Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys to the White House

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Daily expenses are still very high, and lending interest rates are still above 6%. I don't think the average voter cares much about how much better off this country is than the rest of the world; that doesn't help their financial situation. We'll have to wait and see if it is going to make a substantial impact for either candidate.

[Aseahawkfan]

According to Trump himself, if he wins he'll use the Justice Department to go after his opponents. Your prediction is way too lofty and not in his character. He wants to be seen as the greatest, but in no way is he willing to do anything about it. Anyway, he won't win.

So Trump's a liar who tells the truth when it is convenient for you to believe so? Sorry, you want to have your cake and eat it too like so many of the Trump haters.

I hear you all talking out both sides of your mouths. On one hand he's an idiot who can't manage his businesses, but on the other hand he's a Machiavellian politician with the power to manipulate the government to do his bidding to implement Project 2025 and go after his enemies with the justice department which you seem to forget he already tried to do and found even his own people told him they found no cause. As far as I recall Bill Barr was brought in to pursue legal action against Trump's enemies and he was unable to do so. The only person that has gotten slammed of consequence to Trump's enemies is Hunter Biden, which even President Biden has been unable to stop as the sitting president.

For left wing Trump haters like yourself, Trump is whatever you want him to be at a given point in a time. It's ridiculous. I'm super tired of it.

I already watched Trump's attempted "coup" and it was little more than a riot with little backing from people in the government. I watched him try to use Mark Milley for a tough against the riots stand and he was rebuked by his own appointed military rep.

America doesn't run like you think it runs. Trump no matter how much you think he's dangerous or how much you want to believe he can do things won't be able to do much if any of it. That's why he spent the last two years of his presidency under investigation and unable to get anything done because Congress did not go his way. We have a government with an enormous number of guardrails which work and have proven to work over the course of this nation's existence. I expect them to continue to hold.

If you want to continue to lose your mind over Trump considering him a big idiot or a Machiavellian tyrant or whatever you want him to be from day to day and story to story, have at it. He's just Trump the narcissist to me. He has no interest in Project 2025 or any of that. He will no more listen to those people than he does anyone else. He only cares about winning a second term, then finishing it probably growing bored during it, then retiring to some new venture to pursue to alleviate his boredom. Trump isn't interested in taking over America as the left wants to sell it and he isn't religious.

I even listened to him on the Lex Fridman podcast and you can tell he still barely cares about religion just as I've always known him to be. He gives lip service to religion. Trump isn't going to do anything if he wins other than do his four years and leave. If Congress splits again or goes Dem, he'll either be under investigation or impeached. If Congress goes Republican, they'll likely use that power to extend the tax cuts and little else just like before. We already saw what a Trump presidency looks like with a Republican Congress and it wasn't anything like Project 2025 or any of that trash.

So you and the other lefties can go tell boogey man stories to each other about Trump the Tyrant if you feel like doing so, but I have no interest in listening to such trash carefully curated by the left wing media to fearmonger for votes. It doesn't interest me or sway me anymore than Trump claiming Kamala will be a disaster or any of that trash.

The only thing I worry about with Kamala is bad tax policy. But I don't imagine Congress will flip her way either, so likely she won't be able to implement if she does win. So as long as I see a split Congress, Kamala winning is fine with me as is Trump though I tire of his tweeting and whining. He should start acting like a grown adult than some petty, narcissitic asshat.

November needs to get here. Kamala or Trump, Trump or Kamala, I don't care anymore. It's reached the point I want it done and then deal with four years of whoever and hopefully a final end to this period of Trump driven politics. I was tired of Trump 24/7 8 years ago and I'm even more tired of it now.

[Aseahawkfan]

Economy is chugging along fine so far. We may have a recession on the horizon. Hard to say for sure. The Fed may start lowering interest rates soon. I think Powell has done a better job than he's given credit for, but we'll see how the interest rates and Fed balance sheet play out.

Kamala's tax policies are a concern, but whether she can pass them or not will be decided in November.

People are heavily focused on the presidency because Americans love to pretend the president is the "Leader of the Free World" or the "most powerful man on earth", but it's horsecrap. American president is a position within the American government with rules and regulations to follow. He may be given a wide berth to act when necessary, but he is not above the law and certainly not a tyrant position. The composition of the Congress is as important if not more so than who is president. If Congress is not favorable, president spends all their time in office not able to get anything done fighting Congress.

I do not expect things to line up perfectly for either presidential candidate whoever wins.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I don’t think “The economy is chugging along just fine” is a sentiment a substantial portion of the electorate agrees with even though it’s largely true. It doesn’t make a big difference to people with prices and interest rates being what they are.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don’t think “The economy is chugging along just fine” is a sentiment a substantial portion of the electorate agrees with even though it’s largely true. It doesn’t make a big difference to people with prices and interest rates being what they are.

I can see certain segments of the economy causing some pain:

1. Fixed income elderly and poor are getting hit pretty hard by inflation.

2. Home prices combined with high interest rates are hurting home buying.

3. Medical expenses have risen quite a bit.

4. Rent is pretty high.

So folks experiencing the above may see the economy as a greater concern.

And we all know perception is often more important than reality for elections.

[River Dog]

So the rest of the world's cruise control was just faulty then?, that doesn't make sense.

Daily expenses are still very high, and lending interest rates are still above 6%. I don't think the average voter cares much about how much better off this country is than the rest of the world; that doesn't help their financial situation. We'll have to wait and see if it is going to make a substantial impact for either candidate.

I agree with Mack. The typical American doesn't give a rip about how we did in relation to the rest of the world. They vote based on their pocketbooks, their own perception as to whether they are better or worse off than 4 years ago.

And since you and everyone else seem to be unable to answer my question, ie what specifically Biden/Harris has done to improve the economy, I have to conclude that you don't know of anything and agree with me that he/she hasn't done a damn thing other than to keep their hands off. And it's not just this current Administration. There isn't a lot of things a POTUS can do to improve the economy, and certainly not without Congress's help, of which you have to admit that Biden hasn't received. I'd rather it run on cruise control.

As far as my own personal perspective goes, outside of not wanting to see Trump in office again, my biggest concern is inflation. I'm retired and on a fixed income, and if anything can throw a monkey wrench into retirement planning, it's inflation. I have a pension that provides me with about 25% of my income, but it doesn't have a COLA clause to it. Same with an annuity that I get about 10% of my income. My wife is drawing SS and it does have a COLA clause, but it doesn't adequately address the things seniors spend most of their money on, ie housing (we have our house paid off), food, and transportation.

I didn't get a chance to see the debate last night as we're on a camping trip with limited internet access and no OTA TV signal, but I sure hope that Harris did well enough to change the momentum.

[c_hawkbob]

And since you and everyone else seem to be unable to answer my question, ie what specifically Biden/Harris has done to improve the economy, I have to conclude that you don't know of anything and agree with me that he/she hasn't done a damn thing other than to keep their hands off

That's a pretty arrogant conclusion. First: I'm not an economist, and second: I don't care to get that deeply involved in this, or indeed with most political debates here (I no longer have the time or the energy to devote to them). Neither of those means I agree with you. I expressly do not.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree with Mack. The typical American doesn't give a rip about how we did in relation to the rest of the world. They vote based on their pocketbooks, their own perception as to whether they are better or worse off than 4 years ago.

And since you and everyone else seem to be unable to answer my question, ie what specifically Biden/Harris has done to improve the economy, I have to conclude that you don't know of anything and agree with me that he/she hasn't done a damn thing other than to keep their hands off. And it's not just this current Administration. There isn't a lot of things a POTUS can do to improve the economy, and certainly not without Congress's help, of which you have to admit that Biden hasn't received. I'd rather it run on cruise control.

As far as my own personal perspective goes, outside of not wanting to see Trump in office again, my biggest concern is inflation. I'm retired and on a fixed income, and if anything can throw a monkey wrench into retirement planning, it's inflation. I have a pension that provides me with about 25% of my income, but it doesn't have a COLA clause to it. Same with an annuity that I get about 10% of my income. My wife is drawing SS and it does have a COLA clause, but it doesn't adequately address the things seniors spend most of their money on, ie housing (we have our house paid off), food, and transportation.

I didn't get a chance to see the debate last night as we're on a camping trip with limited internet access and no OTA TV signal, but I sure hope that Harris did well enough to change the momentum.

Biden's CHIPS Act as part of the Inflation Reduction Program (Kind of a stupid name as it didn't decrease inflation) was a pretty good economic booster for jobs and reshoring chip manufacturing and other forms of manufacturing. Chip stocks were boosted quite a bit by that act. The stock market has done extremely well during Biden. Unemployment stayed low. He seems to have done enough not to derail the economy after pulling us out of the pandemic.

This was a pretty major piece of economic legislation by Biden. It did help the economy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/

It caused a pretty major boost for chip stocks when combined with the AI boom really super charged that sector making a lot of money for chip stock investors.

Besides the inflation which Trump helped create happily signing stimulus checks and loving to give away free money that isn't his own, even making sure his name was on quite a few of those checks, Biden handled the economics pretty well. He continued some of Trump's policies with PPP loans for businesses and also forgave a bunch of PPP loans to businesses that could not afford to pay them back.

Biden managed the economy fine likely advised by professional economists and money people like every president.

I get it. The Republicans and business media have successfully convinced people the economy is in a problematic state and it is for some people such as fixed income folk that are definitely not feeling great. We have a lot of fixed income retired people not loving the inflation. Interest rates are high too which a lot of people don't love, but that isn't Biden's fault. I imagine he'll take the blame for it as each president does.

I know how this goes. Democrats have successfully convinced Democrat voters Republicans are racist and sexist. Republicans have successfully convinced Republican voters that they are way better for the economy. The Republicans are at least for sure better for people who want to keep more of their money. I generally fall into that camp as I don't care to pay excess taxes for programs I don't think work very well.

You can research the CHIPs and Science Act. That is Biden's major piece of economic legislation. I don't think Kamala had much to do with it, then again what has she done. I have no idea. Her greatest asset at this point in time is not being old man Biden and securing the female and minority vote hopefully while not performing badly enough to alienate key voters in swing states. I don't know what she intends to do for policy.

[I-5]

So Trump's a liar who tells the truth when it is convenient for you to believe so? Sorry, you want to have your cake and eat it too like so many of the Trump haters.

I hear you all talking out both sides of your mouths. On one hand he's an idiot who can't manage his businesses, but on the other hand he's a Machiavellian politician with the power to manipulate the government to do his bidding to implement Project 2025 and go after his enemies with the justice department which you seem to forget he already tried to do and found even his own people told him they found no cause. As far as I recall Bill Barr was brought in to pursue legal action against Trump's enemies and he was unable to do so. The only person that has gotten slammed of consequence to Trump's enemies is Hunter Biden, which even President Biden has been unable to stop as the sitting president.

For left wing Trump haters like yourself, Trump is whatever you want him to be at a given point in a time. It's ridiculous. I'm super tired of it.

I already watched Trump's attempted "coup" and it was little more than a riot with little backing from people in the government. I watched him try to use Mark Milley for a tough against the riots stand and he was rebuked by his own appointed military rep.

America doesn't run like you think it runs. Trump no matter how much you think he's dangerous or how much you want to believe he can do things won't be able to do much if any of it. That's why he spent the last two years of his presidency under investigation and unable to get anything done because Congress did not go his way. We have a government with an enormous number of guardrails which work and have proven to work over the course of this nation's existence. I expect them to continue to hold.

If you want to continue to lose your mind over Trump considering him a big idiot or a Machiavellian tyrant or whatever you want him to be from day to day and story to story, have at it. He's just Trump the narcissist to me. He has no interest in Project 2025 or any of that. He will no more listen to those people than he does anyone else. He only cares about winning a second term, then finishing it probably growing bored during it, then retiring to some new venture to pursue to alleviate his boredom. Trump isn't interested in taking over America as the left wants to sell it and he isn't religious.

I even listened to him on the Lex Fridman podcast and you can tell he still barely cares about religion just as I've always known him to be. He gives lip service to religion. Trump isn't going to do anything if he wins other than do his four years and leave. If Congress splits again or goes Dem, he'll either be under investigation or impeached. If Congress goes Republican, they'll likely use that power to extend the tax cuts and little else just like before. We already saw what a Trump presidency looks like with a Republican Congress and it wasn't anything like Project 2025 or any of that trash.

So you and the other lefties can go tell boogey man stories to each other about Trump the Tyrant if you feel like doing so, but I have no interest in listening to such trash carefully curated by the left wing media to fearmonger for votes. It doesn't interest me or sway me anymore than Trump claiming Kamala will be a disaster or any of that trash.

The only thing I worry about with Kamala is bad tax policy. But I don't imagine Congress will flip her way either, so likely she won't be able to implement if she does win. So as long as I see a split Congress, Kamala winning is fine with me as is Trump though I tire of his tweeting and whining. He should start acting like a grown adult than some petty, narcissitic asshat.

November needs to get here. Kamala or Trump, Trump or Kamala, I don't care anymore. It's reached the point I want it done and then deal with four years of whoever and hopefully a final end to this period of Trump driven politics. I was tired of Trump 24/7 8 years ago and I'm even more tired of it now.

Tha'ts a bit of an overraction. There is nothing mutually exclusive about Trump being a failed businessman and wanting to be an autocrat. Where's the conflict in that statement? If you don't like what I said about wanting to use the justic system to go after his foes, then you don't like what Trump said, since he's the one that said it. No need to get upset. I have no doubt that Trump would stop aid to Ukraine if he won, and let Putin do whatever he wants. That's what he means by wanting 'the killing to stop.' Let Putin take Kyiv. He would also definitely give even more money to Netenyahu. He was hilarious last night, so confused that he thought Kamala hates both the jews AND arabs. Lol.

[Aseahawkfan]

Tha'ts a bit of an overraction. There is nothing mutually exclusive about Trump being a failed businessman and wanting to be an autocrat. Where's the conflict in that statement? If you don't like what I said about wanting to use the justic system to go after his foes, then you don't like what Trump said, since he's the one that said it. No need to get upset. I have no doubt that Trump would stop aid to Ukraine if he won, and let Putin do whatever he wants. That's what he means by wanting 'the killing to stop.' Let Putin take Kyiv. He would also definitely give even more money to Netenyahu. He was hilarious last night, so confused that he thought Kamala hates both the jews AND arabs. Lol.

Since you ignore my initial statement, he's a liar that's telling the truth when you want him to be?

If Putin is happier with Trump, then explain why Putin has taken new territory under Democratic Presidents? He took Crimea under Obama. Then he tries to take more of Ukraine under Biden. Maybe he knows that Democratic presidents are weak when it comes to foreign policy and war because Democratic supporters are anti-war in general and won't support long-term and Putin knows he can exploit this trait of the Democratic Party. So he takes more when Democrats are president knowing they will do almost nothing. Fortunately, Biden is more of a centrist and did answer the call for the most part, which I wonder if Kamala would help do the same. Kamala has almost no experience with international diplomacy.

Hamas didn't try their crap with Trump as president. Maybe Hamas and Iran know Trump would have unequivocally supported Israel and attacked Iran, while he knew Biden, Kamala, and the Democrats have a lot of anti-Israel sentiment and would divide themselves against Israel? Was Iran smart in making this decision, seems yes, they were because the Democratic Party is full of anti-Israel sentiment and is more likely to pull support than Trump would support Israel without question. I guess you're one of those folks that wants to pull money from Israel and let Iran get their way.

[River Dog]

Biden's CHIPS Act as part of the Inflation Reduction Program (Kind of a stupid name as it didn't decrease inflation) was a pretty good economic booster for jobs and reshoring chip manufacturing and other forms of manufacturing. Chip stocks were boosted quite a bit by that act. The stock market has done extremely well during Biden. Unemployment stayed low. He seems to have done enough not to derail the economy after pulling us out of the pandemic.

This was a pretty major piece of economic legislation by Biden. It did help the economy. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/

It caused a pretty major boost for chip stocks when combined with the AI boom really super charged that sector making a lot of money for chip stock investors.

Besides the inflation which Trump helped create happily signing stimulus checks and loving to give away free money that isn't his own, even making sure his name was on quite a few of those checks, Biden handled the economics pretty well. He continued some of Trump's policies with PPP loans for businesses and also forgave a bunch of PPP loans to businesses that could not afford to pay them back.

Biden managed the economy fine likely advised by professional economists and money people like every president.

I get it. The Republicans and business media have successfully convinced people the economy is in a problematic state and it is for some people such as fixed income folk that are definitely not feeling great. We have a lot of fixed income retired people not loving the inflation. Interest rates are high too which a lot of people don't love, but that isn't Biden's fault. I imagine he'll take the blame for it as each president does.

I know how this goes. Democrats have successfully convinced Democrat voters Republicans are racist and sexist. Republicans have successfully convinced Republican voters that they are way better for the economy. The Republicans are at least for sure better for people who want to keep more of their money. I generally fall into that camp as I don't care to pay excess taxes for programs I don't think work very well.

You can research the CHIPs and Science Act. That is Biden's major piece of economic legislation. I don't think Kamala had much to do with it, then again what has she done. I have no idea. Her greatest asset at this point in time is not being old man Biden and securing the female and minority vote hopefully while not performing badly enough to alienate key voters in swing states. I don't know what she intends to do for policy.

Well, at least you mentioned something. That's better than anyone else has come up with.

But that's a pretty small drop in the bucket compared to the overall economy. You know as well as I do that following a deep depression-like shutdown of the economy that a rebound once the lockdown was over was inevitable. And you're right about the correlation between inflation and the economy. You can spur the economy by injecting it with money, but putting more money in people's hands encourages spending, and spending causes shortages, which results in higher prices. As you pointed out, that's what happened with these completely unnecessary coronavirus payments of which both parties were guilty of doing. Extend unemployment payments, fine. But giving everyone, unemployed, employed, retired, etc, a free handout?

The way to curb inflation is restrict the supply of money, such as what happens when interest rates are raised. Jerome Powell has more power to control the economy than Joe Biden. He raises interest rates, the economy slows down. He cuts them, it gives it a boost.

At this point, I am satisfied with how the economy is performing.

[River Dog]

And since you and everyone else seem to be unable to answer my question, ie what specifically Biden/Harris has done to improve the economy, I have to conclude that you don't know of anything and agree with me that he/she hasn't done a damn thing other than to keep their hands off

That's a pretty arrogant conclusion. First: I'm not an economist, and second: I don't care to get that deeply involved in this, or indeed with most political debates here (I no longer have the time or the energy to devote to them). Neither of those means I agree with you. I expressly do not.

I didn't drag you into this debate. You're the one who suggested that "whatever they did worked." All I'm asking you is what was it was that they did?

Neither of us are economists, but there are a few basics that we should all be able to agree on. First, is that the more money is spent, either by individuals or by the government, has the effect of stimulating the economy. That's why the economy bounced back as strong as it did, because the government wrote a bunch of checks to every taxpayer in the country, so they went out and spent it, thus stimulating economic activity. Secondly, that spending, while stimulating the economy, also had the effect of raising prices as it's a function of increased demand. As the demand for widgets goes up, supply goes down, creating a shortage and to keep from running out and to make more profit, companies react by raising prices. It's called the law of supply and demand. Increased prices are synonymous with inflation. You don't have to be an economist to understand that principle. Econ 101.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well, at least you mentioned something. That's better than anyone else has come up with.

But that's a pretty small drop in the bucket compared to the overall economy. You know as well as I do that following a deep depression-like shutdown of the economy that a rebound once the lockdown was over was inevitable. And you're right about the correlation between inflation and the economy. You can spur the economy by injecting it with money, but putting more money in people's hands encourages spending, and spending causes shortages, which results in higher prices. As you pointed out, that's what happened with these completely unnecessary coronavirus payments of which both parties were guilty of doing. Extend unemployment payments, fine. But giving everyone, unemployed, employed, retired, etc, a free handout?

The way to curb inflation is restrict the supply of money, such as what happens when interest rates are raised. Jerome Powell has more power to control the economy than Joe Biden. He raises interest rates, the economy slows down. He cuts them, it gives it a boost.

At this point, I am satisfied with how the economy is performing.

What do you think of the assertion that Kamala has little to no foreign policy experience and neither does Walz, with the world burning as some see it that Kamala will be a foreign policy disaster that could well lead to more widespread war and conflict as the Democrats weak stance on foreign policy and unwillingness to carry out hammer blows against enemies will lead to this increased conflict? My buddies are selling me Biden's weak assistance to Ukraine and lack of desire to engage Iran with force is opening the door to disrespect for America in negotiations and making us appear weak. They think Kamala will be even weaker than Biden in support of our allies in this war zones and even less likely to use force against Iran to halt their support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Putin will view Kamala as a president not even worth paying attention to and he'll just walk over her like she doesn't matter.

Some of my buddies even think China will make their move against Taiwan because they view Kamala as unable to stop them and a bad foregin policy or war time president who won't be able to manage such conflicts very well.

Do you think this is true? Would Kamala and Walz be completely out of their depth trying to deal with major foreign policy conflicts that are currrently going on and may happen if she is elected?

[River Dog]

What do you think of the assertion that Kamala has little to no foreign policy experience and neither does Walz, with the world burning as some see it that Kamala will be a foreign policy disaster that could well lead to more widespread war and conflict as the Democrats weak stance on foreign policy and unwillingness to carry out hammer blows against enemies will lead to this increased conflict? My buddies are selling me Biden's weak assistance to Ukraine and lack of desire to engage Iran with force is opening the door to disrespect for America in negotiations and making us appear weak. They think Kamala will be even weaker than Biden in support of our allies in this war zones and even less likely to use force against Iran to halt their support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Putin will view Kamala as a president not even worth paying attention to and he'll just walk over her like she doesn't matter.

Some of my buddies even think China will make their move against Taiwan because they view Kamala as unable to stop them and a bad foregin policy or war time president who won't be able to manage such conflicts very well.

Do you think this is true? Would Kamala and Walz be completely out of their depth trying to deal with major foreign policy conflicts that are currrently going on and may happen if she is elected?

It's a legitimate concern and there's a genuine risk of what your friends fear. Harris is an unknown quantity. But for my money, the fear of the unknown is not great enough to overcome the fear of what I do know, and that is that Donald Trump is an incompetent fool who only cares about himself and who will damage this country if some of the things he's talking about ever come to fruition.

In our past history, we have elected countless POTUS's who did not have any or very limited foreign policy experience. Harry Truman was a complete unknown, a failed men's clothing salesman who was supposed to be some rich guy's man in the Senate. Outside of the fact that JFK served during a war, he had zero foreign policy experience. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and governor. Ronald Reagan was a former actor and governor of California. Bill Clinton was the governor of a small state. Barak Obama's foreign policy experience was that he served on a Senate foreign affairs subcommittee. About the only POTUS that we've elected that had significant foreign policy experience was Bush 41, ambassador to the UN, defacto ambassador to China, and director of the CIA.

I don't see foreign policy as being a central issue in this campaign. Unless we're in a war, voters aren't much concerned about it.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's a legitimate concern and there's a genuine risk of what your friends fear. Harris is an unknown quantity. But for my money, the fear of the unknown is not great enough to overcome the fear of what I do know, and that is that Donald Trump is an incompetent fool who only cares about himself and who will damage this country if some of the things he's talking about ever come to fruition.

In our past history, we have elected countless POTUS's who did not have any or very limited foreign policy experience. Harry Truman was a complete unknown, a failed men's clothing salesman who was supposed to be some rich guy's man in the Senate. Outside of the fact that JFK served during a war, he had zero foreign policy experience. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and governor. Ronald Reagan was a former actor and governor of California. Bill Clinton was the governor of a small state. Barak Obama's foreign policy experience was that he served on a Senate foreign affairs subcommittee. About the only POTUS that we've elected that had significant foreign policy experience was Bush 41, ambassador to the UN, defacto ambassador to China, and director of the CIA.

I don't see foreign policy as being a central issue in this campaign. Unless we're in a war, voters aren't much concerned about it.

What I wouldn't give for Bush 41 to be back. I would vote for him in a second over these clowns. I was surprised talking with some folk from Somalia that they liked Bush 41 and Bush was working to establish a strong foothold in East Africa before he lost the election and Clinton's weak foreign policy spawned Black Hawk Down. I did not realize Clinton handled Somalia badly. I just thought Black Hawk Down was a great movie, but did not realize what foreign policy decisions the U.S. made that caused it.

Trump can irritate me greatly. I think he handles foreign policy fine. I don't consider him quite as incompetent as you do. You really seem to not care for rich people and especially their kids. I think he's a petty narcissist who wastes too much time on his fights. The nation was running fine when he was in office until the pandemic. I don't think he'll do much damage if Trump wins.

My feeling is Kamala will hire recommended foreign policy people who know how to handle these things. So she'll be fine too.

Presidents do not act alone. That is what their cabinet is for.

[River Dog]

What I wouldn't give for Bush 41 to be back. I would vote for him in a second over these clowns. I was surprised talking with some folk from Somalia that they liked Bush 41 and Bush was working to establish a strong foothold in East Africa before he lost the election and Clinton's weak foreign policy spawned Black Hawk Down. I did not realize Clinton handled Somalia badly. I just thought Black Hawk Down was a great movie, but did not realize what foreign policy decisions the U.S. made that caused it.

Trump can irritate me greatly. I think he handles foreign policy fine. I don't consider him quite as incompetent as you do. You really seem to not care for rich people and especially their kids. I think he's a petty narcissist who wastes too much time on his fights. The nation was running fine when he was in office until the pandemic. I don't think he'll do much damage if Trump wins.

My feeling is Kamala will hire recommended foreign policy people who know how to handle these things. So she'll be fine too.

Presidents do not act alone. That is what their cabinet is for.

Bush 41 had three major problems in '92: The recession after the Gulf War, he went back on his "No New Taxes" pledge, and Ross Perot. Bill Clinton was elected that year with the lowest percentage of the popular vote in 80 years. Additionally, having Dan Quayle on his ticket, whose parents pulled strings to get him out of the draft, prevented him for contrasting himself, a true war hero who was shot down in combat, vs. Bill Clinton, a draft dodger.

I'm not sure what foreign policy area that you think Trump was strong in. He told the European Union that he'd never help them if Europe came under attack. He's anti trade, wants to put huge tariffs on China, which would cause a huge amount of inflation not to mention possibly provoking them into a military conflict. His solution to just about every foreign policy problem is tariffs.

I don't care one way or another about rich people and/or their kids. I try not to judge people by their bank accounts. One of my favorite Seahawks of all time was Paul Allen, and he was filthy rich.

[Aseahawkfan]

Bush 41 had three major problems in '92: The recession after the Gulf War, he went back on his "No New Taxes" pledge, and Ross Perot. Bill Clinton was elected that year with the lowest percentage of the popular vote in 80 years. Additionally, having Dan Quayle on his ticket, whose parents pulled strings to get him out of the draft, prevented him for contrasting himself, a true war hero who was shot down in combat, vs. Bill Clinton, a draft dodger.

I'm not sure what foreign policy area that you think Trump was strong in. He told the European Union that he'd never help them if Europe came under attack. He's anti trade, wants to put huge tariffs on China, which would cause a huge amount of inflation not to mention possibly provoking them into a military conflict. His solution to just about every foreign policy problem is tariffs.

I don't care one way or another about rich people and/or their kids. I try not to judge people by their bank accounts. One of my favorite Seahawks of all time was Paul Allen, and he was filthy rich.

I've heard you talk enough about rich kids to note the disdain.

The Chinese tariffs are necessary and being continued. China is engaging in economic warfare at the moment which most Americans are ignoring as long as their Iphones are cheap. Long-term this Chinese labor war will be costly.

Trump sent a clear signal to Iran he will act harshly if they do things like they're doing now when he signed the order to assassinate Soleimani.

Now you're prone to exaggeration as Trump said he wanted Europe to pay the agreed upon percentage for defense to the United Nations defense funds. He threatened to withhold defense if they did not increase their agreed upon percentages, which many see as a long time coming. They have been slacking on their percentage of the U.N. peacekeeping funds.

The reality is Hamas and Iran and Russia both waited for Trump to be out of office to move. This is either coincidence or an assessment that Trump was more likely to use more extreme retaliation to answer aggression. I'm sure in your mind Trump had nothing to do with it, but in the minds of his supporters they believe he made a difference. I am unsure myself. I think he may well have responded more aggressively, especially in Israel.

I don't expect you to give Trump much credit for what he actually did as you hate him and believe what you believe for irrational reasons. Regardless, Trump's foreign policy was more direct and aggressive than Biden. I think he would be better at the negotiating table than Harris or Biden. That's how I see it. He wasn't aggressive enough for some in his party like Mattis or McMaster, but he is more aggressive than Biden or Harris.

Foreign policy won't decide the election. So far it looks like Trump is going to lose again unless something swings his way in the next few months.

[River Dog]

Foreign policy won't decide the election. So far it looks like Trump is going to lose again unless something swings his way in the next few months.

I agree that the election won't be decided on foreign policy except as it relates to border control. But unless something happens between now and November, I and very skeptical of Harris being able to pull off a win, and even if she does, Trump will sow enough discord that it's going to be a really messy two months following.

[curmudgeon]

Trump will not be allowed to win. Harris is running on change, which is nothing more than the continuation of the fundamental transformation of America. Which of course aligns with the globalist new world order.

“Transform: make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.

[I-5]

I agree that the election won't be decided on foreign policy except as it relates to border control. But unless something happens between now and November, I and very skeptical of Harris being able to pull off a win, and even if she does, Trump will sow enough discord that it's going to be a really messy two months following.

You think Trump will win? Based on what? You're saying he can win based on fear? That's all I've heard him talk about...border border border, crime, crime, crime. His main examples he brought up for those topics are Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield. I still maintain that reproductive rights are going to mobilize voters to come out against him...it doesn't matter what he says about states rights. Gaza is a smaller issue, but also important. If the Biden administration can make headway on a concrete ceasefire, it would be a huge win.

[River Dog]

I agree that the election won't be decided on foreign policy except as it relates to border control. But unless something happens between now and November, I and very skeptical of Harris being able to pull off a win, and even if she does, Trump will sow enough discord that it's going to be a really messy two months following.

You think Trump will win? Based on what? You're saying he can win based on fear? That's all I've heard him talk about...border border border, crime, crime, crime. His main examples he brought up for those topics are Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield. I still maintain that reproductive rights are going to mobilize voters to come out against him...it doesn't matter what he says about states rights. Gaza is a smaller issue, but also important. If the Biden administration can make headway on a concrete ceasefire, it would be a huge win.

I'm not focusing on what the candidates say. That is strictly opinionated. What you or I think is a weakness, ie border, crime, eating pets, et al, the next person may not give a rip. I'm setting aside my personal feelings towards the two candidates and looking at it as objectively as I can, ie polls, surveys, and what other information is telling us, and that is that the election in nearly all of the swing states is too close to call, within the margin of error, ie 3-4%.

The most accurate poll from the 2020 and 2022 elections is the New York Times/Sienna College poll. Nationwide, the poll gives Harris a 3% advantage, but the swing states are much closer.

There are 7 swing states: WI, MI, NC, AZ, GA, NV., and PS. According to the NYT poll as of 9/12, Harris has a slim lead in WI at 50%-47%, but she has just a 1% lead in MI and NC. In the other 4 swing states, ie PA, GA, AZ, and NV, the two are tied at 48% apiece.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ident.html

The Real Clear Politics average, which takes into account a number of polls, show a similar picture, with the only battleground state with less than a 2% lead for either candidate in those 7 key states:

https://www.realclearpolling.com/electi ... und-states

The other thing that those polls are telling us is that there aren't many undecided or voters voting for a 3rd party/independent candidate, about 4-5%, meaning that if one candidate is to gain ground, it has to be at the expense of the other.

Over the past 8 years, the polls have underrepresented Trump supporters, that they are more likely not to respond to a pollster's question than a Democrat would be. I also have the theory that Trump has a lot of closet voters, people that might be somewhat embarrassed to admit that they like Trump but will vote for him when the curtain is closed, and hence not taken into account by the pollsters.

The other thing that has happened in recent weeks is RFK Jr. dropping out of the race. Even though he had a tiny percentage of the overall vote, in a close election, it could make the difference, and his voters are more likely to vote for Trump than they are Harris.

After Biden stepped down, Harris had a nice run-up in popularity and surpassed Trump by a couple of percent in the nationwide polling, but her momentum seems to have peaked and flattened out, meaning that the honeymoon is over. She also didn't get a bump out of the convention like most nominees do. That tells me that something needs to happen to shift the paradigm.

Having said that, the polls have not yet had enough time to digest the possible effect the first debate had, and there were a lot of people watching them. But if the numbers haven't moved away from those I quoted by next week, it will tell us that it didn't move the needle.

[I-5]

I'm not focusing on what the candidates say. That is strictly opinionated. What you or I think is a weakness, ie border, crime, eating pets, et al, the next person may not give a rip. I'm setting aside my personal feelings towards the two candidates and looking at it as objectively as I can, ie polls, surveys, and what other information is telling us, and that is that the election in nearly all of the swing states is too close to call, within the margin of error, ie 3-4%.

The most accurate poll from the 2020 and 2022 elections is the New York Times/Sienna College poll. Nationwide, the poll gives Harris a 3% advantage, but the swing states are much closer.

There are 7 swing states: WI, MI, NC, AZ, GA, NV., and PS. According to the NYT poll as of 9/12, Harris has a slim lead in WI at 50%-47%, but she has just a 1% lead in MI and NC. In the other 4 swing states, ie PA, GA, AZ, and NV, the two are tied at 48% apiece.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... ident.html

The Real Clear Politics average, which takes into account a number of polls, show a similar picture, with the only battleground state with less than a 2% lead for either candidate in those 7 key states:

https://www.realclearpolling.com/electi ... und-states

The other thing that those polls are telling us is that there aren't many undecided or voters voting for a 3rd party/independent candidate, about 4-5%, meaning that if one candidate is to gain ground, it has to be at the expense of the other.

Over the past 8 years, the polls have underrepresented Trump supporters, that they are more likely not to respond to a pollster's question than a Democrat would be. I also have the theory that Trump has a lot of closet voters, people that might be somewhat embarrassed to admit that they like Trump but will vote for him when the curtain is closed, and hence not taken into account by the pollsters.

The other thing that has happened in recent weeks is RFK Jr. dropping out of the race. Even though he had a tiny percentage of the overall vote, in a close election, it could make the difference, and his voters are more likely to vote for Trump than they are Harris.

After Biden stepped down, Harris had a nice run-up in popularity and surpassed Trump by a couple of percent in the nationwide polling, but her momentum seems to have peaked and flattened out, meaning that the honeymoon is over. She also didn't get a bump out of the convention like most nominees do. That tells me that something needs to happen to shift the paradigm.

Having said that, the polls have not yet had enough time to digest the possible effect the first debate had, and there were a lot of people watching them. But if the numbers haven't moved away from those I quoted by next week, it will tell us that it didn't move the needle.

I also don't take stock in what the candidates say. Nor do I take too much stock in the polls. They don't have a spotless track record. The very premise of this thread '13 Keys' is that polls only provide a snapshot and don't accurately predict results. The 13 keys however have been proven more effective at pointing to the winner, and right now, the incumbent has enough keys to win.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/allan-litchman-election-prediction-1.7318889

The keys are a set of true/false statements that act as checklist for the incumbent party — in this case, the Democrats. If six or more keys go against the incumbent party, then its candidate is predicted to lose.

"Six strikes and you're out," he said.

The keys are:

Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Lichtman has awarded eight keys to Harris: contest, third party, short-term economy, long-term economy, policy change, social unrest, scandal, and challenger charisma.

[Aseahawkfan]

Obvious hypocrisy of the time:

Democrats worried about Trump using Justice Department and government to investigate his enemies. Viewed as an act of tyranny and abuse of government power.

Democrats actually do use DoJ and federal, state, and local government to investigate their political enemy Donald Trump. They're just investigating a bad guy who deserves it, but it's not an act of political tyranny or abuse of government power when it's Trump. Even when documents used to start the Trump investigation were paid for by his political enemies including his Republican opponents then paid for by Hilary Clinton during the 2016 campaign and passed on to Congress through Hilary Clinton's political contacts to start an investigation of her political enemy Donald Trump. Democrats in New York start a massive fishing expedition into Trump's financial records to find any possible crime to pursue for the sole purpose of attacking their political enemy.

But hey, it's not tyranny if it's your party doing the investigating.

[River Dog]

[I also don't take stock in what the candidates say. Nor do I take too much stock in the polls. They don't have a spotless track record. The very premise of this thread '13 Keys' is that polls only provide a snapshot and don't accurately predict results. The 13 keys however have been proven more effective at pointing to the winner, and right now, the incumbent has enough keys to win.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/allan-litchman-election-prediction-1.7318889

The keys are a set of true/false statements that act as checklist for the incumbent party — in this case, the Democrats. If six or more keys go against the incumbent party, then its candidate is predicted to lose.

"Six strikes and you're out," he said.

The keys are:

Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Lichtman has awarded eight keys to Harris: contest, third party, short-term economy, long-term economy, policy change, social unrest, scandal, and challenger charisma.

The assumption is that Harris is an incumbent. She is not, she's the sitting VP. We don't have too many examples of a sitting POTUS eligible to run but opting not to and handing the baton off to the VP, especially this late in the game. The most recent one is in 1968 when LBJ stepped down and let Hubert Humphrey run in his place.

Another historical that does not play in Harris's favor is the success rate of a sitting VP's running for POTUS: Nixon in 1960, lost. Humphrey in 1968, lost. Bush 41 in 1988, won. Gore in 2000, lost. One could explain Bush 41's success in that his boss was hugely popular as his job approval at the end of his presidency was 60%+, one of the highest in the last century and higher than any POTUS this century. That isn't the case with Biden, as his job approval rating has been at or below 40% since early in his term.

My point is that you can come up with a lot of arguments like Lichtman's. Their weakness is that they aren't scientific, and the criteria can be cherry picked. You'll notice that Lichtman didn't say anything about the incumbent party's job approval rating. Since 1950, there has been 3 elections with an incumbent POTUS running for re-election with a job approval rating below 50%: Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992, and Trump in 2020. All 3 lost. The incumbency of an unpopular POTUS is not an advantage. Biden's current job approval sits at 40.8%.

That doesn't mean that polls and surveys are better as they, too, can be biased. But they can detect a trend, which is why I'll be watching next week to see if there is any movement in the polls due to what the consensus opinion being that Trump lost the debate. Indeed, Trump has just announced that there won't be a 2nd debate, a clear sign that he lost.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree that the election won't be decided on foreign policy except as it relates to border control. But unless something happens between now and November, I and very skeptical of Harris being able to pull off a win, and even if she does, Trump will sow enough discord that it's going to be a really messy two months following.

I don't know. This whole time has been so stupid and filled with hypocrisy, lies, and ridiculousness that it has literally dampened my enthusiasm for America as a whole. I don't know why, but I thought the American people were smarter than this. You would think years of governing their nation would make them smarter. But they are not. It's sickening that the one country whose people have been governing themselves the longest have not learned to do so better than they currently do.

Maybe Trump wins. I don't know. Right now it sure sounds like he's going to lose, but it sounded like he would lose in 2016 as well. My feeling is he has lost more support from Republicans that voted for him in 2016 like Cheney and Mitt and the like who didn't like him, but still voted Republican. Now there are a sufficient number of Republican voters that truly dislike Trump who also don't speak out much or are going to flat out not vote for him or Harris further taking votes from Trump while having no effect on Harris.

I feel like he won in 2016 because at least the majority of Republicans were behind him. The Never Trump movement really started after watching Trump act like an ass for four years. That will be a sufficient loss of support to cost him the election again in these tight elections.

I guess we'll see.

[I-5]

The assumption is that Harris is an incumbent. She is not, she's the sitting VP. We don't have too many examples of a sitting POTUS eligible to run but opting not to and handing the baton off to the VP, especially this late in the game. The most recent one is in 1968 when LBJ stepped down and let Hubert Humphrey run in his place.

Another historical that does not play in Harris's favor is the success rate of a sitting VP's running for POTUS: Nixon in 1960, lost. Humphrey in 1968, lost. Bush 41 in 1988, won. Gore in 2000, lost. One could explain Bush 41's success in that his boss was hugely popular as his job approval at the end of his presidency was 60%+, one of the highest in the last century and higher than any POTUS this century. That isn't the case with Biden, as his job approval rating has been at or below 40% since early in his term.

My point is that you can come up with a lot of arguments like Lichtman's. Their weakness is that they aren't scientific, and the criteria can be cherry picked. You'll notice that Lichtman didn't say anything about the incumbent party's job approval rating. Since 1950, there has been 3 elections with an incumbent POTUS running for re-election with a job approval rating below 50%: Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992, and Trump in 2020. All 3 lost. The incumbency of an unpopular POTUS is not an advantage. Biden's current job approval sits at 40.8%.

That doesn't mean that polls and surveys are better as they, too, can be biased. But they can detect a trend, which is why I'll be watching next week to see if there is any movement in the polls due to what the consensus opinion being that Trump lost the debate. Indeed, Trump has just announced that there won't be a 2nd debate, a clear sign that he lost.

He didn't give her incumbency status as one of the keys. He gave that to the challenger.

[I-5]

Obvious hypocrisy of the time:

Democrats worried about Trump using Justice Department and government to investigate his enemies. Viewed as an act of tyranny and abuse of government power.

Democrats actually do use DoJ and federal, state, and local government to investigate their political enemy Donald Trump. They're just investigating a bad guy who deserves it, but it's not an act of political tyranny or abuse of government power when it's Trump. Even when documents used to start the Trump investigation were paid for by his political enemies including his Republican opponents then paid for by Hilary Clinton during the 2016 campaign and passed on to Congress through Hilary Clinton's political contacts to start an investigation of her political enemy Donald Trump. Democrats in New York start a massive fishing expedition into Trump's financial records to find any possible crime to pursue for the sole purpose of attacking their political enemy.

But hey, it's not tyranny if it's your party doing the investigating.

We can agree there is such a thing as evidence, and no evidence. Not everyone acts the same, but everyone who is suspicious AND has evidence against them, they should be investigated, republican or democrat. I think it's a bit lazy to call it hypocrisy just because Trump has all these cases against him....long before entering politics, Trump was in trouble with the law. Even when he was a Hillary supporter. What does that say?

[River Dog]

The assumption is that Harris is an incumbent. She is not, she's the sitting VP. We don't have too many examples of a sitting POTUS eligible to run but opting not to and handing the baton off to the VP, especially this late in the game. The most recent one is in 1968 when LBJ stepped down and let Hubert Humphrey run in his place.

Another historical that does not play in Harris's favor is the success rate of a sitting VP's running for POTUS: Nixon in 1960, lost. Humphrey in 1968, lost. Bush 41 in 1988, won. Gore in 2000, lost. One could explain Bush 41's success in that his boss was hugely popular as his job approval at the end of his presidency was 60%+, one of the highest in the last century and higher than any POTUS this century. That isn't the case with Biden, as his job approval rating has been at or below 40% since early in his term.

My point is that you can come up with a lot of arguments like Lichtman's. Their weakness is that they aren't scientific, and the criteria can be cherry picked. You'll notice that Lichtman didn't say anything about the incumbent party's job approval rating. Since 1950, there has been 3 elections with an incumbent POTUS running for re-election with a job approval rating below 50%: Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992, and Trump in 2020. All 3 lost. The incumbency of an unpopular POTUS is not an advantage. Biden's current job approval sits at 40.8%.

That doesn't mean that polls and surveys are better as they, too, can be biased. But they can detect a trend, which is why I'll be watching next week to see if there is any movement in the polls due to what the consensus opinion being that Trump lost the debate. Indeed, Trump has just announced that there won't be a 2nd debate, a clear sign that he lost.

He didn't give her incumbency status as one of the keys. He gave that to the challenger.

It doesn't change my point, which was that you can come up with a lot of arguments like Lichtman's. Their weakness is that they aren't scientific, and the criteria can be cherry picked. Take a look at my examples of sitting VP's running. The only one that was successful was Bush 41, and that can be rationalized by the hugely popular Ronald Reagan, that he rode on Reagan's coat tails, something that's not present with Biden/Harris.

[c_hawkbob]

Say what you want about his criteria but the dude's got a good batting average, much better than most.

[River Dog]

Say what you want about his criteria but the dude's got a good batting average, much better than most.

It adds zero to my comfort level. I see no more of a cause-and-effect correlation in Lichtman's "Keys to the White House" than in my observation about sitting VP's running for POTUS.

Remember so goes Ohio, so goes the country and how Ohio had such a great track record of voting with the winning POTUS candidate even in close elections? That didn't work out so well in the last election.

[I-5]

Show us someone with a better track record, Riv. His keys aren't poll-based at all, and way more accurate at predicting winners. There's nothing anyone can say that will make anyone comfortable .That's life. It's not about being comfortable.

[River Dog]

Show us someone with a better track record, Riv. His keys aren't poll-based at all, and way more accurate at predicting winners. It's fine to not be comfortable, since it's still going to be a close race...just like even during LOB days, you never want to take any win for granted.

Let's keep it in perspective. 7 of the 10 elections that Lichtman correctly predicted were easy gimmes that anyone could have predicted. He got 2 of the 3 close ones, 2000, 2004, and 2016 correct (contrary to popular belief, 2020 was not what I'd consider close). If you're playing a coin flip game and you correctly call a coin flip 2 out of 3 times, I don't think that means very much.

I am not doubting that the guy might be the best out there, that there isn't someone sitting in their basement with an Ouija board that might have a better track record. All I am saying is that there are enough factors that are unique to his past success that are not accounted for, such as the sitting POTUS's popularity rating, the track record of sitting VP's, and the underestimated strength Trump has shown on election day,

[I-5]

Let's keep it in perspective. 7 of the 10 elections that Lichtman correctly predicted were easy gimmes that anyone could have predicted. He got 2 of the 3 close ones, 2000, 2004, and 2016 correct (contrary to popular belief, 2020 was not what I'd consider close). If you're playing a coin flip game and you correctly call a coin flip 2 out of 3 times, I don't think that means very much.

I am not doubting that the guy might be the best out there, that there isn't someone sitting in their basement with an Ouija board that might have a better track record. All I am saying is that there are enough factors that are unique to his past success that are not accounted for, such as the sitting POTUS's popularity rating, the track record of sitting VP's, and the underestimated strength Trump has shown on election day,

Of course, there are no gimmmies. I wouldn't discount his work, though.

[River Dog]

If you're into predictions and forecasts, here's one from Nate Silver of Five Thirty=Eight:

Election analyst Nate Silver gave former President Donald Trump a record-high probability of winning against Vice President Kamala Harris.

The bump came partially as a result of Sunday's New York Times/Sienna poll, which Silver has as one of the highest-rated pollsters. Silver's newest rating has Trump with a 63.8% probability, compared to Harris's 36%. The former president is also favored to win every swing state.

Silver's current odds give Trump a 64% chance of winning Pennsylvania, 54% for Michigan, 53% for Wisconsin, 77% for Arizona, 75% for North Carolina, 68% for Georgia, and 61% for Nevada.

The new probability total is a nearly five-point boost for Trump since Thursday, when he was given a 58.2% probability, itself a boost from the 52.4% a week prior. The prediction shows a further eroding of Harris's honeymoon support since President Joe Biden dropped out in July.

In a Substack post, Silver explained that the new poll was such bad news for Harris due to the large sample size and reliability of the poll, which he ranks as the second best. He said the new poll "confirms the model’s view that there’s been some sort of a shift in momentum in the race."

The election analyst zeroed in on perceptions that Harris is too progressive as especially alarming for Democrats — the poll found that 47% of likely voters believe that Harris is too liberal, compared to 32% who see Trump as too conservative.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... ngNewsSerp

You'll notice that Solver talks about the end of Harris's honeymoon that had been going on since Biden dropped out, that it had peaked. This is something that I've talked about in this forum that's a concern, that she's lost the momentum.

This article is from 9/8, just before the debate, so maybe it's shifted some. Or, maybe Taylor Swift will come to Harris's rescue.

[I-5]

Thanks for sharing, and yep, I'm aware of Nate Silver and 538. He is definitely poll-based. Lichtman's system is outside of any rhetoric or endorsements...he simply keys off the state of the country based on incumbent vs challenger. It's not fool-proof of course but it's far more accurate than the polls.

[River Dog]

Thanks for sharing, and yep, I'm aware of Nate Silver and 538. He is definitely poll-based. Lichtman's system is outside of any rhetoric or endorsements...he simply keys off the state of the country based on incumbent vs challenger. It's not fool-proof of course but it's far more accurate than the polls.

They're apples and oranges. Lichtman's system is very simple. He either predicts a winner or he doesn't. Polls are never completely right or completely wrong. They have a mathematical formula that's used to calculate a margin of error. In other words, they're scientific. Since they are done multiple times during a campaign, polls can be used to detect changes in momentum, gauge the public's reaction to a speech, debate, or news event. Can't do that with Lichtman's system.

And polls aren't as inaccurate as you think they are. In 2020, the final RCP average in Michigan showed Biden winning by 4.2%. The actual was 2.8%, off by 1.4%. In PA in 2020, the final RCP average was Biden by 1.2%. The actual result was Biden 48.7, Trump 47.5. Nailed it. In Arizona, the final RCP average showed Biden winning by .9%. The actual was Biden .3%, or off by .6%. The one black eye was in Wisconsin. RCP projected Biden the winner by 6.7%, a virtual landslide. The actual was just .7%. Ironically, they missed that same state in 2016 by an almost identical margin. Hillary was reading the polls and never set foot in Wisconsin during her campaign, ended up losing it to Trump. She took it for granted.

Nationally, the final 2020 RCP average had Biden winning by 7.2% while the actual was 4.5%, or a 2.7% margin, still within the margin of error, which is generally around 3%-4%. So you tell me: Were the polls wrong?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... p-vs-biden

That's why I'm so nervous about the polls showing Harris with such a small lead in the swing states. Trump's strength has been underestimated in the past two elections. The pollsters know that. Have they taken it into consideration and adjusted for it by introducing a fudge factor? You'd think so. RCP has Harris with a 1.8% lead in Wisconsin. Given the 2016 and 2020 misfires, do you believe that number? I sure as hell don't. They have Harris with a .1% lead in PA, a .8% lead in MI. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

[Aseahawkfan]

They're apples and oranges. Lichtman's system is very simple. He either predicts a winner or he doesn't. Polls are never completely right or completely wrong. They have a mathematical formula that's used to calculate a margin of error. In other words, they're scientific. Since they are done multiple times during a campaign, polls can be used to detect changes in momentum, gauge the public's reaction to a speech, debate, or news event. Can't do that with Lichtman's system.

And polls aren't as inaccurate as you think they are. In 2020, the final RCP average in Michigan showed Biden winning by 4.2%. The actual was 2.8%, off by 1.4%. In PA in 2020, the final RCP average was Biden by 1.2%. The actual result was Biden 48.7, Trump 47.5. Nailed it. In Arizona, the final RCP average showed Biden winning by .9%. The actual was Biden .3%, or off by .6%. The one black eye was in Wisconsin. RCP projected Biden the winner by 6.7%, a virtual landslide. The actual was just .7%. Ironically, they missed that same state in 2016 by an almost identical margin. Hillary was reading the polls and never set foot in Wisconsin during her campaign, ended up losing it to Trump. She took it for granted.

Nationally, the final 2020 RCP average had Biden winning by 7.2% while the actual was 4.5%, or a 2.7% margin, still within the margin of error, which is generally around 3%-4%. So you tell me: Were the polls wrong?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... p-vs-biden

That's why I'm so nervous about the polls showing Harris with such a small lead in the swing states. Trump's strength has been underestimated in the past two elections. The pollsters know that. Have they taken it into consideration and adjusted for it by introducing a fudge factor? You'd think so. RCP has Harris with a 1.8% lead in Wisconsin. Given the 2016 and 2020 misfires, do you believe that number? I sure as hell don't. They have Harris with a .1% lead in PA, a .8% lead in MI. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Are you genuinely feeling nervous? I hope you are not. This isn't that important. Your life was fine during Trump and has been fine during Biden. Other than the pandemic years, America is rolling strong. I figure you pay attention to politics for mostly entertainment purposes, personal intereset, and some sense of duty to govern. Plenty of folks who don't pay politics any mind live just fine if not better than those that overly commit to politics.

I still say Trump has lost sufficient support within his own party after January 6th to cost him the election. Some of the folks like Dick Cheney and other Republicans voted for him in 2016 and 2020, then January 6th happened. He really pissed a lot of people off. As long as Kamala and company don't have some real stupid stuff happen before November, I think they pull it off.

[River Dog]

Are you genuinely feeling nervous? I hope you are not. This isn't that important. Your life was fine during Trump and has been fine during Biden. Other than the pandemic years, America is rolling strong. I figure you pay attention to politics for mostly entertainment purposes, personal intereset, and some sense of duty to govern. Plenty of folks who don't pay politics any mind live just fine if not better than those that overly commit to politics.

I still say Trump has lost sufficient support within his own party after January 6th to cost him the election. Some of the folks like Dick Cheney and other Republicans voted for him in 2016 and 2020, then January 6th happened. He really pissed a lot of people off. As long as Kamala and company don't have some real stupid stuff happen before November, I think they pull it off.

I'm as nervous as a retired person can get. Yes, I realize that life will go on if Trump is elected. But I want to see my country get back to normal and send Trump to the sidelines once and forever. I'm tired of seeing and listening to him. That's one of the reasons why I'm not watching the debate. The very sight and sound of him is enough to make me sick.

If Trump has lost support, it's not showing. Also, the Dems are incredibly weak if they can't find better candidates than they have these past couple of cycles. Biden was the best one they had and even he had a difficult time beating Trump. DJT should have been the easiest Republican candidate to beat since the FDR years but the Dems can't come up with a viable alternative. Both parties are a mess right now.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm as nervous as a retired person can get. Yes, I realize that life will go on if Trump is elected. But I want to see my country get back to normal and send Trump to the sidelines once and forever. I'm tired of seeing and listening to him. That's one of the reasons why I'm not watching the debate. The very sight and sound of him is enough to make me sick.

If Trump has lost support, it's not showing. Also, the Dems are incredibly weak if they can't find better candidates than they have these past couple of cycles. Biden was the best one they had and even he had a difficult time beating Trump. DJT should have been the easiest Republican candidate to beat since the FDR years but the Dems can't come up with a viable alternative. Both parties are a mess right now.

It doesn't have to show in the polls. These elections are so tight, losing even 10000 votes is substantial. A lot of Republicans that supported Trump in 2016 when he won are done with him. As far as I know Cheney, Christie, and quite a few others voted for him to maintain the Republican unity. Hell, Michael Cohen, Mattis, Barr, and a bunch of his former cabinet members voted for him. He had Comey come out and give a hammer blow to Hilary right before election day and I wouldn't be surprised if Comey voted for him. I doubt George Raffensberger in Georgia is voting for him. The Governor of Georgia doesn't exactly love him any more though I'm sure behind the scenes Republican whips are trying to get him to help Trump in Georgia. Trump has pissed off a lot of people in his own party.

Some may still vote for him just to keep the business friendly environment they know Kamala will not provide, but I'm not sure how many, This is part of your hidden voter concern. The people who look at Trump and Kamala and go, Kamala is still worse for my pocketbook or social values even though I hate Trump. I still don't think it is as strong as it was during 2016 when he pulled off his close victory. Dick Cheney supported Trump in 2016. He represents the old school Bush Era Republicans. That group may be divided as to support Trump or not.

Part of the hidden vote this election is not the Trump supporters, but the anti-Trump Republicans. The ones that won't say they hate Trump due to the political backlash, but won't vote for him. I think there are a lot of pissed off former Trump voters, including some of the January 6th people who lost their voting rights supporting Trump.

But we'll see soon enough. Kamala is a very weak candidate. Something damaging could come out about her at a timely point like it did against Hilary. But I have a feeling Trump secret voters have divided enough into secret haters it's going to hurt him on election day. People did not like January 6th whether you believe it is a coup or not. His rambling stupid talk is tiring some folk out. Personally, I think even Hilary could win this election, but we'll see November, less than two months away.

[River Dog]

I'm as nervous as a retired person can get. Yes, I realize that life will go on if Trump is elected. But I want to see my country get back to normal and send Trump to the sidelines once and forever. I'm tired of seeing and listening to him. That's one of the reasons why I'm not watching the debate. The very sight and sound of him is enough to make me sick.

If Trump has lost support, it's not showing. Also, the Dems are incredibly weak if they can't find better candidates than they have these past couple of cycles. Biden was the best one they had and even he had a difficult time beating Trump. DJT should have been the easiest Republican candidate to beat since the FDR years but the Dems can't come up with a viable alternative. Both parties are a mess right now.

It doesn't have to show in the polls. These elections are so tight, losing even 10000 votes is substantial. A lot of Republicans that supported Trump in 2016 when he won are done with him. As far as I know Cheney, Christie, and quite a few others voted for him to maintain the Republican unity. Hell, Michael Cohen, Mattis, Barr, and a bunch of his former cabinet members voted for him. He had Comey come out and give a hammer blow to Hilary right before election day and I wouldn't be surprised if Comey voted for him. I doubt George Raffensberger in Georgia is voting for him. The Governor of Georgia doesn't exactly love him any more though I'm sure behind the scenes Republican whips are trying to get him to help Trump in Georgia. Trump has pissed off a lot of people in his own party.

Some may still vote for him just to keep the business friendly environment they know Kamala will not provide, but I'm not sure how many, This is part of your hidden voter concern. The people who look at Trump and Kamala and go, Kamala is still worse for my pocketbook or social values even though I hate Trump. I still don't think it is as strong as it was during 2016 when he pulled off his close victory. Dick Cheney supported Trump in 2016. He represents the old school Bush Era Republicans. That group may be divided as to support Trump or not.

Part of the hidden vote this election is not the Trump supporters, but the anti-Trump Republicans. The ones that won't say they hate Trump due to the political backlash, but won't vote for him. I think there are a lot of pissed off former Trump voters, including some of the January 6th people who lost their voting rights supporting Trump.

But we'll see soon enough. Kamala is a very weak candidate. Something damaging could come out about her at a timely point like it did against Hilary. But I have a feeling Trump secret voters have divided enough into secret haters it's going to hurt him on election day. People did not like January 6th whether you believe it is a coup or not. His rambling stupid talk is tiring some folk out. Personally, I think even Hilary could win this election, but we'll see November, less than two months away.

I sure hope you're right. Harris's liberal past may come back to haunt her. She's done a complete 180 on the subject of fracking, a big issue in western PA, something that could decide the election. Trump touched on it during the debate, but he couldn't drive the point home. That's one of the problems with Trump, is that he's not articulate enough to push such a subject and take advantage of an obvious weakness. Instead, he acts like a professional wrestler and keeps talking about weird stuff, like immigrants eating people's pets or some stupid crap like that. And, he's cozied up with that moon bat Laura Loomer whom even people like MTG have denounced. He'll literally hop in bed with anyone who supports him.