BKamala Harris just handed her own party some unsolicited advice, and it is not what the base wants to hear.
AZeroHedge posted it on X about four minutes ago. The gist: don't impeach Trump if Democrats win Congress.
BAnd it checks out. The New York Post has her saying impeachment is "not a good idea."
AShe says the resources should go to investigations and accountability instead.
BWhich is the smartest thing I've heard from her in years. Impeachment eats a year. Nothing else moves.
AHold on. Investigations eat a year too. She's renaming the circus, not canceling it.
BNo, no, there's a difference. Oversight hearings are routine. Impeachment is a national event that ends in a Senate acquittal.
AAnd the acquittal is the point. It becomes the other side's best campaign ad.
BThat's exactly my point! It hands the president a victory lap.
AFine, but here's what bugs me. She's a former vice president. She has no vote and no gavel.
BSo her opinion doesn't count?
AIt counts as a signal, not a plan. The House members who'd actually do this answer to primary voters, not to her.
BOh, come on. Those primary voters are exactly why somebody has to say it out loud.
AMaybe. I'll grant you this much: it's rare to hear a party leader tell the base no.
BGrudging credit. I'll take it.
ASpeaking of things that move markets more than political theater, a post on the Sahm rule.
BNdatimana Gilbert on X asks whether one jobs number can spot a recession before economists do.
AThe rule is real. Claudia Sahm, a former Fed economist, proposed it in 2019.
BHere's the trick. Take the three-month average of the unemployment rate.
AIf it climbs half a percentage point above its low from the past twelve months, the alarm goes off.
BI love it because it's dumb simple. No models. No forecasts. Just people losing jobs.
ASimple, yes. Perfect, no. It's a signal, and signals can fire early or late.
BFair, but economists miss turns constantly. A rule that's been right more often than the pros earns some respect.
ARespect, sure. I just don't trust anyone selling one number as a crystal ball.
BWhich brings us to the number everyone's passing around.
AAltas World News says September's jobs report, the last before Election Day, showed four point two percent unemployment and twenty-nine thousand jobs.
BTwenty-nine thousand? That's thin.
ABig caveat. I couldn't tie those exact figures to an official source. Treat it as a claim for now.
BIf it's real, that's a soft hiring number, and that's when the Sahm rule talk gets loud.
ABut one weak month doesn't trigger anything. The rule needs the unemployment rate to move, not just payrolls.
BRight, right. Payrolls are the headline, the unemployment rate is the alarm.
ANow the Fed. It held rates on October twenty-eighth.
BAnd Alpha Observer on X has the line of the day. Quote: "If the Fed holds rates steady, inflation does not politely agree to do the same."
AThat's good. The argument is that a pause is not a promise.
BAnd I agree. People hear "hold" and start planning cuts. That's wishful thinking.
ACareful, though. The post says the next data release could bring hikes back. That's a stretch.
BIs it? Inflation has been stubborn for years. You've seen how that goes.
AI've seen traders get burned betting on the Fed's next move. I'll stay out of calling it.
BSmart. Nobody knows. The data decides, and the data is the next jobs report, the next inflation print.
ASo watch the numbers, not the speeches. Including the ones from former vice presidents.
BEspecially those.