Cramer sees Obama winning in landslide
Only a few observers are taking a unique stand on the election, just as fewer analysts these days dare to make bold calls.
By Rocco Pendola
Two "news" stories passing like ships in the night:
The speed and intensity of the 24-hour news cycle render it difficult for most of us to make connections between seemingly unrelated articles. Over the weekend, however, I stopped and stared at two spectacles -- one that went viral, the other that went way under the radar -- long enough to make an association.
Led by Business Insider, the standard media hacks and even some otherwise credible outlets such as The Atlantic came together to skewer CNBC and TheStreet's Jim Cramer for predicting President Barack Obama will win Tuesday's election in a landslide with 440 electoral votes.
This is what 98.5% of the media do. A handful instantly produce the easy answer, and the rest follow like the uncritical "cut-and-paste, let's link to somebody else's work for page views" hounds that they are.
Few take the time to look for meaning, deeper messages or connections between seemingly unrelated events or concepts.
Almost everybody, in unison, branded Cramer a fool for being so far outside the lines of consensus.
It's unfortunate that Cramer had to take to Twitter to explain himself, but such is life in a world that prefers dichotomy in lieu of nuance and black-and-white over 50 shades of gray (that last one might not be true, but you get the point).
In Barron's over the weekend, Jack Hough wrote a solid piece titled "When Bold Analysts Say Buy" that sheds unintentional light on the Cramer blowup.
Riffing on Wall Street analyst earnings estimates, Hough writes, "Bold forecasts have (become) scarce. . . . Estimates are more closely huddled together than at any time since 1986."
At the same time, research from the University of Texas shows that when revised estimates "move away from the consensus," they "are more likely to prove accurate than those that move toward it."
Hough pulls a few examples.
An analyst at Bernstein Research upped her 2013 earnings-per-share estimate on Humana (HUM), which reports Monday, to $9.20 a share, way above the consensus of $7.14. That's about as "extreme" as Cramer's call on the election.
At the micro level, we're talking apples and oranges. I get that.
From a macro perspective, however, if you follow the stock market and can't stand wishy-washy, lazy analysts who all come to the same conclusions sans unique flavor, you should appreciate how Cramer stands out against most everybody else who calls Obama vs. Romney neck and neck or pretty close.
They put themselves in a situation in which they can't be wrong. This is not about being credible or doing careful analysis.
The cats who put the popular vote at a split or go with 290 to 248 or 277 to 261 in the electoral college set themselves up not to fail. Even if they're wrong, they're right.
Who's going to take a pundit to task for missing Ohio and Minnesota or even Pennsylvania? If a miss there throws off your prediction, you walk away unscathed with the benefit of the doubt.
The same goes for Wall Street analysts who blend in with the crowd. They're making the safe bet.
I like to give Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster a hard time for being an Apple (AAPL) cheerleader. He probably deserves more credit than that.
He stands out, in part, because he's bold. And he's not afraid to walk the line between "objective analyst" and living, breathing human being with an opinion. There's a ton to be said about that.
While he might end up "wrong" on some of his more "extreme" Apple takes, he, along with Brian White at Topeka and Eric Jackson of Ironfire Capital, tend to stimulate the best conversation around one of the market's biggest battleground stocks.
And, more importantly, when it gets down to what really matters -- what Apple does over the long haul -- they have been consistently on the mark.
And, even more important than that, like Cramer, Munster, White and Jackson give all of the other guys -- unable to muster an original thought if their lives were on the line -- something to talk about.
At the time of publication, Rocco Pendola held no positions in any of the stocks mentioned in this article.
More from TheStreet.com
I bet Obama is sweating blood now......... BoBo never picks a winner.
Here BoBo...... let my little monkey help you pick a winner for president too..... he does better on stocks than you.
Obama in a landslide, you say?....Just like everything is fine with Bear Stearns??
Hey moron, you mean things like:
"The debt is irresponible, I will cut the deficit in half" , then add $6 Trillion to the debt.
"I will have the most ransparent administration in history", then have more closed sessions and more screwups classified.
"I will have no lobyists in the whitehouse", then parade a record number through the door.
"The stimulus will lower unemployment to 6%", then have real UE above 12% for his entire term.
Obummer never lies, flips, or dodges.
"Im for all Americans", then consistantly fukk the taxpayers while rewarding the lazy dumb slobs at the bottom.
" I think about creating jobs the moment I wake up till the time I go to bed", I will give him a pass on this one. He could think it about 24 / 7 and still not have a clue.
"If you can't run our your record, make the campaign about small things", he did follow through on this one.
"All bills will be available online for at least 24 hours", then he gives us "pass it to see whats in it".
I certainly hope Romney wins. Obama has had 4 years to crash the world financial markets and start 2 wars and has failed to accomplish any of these goals. The last Republican we had as president really knew how to crash business and shoot the holes in numerous third world county folk. Also, with Romney in office we could scrap those worthless social security, Medicare and medicade programs to pay down the debt and fund the next big tax breaks for the millionaires.
I am an independent and will more than likely vote for a third party candidate as a means of getting 5% so as to make them eligible for inclusion next go-around. However, your views on Obama disrespecting the military is false - I am a retired Marine and have been personally affected by presidents since Reagan. If you look at the records, Obama has given more to the VA and other military veterans programs than any other president. He always seems to be on the right side of the Vet and I like him for that. He is also correct when he says Mitt doesn't understand how the military functions - there is a lot of waste in DoD that needs to be cleaned up. I just don't believe in bigger government to accomplish the mission; and I don't believe in throwing more money at the DoD (Mitt) to establish national security. He (Mitt) seems to be talking from sound bites provided to him - he is not fooling people currently serving or have served. Most in the military will vote for him because he is anti-Obama not because he is capable. Bush is the one who sent the military into 2 wars and did not fund those very same organizations to the level of Obama.
The thing I like about Romney is that no matter where you stand on any issue, he has probably taken the same position at some point in his political career.
Governor Romney was a centrist who believed that government had its place in society. Candidate Romney doesn't like government and would like to get rid of most programs.
Governor Romney invented Obamacare. Now he wants to dump it and go back to the way it was.
Governor Romney was pro choice. Candidate Romney wants to restrict contraception and abortions.
So what's not to like about Romney?
MORE ON MSN MONEY
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Plus, after much ado, Softbank is oh-so-close to acquiring Sprint.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.