Sandy Larsen

Lichtman factors in 13 variables to make his prediction. Every situation is unique, one way or another.

Yeah, sorry that. I forgot your "quick answer." But my doing so made no difference in my response, since my response was to your detailed answer. Aha, just as I suspected! You're not using your electoral system/path to show why Biden should get out. You're doing the opposite. You want Biden out, and so you're making up an electoral count/path to justify his getting out. LOL, nice move Kirk! Because Biden and Trump are the least popular 2 Presidential candidates in history! Okay, well at least that makes sense. On the other hand, when polled up against Trump, your candidates do mostly worse than Trump! I know the reason for this seeming incongruity. It is this: When voting time comes, almost all those Democrats who gave Biden an unfavorable vote will come back and vote FOR him. They don't like him, but Trump is much worse. You know this. Sorry, I misspelled his name. It is Allan Lichtman. After the disastrous debate he said it would be a mistake to change the Biden ticket. But that prediction could change post assassination-attempt.

(Wow... talk about misogyny) In defense of Hillary Clinton: Conventional wisdom in the first decade of this century, was that a woman couldn't win the presidency because she'd supposedly be weak on defense. That's the reason Hillary was made Secretary of Defense and was hawkish. As for the bombing of Libya... not a good idea, but Hillary & Obama were not alone. Ten members of the UN voted for the bombing and none voted against it. Fourteen NATO countries -- including the U.S., Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. -- participated in it.

You were part of the Jan 6 attack?

I take it from your non-answer that you really don't know who would do better than Biden. You'd have to have debates, etc. first, from which to estimate an electoral count/path. Well that makes sense. What your response tells me is that if your judgement is that Biden had any chance at all, no matter how small, the best bet would be for Biden to continue running. Because otherwise we haven't any idea whatsoever if any of the other candidates would do any better. At least that is the case if we use your electoral count/path system. Given that Allan Lichtman has a proven track record, I think I'll stick to his advice. He said after the debate that it would be a mistake to switch candidates at that point. But we've since had the Trump assassination attempt. The outcome of that may change his prediction. Oh, by the time I finished reading you post I'd forgotten about your "quick answer." I don't buy it. I mean, how could you possibly know that any of a few potential candidates you have in mind would beat Biden? You're obviously just guessing... what happened to your electoral count/path system? Sorry but now I'm questioning even that! I'm going to stick with Lichtman's method.

Well that's interesting. Did this phenomenon happen to a lot of states due to the loss of jobs to China? It seems like it would have happened to most states where manufacturing is big. Which I thought was most states. (Actually, from watching the news years ago, I recall that the Midwestern states were the ones that depended most on manufacturing.) Over the last twenty years, the price of healthcare and now the price of housing have gone up so much that I have found myself thanking the Chinese for the low price of household goods. (Literally, under my breath, I have thanked China many times.) Now the effect of Chinese trade is coming back to bite me.

Kirk, You talk about electoral paths to victory like it's second nature to you. It's anything other than second nature to me, so I'll defer to your wisdom for a moment. You say that it's looking like Biden's path to victory is narrow at best, and now is looking almost non-existent. Here's are my questions for you: Who would you choose as the best alternative to Biden? What would the electoral numbers/path look like for that candidate?

I don't know much about elections, but J.D. Vance does help Trump win swing state Ohio. Right?

[deleted]

We all know that. Roger knows that. That is what makes Roger's narrative a theory rather than a fact. Problem is, even after Roger points out that certain of his statements are inferences, you don't acknowledge so but rather continued calling them mere speculation. Having said that, I understand that debaters usually use the word speculation even when the word inference would be more appropriate. And I think that there are instances when its hard to distinguish between the two. It would be helpful if Roger would use adjectives to signify which parts of his narrative are not known to be factual. On the other hand, I certainly understand that people often lay out their theory as though the whole thing were factual. Doing the latter in a debate with a worthy opponent is okay because his opponent will call him on it, and so the audience will be told what is mere speculation. Your #4 is Roger's part of his theory that is a logical inference, which again you refer to as speculation. There is good reason for Roger to point out that that is an inference and not mere speculation, the good reason being that inference has greater probative value. I suspect that, as Roger's opponent, you choose to call it speculation in an attempt to dismiss it. But Roger is right on this and you are wrong. BTW, I believe that you left out some evidence for #4. I don't think that Hawkeye Works came out of nowhere. Why do you say that? Is it your understanding that Roger would say his narrative is a fact and not a theory? I myself recall Roger saying that there are inferences in his narrative. Which is the same as his saying that it is a theory. So Roger does indeed say it is a theory. And here you are complaining that his theory isn't 100% factual. Do you insist that all theories be 100% factual... or be ignored otherwise? Or are you this way only with Roger's theory?

Why? A person who admired President Kennedy still assassinated him in broad daylight in 1963. Spoken like a true LNer.

I don't think there is such a contradictory mind set person. Surely you're aware that a lot of Republicans hate Trump. Those Republicans who see Trump for what he is... a cult leader whose followers somehow are unaware of his anti-democracy plans. Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney come to mind.

I agree with what Robert Reich said. A solution to this problem is 1) for susceptible Democrats threatened with a loss of campaign funds to call for Biden to let Kamala Harris run at the top of the ticket; and 2) for Biden to dig his heels in and refuse to quit. In the meantime, other Democrats can reveal to the public that the real reason for their colleagues asking Biden to step down is because the mega-donors are blackmailing them. Put the blame where it belongs. Campaign funding to Biden will continue. Mega-donors aren't about to let Trump win, even if Biden doesn't do their bidding.

Oh, I see your point now. Crooks was responding negatively to Trump's rhetoric. Yes, of course.

Maybe so. But not because Trump says it, but rather because the right-wing says it. I mean, he obviously isn't a Trump supporter. To me he sure seems like a Trump hating, guns rights conservative.

I have given the proof a number of times and nobody has been able to find a flaw in it or prove it to be wrong. How would you know that? Truth is, you cannot know that because what you say can't be done, has been done. BTW, for those who are unaware of the proof, it merely uses statistical methods and formulas to quantify the obvious, that when a large number of witnesses see that X clearly happened and that Y clearly did not happen, then X DID happen.

Jeremy, Roger uses logical inferences in his argument and you keep saying that all he does is speculate. They are not the same thing. He keeps telling you this but you continue treating the two as though they are the same. When forming a theory, one connects known data points (i.e. evidence) with either speculation or inference. The difference between the two is that speculation is a guess whereas creating an inference uses reasoning to increase the likelihood of it being true. Here is an example of the two. You see someone cringe after taking a bit of foot. You could speculate that they just had a horrible thought. Or, knowing that bad-tasting food can cause people to cringe, you could infer that the food tastes odd. Generally speaking, inferences have greater probative value than speculation.

Jeremy, You don't understand Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory. If you did understand it, you would realize that the plotters designed the assassination in a way that evidence gathered AFTER the assassination would support BOTH a Cuban/Soviet/Oswald conspiracy AND a lone-nut Oswald killing. It wouldn't be till AFTER the assassination that the government would choose which to go with... Phase 1 (conspiracy) or Phase 2 (lone nut). (I will prove in a moment that that is what Scott had in mind.) Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory argues exactly that... that the plotters' goal was for the government to conclude that the killing was the act of a lone gunman. (Which in reality is exactly what happened.) In Scott's preferred form of the theory, he says that it was the Johnson Administration that chose the lone gunman option, and they did so because the communist option was too "explosive." Here is Scott saying just that in a debate with Gerald Posner: That the truth would be so explosive and the "phase 1" stories, as I call them, of communist conspiracy would be so threatening for an unnecessary war, that all kinds of people would be coerced to accept what I call the "phase 2" story—that Oswald acted alone. A story equally false, but not as likely to lead to the death, unnecessary death, of thousands of lives. JFK was shot from the front. Lone gunman Oswald couldn't have done that. So of course that needed to be cleaned up. And that's the reason that the Z film was altered, as was the autopsy. 40 out of 45 witnesses agreed on a location for the blowout head wound. Statistical analysis shows that the only way for that many witnesses to agree is if indeed they got the location right. The location they agreed upon was the back of the head. So the statistical analysis proves that location to be correct. Therefore, since the Z film shows the blowout wound to be on the forehead rather than the back of the head, we know that that the Z film has been altered. In fact, this has conclusively been proven because of the statistical proof. The statistical analysis also proves that at least some of autopsy photographs have been altered, as was the autopsy report. Or it suggests that 1) the only place where gunmen had access to Kennedy and had a way to escape was in a public place, and 2) multiple gunman were required to make sure the assassination was successful.

Thanks for your reply. So since you began voting, you were happy with only Jimmy Carter. Amazingly Carter is still alive... 100 years old this year!

I'm curious Bill. Which presidents have you liked? Since you began voting.

I want to tell you all what I can't stand regarding this Biden controversy. It is all these people saying "Biden should do the right thing and step down." I'm talking about the ones whose concern is that Trump might otherwise win. Well excuuuuussse me, but who are these people to say that Biden stepping down would be the right thing? They don't know if their candidate of choice would beat Trump! They don't know if ANY other candidate would beat him! It's entirely possible that Biden could have won the election had they not switched candidates, but lost because they did.

I feel the same way Matt. An 81 year old man has no business taking on the demands of the presidency. Biden deserves a break in his remaining years. On the other hand, I fear the damage that could be afflicted on our democracy if Trump is elected. And at the moment I think that Biden has a better chance of beating Trump than does anybody else. What I hope happens is that Biden stays on, wins re-election, and then decides it's time to retire and let Kamala take over. After which Kamala could use Biden as part-time consultant and elder statesman.

Kirk, I don't care one way or another whether Biden is our candidate. The only thing I care about is that Trump loses. At the moment, [Democratic Candidate] vs Trump polls show that Biden has a better chance than any other. So it's best to go with Biden. Changing candidates midstream looks desperate. So it is best to go with Biden. Having Biden destroyed in the second debate would look really bad. Probably best to switch candidates.

Tell that to Humes! He's the one to exclaim there had been surgery... which is absolutely a conspiratorial explanation for a body that had just been shot dead. In Parkland: No surgery present on head. In Bethesda: Surgery present on head. Autopsy photos to prove it. Autopsy photos are medical evidence.

The illicit surgery was reported by the FBI in their Sibert and O’Neill Report. It can be seen in some of the autopsy photos, though it cannot be seen in the Zapruder film. None of the ~20 witnesses at Parkland hospital saw it. A number of autopsy technicians saw it, some commenting that it was created by the doctors.