Allan Lichtman's 13 Keys to the White House

[I-5]

Most of you probably are familiar with Lichtman's 13 keys to the White House, but for those who don't, the 13 keys were developed by Professor Allan Lichtman at American University in DC, based on predictive theoretics authored by Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok. Together, they studied every US presidential election since 1860, and came up with these keys (originally 12, revised to 13) that has predicted every White House victor since it was introduced in 1982 (with the exception of 2000 when the model predicted Gore as the winner, but the Supreme Court made the final decision). He was roundly criticized for predicting Trump would win in 2016 despite everything the polls said, but was proven right even though he is no fan of Trump.

Lichtman argues that the checklist's content and its track record of reliability prove that American voters select the next president according to how well the country was governed in the preceding four years and that election campaigns have little, if any, meaningful effect on American voters. If American voters are satisfied with the governance of the country, they will re-elect the president or elect their party's nominee, but if they are dissatisfied, they will transfer the presidency to the challenging party.

The 13 keys are below, and are answered by 'true' or 'false'. If there are 6 or more 'false' answers, then the challenging party is likely to win. However, if there are 5 or less 'true' answers, then the incumbent party is likely to win. I'll list his current status of where he sees the situation right now with a likely Harris/Trump race in the next post:

1. 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.
2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. No foreign or military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Major foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

ps: sorry I haven't been here for a loooooooonnnnnnnggggg time. I enjoy the forum, but life has been very busy these days. I hope everyone is well. I'll try to pop in more often as the season opener gets closer, which I'm cautiously excited about. I was rooting for Pete to stay, but I'm going to support this new regime.

[River Dog]

ps: sorry I haven't been here for a loooooooonnnnnnnggggg time. I enjoy the forum, but life has been very busy these days. I hope everyone is well. I'll try to pop in more often as the season opener gets closer, which I'm cautiously excited about. I was rooting for Pete to stay, but I'm going to support this new regime.

Hey, I-5! Great to see you again! When someone disappears from the forum, especially someone like you who was pretty active, I always get concerned that something bad might have happened to them. I'm delighted to see that you're OK.

I don't characterize my feelings about the upcoming season as 'excited' because this regime is for the most part untested and could easily struggle. Highly anticipated might a better way to describe my personal emotions.

It'll take some time for me to digest your 13 Keys to the White House post, but I'll get around to it eventually.

[I-5]

Hey, I-5! Great to see you again! When someone disappears from the forum, especially someone like you who was pretty active, I always get concerned that something bad might have happened to them. I'm delighted to see that you're OK.

Doing well, thanks. Sounds like you are too. You're my favorite person to disagree with...if that makes any sense at all!

OK, attaching Lichtman's current keys, which he reserves the right to adjust after the Democratic National Convention.

So far he has flipped the key to 'no' on #1 (midterm gain), #3 (incumbent seeking re-election), and #12 (charmismatic incumbent). He has pink colors on #10 (No foreign/military failure), and #11 (major foreign/military success).

That's 3 keys flipped to 'no' so far, and the republicans would need 3 more to fall to gain the WH, according to the model.

One thing that's obvious to point out is that with today's extremely polarized national level discussions, what one party considers failure or success usually splits right down the population, but Licthman probably knows more about those nuances than we do since his predictions since 1982 are flawless (minus Gore/Bush as previously mentioned). For example, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel to name 3 of the hottest topics. I don't think one party gets to decide what is deemed failure or success. What is ironic about Israel is that most of the left seems staunchly anti-Israel and pro-Gaza, but it's not that simple. I consider myself liberal, and I have sent monetary support for the relief efforts which are badly needed in Gaza, but that doesn't mean I think the US should leave Israel to fend for itself.

[River Dog]

Doing well, thanks. Sounds like you are too. You're my favorite person to disagree with...if that makes any sense at all!

It makes complete sense, and I take it as a compliment! I'm doing well, thank you.

Here's my take on a rather complicated post:

1. 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.

False

 2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

True, but the incumbent decided not to run. This has happened before, in 1952 when Truman decided not to run, and the incumbent party lost to the challenger and when LBJ decided not to run and then lost to the challenger. So I would declare that key irrelevant or uncertain.

3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

False, but again, this is a pretty unique where the incumbent is constitutionally qualified but opted not to seek re-election.

4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Uncertain. RFK Jr. may or may not be on the ballot. I'm not sure if his name will appear in critical swing states like MI and PA where the election will be decided.

5.Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Uncertain. It depends on your POV.

6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

It's hard to answer that question as its affected by the pandemic, so I'm going with irrelevant or uncertain.

7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

False.

8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

True.

9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

True.

10. No foreign or military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Uncertain, depends on your POV.

11. Major foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. False.

12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

False

13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

True.

There's too many of these questions that are open ended yet require a yes or no answer. Do you call Ukraine a military or foreign failure? Or how about the Gaza strip? If so, can any of it be pinned on Harris? And how about those economic questions? A lot of the economic struggles weren't Biden's fault as they were induced by the pandemic, and it's equally hard to credit him with the recovery as it was going to recover with or without his intervention. And what about the 3rd party or independent candidate? Will RFK Jr. be a candidate in November, and if so, who does he help or hurt? And when was the last time that the challenger was a former POTUS? How many times has an incumbent who was constitutionally qualified chosen not to run? The last one was LBJ some 56 years ago.

There's too many things about this election that are unique, and I don't think we can use something like these 13 keys to forecast an outcome.

[Aseahawkfan]

Looking at those questions, looks like another tight election. Besides inflation, the economy is doing well.

That Israel-Gaza situation is sad. Bunch of people stuck between a rock and a hard place because Hamas decided to do some kind of vengeance attack and they are looked at as the official government of the Palestinians given their status. The Israelis can't let that go as that would be viewed as a weak position by Hamas and invite that type of attack again. Very bad situation to be stuck in for both Israel and Palestinians.

[River Dog]

One thing that's obvious to point out is that with today's extremely polarized national level discussions, what one party considers failure or success usually splits right down the population, but Licthman probably knows more about those nuances than we do since his predictions since 1982 are flawless (minus Gore/Bush as previously mentioned). For example, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel to name 3 of the hottest topics. I don't think one party gets to decide what is deemed failure or success. What is ironic about Israel is that most of the left seems staunchly anti-Israel and pro-Gaza, but it's not that simple. I consider myself liberal, and I have sent monetary support for the relief efforts which are badly needed in Gaza, but that doesn't mean I think the US should leave Israel to fend for itself.

As far as my personal opinion goes about the military conflict in Gaza, I don't see the need for us giving a bunch of financial and military aid to Israel. They have plenty of resources to fight the battle themselves. Their opponent isn't a highly organized and well-equipped army spread over hundreds of square miles such as Ukraine's war with Russia is. They are fighting insurgents, a guerilla war. If Israel was under direct attack, then things would be different. If they were to come to us with a specific request for this or that weapon, then we should consider it. But at this point, all it's doing is causing a rub with the Arab/Muslim community. They already see us as joined at the hip with Israel, so it's kind of a guilt by association proposition, that an act by the Israeli army is the same as an act by the US. I wouldn't cut any existing aid or commitments, but I wouldn't be giving them extra resources, either.

I'm sensitive to the human suffering in Gaza, too, but I'm also sensitive to the innocent civilians Hamas murdered and the innocent hostages they now hold. They are a terrorist organization and need to be neutralized. But the question is at what cost. To use a medical analogy, the cure (eliminating Hamas) could be worse than the disease (allowing them to remain active). It's a tough situation, and I don't have an answer.

But back to the topic. I really don't think that this election is one that Litchman or anyone else can use methods in predicting the outcomes of previous elections and apply them to this one and expect the same success. I think the same is true with the polls, which grossly underestimated Trump's strength in both the 2020 and 2016 elections.

[Aseahawkfan]

Hamas is an elected entity by the Palestinians. The Palestinians chose Hamas as their leadership group. Just as they chose the PLO way back when. There is within the Palestinians a fairly large percentage that view that area as their homeland and will never, ever, ever give it up. These attacks back and forth will continue indefinitely so long as there exists a large enough percentage of Palestinians that will never give up trying to take back their homeland from what are called "the Zionists." They view the Israelis as colonists and occupiers. The two-state solution will not work and is just some foreign people who don't understand that conflict trying to come up with something that sounds better than what's going to happen in that area eventually. There will not be a positive end to Israel-Palestine situation in my opinion and you can hold me to it should I be wrong in your lifetime.

I've listened to both sides unlike most Americans and other foreign nations. The Israelis believe this is their rightful homeland and they should rule it. The Palestinians believe this is their rightful homeland and they should rule it. The Muslim world believes the Jewish people are Zionists who do not belong in Jerusalem, their third holiest city where the Dome of the Rock is where Mohammed rose to heaven on his horse.

There isn't going to be a nice end there. The Muslims nations use Israel as a means to extort us for deals knowing they can threaten problems with Israel if we don't keep them appeased. How long can we keep doing that? Soon as America pulls its support, Israel is going to deal with relentless assaults not just from Hamas, but every Muslim nation around them. Hundreds of millions of people that do not think they should be there.

The only solution is moving Israel somewhere else where they are not surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who don't want them there.

This idea that Hamas alone is just conducting terrorist attacks is a false one. Iran and other Muslim groups back the Palestinians. Mosque: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque Dome of the Rock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Rock

The Palestinians want the place back. The Muslim world wants it back in Muslim hands. They will continue to attack until they achieve victory even if it takes hundreds of years. They will wait for America and other nations to forget Israel, then when they are alone another human tragedy is going to occur.

Even if Israel defeats Hamas, a new Hamas will rise as the Palestinian people support retaking what they consider their land. The only answer is what America will never sign off on: an old world genocide which Americans will never sign off on and will make the Jewish Israelis look like monsters.

The only other solution is one no one brings up: move Israel. It's not that big. We can find another place for Israel. It is the Israelis that make Israel, not the location.

[I-5]

I really don't think that this election is one that Litchman or anyone else can use methods in predicting the outcomes of previous elections and apply them to this one and expect the same success. I think the same is true with the polls, which grossly underestimated Trump's strength in both the 2020 and 2016 elections.

Not only can he use his method, he will do it publicly right after the close of the Democratic National Convention, so we can judge it after the election. HIs model has predicted ecery winner since it was introduced in 1984 (except 2000, which again was decided by the courts). Polls don't have the same accuracy, as evidenced by 2016 when Trump beat Hillary, which his model predicted despite his own personal feelings.

https://youtu.be/XSQ9VGBqqKc?si=UBn6IPp-y6DXK3QT

[River Dog]

I really don't think that this election is one that Litchman or anyone else can use methods in predicting the outcomes of previous elections and apply them to this one and expect the same success. I think the same is true with the polls, which grossly underestimated Trump's strength in both the 2020 and 2016 elections.

Not only can he use his method, he will do it publicly right after the close of the Democratic National Convention, so we can judge it after the election. HIs model has predicted ecery winner since it was introduced in 1984 (except 2000, which again was decided by the courts). Polls don't have the same accuracy, as evidenced by 2016 when Trump beat Hillary, which his model predicted despite his own personal feelings.

https://youtu.be/XSQ9VGBqqKc?si=UBn6IPp-y6DXK3QT

The 2000 election was NOT decided by the courts. George Bush won Florida on election night, he won it on the first recount, and he won it when the media did their own recount months later, even doubled his margin over the official tally. That's the dirty little secret that most liberals either don't know or don't want to talk about.

If anyone tried to steal an election, it was Al Gore, taking advantage of a poorly written law that was later ruled unconstitutional that allowed him to cherry pick precincts for a detailed recount that were known to vote heavily Democratic. You hit a raw nerve, my friend.

Polling has become more and more problematic over the years. It used to be that you could call a random phone number and if the person was at home, they'd always answer it, always be friendly and cooperative, and always answer the questions honestly. Not so nowadays.

We'll have to pin this thread and see how accurate this guy's forecast is.

[I-5]

I’ll repeat. He predicted a Trump victory in 2016, despite what the polls indicated. I like that his keys are based on past presidential election history, and not polls. It could still go either way between now and November. That’s why he’s waiting until after the convention.

[Aseahawkfan]

The 2000 election was NOT decided by the courts. George Bush won Florida on election night, he won it on the first recount, and he won it when the media did their own recount months later, even doubled his margin over the official tally. That's the dirty little secret that most liberals either don't know or don't want to talk about.

If anyone tried to steal an election, it was Al Gore, taking advantage of a poorly written law that was later ruled unconstitutional that allowed him to cherry pick precincts for a detailed recount that were known to vote heavily Democratic. You hit a raw nerve, my friend.

Polling has become more and more problematic over the years. It used to be that you could call a random phone number and if the person was at home, they'd always answer it, always be friendly and cooperative, and always answer the questions honestly. Not so nowadays.

We'll have to pin this thread and see how accurate this guy's forecast is.

Democrats like to forget they started the stolen election BS in 2000. I recall the Democrats on the old P.I. board claiming the 2000 election was stolen and Gore was screwed. They like to forget Bill Clinton did lots of dirty, illegal, unethical acts and they voted him into office again without any regard for his immoral behavior. Now they have the gall to call out Republicans for doing the same thing with Trump and claim it is different because it's Trump.

Democrats like Republicans vote for their party because they are not voting for an individual president, but for the agenda their party sells them even if that agenda continually fails. It's how people vote, likely always have voted this way with rare exception.

It at least should be interesting to see if this guy's model works for this upcoming nutball election. The one thing about the 2000 election is it was razor thin as Bush Jr. was a fairly weak candidate with an uncharismatic VP chosen more for what he could do if they won versus being very helpful in winning the campaign. Bush Jr. had to carry that campaign mostly on his shoulders with very little help from the VP in tems of winning voters with charisma. Gore the Bore did not prove to be a very strong candidate against Bush Jr. He did not have Bill's charisma or he would have likely won and I don't even remember who Gore's VP candidate was. Lieberman maybe?

[River Dog]

The 2000 election was NOT decided by the courts. George Bush won Florida on election night, he won it on the first recount, and he won it when the media did their own recount months later, even doubled his margin over the official tally. That's the dirty little secret that most liberals either don't know or don't want to talk about.

If anyone tried to steal an election, it was Al Gore, taking advantage of a poorly written law that was later ruled unconstitutional that allowed him to cherry pick precincts for a detailed recount that were known to vote heavily Democratic. You hit a raw nerve, my friend.

Democrats like to forget they started the stolen election BS in 2000. I recall the Democrats on the old P.I. board claiming the 2000 election was stolen and Gore was screwed. They like to forget Bill Clinton did lots of dirty, illegal, unethical acts and they voted him into office again without any regard for his immoral behavior. Now they have the gall to call out Republicans for doing the same thing with Trump and claim it is different because it's Trump.

There were Dems that claimed that the 2004 election was stolen, too (rigged voting machines in Ohio if memory serves). And let's not forget Hillary Clinton claiming that the 2016 election was stolen from her. They may not have made their claims with as much veracity as Trump and the Republicans did in 2020, but it damn sure was claims made at the highest levels of the Democratic party.

It at least should be interesting to see if this guy's model works for this upcoming nutball election. The one thing about the 2000 election is it was razor thin as Bush Jr. was a fairly week candidate with an uncharismatic VP chosen more for what he could do if they won versus being very helpful in winning the campaign. Bush Jr. had to carry that campaign mostly on his shoulders with very little help from the VP in tems of winning voters with charisma. Gore the Bore did not prove to be a very strong candidate against Bush Jr. He did not have Bill's charisma or he would have likely won and I don't even remember who Gore's VP candidate was. Lieberman maybe?

I don't think any of the modern nominees had what Lichtman considers "charisma or hero" attributes. JFK probably had it as he was young and attractive and was considered a war hero and Eisenhower definitely had it as he was a huge war hero. Jimmy Carter projected a down home folksy anti Washington persona with a toothy smile, so maybe that would qualify. Reagan might have had a certain degree of charisma as he was so good at delivering speeches and had some pretty clever quips ("there he goes again"). But from there, it gets pretty thin.

[I-5]

As much as I despise Trump, he does have the charisma factor for his party. Never mind that he's not even a true conservative. I really don't have much respect for anyone that falls for his schtick, but it's charisma nonetheless. However, it doesn't extend beyond his base, so in Lichtman's model, it doesn't sway the key away from the incumbent.

[River Dog]

As much as I despise Trump, he does have the charisma factor for his party. Never mind that he's not even a true conservative. I really don't have much respect for anyone that falls for his schtick, but it's charisma nonetheless.

Yeah, ASF and I have disagreed over Trump's charisma factor. But it's not something that extends beyond his base. Kennedy's charisma attracted women and veterans who otherwise may not have voted for him. Reagan's charisma definitely extended over party lines as he attracted what were referred to as "Reagan Democrats." It's not charisma as I've come to understand the term.

But Trump does have a mysterious hold on many of his followers that is quite unique. He can make hard line religious types forget about the fact that he's a notorious womanizer and cheat, makes statements like 'grab them by their pu$$y" and it doesn't even move the needle with them. It's a phenomena that continues to amaze me. As far as losing respect for people who 'fall' for it, it depends on their reasoning. If they dismiss or rationalize his behavior, then I don't have a lot of respect for them. But I know people who don't like Trump's personality any more than I do but are more put off by the alternative, and I can fully understand that motivation.

[I-5]

Yeah, ASF and I have disagreed over Trump's charisma factor. But it's not something that extends beyond his base. Kennedy's charisma attracted women and veterans who otherwise may not have voted for him. Reagan's charisma definitely extended over party lines as he attracted what were referred to as "Reagan Democrats." It's not charisma as I've come to understand the term.

But Trump does have a mysterious hold on many of his followers that is quite unique. He can make hard line religious types forget about the fact that he's a notorious womanizer and cheat, makes statements like 'grab them by their pu$$y" and it doesn't even move the needle with them. It's a phenomena that continues to amaze me. As far as losing respect for people who 'fall' for it, it depends on their reasoning. If they dismiss or rationalize his behavior, then I don't have a lot of respect for them. But I know people who don't like Trump's personality any more than I do but are more put off by the alternative, and I can fully understand that motivation.

Yup. Thankfully.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think any of the modern nominees had what Lichtman considers "charisma or hero" attributes. JFK probably had it as he was young and attractive and was considered a war hero and Eisenhower definitely had it as he was a huge war hero. Jimmy Carter projected a down home folksy anti Washington persona with a toothy smile, so maybe that would qualify. Reagan might have had a certain degree of charisma as he was so good at delivering speeches and had some pretty clever quips ("there he goes again"). But from there, it gets pretty thin.

Reagan had it for sure. Probably the last candidate to really have that crazy likable charisma.

Trump has a different kind of charisma that gets him by. But his charisma is polarizing as he seems to either make you love him or hate him. Though he seems to inspire equal crazy in those who love him and those who hate him.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't view it as falling for his schtick. I think Trump managed to win the nomination in a very divided field, he won the presidency, and Republicans despise the left and their agenda so much they will vote for almost any Republican against the Democrats. That's what I hear the most. It wouldn't really matter who was running, you can get 40 percent, maybe 45 percent, of the vote just by winning your party's nomination at this point. Then you have to find a way to win that other 5 percent or so with the swing voters and undecideds. Most of that is driven by dislike or almost hate for the other party.

I know I hear out of Republicans the same stuff I hear about of Democrats: this is an apocalyptic election that is their hated Party wins, then America will forever be in their control.

They both call each other stupid, call each other's candidates stupid, and both claim the other side is a bunch of uneducated rubes who don't know economics or government or what is best for the nation.

I hear this almost as a constant refrain. On this board it's mostly from the Democrat posters as the Republican posters like Idhawkman and some of the others have run for cover or into echo chambers. The Democrat posters do a fine job of arguing the "everyone that votes for Trump is deluded or stupid or a racist" that is their party line just fine. I know that isn't true as my friends that vote for Trump are voting for personal reasons. Some for gun rights, some for money, some for religious beliefs, some because they truly believe the Democrats are trying to destroy America. Same as some Democrats truly believe Trump will destroy America.

It's pretty damn tiresome to listen to from both sides and the lies they use to spread their agenda. One thing I can't stand about Trump is removed even the pretense of truth from politics as he's willing to lie about anything and the Democrats have already lied so often they don't look good calling another politician out for lies even though Trump isn't as good as mainstream Republican and Democrat politicians at polishing lies into fugazi truth. I don't even think Trump tries which is a major faux pas in D.C. as all politicians lie, but they learn to do it in a way that doesn't seem like a lie or doesn't commit to a lie as openly and as ridiculously as Trump. Trump's a bad liar, but I guess lies so much everyone stop caring as they consider it Trumpspeak.

[River Dog]

I don't view it as falling for his schtick. I think Trump managed to win the nomination in a very divided field, he won the presidency, and Republicans despise the left and their agenda so much they will vote for almost any Republican against the Democrats. That's what I hear the most. It wouldn't really matter who was running, you can get 40 percent, maybe 45 percent, of the vote just by winning your party's nomination at this point. Then you have to find a way to win that other 5 percent or so with the swing voters and undecideds. Most of that is driven by dislike or almost hate for the other party.

I agree. As I said, I hear a lot of Trump supporters say that they don't like him but that they hate the Democrats worse. IMO it's a combination of a certain percentage of moonbats along with a number of very rational voters who simply don't like what the Democrats are offering, and that Trump is the most viable vehicle for them.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but once this current election cycle is over and assuming that Trump loses, I don't think that a Trump look-alike, like Hawley, Gaetz, or MTG, will resonate with most Republicans. However, I thought the same thing in 2020 when Trump lost, but he managed to keep himself in the news cycle, so he never really went away as I had hoped.

I miss Idahawkman as he provided some good insight into the mindset of a typical Trump voter. He was outnumbered in this forum, and even admitted as much when he made a rare re-appearance. He never showed up after the 2020 election, and I would have loved to have heard whether or not he'd changed his mind about Trump. I didn't view him as a moonbat, just one of those that can't stand Democrats.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree. As I said, I hear a lot of Trump supporters say that they don't like him but that they hate the Democrats worse. IMO it's a combination of a certain percentage of moonbats along with a number of very rational voters who simply don't like what the Democrats are offering, and that Trump is the most viable vehicle for them.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but once this current election cycle is over and assuming that Trump loses, I don't think that a Trump look-alike, like Hawley, Gaetz, or MTG, will resonate with most Republicans. However, I thought the same thing in 2020 when Trump lost, but he managed to keep himself in the news cycle, so he never really went away as I had hoped.

I miss Idahawkman as he provided some good insight into the mindset of a typical Trump voter. He was outnumbered in this forum, and even admitted as much when he made a rare re-appearance. He never showed up after the 2020 election, and I would have loved to have heard whether or not he'd changed his mind about Trump. I didn't view him as a moonbat, just one of those that can't stand Democrats.

That would have been interesting. Idhawkman loved Trump more than anyone I know. He was calling him better than Reagan and one of the greatest presidents in history. That was crazy to me.

[I-5]

Reagan had it for sure. Probably the last candidate to really have that crazy likable charisma.

Trump has a different kind of charisma that gets him by. But his charisma is polarizing as he seems to either make you love him or hate him. Though he seems to inspire equal crazy in those who love him and those who hate him.

Obama had it, too. No way he would be able to win a 2nd term without it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Obama did have strong charisma. No one has been as strong as Reagan since Reagan, but Obama definitely had charisma. Even Clinton had it as well. I remember talking to Clinton voters and most of them felt like they liked him.

[I-5]

Speaking of charisma....I have a funny Clinton story. I was on the end of a business trip to New York and flying commercial from JFK to Seatac, and our flight seemed to be delayed as it left the gate. Turned out Bill Clinton came on board with his secret service detail, heading to Seattle to fundraise for Christine Gregoire's election campaign I believe. Halfway through the flight, the curtain diving First Class and Economy parts open, and Bill emerges from 1st Class with his SS, and he begins going through each row of the plane chatting with passengers. He was out of office by this time, but he still acted like he was running for office. His charisma was OFF THE CHARTS. I'm sure the flight had a mix of democrats and conservatives on it, but you literally couldn't tell, because he spoke to every single person, and we were all equally mesmerized. This was most a flight of business people, not many kids, and almost everyone was reading a book, since this was before the advent of smartphones and kindle. I was reading a book by Brazilian author Jorge Amado, and Bill had read it and we discussed it. The guy next to me was reading a book about the MIddle East, and Bill went into a 6-7 minute schpeel about the thousands of years of conflict there. Whether you agreed with him or not, his magnetism and sheer knowledge was powerful to feel. My colleage and her husband was sitting across from me, and I remember he told her jokingly not to look directly into Bill's eyes..lol.

[Aseahawkfan]

Clinton was a very intelligent president. Rose up from a fairly poor background to the highest office in the land. He was I think mostly a moderate. Not the best morality as a man with that level of success often requires a particular moral strength to resist the temptations of fame and power and all that it offers. I did not care for his politics, or most of them. He did know how to handle power and the office.

[c_hawkbob]

Well ya boy has just called for Kamala.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/historian-ac ... 38503.html

[River Dog]

I sure hope he's right. I don't like the way things are going. Harris seems to have peaked.

[Aseahawkfan]

I sure hope he's right. I don't like the way things are going. Harris seems to have peaked.

What do you mean peaked? I think the first debate is more important than usual due to the way the Democratic candidate changed and the shortness of the race. It will likely make this election harder to call, but so far Kamala still seems ahead, RD?

[River Dog]

I sure hope he's right. I don't like the way things are going. Harris seems to have peaked.

What do you mean peaked? I think the first debate is more important than usual due to the way the Democratic candidate changed and the shortness of the race. It will likely make this election harder to call, but so far Kamala still seems ahead, RD?

Harris has a slight lead in the national polls, less than 2% according to the RCP average, which is within the margin for error for most polls, but that's not where the election will be decided. The electoral college is a dead heat. The swing state polling averages after Kennedy dropped out show Harris and Trump tied in NV, NC, AZ, and GA, a 1% lead for Harris in PA, 2% in MI, and 3% in WI. Plus, the polls seem to underestimate Trump's strength. He has a lot of closet voters, people who don't want to admit to voting for him.

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

Harris had a nice, steady gain in popularity for 6 weeks or whenever it was Biden stepped down, but that seems to have topped out and she didn't get hardly any post-convention bump. The honeymoon is over. She's going to need a very good performance in the two scheduled debates and/or Trump making some kind of huge gaffe in order to get the momentum back.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... -vs-harris

I don't like the way things are going. Harris has been laying low like her boss was, very few one-on-one interviews and press conferences. Her VP pick was horrible as he doesn't help her in the electoral college and the questions about his military record persist. Kennedy dropping out hurts Harris more than it does Trump, especially if they can get his name off the ballot in a few swing states.

I just have this feeling that I was visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future.

[Aseahawkfan]

Harris has a slight lead in the national polls, less than 2% according to the RCP average, which is within the margin for error for most polls, but that's not where the election will be decided. The electoral college is a dead heat. The swing state polling averages after Kennedy dropped out show Harris and Trump tied in NV, NC, AZ, and GA, a 1% lead for Harris in PA, 2% in MI, and 3% in WI. Plus, the polls seem to underestimate Trump's strength. He has a lot of closet voters, people who don't want to admit to voting for him.

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

Harris had a nice, steady gain in popularity for 6 weeks or whenever it was Biden stepped down, but that seems to have topped out and she didn't get hardly any post-convention bump. The honeymoon is over. She's going to need a very good performance in the two scheduled debates and/or Trump making some kind of huge gaffe in order to get the momentum back.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/ ... -vs-harris

I don't like the way things are going. Harris has been laying low like her boss was, very few one-on-one interviews and press conferences. Her VP pick was horrible as he doesn't help her in the electoral college and the questions about his military record persist. Kennedy dropping out hurts Harris more than it does Trump, especially if they can get his name off the ballot in a few swing states.

I just have this feeling that I was visited by the Ghost of Christmas Future.

Harris is claiming a disadvantage on the ABC debate, which makes no sense. I guess she's setting up an excuse if she loses. Seems both sides are setting up excuses for a loss in this age of patheticness where you don't lose, you just got cheated or disadvantaged or people are racist or sexist. No one loses any more, they just just (insert excuse).

I always figured this election would be tight. Both sides are bought into the Armageddon politics. Trump is claming if Kamala wins, it will be a disaster. The other side is claiming if Trump wins, he'll become a tyrant with Project 2025 and other crap. Apparently both sides are only idiots when it is convenient for them to be idiots, then they're hyper-competent, Machiavellian politicians that will insert their evil plans when that is appropriate. In this political age, everyone oscillates between evil genius tyrant and hyper incompetent idiot with some arguing they are both at the same time regardless of what they do.

This election and political period cannot end soon enough for me. I know politics has always been dirty and filled with liars, but they are not even bothering to pretend otherwise anymore. It's just blatant ridiculousness and many people are profiting off the blatant idiocy. Literally making money off human stupid. It sickens me to watch.

On a side note, the taxes she's associated with are going to piss a lot of people off. It's going around she wants a 25% unrealized capital gains tax and that is an economically destructive policy worse than January 6th or anything Trump has done. Unrealized gains fluctuate so much up and down on top of company ownership being tied to stock ownership, forcing someone like a Jeff Bezos or Elon must to sell 25% of their unrealized capital gains would be economically as destructive a policy to America as anything I've ever heard recommended. This type of rubbish talk is really going to piss off anyone with wealth and anyone with stocks as a massive forced selling would drive stock prices way, way down any time a stock appreciated substantially destroying the gains investors make from investing. That is not getting played up right now, but anyone seeing a policy recommendation that understood it would have to vote against Harris just on the basis of the insane economic damage such a policy would inflict on the economy. Only a socialist with no understanding of economics or who wanted capitalism destroyed would recommend any kind of such insane policy. I don't even understand how they would implement such a policy. Would they let the person write down unrealized capital losses as well to offset the insane taxation from taxing unrealized gains? That would also lead to huge problems with tax manipulation. It was stupid to even recommend such a foolish policy that alienate even wealthy leftists.

[River Dog]

Harris is claiming a disadvantage on the ABC debate, which makes no sense. I guess she's setting up an excuse if she loses. Seems both sides are setting up excuses for a loss in this age of patheticness where you don't lose, you just got cheated or disadvantaged or people are racist or sexist. No one loses any more, they just just (insert excuse).

I always figured this election would be tight. Both sides are bought into the Armageddon politics. Trump is claming if Kamala wins, it will be a disaster. The other side is claiming if Trump wins, he'll become a tyrant with Project 2025 and other crap. Apparently both sides are only idiots when it is convenient for them to be idiots, then they're hyper-competent, Machiavellian politicians that will insert their evil plans when that is appropriate. In this political age, everyone oscillates between evil genius tyrant and hyper incompetent idiot with some arguing they are both at the same time regardless of what they do.

This election and political period cannot end soon enough for me. I know politics has always been dirty and filled with liars, but they are not even bothering to pretend otherwise anymore. It's just blatant ridiculousness and many people are profiting off the blatant idiocy. Literally making money off human stupid. It sickens me to watch.

On a side note, the taxes she's associated with are going to piss a lot of people off. It's going around she wants a 25% unrealized capital gains tax and that is an economically destructive policy worse than January 6th or anything Trump has done. Unrealized gains fluctuate so much up and down on top of company ownership being tied to stock ownership, forcing someone like a Jeff Bezos or Elon must to sell 25% of their unrealized capital gains would be economically as destructive a policy to America as anything I've ever heard recommended. This type of rubbish talk is really going to piss off anyone with wealth and anyone with stocks as a massive forced selling would drive stock prices way, way down any time a stock appreciated substantially destroying the gains investors make from investing. That is not getting played up right now, but anyone seeing a policy recommendation that understood it would have to vote against Harris just on the basis of the insane economic damage such a policy would inflict on the economy. Only a socialist with no understanding of economics or who wanted capitalism destroyed would recommend any kind of such insane policy. I don't even understand how they would implement such a policy. Would they let the person write down unrealized capital losses as well to offset the insane taxation from taxing unrealized gains? That would also lead to huge problems with tax manipulation. It was stupid to even recommend such a foolish policy that alienate even wealthy leftists.

You touched on the #1 reason why I seldom vote for a Democrat: They don't have a clue when it comes to economics.

Interesting side note happened yesterday: Hunter Biden, the President's son, shocked everyone by pleading guilty to tax evasion and could be spending many years in prison. Sleepy Joe gave a one-word answer to a question of a possible Presidential pardon: No. But does he mean it? Will he wait until his last week in office then issue the pardon? Could this be the real reason that Hunter plead guilty, that he got a wink and a nod from the old man?

It would present an interesting dilemma. Suppose you we in your mid 80's approaching the end of your life and had a loved one in a similar predicament and you the power to keep your son from spending a good part of the rest of his life in prison. What's more important to you, your legacy or your son? I can't say that I'd be furious at Biden if he decided to issue the pardon. After all, this wasn't a violent crime. It was a victimless crime committed against the United States government.

[Aseahawkfan]

You touched on the #1 reason why I seldom vote for a Democrat: They don't have a clue when it comes to economics.

Interesting side note happened yesterday: Hunter Biden, the President's son, shocked everyone by pleading guilty to tax evasion and could be spending many years in prison. Sleepy Joe gave a one-word answer to a question of a possible Presidential pardon: No. But does he mean it? Will he wait until his last week in office then issue the pardon? Could this be the real reason that Hunter plead guilty, that he got a wink and a nod from the old man?

It would present an interesting dilemma. Suppose you we in your mid 80's approaching the end of your life and had a loved one in a similar predicament and you the power to keep your son from spending a good part of the rest of his life in prison. What's more important to you, your legacy or your son? I can't say that I'd be furious at Biden if he decided to issue the pardon. After all, this wasn't a violent crime. It was a victimless crime committed against the United States government.

I would pardon my son. I won't blame Biden for a second for doing so. The attack on his son was done by Trump allies as payback for the attacks on him and his family, which is why I don't like the Democrats tactic of pursuing relentless litigation against Trump as it will not stop there. I have not seen each side payback the other every time this happens. Democrats are guaranteed to get paid back for all the legal attacks on Trump. They are lucky that Trump was dumb enough to alienate ruthless Republicans like Dick Cheney and the Bush's who would have acted as a counter to the Democrat litigation as they did for their own party for years.

People don't quite understand how corrupt or unethical American politics is and how vulnerable it makes our politicians to attack from each other and foreign powers. That's why you see all these stories getting seeded about the Supreme Court and other politicians as these parties go back and forth at each other using press contacts and partisan judges and administrators to attack each other.

It's bad policy that will not improve the government. Joe's son was one of the sacrifices he had to make to fight this legal war with Trump and his allies. If the Clintons weren't driving it, I think Biden wouldn't have taken this route though Obama may be partly driving it as well, though he seems less vengeful than the Clintons even though Trump was a total scumbag to Obama with that Birther BS.

I listened to Trump on Lex Fridman. Confirmed what I already knew about Trump which is he believes in fighting fire with fire and revenge if he can manage it. The Lex Fridman podcast gave a truer picture of Trump and how he thinks than most interviews even though he can't help but campaign. Trump is all about tit for tat and using his money to payback his enemies when he is able to. He will climb into the mud pit to go to war with whoever he is against. He doesn't care and welcomes the fight. His daughter also did a podcast with Lex Fridman and she is a very different person from her father, which I knew as well. Ivana Trump is a decent person stuck with a father who doesn't know when taking a different path to victory is better than getting into a full mudslinging war with his opponents.

We'll see what happens with November. Either way it will finally be over. If Trump wins, he does his second term, tries to make friends again, and ride off happy he got his second term and can say he's as good as the other two term presidents, which is really all he cares about. He doesn't give a flying crap about taking America over or Project 2025, he only cares about his ego and his legacy. If Kamala wins, doubt Trump tries again at 82. That would be ridiculous. Either way, the Trump Era ends in November or four years of a farewell tour where he barely cares any more. Soon it will be over and it can't get here soon enough.

[River Dog]

I would pardon my son. I won't blame Biden for a second for doing so. The attack on his son was done by Trump allies as payback for the attacks on him and his family, which is why I don't like the Democrats tactic of pursuing relentless litigation against Trump as it will not stop there. I have not seen each side payback the other every time this happens. Democrats are guaranteed to get paid back for all the legal attacks on Trump. They are lucky that Trump was dumb enough to alienate ruthless Republicans like Dick Cheney and the Bush's who would have acted as a counter to the Democrat litigation as they did for their own party for years.

I probably would, too, at least for this kind of crime. It does pi$$ me off that people like him can cheat on their taxes and avoid paying millions while I've always been honest and never claimed an exemption I didn't deserve or fail to claim any income, and it's always sickened me when children of rich and famous parents always seem to get away with crap like that while Joe 6 Pack always gets caught. Nevertheless, like you said, it's a hugely corrupt system, so what's the harm when a son of a POTUS gets off?

We'll see what happens with November. Either way it will finally be over. If Trump wins, he does his second term, tries to make friends again, and ride off happy he got his second term and can say he's as good as the other two term presidents, which is really all he cares about. He doesn't give a flying crap about taking America over or Project 2025, he only cares about his ego and his legacy. If Kamala wins, doubt Trump tries again at 82. That would be ridiculous. Either way, the Trump Era ends in November or four years of a farewell tour where he barely cares any more. Soon it will be over and it can't get here soon enough.

Yeah, Project 2025 is laughable. It's nothing but an ultra-conservative wish list. A bunch of that stuff would take a Constitutional amendment to implement. It's great politics for the Dems to use it as a scare tactic.

I'm not looking forward to this election. If Trump wins, we have another 4 years of lunacy, and if Harris wins, it will open the door for all this progressive malarky like what you referred to regarding taxation policy.

If Trump loses, I doubt that he could win another nomination, but I've been wrong about him before, so I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Dick Cheney is voting for Kamala Harris. The life-long Republican under multiple administrations is voting for a Democrat. Alan Dershowitz has gone independent because he sees the Democratic Party as fostering anti-Israel and anti-Semitic politics.

What a crazy time. These two parties are both losing their identities and fracturing. What will come out of it who knows. Biden was one of the last old school Centrist Democrats and Bush Jr. was one of the last old school centrist Republicans. Now it's the wild west in both parties and I'm not sur who will gain power in the parties going forward. Will the Republicans stay crazy MAGA? Will AOC and her socialist, anti-Israel, stay out of foreign affairs group take power? Will they take America down the path of weakness and allow the ascension of China as the new world power? What a crazy time.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, Project 2025 is laughable. It's nothing but an ultra-conservative wish list. A bunch of that stuff would take a Constitutional amendment to implement. It's great politics for the Dems to use it as a scare tactic.

I'm not looking forward to this election. If Trump wins, we have another 4 years of lunacy, and if Harris wins, it will open the door for all this progressive malarky like what you referred to regarding taxation policy.

If Trump loses, I doubt that he could win another nomination, but I've been wrong about him before, so I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it.

I'll make you a gentleman's bet that if Trump wins, you will see a very different Trump in office. An almost lackadaisical Trump who grows more and more bored as his four years go on. Trump's reason for the second term has never been to improve America or govern well, it's just to be as good as the other guy's. He's not a real Republican, so he'll make some deals to look good and start fewer issues and use his position to make some deals behind the scenes to drop lawsuits and act more magnanimous because he won. Though he will still tweet stupid things.

If he loses, people will lose interest backing him. Losing in 2020 was pandemic driven in the mind's of many if supporters as well as stolen, but if he loses again while everyone is busy they'll look for the next person to win they can get behind to rail against the Democrats fueled by Fox News and the other conservative commentators.

I know you never much followed Trump. But that dude used to get along with a ton of Hollywood people until he entered politics. He was even kindly treated on a show like The View before he entered politics. Talk shows liked him on. The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice were hugely popular.

Then he decided to enter politics and use the same bulldog mentality he had in business and entertainment to mud wrestle with his opponents and failed to account for just how dirty politics is and how they clip anything you say and use it against you even if you Trump just thinks of it as a sales pitch for a particular crowd.

I think if he wins (which is not likely, but maybe) he'll look to make peace and protect himself when he leaves office. He doesn't actually care about the Republican Party. All he really wanted as the tax cuts and business deregulation. He doesn't care about abortion or religion or any of that societal stuff the social conservatives care about.

[curmudgeon]

No way Trump wins. Harris receives 110-120,000,000 ballots in her favor…….

[I-5]

I'll make you a gentleman's bet that if Trump wins, you will see a very different Trump in office. An almost lackadaisical Trump who grows more and more bored as his four years go on. Trump's reason for the second term has never been to improve America or govern well, it's just to be as good as the other guy's. He's not a real Republican, so he'll make some deals to look good and start fewer issues and use his position to make some deals behind the scenes to drop lawsuits and act more magnanimous because he won. Though he will still tweet stupid things.

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.

[I-5]

Despite what the right wing machine says, Biden/Harris has handled the economy quite well through a difficult period, and even though prices are too high, inflation is under better control in the US than other developed nations. The bigger issues will be Gaza, reproductive rights, and the border. If Biden/Harris make any headway on a ceasefire in Gaza that is worthy of an announcement, the election is all but decided for Harris. She already has the pro-choice vote, which I contend is a larger faction than pro-life. And the border issue is mostly semantic arguments that feature doomsday language from Trump that can and will be refuted by Harris. He will call Harris a communist, but she is probably one of the most moderate democratic nominee we've seen. She's going to calmly pick him apart at the debate I predict.

[River Dog]

Despite what the right wing machine says, Biden/Harris has handled the economy quite well through a difficult period, and even though prices are too high, inflation is under better control in the US than other developed nations. The bigger issues will be Gaza, reproductive rights, and the border. If Biden/Harris make any headway on a ceasefire in Gaza that is worthy of an announcement, the election is all but decided for Harris. She already has the pro-choice vote, which I contend is a larger faction than pro-life. And the border issue is mostly semantic arguments that feature doomsday language from Trump that can and will be refuted by Harris. He will call Harris a communist, but she is probably one of the most moderate democratic nominee we've seen. She's going to calmly pick him apart at the debate I predict.

So, what specifically did the "Biden/Harris" administration do to handle the economy? The fact is that the economy and inflation was going to come down once the lockdowns from the pandemic ended. One of the big reasons for the post pandemic inflation was these completely unnecessary coronavirus handouts, of which only the first one was necessary, but members of both political parties were behind those. I agree that the economy isn't as big of an issue in this election as others, but I'm not giving Biden and certainly not Harris credit for it. They didn't do a lot to screw it up, but I'll never trust a Dem to handle the economy. One only has to look as far as California to see how an unbridled Democratic control have on an economy.

I have a very bad feel for this election. The national polls show the race a dead heat. Same in the swing states. The problem is that the polls have historically underestimated Trump's strength. Harris's momentum has completely evaporated, and she needs to get it back. I'm not at all impressed with her. She's not near aggressive enough, doesn't have that sharp lawyer's tongue, makes gaffes of her own without an age factor to lean on as an excuse. That part of her surprised me, as I had assumed that she was better on her feet than she's shown. No wonder they've been keeping her under wraps.

Let's hope the debates change things and she can regain that momentum. Otherwise, better bend over and grab your ankles as we're in for another 4 years of Trump and his pack of loonies.

[c_hawkbob]

It doesn't matter what they did specifically to "handle the economy", what matters is that we recovered better, faster and more completely from what was a global crisis (covid) than virtually the whole rest of the world, so whatever they did worked, whether it suits your right wing talking points or not.

[River Dog]

It doesn't matter what they did specifically to "handle the economy", what matters is that we recovered better, faster and more completely from what was a global crisis (covid) than virtually the whole rest of the world, so whatever they did worked, whether it suits your right wing talking points or not.

They happened to be in the driver's seat with the car in cruise control as they took no actions to improve the economy or control inflation. Otherwise, an intelligent man like yourself (no sarcasm whatsoever) that is on top of current events as you would be able to quickly recall such actions.

[c_hawkbob]

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