instantly brought up Aurora and Springfield, and he repeatedly brought the conversation back to the subject.

“They allowed criminals,” Trump said, claiming without evidence that there were “many millions” of criminals. “They allowed terrorists. They allowed common street criminals. They allowed people to come in, drug dealers to come into our country.”

Trump added at another point: “Bad immigration is the worst thing that can happen to our economy. They have and she has destroyed our country with policy. That’s insane.”

But Trump’s claims were often undercut by falsehoods.

Harris, meanwhile, sought to insulate herself by bear-hugging the bipartisan Senate immigration deal that Trump helped kill, accusing him of preferring “to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.” The particulars of that bill — which even several Republicans argued was a good deal and quite conservative — got a thorough airing, which could help Harris.

Take a moment to read:

  • “Elon Musk’s misleading election claims reach millions and alarm election officials” (Washington Post)
  • “Trump, Republicans push swing-state courts to reject mail-in ballots” (Washington Post)
  • “Trump reiterates: There will be blood” (Washington Post)
  • “Why Mike Lee folded” (Atlantic)
  • “Hypocrisy, spinelessness and the triumph of Donald Trump” (Atlantic)
  • “‘Flip-Flop’ or Evolution: Trump and Harris and Their Reversals on Issues” (New York Times)
This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Vice President Kamala Harris made a sharp, fiery case against Republican nominee Donald Trump during a freewheeling debate Tuesday, blasting the former president’s character and preoccupation with himself while pressing him to task on issues including abortion, democracy and foreign policy.

Trump used the head-to-head event to attack Harris as a “Marxist” masquerading as a moderate and repeatedly turned the subject back to the U.S. southern border — an issue where polls show voters trust him more than Harris — often straying from the facts to embrace debunked conspiracy theories about immigration and the 2020 election.

Both sides went into their first debate, hosted by ABC in Philadelphia, spoiling for a fight after several weeks of attacking one another on the campaign trail and wasted little time launching into harsh attacks. Harris’s barbs landed crisply, while Trump often veered off-message in response to her attempts to bait him on sensitive topics like the size of his rally crowds, his 2020 election loss and his admiration for strongmen.

“In this debate tonight, you’re going to hear from the same old tired playbook, a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling,” Harris said early in the debate, one of several times that she turned to address viewers rather than her opponent. A few minutes later, she said, “Donald Trump actually has no plan for you, because he is more interested in defending himself than he is in looking out for you.”

Trump dismissed the remark as “just a sound bite” and went on to accuse Harris of misleading the public about her positions.

“Everything that she believed three years ago and four years ago is out the window — she’s going to my philosophy now,” Trump said. “In fact, I was going to send her a MAGA hat. She’s going to my philosophy. But if she ever got elected, she’d change it and it will be the end of our country.”

Harris was able to deliver the Democratic case against Trump — that he is self-involved, unfit and consumed with his own interests — in a way that President Joe Biden struggled badly to do in the last debate, a little over two months ago. Her performance, and Trump’s often-frustrated reaction, underscored how much the dynamics of race have changed since Biden stepped aside.

Harris seemed to regularly get under the former president’s skin, sometimes prompting angry or meandering responses. He accused the vice president and the Biden administration of being responsible for inflation, high crime and illegal immigration, but he also went on tangents, such as repeating baseless assertions.

In one of the most aggressive exchanges from the night, Harris and Trump sparred over abortion, with each casting the other as holding extreme positions.

Harris said Trump was responsible for the worst of the fallout of abortion bans stemming from the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, blaming the former president for women “bleeding out” in parking lots and children having to carry a pregnancy resulting from incest.

Trump said it “took courage” to overturn Roe v. Wade and falsely claimed that “every legal scholar” wanted abortion policy to be left up to the states. He also falsely stated that Democrats support abortion after birth, which led to the first of several fact checks from the moderators.

Trump declared that he would not sign a national abortion ban but dodged when asked whether he would veto such a ban if it passed Congress, saying that would never happen. “I’m not signing a ban, and there’s no reason to sign a ban,” Trump said. As for vetoing it, he said, “I won’t have to.”

Harris passionately spoke about the need for government to stay out of decisions involving women’s bodies. But she did not answer directly whether she supported any restrictions on abortion, saying instead that she backed reinstating the protections of Roe v. Wade.

Harris repeatedly goaded Trump with references to people leaving his rallies, his various bankruptcies, the money that he received from his father and other matters where he has shown sensitivity.

“He talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter,” Harris said at one point. “He talks about [how] windmills cause cancer.”

At one point in the debate, Trump refused to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election, despite clear evidence that Biden defeated him. When asked about his recent statements that he had “lost by a whisker,” Trump said he was being sarcastic.

“I don’t acknowledge it at all,” Trump said. “I say that sarcastically. … Look, there’s so much proof. All you have to do is look at it.”

He then falsely claimed that “no judge looked at it,” even though several courts dismissed his claims of voter fraud as lacking merit.

Harris, meanwhile, took the opportunity to say Trump was “fired” by the American people in 2020. “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people, so let’s be clear about that and clearly he’s having a very difficult time processing that,” Harris said. “We cannot afford to have a president of the United States who attempts as he did in the past to upend the will of the voters in a free and fair election.”

It was one of several times Harris tried to get under Trump’s skin. She referenced people at his rallies experiencing “exhaustion and boredom,” saying that he seemed “confused” and that “he admires dictators.”

Trump often responded with defensive and unclear retorts, providing the kind of split-screen image the Harris campaign was hoping for.

Shortly after Harris taunted him about people leaving his rallies early, Trump warned of World War III, then brought up a false claim that immigrants in Ohio are eating Americans’ pets.

“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there and this is what’s happening,” Trump said, as Harris began to laugh. “As far as rallies are concerned … the reason they go, they like what I say.”

David Muir interjected, saying the city manager had told ABC that there have been “no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

Trump interjected: “I’ve seen people on television. The people on television say, ‘My dog was taken and used for food.’”

Harris laughed and said: “Talk about extreme.”

Beyond the policy differences, both candidates faced pressure heading into the debate to present a reassuring demeanor. Polls suggest that Harris particularly remains little-known to many voters, and Tuesday was expected to give her a rare opportunity to showcase a presidential, moderate image.

Tuesday’s event was originally scheduled to be the second of two faceoffs between Trump and Biden, who was seeking reelection at the time and was viewed as the all-but-certain Democratic nominee. But Biden’s halting performance during the first debate in June amplified concerns among many Democrats about his age and mental acuity, ultimately leading him to drop out and endorse Harris.

Over the course of about 50 days, Harris claimed the Democratic nomination, selected a running mate, raised more than $540 million, filled large arenas, and closed the gap in polling that had opened up between Trump and Biden. The frenzy of activity has shaken up a race that has also been rocked by Trump’s felony conviction and an assassination attempt against him.

Polls now show a tight, margin-of-error race with the momentum of Harris’s candidacy appearing to settle in recent days. Her campaign has sought to present her as the “underdog,” and Trump’s campaign has declared that her “honeymoon” period is over.

Both candidates on Tuesday sought to appeal to undecided voters, a shrinking group of Americans who play an outsize role and tend to embrace more moderate positions than the party faithful on either side. Harris embraced a tougher position on immigration and expressed her support for small businesses while Trump said he supported in vitro fertilization, calling himself “a leader on fertilization IVF.”

Harris faced questions from the moderators — and attacks from Trump — over several liberal policy positions she once held. Her campaign has disavowed some of her more progressive positions from her presidential run in 2019, saying she no longer supports a ban on fracking, a Medicare-for-all policy, mandatory gun buyback initiatives or removing penalties for those who cross the border illegally.

She did not directly answer but turned her response into another attack on Trump.

“My values have not changed, and what is important is that there is a president who actually brings values and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down and name-calling,” she said.

She also sought to use a question about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol to make a broader point about her push to move beyond the Trump-dominated era of American politics. “For everyone watching who remembers what January 6th was, I say, we don’t have to go back,” she said. “Let’s not go back. We’re not going back. We’re turning the page.”

Trump responded with his own harsh critiques of Harris. “She doesn’t have a plan. She copied Biden’s plan,” he said of Harris’s economic policies. “It’s like four sentences, like, ‘Run, Spot, run.’”

Harris responded to one of Trump’s attacks on crime by pointing out that the former president is being prosecuted on multiple charges. Trump said he had been the victim of a weaponized government, alleging without evidence that a July assassination attempt stemmed from Democrats’ rhetoric about him.

“I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things that they say about me,” Trump said. Police have not found a political motive for the shooter.

At one point, the moderators asked Trump about his recent baseless comment that Harris had only recently begun embracing her Black heritage. Harris is Black and Indian American.

“Whatever she wants to be is okay with me,” Trump said.

Harris responded with a rare comment on racial issues, accusing Trump of using race to divide people throughout his career. “I think the American people want better than that, want better than this,” she said. “We see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don’t want a president who wants to constantly see Americans point a finger at each other.”

The debate began cordially, at least before the candidates began speaking. Harris walked on to the stage and approached Trump with an outstretched arm, ultimately making her way over to his podium.

“Kamala Harris,” she said, introducing herself and shaking his hand. “Let’s have a good debate.”

“Have fun,” Trump said.

The window for the candidates to make their case is closing fast, as mail-in ballots in some states will begin going out as soon as next week. Surrogates for both candidates wasted little time trying to put the most positive light on the evening.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said Harris failed to answer substantive questions about the shifts on her record or how she would govern.

“Did Kamala Harris answer the question of, do the Democrats have a nominee who looks the part? Yeah. But there was no substance,’ he told reporters in the spin room. ‘It was all fluff it was all shown it was all vibes, not concrete answers the American people need. It’s as if, frankly, I was re watching her convention speech. That’s what I saw.”

Both candidates planned to return to the campaign trail after taking time Wednesday to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Harris will campaign in North Carolina and Pennsylvania this week while Trump plans to travel to Arizona, Nevada and California.

It is not clear if they will debate again, as neither candidate has committed yet to another meeting. Their running mates, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, are slated to debate Oct. 1.

Maeve Reston, Cleve Wootson, Jeff Stein and Patrick Svitek contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump arrived at Tuesday night’s debate aiming to present themselves as the change agents that polls show Americans are craving.

But from the opening, both candidates were thrown on the defensive, forced to reckon with their records — Harris on the economy and border security, Trump on immigration and his actions on Jan. 6, 2021 — and underscoring the challenge they both face in trying to convince voters they would usher in a new era for the country.

While voters often convey a desire for change, polls showed their appetite for it intensified earlier this year when the presidential race was headed toward a rematch between President Joe Biden and Trump.

Even though Harris rarely leans into the historic nature of her candidacy — if elected, she would be the first female president and is almost two decades younger than Trump — she has key biographical advantages as she makes her change argument.

“Clearly, I am not Joe Biden, and I am certainly not Donald Trump,” Harris said. “And what I do offer is a new generation of leadership for our country, one who believes in what is possible, one who brings a sense of optimism about what we can do instead of always disparaging the American people.”

But she faces her own challenges in presenting as a fresh face, carrying the baggage of the Biden administration and trying to avoid the pitfalls that vice presidents have historically faced running as change candidates. On Tuesday, she at times tried to thread the needle between grasping onto the popular elements of the Biden years while distancing herself from some of his policy positions and what parts of the electorate had decided were bad vibes.

Trump, for his part, continually sought to tie Harris to Biden’s record and also questioned why she had yet to implement the various policy proposals she outlined even though she works in the West Wing.

“So she just started by saying she’s going to do this,” Trump said after Harris delivered her closing statement. “She’s going to do that. She’s going to do all these wonderful things. Why hasn’t she done it? She’s been there for 3½ years.

Democratic and Republican strategists both agreed that whichever candidate can succeed in convincing voters they best represent change will win in November. Just minutes before the debate started, Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, said Trump needed to “indict” Harris on the economy, the border and crime in that effort.

“He doesn’t need to go to crazy town,” he said, emphasizing that the former president needed to stay keenly focused on the sliver of undecided voters in battleground states.

As the debate ended, Reed conceded that Trump failed in that mission.

“Trump did not check the change box tonight,” Reed said in a text message. “He wandered and was on defense most of the debate.”

He followed up: “Trump not only took the bait all night, he swallowed the hook.”

As he promises change, Trump faces quandaries of his own: He has dominated American politics for nearly a decade — since he rode down the golden escalator in his eponymous tower in 2015 — and held the presidency before Americans denied him a second term in 2020. As he runs for a third time, he now faces several legal challenges while promoting a more extreme agenda should he win in November.

A New York Times-Siena College poll released this week found that 61 percent of likely voters wanted a “major change” from Biden, with 53 percent saying Trump represented “major change” compared to 25 percent saying the same about Harris. An NPR/PBS News/Marist College poll released a day later asked voters which candidate most “represents change” and found that Harris led with 52 percent compared with Trump’s 46 percent.

“In some ways, it’s unfathomable to me that you could think a Black woman, a woman of South Asian descent, a relatively younger woman does not represent anything other than change simply in the story that she brings with her,” said Amanda Litman, the co-founder of Run for Something, a liberal group focused on recruiting Democratic candidates in local races. “At the same time, she is Joe Biden’s vice president and carries with her some of the legacies of that leadership.”

She added: “I think that’s why you’re seeing sometimes she is leading on the change question and someone Trump is because there is so much variation in how voters define the term.”

During the debate, Harris tried to remind voters of the chaos during Trump’s presidency, hammering her pitch that Trump would bring the country backward and tying him to Project 2025, a package of ultraconservative policy proposals put forth by Trump’s allies.

“It is important that we move forward, that we turn the page on this same old tired rhetoric and address the needs of the American people,” Harris said.

On the policy front, Harris has put forward few new policies, though advisers tout her economic policies as evidence of some separation from the president. But their differences are largely on the margin — for example, Harris proposed a 28 percent tax on long-term capital gains to Biden’s 39.6 percent, and she supports eliminating taxes on tips whereas he does not — and their overall visions are closely aligned.

Harris also struck a different tone on abortion than Biden did, going into great detail about the impacts overturning Roe v. Wade has had on women in America. She also has taken a harsher tone on Israel’s actions while expressing more sympathy for the plight of Palestinians.

Her slogan — a “new way forward” — is part of the effort to subtly signal separation from the president, though by and large, Harris effusively praises Biden’s record and knows his endorsement gave her the glide path to securing the Democratic nomination.

Trump slammed Harris for lacking any plans of her own, accusing her of adopting all of Biden’s plans.

“She doesn’t have a plan,” he said Tuesday night. “She copied Biden’s plan, and it’s like four sentences, like ‘Run, Spot Run.’ ”

Trump vigorously tried to distance himself from Project 2025, as his aides have determined it was detrimental to his reelection efforts. But even as he tried to promise change should he win, much of his rhetoric focused on returning America back to the policies of his past administration.

“I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country,” he said. “I’ll do it again.”

And after Republicans spent months attacking Biden over his age, raising doubts about his mental acuity, Harris attempted to turn the tables on Trump on Tuesday, questioning his fitness for the job. Democrats say the generational argument — Harris is 59 and Trump is 78 — is particularly effective for voters.

“There is no greater change than generational change,” Rebecca Katz, a Democratic strategist said, noting that three of the last five presidents — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Trump — were all born during the summer of 1946. “It feels different because it is.”

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

In their first and perhaps only presidential debate in the 2024 election, a defensive former president Donald Trump relied on many of his favorite falsehoods to combat attacks from Vice President Kamala Harris. Harris stretched the truth on occasion, but she was no match in the falsehood department against Trump.

Here’s a roundup of 55 claims that caught our interest, in the order in which they were made. (In some cases we have grouped similar Trump statements together.) As is our practice, we do not award Pinocchios when we do a roundup of facts in debates.

“Economists have said that that Trump sales tax would actually result, for middle class families, in about $4,000 more a year.”

—Harris

This may be a high estimate. Trump suggested he wants to impose a 10 percent tax on every imported good entering the United States and a 60 percent tax on every imported good from China. The pro-trade Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that this would cost a typical U.S. household in the middle of the income distribution about $1,700 in after-tax income. That’s because tariffs are typically passed on to consumers by importers — a standard economic concept that Trump rejects.

But in one recent campaign rally, Trump mused that he would impose a 20 percent tariff. Peterson redid the numbers and estimated this would cost that typical household more than $2,600 a year.

Harris is relying on an estimate from the left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund, which calculates the cost would be $3,900.

But economist Kimberly Clausing, co-author of the Peterson study, says these studies are underestimates because they do not consider the increase in the price of goods that compete with imports. “We have every reason to think U.S. domestic prices would rise in those sectors that compete with imports” and “that effect is very large,” she said in an email. “The true cost I’d guess is roughly twice as high as our number.”

“I have no sales tax. That’s an incorrect statement. She knows that we’re doing tariffs on other countries. Other countries are going to finally, after 75 years, pay us back for all that we’ve done for the world and the tariff will be substantial in some cases.”

—Trump

Trump is flat wrong to claim that the entire tariff is paid by a foreign country. There is no controversy among economists, who agree that tariffs — essentially a tax on domestic consumption — are paid by importers, such as U.S. companies, which in turn pass on most or all of the costs to consumers or producers who may use imported materials in their products. As a matter of demand and supply elasticities, overseas producers will pay part of the tax if there are fewer goods sold to the United States. Domestic producers in effect get a subsidy because they can raise their prices to the level imposed on importers.

Through the end of his presidency, Trump-imposed tariffs garnered about $75 billion on products from China. So, ultimately, Americans footed the bill for Trump’s tariffs, not the Chinese. Moreover, the China tariff revenue was reduced by $28 billion in payments the government made to farmers who lost business because China stopped buying U.S. soybeans, hogs, cotton and other products in response.

“I had tariffs, and yet I had no inflation…I had no inflation, virtually no inflation. They had the highest inflation perhaps in the history of our country, because I’ve never seen a worse period of time.”

“We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before, probably the worst in our nation’s history.”

—Trump

Biden did not have the highest inflation in U.S. history. Inflation spiked to 9 percent in mid 2022, a 40-year-high, but is now below 3 percent. (For all of 2022, inflation was 6.5 percent.) Inflation was 12.5 percent in 1980, 13.3 pecent in 1979 and 18.1 percent in 1946 — and many other years were higher than 6.5 percent.

Higher prices for goods and services would have happened no matter who was elected president in 2020. Inflation initially spiked because of pandemic-related shocks — increased consumer demand as the pandemic eased and an inability to meet this demand because of supply-chain issues, as companies reduced production when consumers hunkered down during the pandemic. Indeed, inflation rose around the world — with many peer countries doing worse than the United States — because of pandemic-related shocks that rippled across the globe.

“We have millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums.”

Trump

This is poppycock. Immigration experts know of no effort by other countries to empty their prisons and mental institutions. As someone who came to prominence in the late ’70s and early ’80s, Trump appears to be channeling Cuban leader Fidel Castro’s 1980 Mariel boatlift. About 125,000 Cubans were allowed to flee to the United States in 1,700 boats — but there was a backlash when it was discovered that hundreds of refugees had been released from jails and mental health facilities.

Helen Fair, research associate at the Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research in Britain, which tracks the world prison population (except for a handful of countries), says the numbers keep growing. In 2013, 10.2 million people were in prison globally — and that had grown to 10.77 million in 2021. A preliminary estimate for February 2024, not ready to be published, indicates the population has grown even more. “In short, I would disagree with Donald Trump’s assertion,” she said.

“You look at Springfield, Ohio, you look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns. They’re taking over buildings. They’re going in violently… They’re at the highest level of criminality, and we have to get them out.”

“A lot of towns don’t want to talk about it because they’re so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

—Trump

Trump is channeling right-wing social media sensations. On Springfield, Trump is referencing a ridiculous social-media hoax, supposedly centered on Haitian immigrants eating cats and other animals, that has spawned thousands of memes across right-wing social media. There is no evidence that Haitians are doing this. As for Aurora, police in this Denver suburb say this claim is false — a Venezuelan gang has not taken over an apartment complex.

“I’m not saying that there’s not gang members that don’t live in this community, but what we’re learning out here is that gang members have not taken over this complex,” Heather Morris, the interim police chief in Aurora, said in a recent video taped outside the complex.

Some tenants held a news conference recently and also disputed the notion that the gang had taken over the complex. Instead, they said, the problem was that the apartment block had fallen into disrepair and was infested with bedbugs, cockroaches and rats.

“I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country… We had the greatest economy.”

—Trump

This is false. Before the coronavirus pandemic shuttered businesses and sent unemployment soaring, the president could certainly brag about the state of the economy in his first three years as president. But he ran into trouble when he made a play for the history books to say it was the best economy in U.S. history. By just about any important measure, the economy under Trump did not doas well as it did under Presidents Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson or Bill Clinton.

The gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2019, slipping from 2.9 percent in 2018 and 2.4 percent in 2017. But in 1997, 1998 and 1999, GDP grew 4.5 percent, 4.5 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively. Yet even that period paled in comparison with the 1950s and 60s. Growth between 1962 and 1966 ranged from 4.4 percent to 6.6 percent. In postwar 1950 and 1951, it was 8.7 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate reached a low of 3.5 percent under Trump, but it dipped as low as 2.5 percent in 1953.

“What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025, that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected.”

—Harris

“I have nothing to do as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025 that’s out there.”

—Trump

Project 2025 is not an official campaign document, and we’ve called out Democrats for sometimes falsely suggesting policies that are not in it, such as on Social Security and the definition of family. But there are definitely Trump connections.

A CNN review found that 140 people who worked in the Trump administration contributed to the report. In April, at a Heritage event, Trump praised Kevin Roberts, president of Heritage, and appeared to endorse Project 2025. “They’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America,” he said.

“We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in.”

Trump

Trump is right on stock, wrong on economy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 29,440 on Feb. 14, 2020, before markets swooned over the pandemic, and had risen to 31,198 by the day President Biden took office. But the unemployment rate was 3.5 percent in February 2020 — and 6.4 percent in January 2021.

“What Goldman Sachs has said is that Donald Trump’s plan would make the economy worse. Mine would strengthen the economy. What the Wharton School has said is Donald Trump’s plan would actually explode the deficit. Sixteen Nobel laureates have described his economic plan as something that would increase inflation and by the middle of next year, would invite a recession.”

Harris

Harris’s citations are correct. Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs issued a report saying the economy would shrink because of Trump’s trade and immigration policies. The Penn Wharton Budget Model concluded that Trump’s policies would add $5.6 trillion in deficits over 10 years. (Harris did not mention that PennWharton says her policies would add $1.2 trillion to the deficit.) Sixteen Nobel prize-winning economists wrote in June, before Biden dropped out of the race, that Trump’s plans could “reignite this inflation.”

“I went to the Wharton School of Finance and many of those professors, the top professors, think my plan is a brilliant plan.”

—Trump

We couldn’t identify any. One Wharton professor posted on X during the debate: ‘Hi! @wharton Prof here. Show me the many colleagues who say Trump’s plan is any good? I count 0!’ (The post was later deleted.) The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for names.

“She’s a Marxist. Everybody knows she’s a Marxist. Her father’s a Marxist professor in economics, and he taught her well.”

—Trump

This is a ridiculous slur. There is no evidence Harris is a Marxist; her economic proposals are generally middle-of-the-road Democratic ideas. She’s been endorsed by more than 90 current and former chief executives of major companies.

There is an element truth about her father’s academic interests. Donald J. Harris, a professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University, was the first Black person to receive tenure in Stanford’s economics department and was regarded as a prominent critic of mainstream economic theory from the left.

The Stanford Daily, in 1976, described him as a “Marxist economist” who “taught ‘bad’ courses too well.” The newspaper said there had been opposition to granting him tenure because he was “too charismatic, a pied piper leading students astray from neo-Classical economics.”

But there’s no indication that Harris’s father’s research interest has had any impact on her thinking. Harris’s parents divorced when she was a child and she has had a strained relationship with her father.

“When you look at these millions and millions of people that are pouring into our country monthly, where it’s, I believe, 21 million people, not the 15 that people say, and I think it’s a lot higher than the 21 that’s bigger than New York State pouring in.”

—Trump

This is false. Here, he manages to take a real number — about 5 million migrants arriving during Biden’s presidency — and increase it fourfold. Then he offers a prediction to make it sound even larger.

Here’s the reality: Customs and Border Protection recorded about 10 million “encounters” between February 2021, after Biden took office, through July. But that does not mean all those people entered the country illegally. Some people were “encountered” numerous times as they tried to enter the country — and others (more than 4 million of the total) were expelled, mostly because of covid-related rules that have since ended.

CBP has released more than 3.2 million migrants into the United States at the southern border under the Biden administration through April, the Department of Homeland Security said. These numbers, however, do not include “gotaways”— which occur when cameras or sensors detect migrants crossing the border but no one is found or no agents are available to respond. That figure could add an additional 2 million, bringing the total number of migrants arriving during Biden’s presidency to around 5 million.

That’s a big number, but apparently not big enough for Trump.

“And you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, is doing an excellent job. But the governor before he said, the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, will execute the baby. And that’s why I did that, because that predominates, because they’re radical.”

“Just look at the governor, former governor of Virginia, the governor of Virginia said, we put the baby aside and then we determine what we want to do with the baby.”

—Trump

This is false. Trump once again grossly mischaracterizes remarks by former Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D), a physician. Earlier in the debate, he mistakenly called him the governor of West Virginia, but then correctly identified him later in the debate.

Northam told a radio show in 2019 that late-term abortion procedures are “done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Critics suggested the governor was endorsing infanticide. His office later said Northam was referring to medical treatment, not ending the life of a baby.

“Her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says, ‘execution after birth’ — execution, no longer abortion because the baby is born — is okay.

—Trump

This is false. Walz has not said this and “execution after birth” is illegal in all states.

This is a common Republican talking point — that Democrats support nationwide abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. The implication is that late-term abortions are common — and that they are routinely accepted by Democrats.

The reality, according to federal and state data, is that abortions past the point of viability are extremely rare. When they do happen, they often involve painful emotional and even moral decisions.

About two-thirds of abortions occur at eight weeks of pregnancy or earlier, and nearly 90 percent take place in the first 12 weeks, or within most definitions of the first trimester, according to estimates by the Guttmacher Institute, which favors abortion rights. About 5.5 percent of abortions take place after 15 weeks, with just 1.3 percent at 21 weeks or longer.

“Every legal scholar, every Democrat, every Republican, liberal conservative, they all wanted this issue [abortion] to be brought back to the states where the people could vote.”

—Trump

This is absurd. The docket for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case in which the right to abortion was overturned, is filled with briefs from legal scholars saying it would be a mistake to overturn decades of legal precedent.

“I have been a leader on fertilization, IVF [in vitro fertilization].”

—Trump

This is in conflict. The Republican party platform, which Trump points to as his true policy document instead of Project 2025, supports states establishing fetal personhood through the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Fetal personhood bestows the same rights currently reserved for people to embryos from the moment of fertilization, which in effect would make IVF illegal.

“Understanding his Project 2025, there would be a national abortion, a monitor that would be monitoring your pregnancies, your miscarriages.”

—Harris

That’s not exactly what Project 2025 says. Claiming that liberal states have become “sanctuaries for abortion tourism,” the report says the Department of Health and Human Services “should use every available tool, including the cutting of funds, to ensure that every state reports exactly how many abortions take place within its borders, at what gestational age of the child, for what reason, the mother’s state of residence, and by what method. It should also ensure that statistics are separated by category: spontaneous miscarriage; treatments that incidentally result in the death of a child (such as chemotherapy); stillbirths; and induced abortion. In addition, CDC should require monitoring and reporting for complications due to abortion and every instance of children being born alive after an abortion.”

“They allowed terrorists. They allowed common street criminals. They allowed people to come in, drug dealers to come into our country. And then now in the United States and told by their countries like Venezuela, don’t ever come back or we’re going to kill you. Do you know that crime in Venezuela and crime in countries all over the world is way down?”

—Trump

This is false. There is no reliable data on crime in Venezuela — the government stopped publishing official data in 2015 — but at campaign rallies Trump says crime has dropped “a staggering 67%” in Venezuela, while at other times he has put the drop in crime at “72% in a year.” It’s unclear where Trump gets these numbers. But they’re higher than what even the government says. In May, Venezuelan security officials announced that crime indicators had fallen by 25.1% compared to 2023, claiming that security forces had been successful in large-scale operations against criminal groups. Some experts believe the impossible-to-verify numbers are intended to boost the sagging popularity of the Nicolás Maduro government.

“Crime is down all over the world except here. Crime here is up and through the roof. Despite their fraudulent statements that they made. Crime in this country is through the roof. And we have a new form of crime.”

—Trump

“The FBI defraud. They were defrauding statements. They they didn’t include the worst cities. They didn’t include the cities with the worst crime.”

—Trump

This is false. Violent crime rates, especially for homicide in large cities, have fallen sharply during Biden’s presidency, after a surge during the pandemic. The violent crime rate is believed to be near its lowest level in 50 years.

Trump has a point that the quarterly data released in June by the FBI is incomplete — not every law enforcement agency reports its data on time or accurately for the report — but he’s wrong to suggest crime is worse today than at any time in American history. Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and consultant, maintained a dashboard that compiles crime statistics, and it shows the murder rate declining significantly, year over year, in many major cities. Overall, there have been nearly 18 percent fewer murders in 277 cities, according to Asher.

The Council on Criminal Justice examines monthly crime rates for 12 violent, property and drug offenses in 39 American cities that have consistently reported monthly data over the past six years. In July, it reported steep declines in homicide and most other violent crimes back to levels that predated the pandemic.

To back up Trump’s claims of rising crime, the Trump campaign likes to point to the 2022 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a household survey of respondents age 12 and older. For the period of July 2021 to November 2022, it showed a sharp increase in violent crime and an unusual discrepancy with the FBI reports, which are crimes reported to 80 percent of the nation’s law enforcement agencies by the public. As a household survey, NCVS is incomplete. It does not include people who are homeless or in institutions such as prisons, jails and nursing homes; it also does not include crimes against people younger than 12. The victimization survey also excludes murders.

Moreover, crime trends of a single year are almost meaningless. Both the NCVS and the FBI show violent crime has dropped significantly since the early 1990s.

“It [the crime data] was a fraud. Just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud.”

—Trump

This is false. Trump can offer no evidence for this claim. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpartisan agency – only the commissioner is a political appointee – that is responsible for data that depicts the health of the economy and labor markets. It collects data from a variety of sources and routinely updates statistics as more data is received. In August, BLS announced a preliminary estimate that the number of jobs created over the 12 months ending in March would likely be adjusted downward — 818,000 lower than the original estimate of 2.9 million jobs. A final estimate will be released in February.

This was an unusually large adjustment of -0.5 percent, which the BLS acknowledged. But there was a similar adjustment in Trump’s presidency (-0.3 percent, or 514,000 jobs, in March 2019) and in Barack Obama’s presidency (-0.7 percent, or 902,000 jobs, in March 2009). The BLS relies on a survey of about 119,000 employers to produce its monthly estimates of jobs creation, but every year adjusts the figures after examining annual state unemployment insurance tax filings.

“The former vice president [sic] called for defunding federal law enforcement. 45,000 agents, get this, on the day after he was arraigned on 34 felony counts.”

—Harris

This is correct. In a post on Truth Social on April 5, Trump said (in all caps): “Republicans in Congress should defund the DOJ and FBI until they come to their sense.”

“They weaponized the Justice Department….They used it to try and win an election. …They have fake cases.”

—Trump

False. “Weaponized” is Trump’s code for the Biden administration supposedly using the resources of the U.S. government to target his political opponent. There is no evidence that Biden or Harris directed the Justice Department or local prosecutors to pursue prosecutions of Trump.

“Joe Biden was found essentially guilty on the documents case.”

—Trump

This is false. Trump faced a criminal trial (now on hold) for hoarding classified documents after he left office and refusing to return them. But Biden also discovered that he had retained classified documents at his home and office. He returned them, but a special counsel was appointed to see if he, too, should face criminal charges. The special counsel, Robert K. Hur, concluded that it would be tough to win a case — because Biden had reasonable defenses, the facts were occasionally murky, and Biden (unlike Trump) had cooperated fully with the investigation.

Hur made the point that, if a case were brought to trial, Biden could make a credible case that he had not willfully retained the documents, especially because he cooperated. In many cases, the special counsel decided that the documents were mishandled by mistake — or were not especially important anymore, despite the classification level.

“Let’s talk about fracking because we’re here in Pennsylvania. I made that very clear in 2020, I will not ban fracking. I have not banned fracking as vice president of United States. And in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.”

—Harris

This is spin. What Harris said in the vice presidential debate in 2020, “Joe Biden will not ban fracking. He has been very clear about that.” Later in the debate, she reiterated that “the American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact. That is a fact.”

In other words, Harris was stating Biden’s position — but not making clear her own. When she was still running for president months earlier, Harris took a firm stand against fracking.

Asked in a recent CNN interview why she had changed her position, Harris responded: “What I have seen is that we can — we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.” As vice president, she cast the tie-breaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, a bill that included many green-energy incentives but also increased leases for fracking.

“The values I bring to the importance of home ownership, knowing not everybody got handed $400 million on a silver platter and then filed bankruptcy six times.”

—Harris

“I wasn’t given $400 million. I wish I was. My father was a Brooklyn builder, a Brooklyn, Queens, and a great father, and I learned a lot from him. But I was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction, and have built it into many, many billions of dollars, many, many billions.”

—Trump

It depends on inflation. In 2018, an investigation published in the New York Times revealed that Trump had received $413 million in inflation-adjusted dollars from his father. (In 2024 dollars, the value grows to $525 million.)

For many years, as we have detailed, Trump had falsely claimed the only thing he received was a $1 million loan from his father. That was never credible. He benefited from numerous loans and loan guarantees, as well as his father’s connections, to build his real estate business in Manhattan. His father also set up lucrative trusts to provide steady income. When Donald Trump became overextended in the casino business, his father bailed him out with a shady casino-chip loan — and Trump also borrowed $9 million against his future inheritance.

“Defund the police. She’s been against that forever.”

—Trump

Trump, in his clumsy phrasing, got this right — Harris has never supported defunding the police.

“She went out in Minnesota and wanted to let criminals that killed people that burned down Minneapolis. She went out and raised money to get them out of jail.”

—Trump

This needs context. Until the 2020 killing of George Floyd in police custody, the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) was a relatively small vehicle for assisting people who needed cash for bail. Just weeks after Floyd’s death, it raised an astonishing $35 million, in part because of a tweet by Harris, who at the time was a senator for California lending her name to a fundraising effort.

It turned out that few people involved in the protests needed the MFF’s help to get out of jail. According to an accounting by the American Bail Coalition, verified by The Fact Checker with a review of Hennepin County jail records, all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests between May 26 and June 2, 2020, were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released; in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested had to pay no bail — and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges.

But there have been some instances of the MFF assisting people accused of serious crimes after they were released, including murder, attempted murder and third-degree assault. The man accused of murder had been jailed originally on an indecent-exposure charge, which called for bail of $2,000.

“If she won the election, the day after that election, they’ll go back to destroying our country and oil will be dead, fossil fuel will be dead. We’ll go back to windmills and we’ll go back to solar, where they need a whole desert to get some energy to come out.”

—Trump

This is false. Domestic oil production and natural gas production already hit record highs under Biden in December, according to the Energy Information Administration. There was a slight dip in January because of production issues, but the EIA projects the December production levels will be sustained through the rest of 2024.

“When are those people going to be prosecuted? When are the people that burned down Minneapolis going to be prosecuted, or in Seattle, they went in to Seattle, they took over a big percentage of the city of Seattle.”

—Trump

This is false. People were prosecuted in Seattle and Minneapolis.

In Seattle, two people were killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project (ACLED), a nonprofit. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter activist, died when a car rammed into the protests. Another person, 16-year-old Antonio Mays Jr., was shot in an incident that ACLED said was tied to the broader unrest. (Another fatal shooting of a teen was not connected, ACLED concluded.) Dawit Kelete, 30, who drove into the protest on July 4, 2020, killing Taylor and seriously injuring another person, was sentenced to 78 months in jail. The judge said that while there was no evidence he hit the protesters intentionally, his conduct was “extremely reckless.”

Mays died in the early morning hours of June 29, 2020, while driving a stolen Jeep in Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest zone, which protesters occupied for three weeks after police abandoned the area. No one has been charged in Mays’s death.

In Minneapolis, one person was killed, according to ACLED. The Max It Pawn Shop was set on fire during protests on May 28, 2020, and then two months later, police discovered a charred body in the wreckage. Surveillance video footage showed Montez Terriel Lee, 26, pouring an accelerant around the pawnshop and lighting it on fire. Lee was sentenced to 10 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, the Justice Department said.

“I said, ‘I’d like to give you 10,000 National Guard or soldiers.’ They rejected me. Nancy Pelosi rejected me.”

—Trump

This has been repeatedly debunked. Trump and his allies have invented the claim that he requested 10,000 troops before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, twisting an offhand comment into a supposed order to the Pentagon. A Colorado judge in November considered testimony on this point and dismissed a Trump aide’s account as “incredible”and “completely devoid of any evidence in the record.”

In 2021, we explored this claim twice and debunked it, each time awarding Four Pinocchios. Then, in late 2022, the Jan. 6 committee released its report and dozens of transcribed interviews that provided new details on the meetings in which Trump claims he requested troops at the Capitol.

That report underscored how Trump has little basis to make this claim, saying that he brought up the issue on at least three occasions but in such vague and obtuse ways that no senior official regarded his words as an order.

Moreover, the committee said that when he referenced so many troops, it was not because he wanted to protect the Capitol. He “floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by left-wing counter protesters,” the report said.

“Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches spewing anti-Semitic hate. And what did the president then at the time say? ‘There were fine people on each side.’ ”

—Harris

Trump’s meaning is in dispute. The march on Charlottesville by white supremacists in August 2017 — and President Trump’s response to it — was a central event of his presidency. Over the course of several days, Trump made a number of contradictory remarks, permitting both his supporters and foes to create their own version of what happened.

Biden has frequently claimed that Trump said the white supremacists were “very fine people.” But the reality is more complicated. Trump was initially criticized for not speaking more forcefully against the white nationalists on the day of the clashes, Aug. 12. Then, in an Aug. 14 statement, Trump actually condemned right-wing hate groups — “those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

But Trump muddied the waters on Aug. 15, a day later, by also saying: “You had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.” It was in this news conference that he said: “You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Trump added: “There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones.”

The problem for Trump is that there was no evidence of anyone other than neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the Friday night rally on Aug. 11. He asserted there were people who were not alt-right who were “very quietly” protesting the removal of Lee’s statue.

It’s possible Trump became confused and was really referring to the Saturday rallies. But that’s also wrong. A Fact Checker examination of videos and testimony about the Saturday rallies found that there were white supremacists, there were counterprotesters — and there were heavily armed anti-government militias who showed up on Saturday.

The evidence shows there were no quiet protesters against removing the statue that weekend.

“And be clear on that point, Donald Trump, the candidate, has said in this election there will be a bloodbath if … the outcome of this election is not to his liking.”

—Harris

Trump is being quoted out of context. Harris suggests Trump said there would be a “bloodbath” if he lost the election. But in a March 16 rally, Trump used the word when talking about the impact of Chinese electric vehicles on the U.S. auto industry.

“China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think, that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border,” Trump said. “We’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars. If I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars.”

The Trump campaign noted that one of the definitions of “bloodbath,” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “a major economic disaster.” It also means “a notably fierce, violent, or destructive contest or struggle.”

Trump, of course, frequently quotes his opponents out of context and unfairly twists their words.

“And these people [undocumented immigrants] are trying to get them to vote. And that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.”

—Trump

This is false. There is no evidence Democrats want undocumented immigrants to vote — which would be against the law.

“No judge looked at it [lawsuits claiming fraud in the 2020 election] and said, they said we didn’t have standing. That’s the other thing, they said we didn’t have standing a technicality.”

—Trump

This is false. Many 2020 election lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies were rejected on the merits, by judges who examined the evidence. The main case involving standing was at the Supreme Court, which tossed out the long-shot lawsuit filed by Texas and several other states, asking the court to bar four states from casting their electoral votes for Biden and to shift the selection of electors to the states’ legislatures. The court said Texas lacked standing to pursue the case, saying it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said he would have allowed the case to be heard, for technical reasons, but he offered little hope he would have granted Trump the relief he sought. “I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief,” Justice Alito wrote, “and I express no view on any other issue.”

“I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Biden put it back on day one.”

—Trump

This is mostly false. Trump enabled the Nord Stream 2 pipeline — which would have doubled the export of Russian natural gas to Germany — over congressional opposition. “Successive U.S. Administrations and Congresses have opposed Nord Stream 2, reflecting concerns about European dependence on Russian energy and the threat Russia poses to Ukraine,” the Congressional Research Service said in a 2021 report.

Trump’s first secretary of state essentially allowed the pipeline to proceed, and only late in Trump’s administration could Congress pass a law that made the pipeline subject to sanctions that temporarily halted construction for only one year. But by then it was largely complete. Biden waived those sanctions in an effort to mend fences with Germany — but the whole project was killed after Russia invaded Ukraine.

“It is well known that he said of Putin that he can do whatever the hell he wants and go into Ukraine.”

—Harris

This is partly false. Trump did not make this statement in the context of an invasion of Ukraine. In fact, Trump did not issue any invitation to Russia to invade U.S. allies, but (in his telling) was informing the leader of a NATO member country that he would not defend that country from a Russian attack if Trump deemed the nation was delinquent on payments to the military alliance.

In a February rally, Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the United States would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump claimed he told that leader. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

“It is well known that he said when Russia went into Ukraine it was brilliant.”

—Harris

Trump did not use that exact word. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Trump called Putin a “genius” and “very savvy.”

“You gotta say, that’s pretty savvy,” Trump said on a conservative talk radio show of Putin’s decision to declare certain breakaway regions in Ukraine as independent. “And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad.”

“This is genius,” Trump said. ‘Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”

“It is well known he exchanged love letters with Kim Jong Un.”

—Harris

Trump called them “love letters.” In 2018, Trump said of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un: “We fell in love, okay? No, really, he wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”

Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward, in his 2020 book “Rage,” revealed that Trump had permitted him to read and transcribe 27 letters and wrote that “Trump has personally said they are ‘love letters.’” Woodward quoted parts of the letters, and the full file of letters was made available to North Korea expert Robert Carlin, who analyzed them for Foreign Policy magazine.

In one letter, written in 2019, Trump “incredibly” closes with “your friend,” Carlin writes. But he said the letters are mostly an exchange of negotiating positions on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

“We’re in for 250 billion [dollars] or more [in aid to Ukraine] because they don’t ask Europe, which is a much bigger beneficiary to getting this thing done than we are… We’re in for 250 to 275 billion. They’re into a 100 to 150.”

—Trump

This is false. As of June 30, European aid to Ukraine exceeds U.S. aid, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. European nations have allocated $110 billion, compared to $83 billion for the United States. Europe has also pledged an additional $85 billion, which has not been allocated, compared to $25 billion for the United States. As a percentage of the economy, the U.S. percentage ranks much lower than 21 other countries, Kiel estimates.

About $36 billion in military assistance has been provided by European Union countries, compared to $56 billion by the United States, according to the State Department.

“He [NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg] got these countries, the 28 countries at the time, to pay up, he said. I’ve never seen — he’s the head of NATO — he said ‘I’ve never seen.’ For years we were paying almost all of NATO. We were being ripped off by European nations, both on trade and on NATO. I got them to pay up by saying one of the statements you made before, if you don’t pay, we’re not going to protect you, otherwise we would have never gotten it, he said. It was one of the most incredible jobs that he’s ever seen done.”

—Trump

When he was president, Trump often attributed quotes to Stoltenberg that could not be confirmed, such as: “Secretary Stoltenberg has been maybe Trump’s biggest fan, to be honest with you. He goes around telling — he made a speech the other day. He said, ‘Without Donald Trump, maybe there would be no NATO.’ ” Stoltenberg said no such thing.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, his presidency and now this election, Trump has demonstrated that he has little notion of how NATO is funded and operates. He repeatedly claimed that other members of the alliance “owed” money to the United States and that they were delinquent in their payments. Then he claimed credit for the money “pouring in” as a result of his jawboning, even though much of the increase in those countries’ contributions was set under guidelines arranged during the Obama administration.

“And for 18 months we had nobody killed [in Afghanistan].”

—Trump

This is misleading. In Trump’s phrasing, it sounds as if no troops were killed in Afghanistan during the last 18 months of his presidency. A Defense Department database shows 12 deaths from hostile action in that period. There was an 18-month gap with no fatalities across Trump’s and Biden’s combined presidencies. We recently gave Trump Two Pinocchios for this claim.

“We wouldn’t have left $85 billion worth of brand new, beautiful military equipment behind.”

—Trump

This is false, especially because Trump referred to “brand new” equipment. Over two decades of war, the United States spent $83 billion to train, equip and house the Afghan military and police — so weapons are just a part of that. Tanks, vehicles, helicopters and other gear did fall into the hands of the Taliban when the U.S.-trained force quickly collapsed. In 2022, CNN reported that a Defense Department report estimated that $7 billion of military equipment had been left behind.

“This is the same individual who took out a full page ad in the New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent. The Central Park Five took out a full page ad calling for their execution.”

—Harris

The ad did not directly say this. In 1989, Trump placed a full-page newspaper ad calling for a return of the death penalty following a rape in New York’s Central Park, but his message was strongly implied. Five Black and Latino teenagers were convicted, spent years in prison and were later cleared in the case.

“I said, well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, kill the person ultimately. And if they pled guilty, then they pled we’re not guilty.”

—Trump

This is false. The Central Park Five confessions were coerced, and then recanted. No one was killed.

“The former president has said that climate change is a hoax.”

—Harris

This is true. Trump has said this several times.

“We have created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs…. Donald Trump said he was going to create manufacturing jobs. He lost manufacturing jobs.”

—Harris

This is out of date. The number of manufacturing jobs rebounded since the pandemic, but growth in these jobs has essentially stalled. After a decline this year, the number of manufacturing jobs as of August is slightly lower than the number in October 2022, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Dating from February 2021, the first month of employment data for Biden’s presidency, about 710,000 manufacturing jobs have been created.

“They lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs this last month.”

—Trump

Trump understates the loss. The number of manufacturing jobs fell by 24,000 from July to August, according to preliminary BLS estimates.

“Biden doesn’t go after people because supposedly China paid him millions of dollars. He’s afraid to do it between him and his son. They get all this money from Ukraine, they get all this money from all of these different countries. And then you wonder, why is he so loyal to this one? That one? Ukraine? China? Why did he get $3.5 million from the mayor of Moscow’s wife?”

—Trump

This is false. There is no evidence Biden received millions of dollars from China. Republican congressional investigators claimed Biden’s son Hunter received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, a Russian billionaire and the widow of the former mayor of Moscow. The Fact Checker in 2022 investigated this transaction and learned that the investment vehicle that received the money was for a real-estate deal involving Hunter’s partner, Devon Archer. In congressional testimony Archer confirmed Baturina was his client and not connected to Hunter Biden.

“I rebuilt our entire military.”

—Trump

This is false. This is a golden-oldie claim that Trump frequently made as president. Trump has said his military budgets were the biggest in history, but adjusted for inflation his administration’s budgets lag some years during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest defense budget was in 2010, and in inflation-adjusted dollars, it was nearly 10 percent larger than Trump’s 2020 budget.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

KYIV — The top U.S. diplomat made a rare wartime visit to Kyiv on Wednesday, offering a sympathetic ear to its leaders as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky mounted a push to win permission to use long-range U.S. missile systems to strike deep into Russia, despite being rejected last week by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

Kyiv’s attempt to sway Biden administration came as Ukraine has faced heavy bombardment from Russia in recent days — especially on its power sector — a situation that Blinken warned ahead of the visit could soon get worse after Iran decided to start shipping short-range ballistic missiles to Russia earlier this month.

The Ukrainian effort is a continuation of a dynamic that has marked relations between Kyiv and Washington since the full-scale Russian invasion, two-and-a-half years ago. Ukraine has pushed for more and better weaponry, while Washington has resisted, fearing escalation with Russia, only to relent later.

With President Joe Biden’s time in office waning, pressure is increasing both on the Ukrainians and the White House to lock in decisions about the future of the conflict now, ahead of any possible policy shift should former president Donald Trump regain the White House.

Ukrainians argue that being empowered to use the weaponry against Russian territory would reduce the threat from the Kremlin by forcing it to pull key forces deeper inside its country. But Biden has been cautious, worried that allowing the change could draw the United States more deeply into direct conflict with the Kremlin.

“You’ve seen, again from day one, that we have continuously adjusted and adapted based on the battlefield conditions, based on what Russia was doing in a given place and by given means,” Blinken told reporters before making the trek to Kyiv, which involved a flight to Poland and then an overnight journey by armored train to the Ukrainian capital.

Meeting with Zelensky will give the top U.S. diplomat a chance to hear “exactly how the Ukrainians see their needs in this moment, toward what objectives, and what we can do to support those needs,” Blinken said.

Ukrainian leaders last month made a surprise incursion into Russia’s Kursk region, seizing hundreds of square miles of Russian territory in the first major Ukrainian advance into their aggressor since the February 2022 invasion. The Ukrainian move has unsettled many ordinary Russians in the region and delivered a morale boost to the Ukrainian public. Leaders in Kyiv say that the seizure of territory will help increase pressure on Moscow to make a deal to end the war.

Blinken traveled to Ukraine with the new British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who has been in office since his Labour Party took power in July. The U.S. diplomat said that he and Lammy would plan to bring their findings back to their leaders ahead of a Friday meeting in Washington between Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The two leaders will discuss the Ukrainian request, Blinken said. Britain has supplied Ukraine with long-range Storm Shadow missile systems but has contended with the same questions about strikes into Russian territory.

The Biden administration supplied Ukraine with long-range ATACMS missiles last September, but has not allowed them to be used against Russian territory. The missiles, which have a range of about 180 miles, have been used extensively against Russian forces in Crimea, Ukrainian territory that the Kremlin occupied in 2014. Ukraine has a dwindling stockpile of the missiles, and U.S. officials say that the Pentagon’s own stocks are also sufficiently limited that they cannot offer many more to Kyiv.

Ukraine sees “a shortage of [long-range] missiles and cooperation,” Zelensky told senior defense officials, including Austin, at the Friday meeting in Ramstein, Germany. “We think it is wrong that there are such steps. We need to have this long-range capability not only on the occupied territory of Ukraine, but also on the Russian territory, so that Russia is motivated to seek peace.”

Zelensky will travel later this month to the United States, where he will attend the U.N. General Assembly in New York. He has said that he hopes to present a “victory plan” to Biden while in the country.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

Vice President Kamala Harris accused former president Donald Trump of taking a soft tack with Xi Jinping, the leader of China, and other strongmen during Tuesday’s presidential debate. Trump sought to paint those relationships as a strength, baselessly claiming that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Gaza conflict would not have happened if he had won in 2020.

Focusing her foreign policy answers by promising to stand by allies, Harris said that, as president, she would ensure that the United States retain its role and responsibility in the world order.

Here is what the candidates said on foreign policy during their debate.

China

Trump began the debate by touting his proposed tariffs on foreign nations, and claiming that China and other trading partners have been “ripping us off for years.” Harris responded by pointing to the escalating trade deficit during his time in office, saying that Trump had “invited trade wars,” while “selling American chips to China to help them improve and modernize their military.”

Trump had previously called for sweeping new tariffs of at least 10 percent on imports if he is reelected, raising concerns of a trade war with China if he returns to the White House.

Harris attacked Trump for praising Xi’s response to the outbreak of the coronavirus, “When we know that Xi was responsible for … not giving us transparency about the origins of covid.” She was referring to a social media post by Trump in January 2020, in which he said: “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!” The lack of clarity about how the pandemic began has long been a source of tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Harris also sought to turn Trump’s own remarks against him, particularly about his relationships with autocratic leaders, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. She suggested these world leaders want Trump back in office because they can manipulate him.

“These autocrats and dictators are itching for you to be president again, because they know you can be manipulated,” Harris said.

Ukraine

Trump sidestepped the question about whether he wants Ukraine to win the war and refused to say whether a victory for Kyiv is in America’s best interests. He said it’s in the best interest of the United States “to get this war finished and just get it done.”

“I will get it settled before I even become president,” Trump said, without providing details of how he might accomplish that.

The exchanges on the Ukraine war, which has now gone on for more than two years, quickly turned combative, with Harris challenging Trump on his embrace of authoritarian leaders like Putin. “If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now,” she said, adding that Putin would be eyeing Europe next. She later charged that Trump would give up on U.S. allies “for the sake of favor” from a dictator “who would eat you for lunch.”

Trump’s earlier praise of Moscow and refusal to condemn many of Putin’s actions have underscored his persistent admiration of Russia.

“I believe the reason that Donald Trump says that this war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up, and that’s not who we are as Americans,” Harris said, as she highlighted the Biden administration’s large military support for Ukraine.

Israel and Gaza

Harris did not stray far from the Biden administration’s current stance on the war in Gaza, stating that “Israel has a right to defend itself,” but that “how it does so matters because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.”

She reiterated her support for a two-state solution, a proposal that supports two territorially distinct states — one for Israelis and one for Palestinians. She also characterized Trump as a “weak and wrong” when it comes to foreign policy and national security. During a heated exchange, Trump claimed, without evidence, that Harris “hates Israel” and “hates the Arab population” and said that if he were president, the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza would not have started.

“What we know is that this war must end,” Harris said. “It must end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out. And so we will continue to work around the clock on that.”

She added: “The one thing I will assure you always — I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.”

U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan

Harris addressed the current administration’s controversial withdrawal from Afghanistan in mid-2021 by saying that she ultimately agrees with Biden’s decision to pull out.

“Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did,” she said. “And as a result, America’s taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war.” The figure comes from an estimate by a team of Brown University researchers, which calculated that the total U.S. cost of fighting in Afghanistan reached $2.3 trillion from 2001-2022.

She attacked Trump’s self-styled reputation as a dealmaker, stating that he “negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban” and agreed to release 5,000 of its members. Trump defended his negotiation efforts, stating that his opponents “deal with the wrong people.” He claimed that his administration, had it won in the 2020 election, would have withdrawn more quickly.

This post appeared first on washingtonpost.com

We are always on the lookout for chart patterns. Recently, we’ve found a bearish head-and-shoulders developing on Semiconductors (SMH).

Looking at the daily chart below, we can see the pattern developing. However, we do have to point out participation. Note the very low percentages on %Stocks > 20/50EMAs. These are clearly oversold readings and, if we look back at the vertical green lines that mark cardinal price bottoms, you’ll note they were at these levels. One thing to keep in mind is that oversold conditions can persist in a bear market. SMH is down over 20% from the July top, so we could see low readings for some time.

The Silver Cross Index is about to see a Bearish Shift across the signal line, and that would give us a Bearish Bias in the intermediate term. It is already at a very low 36% reading, suggesting how unhealthy this group is.

This head-and-shoulders pattern looks dangerous. Textbooks tell us that a break below the neckline would imply a downside move that is the height of the pattern. That would take price back down to 120.00. We doubt that will happen, but 160.00 doesn’t seem out of the question if this pattern executes.

Conclusion: Semiconductors (SMH) are in a bear market and are now forming a bearish head-and-shoulders pattern that would imply a drop well below 160.00. Given participation readings are very oversold, we aren’t so sure it will see that kind of devastation, but we definitely should be prepared for more downside from this group.


Introducing the New Scan Alert System!

Delivered to your email box at the end of the market day. You’ll get the results of our proprietary scans that Erin uses to pick her “Diamonds in the Rough” for the DecisionPoint Diamonds Report. Get all of the results and see which ones you like best! Only $29/month! Or, use our free trial to try it out for two weeks using coupon code: DPTRIAL2. Click HERE to subscribe NOW!


Learn more about DecisionPoint.com:


Watch the latest episode of the DecisionPointTrading Room on DP’s YouTube channel here!


Try us out for two weeks with a trial subscription!

Use coupon code: DPTRIAL2 Subscribe HERE!


Technical Analysis is a windsock, not a crystal ball. –Carl Swenlin


(c) Copyright 2024 DecisionPoint.com


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

DecisionPoint is not a registered investment advisor. Investment and trading decisions are solely your responsibility. DecisionPoint newsletters, blogs or website materials should NOT be interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or to take any specific action.


Helpful DecisionPoint Links:

Trend Models

Price Momentum Oscillator (PMO)

On Balance Volume

Swenlin Trading Oscillators (STO-B and STO-V)

ITBM and ITVM

SCTR Ranking

Bear Market Rules


Any strategy that trades stocks needs some sort of market timing mechanism to identify bull and bear markets. Typically, stock strategies are fully invested during bull markets because risk is acceptable. Strategies move to cash during bear markets because risk is above average. Preserving capital during bear markets is important to long-term outperformance (see SystemTrader).

Here is a simple idea for a market timing mechanism. First, use the S&P 500 SPDR (SPY) to represent the US stock market. SPY is based on the S&P 500, which is the most widely used benchmark for US stocks. Second, apply a long-term trend indicator for broad market timing. The chart below shows SPY with the Trend Composite. This indicator aggregates signals in five trend-following indicators. It is currently at +5 and still signaling a long-term uptrend (bull market). Note that this indicator is part of the TIP Indicator Edge Plugin for StockCharts ACP.

The chart above starts in 2022. Notice that the Trend Composite was mostly negative (bearish) in 2022. Strategies trading stocks would have been mostly in cash during this bear market and this would have preserved capital. The Trend Composite turned positive in February 2023 and has been mostly positive the last 19 months. It spent three weeks in negative territory from late October to mid November 2023 (whipsaw). Strategies trading stocks would have been mostly long during this period and participated in the bull run.

Strategies should have well-defined rules governing decisions. Stocks moved sharply lower last week, but the Trend Composite has yet to turn negative and signal a bear market. Similarly, the Composite Breadth Model, which times the market for our Dual Momentum Rotation Strategies, has yet to turn bearish. Thus, our strategies remain invested in stocks showing strong upside momentum. They will move to cash when a bear signal triggers. Click here to learn more. 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good morning and welcome to this week’s Flight Path. Equities flashed an uncertain “Go Fish” bar at the end of the week as the markets became even more unsettled. Treasury bond prices remained in a “Go” trend and saw that trend was strong for almost all of last week. U.S. commodity index remained in a “NoGo” painting strong purple bars the entire week and it was no picnic for the dollar either. The greenback saw the “NoGo” continue and the week ended with a couple of purple bars.

$SPY Falls Out of “Go” Trend

The GoNoGo chart below shows that after seeing trend weakness with aqua bars the week ended with an amber “Go Fish” bar. This most recent “Go” move was unable to set a new higher high before the GoNoGo Trend indicator painted a “Go Fish” bar of uncertainty. We look at the oscillator panel and see that after briefly testing the zero level from above GoNoGo Oscillator fell into negative territory on heavy volume. This inability to find support at zero was a concern for the “Go” trend.

The longer time frame chart shows that last week was a bad one. However, we still see that the trend is a “Go” painting blue bars. We can see that price hasn’t made a new higher high but the trend remains and GoNoGo Oscillator is in positive territory at a value of 2. We will watch to see as the oscillator gets closer to zero if it finds support at that level.

Treasury Yields Stay in “NoGo” Trend

Treasury bond yields painted strong purple “NoGo” bars this week and we saw a sharp fall that saw a challenge of recent lows. In the oscillator panel, we see that a Max GoNoGo Squeeze was broken to the downside, with GoNoGo Oscillator falling into negative territory. This tells us that momentum is surging in the direction of the underlying “NoGo” trend and so we see a NoGo Trend Continuation Icon (red circle) in the above panel.

The Dollar’s “NoGo” Remains

As strong purple bars return we see that the U.S. dollar has made a new lower low. GoNoGo Trend shows that trend strength returned at the end of the week and so the weight of the evidence tells us that the “NoGo” trend is in full force. If we look at the oscillator panel, we see that GoNoGo Oscillator has rallied to test the zero line from below. It has remained stuck at that level for several bars and so we see a GoNoGo Squeeze building. As we see heavy volume, it will be important to watch for the direction of the break of the GoNoGo Squeeze.

The recent decline last week revealed that the artificial intelligence bubble is deflating. Magnificent Seven stocks are unwinding in response to investors losing confidence in the AI trade in general. Carl gives us a complete picture of the Magnificent Seven in the short and intermediate terms. It doesn’t look very good.

Carl also gives us insight on the condition of Intel (INTC) which has been discussed as a good reversal candidate. Carl gives us his opinion on whether we should be buying INTC or not.

Erin looks inside darling, Consumer Staples (XLP) using DecisionPoint “under the hood” charts to understand the actual health of the sector. She also dives into Energy (XLE) which is on support and Consumer Discretionary (XLY) which has been in a holding pattern. Participation gives us a hint as to where it is likely to resolve.

The pair finish the program with a look at viewer symbol requests.

Get complete market analysis with a DecisionPoint Alert subscription! You’ll know the market’s trend and condition plus coverage of Bitcoin, Yields, Bonds, Gold, Gold Miners, the Dollar and Crude Oil! Try us out with a free two week trial using coupon code: DPTRIAL2!

01:23 DecisionPoint Signal Tables

03:57 Market Analysis

13:22 Magnificent Seven Short and Intermediate Terms

22:25 Discussion on Intel (INTC)

25:40 Sector Rotation (Coverage of XLP, XLE and XLY)

34:05 Questions (Nuclear Energy ETF)

40:02 Symbol Requests


Introducing the new Scan Alert System!

Delivered to your email box at the end of the market day. You’ll get the results of our proprietary scans that Erin uses to pick her “Diamonds in the Rough” for the DecisionPoint Diamonds Report. Get all of the results and see which ones you like best! Only $29/month! Or, use our free trial to try it out for two weeks using coupon code: DPTRIAL2. Click HERE to subscribe NOW!


Watch the latest episode of the DecisionPointTrading Room on DP’s YouTube channel here!


Try us out for two weeks with a trial subscription!

Use coupon code: DPTRIAL2 Subscribe HERE!


Technical Analysis is a windsock, not a crystal ball. –Carl Swenlin


(c) Copyright 2024 DecisionPoint.com


Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author, and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

DecisionPoint is not a registered investment advisor. Investment and trading decisions are solely your responsibility. DecisionPoint newsletters, blogs or website materials should NOT be interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation to buy or sell any security or to take any specific action.


Helpful DecisionPoint Links:

Trend Models

Price Momentum Oscillator (PMO)

On Balance Volume

Swenlin Trading Oscillators (STO-B and STO-V)

ITBM and ITVM

SCTR Ranking

Bear Market Rules