Hardkill

Jonathan V. Last's arguments against the keys were very weak and unconvincing. He doesn't understand or know that the key are not as subjective as he thinks. He also doesn't seem know or understand US political history well. Also, he and the other guy he was talking to in the vid digressed into talking about other stuff that Lichtman has done in his life that has nothing do with the keys. At the end of the day, guys like Last and other in the Bulwark are just a bunch of hucksters from the failed political consultant class who have been notoriously for getting so many things wrong in the past just like virtually every pollster, pundit, the political consultants, and advertising and media strategist out there have been terribly wrong in the past. In fact, they've caused Democrats to lose way more elections to lose than they should be. Yet, they still keep making fly by the seat of their pants opinions on all kind of election cycles because punditry, polling, campaign consultant, and advertising and media strategizing have all become part of a big businesses for making money. Hence, some have called this the political industrial complex.

Yes. That's a good idea. That's how my dad has been making for our family for many years now. You have to be a smart, knowledgeable, disciplined, and methodical buy-and-hold investor like Warren Buffett has been all of his life. Steer clear from fast trading, crypto, and questionable tech stocks. Only do fundamental trading, which involves choosing stocks that you clearly see have solid prospects for long-term growth. Btw, even though a lot of stocks are overvalued, the stock market isn't so inflated to the degree that it was during dot.com bubble in the late 1990s to 2001.

Wait, couldn't you have just hold on to some good stocks like Procter and Gamble?

The Fed is extremely likely to cut interest rates this month. The question is by how much.

No, there were several months of net job losses per month from January 2008 and through the election year. Plus, the first quarter of 2008 had a negative GDP. Also, a number of top independent economists by around 2007 December had already predicted that it was clear at that point that there would be a financial crisis around 2008. They knew that something was terribly wrong with the economy, but of course Bush and the Republicans ignored it until it was too late. Not to mention that the Fed which was run by that libertarian Republican Alan Greenspan during the first 6 years of Bush's presidency, was too hands off with the matter. I mean anything is possible, but I’ve been following many of the top independent economists out there, top executive bankers, and the Fed. None of them see any truly serious warning signs now of the economy crashing on the horizon. Also, the US economy is still creating a decent amount of jobs per month. Now, it’s more possible that we could have a recession next year if the Fed doesn’t act quickly enough with lowering the interest rates.

Lichtman has always been told since 1984 that you "gotta change your keys" because "we have a black man for the first time in US History running as a major party nominee in 2008 or because we now have the rise of the cable tv and talk radio in the late 1900s/early 2000s or because we have the rise of the internet and social media since the 2010s and so on and so forth. Additionally, he never said that he is predicting that Harris will win by a landslide. He only predicts the winner of the electoral college. Of course he has said that he's not so arrogant to say that his election model can never been wrong. However, his model has proven to work. I don't see how the economy will crash before the election, especially given that there are now only less than two months left before the election? You predicted that Trump would lose the 2020 presidential election many months before that election. Also, what about the fact that Trump has caused himself and his party to lose in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023? How do you know for certain that this election will be very close? How do you know that you may not be overestimating Trump this time? Btw, we gotta stop trusting the pollsters, pundits, and the campaign handlers as being the most right on elections. The vasty majority of them have a had terrible track record of understanding and foreseeing elections.

So is Trump and yet most people didn't think or realize that he would become president in 2016. Again, you don't know for certain how electable or appealing a candidate until they have tried their hand in the campaign trail for the primaries and the general election.

Liz Cheney has now endorsed Harris: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/04/politics/video/liz-cheney-kamala-harris-endorsement-digvid So, has James McCain, the son of the late GOP John McCain. James who is a military veteran like his father was and was a lifelong Republican like his father until he very recently decided to register as a Democrat and support Harris/Walz: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4859950-jimmy-mccain-trump-arlington-harris/

There have been times where I meet a random new girl I've been attracted to at a nightclub or bar and within about the first 5 to 15 minutes of interacting we make out and I rub her breasts and butt. They've never shown any visible signs of discomfort or distress when I get physical with them like that. Sometimes it leads to me getting a phone number from them. Other times, I would continue to make out with them until they leave without seeming upset or uncomfortable with me for whatever reason and then I just never see them again. When does making out or getting sexual with a girl with a girl you just met like I have before come off as being desperate?

This is one big reason why you don't ever know for certain who is the most electable for president or vice-president until each of the candidates have been tested in the white heat of the primaries or the campaign trail. McCain campaign's team in 2008 thought it was a great idea to have Sarah Palin as his running team because she had a certain kind of charisma or appeal, was a governor of a state, and could relate very well to voters in the South and Middle America. Yet, in the end she ultimately turned out to be an unmitigated disaster for McCain.

Hell yeah! Check out my thread:

Man, I can't wait for Walz to annihilate him in the VP debate, just for kicks!

I think Trump is going to be toast. The enthusiasm for Trump isn't what it used to be and Vance turned out to the worst VP pick in US History. Even worst than Sarah Palin. The enthusiasm for Harris and Walz is about as high as the enthusiasm for Obama was in 2008. Plus, the Republican party has become so unpopular, perceived to be incredibly incompetent, and has been terrifying too many people. The Democratic party on the other hand is perceived to be normal, functional, competent, and representative of the true majority of the Americans today. "We're not going back!"

Again, his system has worked for virtually every presidential election since 1860, despite the enormous changes made in our society since that time. Gotta read his book to understand how his system works. I think you will be amazed by it. "Forget the polls, forget the pundits, keep an eye on the big picture" "It's governance, not campaigns that counts in presidential elections." How will you feel if/when he turns out to be right with this election?

This is total nonsense:

Yeah of course! It is totally an incredible sea change! Also, thank goodness the Democrats did the right thing by not having an open convention for choosing another Dem nominee for president and instead uniting strongly behind Harris! Otherwise, they would've probably lost the no-contest key, which would've very likely spelled defeat for them like what happened in 2016. Btw, Michael Moore, who also predicted Trump would win in 2016 and Biden would win 2020, feels really optimistic about Harris/Walz. He also put up pics of various Harris/Walz yard signs that have been made and that we can use ourselves. https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/i-asked-you-delivered-here-are-your

He still hasn't decided yet whether either of the Foreign/Military keys are true or false. Regardless, even if both of those keys turn false, Harris would still be predicted to win because she won't lose more than 5 keys.

Yeah, but conservatives in America, especially those on the far-right, have pushing so hard since the 1980s to eliminate any checks on their right-wing rhetoric, even if it causes mass chaos and confusion for the public. I think that right-wing libertarianism has been the true culprit. Mature liberals and progressives, who are generally smarter and more sophisticated than conservatives and traditionalists, want there to be fair regulations on all information and content from both the left-wing and the right-wing.

Well, you better get used to it because it looks like she's going to be the next president of the United States.

What? Why would we ever want to go back to being forced to live a Judeo-Christian life? Also, why has the past 80 years of liberalism been more responsible than hyper capitalism, neoliberalism, and the right-wing media are for the mess we are in?

Conservatives, right-wing libertarians, and Republicans are the ones who haven't wanted any regulations on free speech for decades. Reagan and Republicans were the ones who got rid of the fairness doctrine. Liberals, progressives, moderates, and Independents actually want reasonable regulations on freedom speech in order to prevent such misinformation, to have real meaningful discourse on policies, find common ground, and have a more effective governance. Btw, why 80 years?

Watch how Tim Walz rips both Trump and Vance to shreds:

Well, this media environment is clearly not working for us. It's caused too much chaos and division in our society. Besides, we can't keep letting the conservatives win the messaging war. We already had conservatism dominate US politics since the election of Reagan in the 80s. The election of Obama in 2008 or the emergence of the progressive movement since 2016 were supposed to usher in a new era of liberal/progressive politics like in the early 1900s progressive era or like during the mid 1900s.

I wish we could go back to the good old days when the traditional non-partisan mainstream media outlets were the dominant sources of news and political commentary in our country.

Hey, what do you guys think about the idea of having the fairness doctrine reinstated? Positive effects: Increased diversity of perspectives: Media outlets would need to present balanced coverage, exposing audiences to a wider range of viewpoints. Reduced polarization: By presenting contrasting views, media could help bridge the ideological divide and foster more nuanced discussions. Improved critical thinking: Audiences would be encouraged to engage critically with different perspectives, promoting media literacy and informed decision-making. Enhanced credibility: Media outlets might regain credibility by demonstrating a commitment to balanced reporting and diverse perspectives. Challenges and potential drawbacks: Regulatory complexities: Reinstating the doctrine would require significant regulatory updates and enforcement mechanisms. First Amendment concerns: Some argue that the doctrine could infringe upon freedom of speech and press, as it might compel media outlets to present views they disagree with. Practical challenges: Implementing the doctrine could be difficult, especially in today's digital media landscape with numerous outlets and platforms. Potential for tokenism: Media outlets might fulfill the doctrine's requirements by presenting token opposing views, rather than genuinely engaging with diverse perspectives. Impact on opinion-driven content: The doctrine might affect the viability of opinion-driven shows, podcasts, or commentary, potentially limiting their ability to express a clear viewpoint. Unintended consequences: Over-regulation: Excessive regulation could lead to a chilling effect on free speech, driving controversial or innovative content underground. Media homogenization: The doctrine might inadvertently encourage media outlets to adopt a "safe" middle ground, suppressing unique perspectives and innovative content. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would require careful consideration of these factors to ensure that it promotes balanced coverage and diverse perspectives without infringing upon freedom of expression or stifling innovation.