snafu

I don’t think any one of the factors is weighted. If 5 and 9 are already False then those, alone, can’t sink him. According to Lichtman.

Allan Lichtman is a History professor at American University. I heard an interview with him about a month ago regarding his 13 “keys” to determining who will be the winner of the Presidential Election this year. He’s “correctly” predicted all Presidential Elections since Carter or Reagan (not sure which). He formulated the “keys” with a geologist who was making studies on how to predict earthquakes. In the interview, he said that prior to Covid-19 and the economic downturn, he had Trump winning. Those two factors flipped the result to Biden. I don’t know why he made his call so early – and I don’t have his detailed results. Seems as though he should have waited until a bit later to see where the two determining factors (Covid and the economy) take us. I also think that his reliance on the reaction to a “novel” virus and an intentional economic shutdown is strange. Perhaps this year is a bit different than any other. I’m not sure any clear prediction could be made. The way it works is that if the incumbent candidate or incumbent party nominee can answer “FALSE” to 6 or more of the “keys”, then that candidate will lose. As it is with every topic in PPP, I’m sure that there will be differing outcomes from different viewpoints. Anyhow, here are the 13 “keys” that Lichtman uses to make his prediction: True or False. Party Mandate: After Midterms, the incumbent party holds more seats inside the House of Representatives than it did after the previous Midterm. Note, this one is FALSE. 2015 House = 247 R and 2019 House = 253 R. True or False. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. This one is TRUE. True or False. Incumbency: The incumbent is the sitting President. This one is TRUE. True or False. Third Party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. This one is TRUE. True or False. Short-term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. This one is FALSE with a caveat** True or False. Long-term Economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. I think this is TRUE. True or False. Policy Change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. This one is TRUE. True or False. Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. FALSE. True or False. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. FALSE, though half of the threads debate this very question. True or False. Foreign/Military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. TRUE and Probably debatable to some. True or False. Foreign/Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. I had this as FALSE until the UAE/Israel Agreement. Now I have it as TRUE. True or False. Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. I think most people would have this as FALSE. True or False. Challenger Charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national party hero. Based on polls showing “enthusiasm” for Biden, I would call this TRUE. 5 FALSE – Trump wins. I'd wager that there will be differing opinions.

Perhaps. I think the range of acceptable side effects are changeable for illness to illness. The side effect here is treatable, and would translate to 16,500 cases if everyone in the country received the vaccine (treating all recipients equal). Would 16,500 illnesses be okay to prevent the same number (or more) of Covid deaths? I honestly don't know how they look at it and what factors they relax or tighten up. I also think that by the time there's a viable vaccine, we will be that much closer to herd immunity, greatly reducing the necessity for a vaccine.

These aren't good examples of an alt-right echo chamber. There are opposing opinions contained within those threads. Do you want me to quote all the anti-Trump threads and call those "liberal echo chambers"? You see the board the way you want to see it.

I invoke Rule #2.

If this patient turns out to be affected by the vaccine in a negative way, that raises a question. I wonder what the "normal" or "acceptable" ratio of successful doses vs. side effects would be? There's probably about 20,000 volunteers who've been dosed with the Oxford/AZ vaccine. Is 1/20,000 a bad enough result to scrap the whole project?

I read the Covid thread and the Russiagate stuff. My point is that you both deal with the childish stuff -- doesn't matter who it comes from. You deal with it your way. Rhino deals with it his way. Neither of you should be obligated to do so.

I really don't want to speak specifically about another poster here. You and DR have something in common... his Russiagate posts are sourced by facts and he adds his viewpoint. Your Covid-19 posts are sourced by facts and you bring your viewpoint. Each of you gets bashed over the head for doing so. You don't seem to like how he reacts to getting bashed over the head. Russiagate has lasted 4 years. Let's see how you are 3.5 years from now.

No. You're missing it. The solution is to act on PPP the way you act on the main board -- or anywhere else in life.

Hey man, let's not bring down the value of fart sounds. Otherwise, you WILL make my ignore list.

I think you're getting "tone" and "substance" mixed up with a majority of people who post here. Tone is a major triggering factor for most. The other problem is when someone is spamming the same message and refusing to engage in any sort of discussion over it. The "cancel" reaction is because of behavior more than subject matter. Odd that people can control themselves on the main board and off-the-wall, but come here and act completely different.

I agree. Maybe good in theory, but ultimately I’m not about overt group rejection — especially for a mainly “public” forum. To me, it is about policing one’s self. I succeed a lot and sometimes I fail. I’ve tried to engage some people on that budding “universal ignore” list. If they replied with nothing of substance, then I had my quick answer. Now when I see they’ve posted something, I slide by. I do that with some “conservative” posters, too. I think people need to ask themselves WHY they come over here. It shouldn’t mainly be to piss off people with opposing political views. The bottom line line is that people should act (relatively) mature around here. And they should not reply to immature B.S. If someone on an individual basis needs to use the ignore function to make that easier to accomplish, then that’s good.

Whomever they are doesn’t matter. But there certainly is a parade of fools here, and don’t assume they are all from one perspective. The problem is never about competing viewpoints. The problem has to to with the fact that people come here to fling poo without any intention of discussing an issue. There are a fair amount of people open to discussion. There is a growing number of people who aren’t. Around here it is : “LURK before you leap.”

What’d I miss? I've been in the road for two days. EDIT: I see that thread now. No comment necessary. ...and a few months ago I started making a concerted effort to refrain from engaging with provocative posts and individuals. It isn’t easy. I guess it is good training for other aspects of life.

You just failed the Turing test. But, hey, for AI you’ve got a great personality! So there’s that.

I like to say words that start with the letter "G". My favorite is Gazebo.

I have a sneaking suspicion that what's going on in Belarus is a preview of USA, December, 2020.

Uniter!!!

New Coke thread.

Sure, favorability measurement is a great poll. I view Biden favorably -- like my old grampa. Doesn't mean I want to vote for old gramps because I don't think old gramps is really cut out for the job.

Yes. Oh ... (sad horn sound here). This thread was a breath of fresh air. At least it made it a page and a half.

@Nanker comes through again. Thank you for your contributions to the board! Such a uniter (of most).

I don’t disagree with your take that this was a decision based on procedure. I also think that people who say that this is politically motivated perhaps feel that the Court, at three levels now, has had a few chances to end this thing in favor of Flynn, but they seem to be delaying the inevitable until after this election is completed.

Is that on the south wall? Could it be the siding expanding or contracting when the sun hits it or when it is cooling off?

I purposefully edited out the "distraction" part. I didn't take "issue" with it one way or another -- on purpose. You shouldn't read more than what's written. I'd add that you actually made it relevant to the discussion when you used it as a second reason for your described Trump "distraction". See here, the use of the word "also". And you didn't answer my second question. No need. You can "carry on" with your distortions. I won't be participating in your thread.