Predictors for President?

[OddBeMe]

13 predictors, says historian who predicted correctly the last 9 elections. Lichtman said that eight keys are in favor of Harris, while three are in favor of Trump.

• The White House party gained House seats during the midterm elections.
• The sitting president is running for reelection.
• The White House party is avoiding a primary contest.
• There is a third-party challenger.
• The short-term economy is strong.
• The long-term economic growth has been as good as the last two terms.
• The White House party has made major changes to national policy.
• There is sustained social unrest during the term.
• The White House is untainted by scandal
• The challenger is uncharismatic.
• The incumbent is charismatic.
• The White House party has a major failure in foreign policy.
• The White House party has foreign policy success.

Updates

1 y

Wow... pretty light on thoughtful opinions. @goaded, reply for godsske before the AI picks one of these loons. Lol

[Anonymous]

Although I think its quite likely democrats will successfully steal the election. The man isn't following his own rules, and is ignoring many of them for unknown reasons.

[goaded]

You refuse to admit that Trump tried to steal the election in 2020, despite all the evidence of his crimes which are are available to read in the Jack Smith court filings, so what do you know?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Jack Smith is making 1 sided claims often untrue in his case, They don't equal evidence.

[goaded]

Everything Smith has alleged is backed by evidence, much of which is in the brief, some of which won't be made public until next week. It has to be checked by the judge to see if they met Republican SCOTUS's Dred Scott-like decision that the president can commit crimes. Much of the evidence comes from interviews with Republican operatives under oath.

The filing already includes things like "I just talked to the gentleman who did that memo, (CC5) . His idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law — because they’re not signed by Governor); so that members of Congress can fight about whether they should be counted on January 6". (They could potentially argue that they’re not bound by federal law because they’re Congress and make the law, etc.) Kind of wild/creative — I'm happy to discuss."

*** even though the votes aren’t legal under federal law ***

Or: "I implore you [Pence] to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days...", which is clear evidence of intent to conspire to break the law.

Everybody knows Trump and the people around him did these things and that they were illegal, just like the documents and the state election interference cases, just one side is intent that he should avoid being held responsible. Even Cannon didn't say Trump's innocent (how could she?), just dismissed the case on a false technicality.

[OddBeMe]

So prosecutors can't go after politicians now?

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme
There is a time and place for everything.
That time and place for a man running for office is not during said election nor in the jurisdiction controlled by the one running against him.

In such cases laws and their execution must be very clear cut and carried out by independent 3rd parties.

Jack Smith is a leftist with a highly political record as illustrated by his prior abuses of the federal injustice system, including but not limited to his famous persecution of the governor of Virginia.

It would be difficult for the Biden administration to select a man less appropriate to this task, particularly given Jack had no business working as a federal prosecutor at all after being slapped down fro such abuses.

The nature of the supposed 'crimes' Jack decided to 'try' were even more controversial all related to clearly protected rights and unprecedented interpretations of 'laws' which represent political abuses of the limits of the constitution in how constitutionally dubious they are in the first place.

At a minimum your test case for novel legal theories is NOT your political enemies in the middle of an election.

[goaded]

Trump is running for office in the hopes of getting away with his crimes. That's why he's spent millions of supporters' money delaying everything as much as he can.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Trump was planning to run for office again before stepping down peacefully in 2020. Everyone knew that, we also knew that as the most popular republican since Ronald Reagan he was guaranteed to win the Republican nomination.

As mentioned trumps 'crimes' are a combination of novel legal theories Jack Smith has a history of inventing and charges that could be levied against almost anyone as a result of irresponsible legislators.

[OddBeMe]

The way the right bashes law and order against their politicians and then go warmonger on immigrants should be criminal itself

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme What law and order?

Lawfair is not law & order, its just abuse of courts to persecute the your enemies. Courts that would otherwise have time to try crimes for which there is an actual written law, victim, and real evidence.

A desire to change the law to restrict immigration is not warmongering, a desire to enforce existing law against invaders also known as illegal immigrants is law & order. If you want to criminalized either desire you are at best proposing a constitutional amendment which forbids power over immigration to anyone.

[goaded]

"stepping down peacefully in 2020" You must have been asleep in the first half of Jan 2020.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I watched Trump hand over power peacefully, no force was used either way.

This despite a highly questionable 'election' in which key states changed the rules at the last moment inviting large scale fraud.
Many of which today 4 years later are Finally recognized as unlawful.

[OddBeMe]

The Nazis peacefully ended the war in 1945. After destroying Europe. Lol

[Opinion Owner]

@oddbeme I guess I and everyone else missed the tanks, bombs, and armies or weapons of any kind that were fighting over the goverment between the time the election was stolen and January 20th.

[goaded]

When the violence failed, Trump had no choice but to hand over power. That doesn't mean there was no violence. On the other hand, the election was free and fair. People who were entitled to vote could vote, people who weren't couldn't. There was practically no fraud, certainly nothing that could make thousands of votes difference.

Show me a court case that says anything done was unlawful, then show me how it could have affected the outcome, other than by letting entitled people safely cast votes.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Tecnicly speaking the so called "violence" IE unarmed protest in the capital. Didn't fail Trump had to tell them to go home otherwise they had compete control of the building to the extent they were a group at all.

We have already been over the fraud, an unverifiable election systems so there is no sense going into that for the 15 time

[goaded]

Technically that's bullshit. They were armed with all sorts of weapons, including firearms, and the National Guard was about to arrive. The fact that they went home when Trump told them to (just like his mob outside Walz's home), along with Trump talking about them being his side when talking about the attack shows that he could have stopped it at any time, including before it happened. They wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for his lies about the election.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Having firearms in your car or hotel room muchless in anther state, does not make you armed where you are.

If Trump wanted them as a organized militia staging an attack on congress he would have armed them in the building, and called in Federal troops to deal with the Maryland and Virgins National guard.

Any officer that refused orders would simply be dismissed and replaced as Lincoln demonstrated 150 years ago. But of course just about all of those people were in fact mere protestors, not even rioting, going in peacefully & unarmed and leaving peacefully when asked.

Nonetheless Nancy's poorly trained and prepared (by Nancy's own choice) capital police still lost control of the building to them. January 6 2021 was demonstration of bad leadership, specifically from the speaker of the house who actuary commanded and managed (thus failed to train) the capital police and turned down any supplemental forces when offered. Leaving them woefully under-prepared to deal with a crowd of that size.

[goaded]

You're lying, of course, and pointing out what you think Trump should have done to steal the presidency doesn't mean he didn't try when he did. The army would have rightly and legally refused to follow Trump's illegal orders. That's something else that's changed since you think America was Great.

eu.statesman.com/.../

[Anonymous]

you forgot to add assassination attempt to that list

Democrats can't beat Trump without assassinating him and they know it

[OddBeMe]

Crazy attracts crazy. Maybe the public wants more gun regs to keep people actually safe

[Sevenpointfive]

there is a third party challenger. some indian guy that is urging people to write his name in. what's up with india trying to run our country now?

[OddBeMe]

An Indian guy is asking voters to write his name his in? That is funny as fuck.

[Sevenpointfive]

he's more indian than kamala but just as black. he might have a shot at stealing her votes?

[OddBeMe]

If people can spell his name right

[Sevenpointfive]

honestly i liked that vivek guy until he did something very anti-repub. such a pity.

[Juxtapose]

Immediately I know the list is bullshit because of point number two. There is no incumbent running.

[goaded]

You do understand that 8 + 3 < 13, right?

[Juxtapose]

Like I said, the list is bullshit. Looking upon it now, it's saying Trump doesn't have charisma when he has huge ass rallies and gets such a diverse group of people his group looks like The Avengers? And then it wants to say that the "incumbent" (she's not) is charismatic when she regularly bombs interviews where she doesn't have everything scripted?

It's obvious propaganda.

[Juxtapose]

And the Whitehouse does not have foreign policy success right now LOL. I could go on but I am done with this bad faith question.

[OddBeMe]

You sound panicked. Whats bad faith? It's this guys opinion.

[goaded]

Plenty of domestic policy success, though, and Trump illegally talking to Putin no doubt has some impact on foreign policy.

[OddBeMe]

@goaded and giving Putin badly needed respirators.

[goaded]

They were high tech testing machines, costing who knows what (not $2 a test!), and there were fewer than a thousand in the whole USA at the time. Trump didn't even exchange them for innocent American hostages.

www.abbott.com/.../idnow-left-960x430.jpeg

www.abbott.com/.../...-as-little-as-5-minutes.html

[OddBeMe]

@goaded that's a good point. Dont we still have journalists in jail? He could've got Britney for free.

[gatixek710]

There’s no incumbent you stupid fuck.

[goaded]

You're so smart! The professor must be an idiot. Or he understands that might be one of the two predictors that don't apply to either.

[gatixek710]

@goaded He got it right about no primary. I guess when you install a candidate against the wish of the voters it avoids all that messiness.

[OddBeMe]

Is there a law that demands a primary? Pretty sure parties do what they want.

[goaded]

If it was "against the wish of the voters", how come she's doing better than Biden was?

[gatixek710]

@goaded Better than Biden was? The most unpopular vice president in history?

[gatixek710]

@OddBeMe that’s some fantastic cope.

[OddBeMe]

Your math is eerily similar to Trump's... bad

[gatixek710]

You didn’t even vote for scamala when the dnc actually let you pretend you were voting for your presidential candidate

[OddBeMe]

Are primaries required by law?

[OddBeMe]

Not like paying a stripper you fucked and passing it off to campaign cash

[gatixek710]

For someone who claims to love protecting democracy, seems weird you are fine with your candidate being installed for you. You’re trying so hard to pretend this is a good thing and you’re excited to voter for her.

[OddBeMe]

I don't have to vote for her. And electors voted her in at the dnc. Wanna change the law?

[gatixek710]

I know. Cause you love her so much. Just like the TV told you to do.

[OddBeMe]

Nope I have healthy critiques. You fucks can't keep your own story straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9gfGfyGrXw

[gatixek710]

Anything to avoid dealing with the fact you have to eat a kaMALA shit sandwich and smile with doodoo between your teeth.

[OddBeMe]

Buy your Trump gold shoes, Bible and nft card s yet?

[gatixek710]

So funny you can’t admit you support the hoe,

[OddBeMe]

Oh I do. I'm just saying I don't have to. Unlike your guy who requires strict obedience.

[gatixek710]

Yes you do. Because loyalty to the hoe is the only reason you vote for her.

[OddBeMe]

No actually her agenda actually exists. Not "the concepts of one"

[gatixek710]

Yeah, four more years of the shit show we’ve endured. No thank you.

[OddBeMe]

That's why I'm not voting for trump

[gatixek710]

Trump has been president the last 4 years?

[Jerre]

I think Trump will win in a landslide

[OddBeMe]

And if he doesn't will you re-evaluate your fanaticism... or just say it was a "stolen election"?

[Jerre]

I won’t have to worry about that as do-nothin Harris will lose

[OddBeMe]

You literally can't answer a "what if" question... you realize that?