We should hold a forum-wide bet or something
TLDW: Guy has correctly predicted the President for 40 years, predicted Trump in 2016 but predicts Biden now. It'll be fun to go back to this video if Trump wins.
Interesting enough he had Trump winning on all keys before COVID hit.
The only two people who predicted 2016 correctly are now against each other,
Lichtman vs. Cahaly, 13 keys vs. Trafalgar
Obviously, 2020 has been an abnormal year in the USA and in the world. The Lichtman model uses social unrest and other "predictors" to forecast the winner. The problem with the Lichtman model is that is assumes the social unrest causes votes to go away from the USA president, when in fact, the social unrest pushed more votes to the president.
Scandal is another "predictor". There was no scandal that pushed votes away from the President. The impeachment only strengthened his base.
Lichtman is wrong, Trump will win. A positive/negative bias factor needs to be added to each element of the Lichtman model.
The virus came from my ASS!
TLDW: Guy has correctly predicted the President for 40 years, predicted Trump in 2016 but predicts Biden now. It'll be fun to go back to this video if Trump wins.
Interesting enough he had Trump winning on all keys before COVID hit.
The only two people who predicted 2016 correctly are now against each other,
Lichtman vs. Cahaly, 13 keys vs. Trafalgar
Obviously, 2020 has been an abnormal year in the USA and in the world. The Lichtman model uses social unrest and other "predictors" to forecast the winner. The problem with the Lichtman model is that is assumes the social unrest causes votes to go away from the USA president, when in fact, the social unrest pushed more votes to the president.
Scandal is another "predictor". There was no scandal that pushed votes away from the President. The impeachment only strengthened his base.
Lichtman is wrong, Trump will win. A positive/negative bias factor needs to be added to each element of the Lichtman model.
Indeed, Litchmans method is very intuitive but has no rigorous means to make inference which can be problematic in a abnormal year.
Having said that, his record is quite good.
TLDW: Guy has correctly predicted the President for 40 years, predicted Trump in 2016 but predicts Biden now. It'll be fun to go back to this video if Trump wins.
There's another professor, Helmut Norpoth, with a different model 96% accuracy, that goes back to 1912.
Helmut Norpoth by his calculations is giving Trump a 91% chance of winning 362 electoral college votes, while suggesting Biden 176.
One of these professors will be wrong.
TLDW: Guy has correctly predicted the President for 40 years, predicted Trump in 2016 but predicts Biden now. It'll be fun to go back to this video if Trump wins.
Interesting enough he had Trump winning on all keys before COVID hit.
The only two people who predicted 2016 correctly are now against each other,
Lichtman vs. Cahaly, 13 keys vs. Trafalgar
Obviously, 2020 has been an abnormal year in the USA and in the world. The Lichtman model uses social unrest and other "predictors" to forecast the winner. The problem with the Lichtman model is that is assumes the social unrest causes votes to go away from the USA president, when in fact, the social unrest pushed more votes to the president.
Scandal is another "predictor". There was no scandal that pushed votes away from the President. The impeachment only strengthened his base.
Lichtman is wrong, Trump will win. A positive/negative bias factor needs to be added to each element of the Lichtman model.
Indeed, Litchmans method is very intuitive but has no rigorous means to make inference which can be problematic in a abnormal year.
Having said that, his record is quite good.
Yes, an intuitive method based on an opinion which way the element points, positively or negatively.
The elements:
After the midterm election, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the preceding midterm election. (FALSE)
The incumbent-party nominee gets at least two-thirds of the vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention. (TRUE)
The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. (TRUE)
There is no third-party or independent candidacy that wins at least five percent of the vote. (TRUE)
The economy is not in recession during the campaign. (Probably TRUE)
Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. (TRUE)
The administration achieves a major policy change during the term, on the order of the New Deal or the first-term Reagan “revolution.” (TRUE)
There has been no major social unrest during the term, sufficient to cause deep concerns about the unraveling of society. (TRUE)
There is no broad recognition of a scandal that directly touches the president. (TRUE)
There has been no military or foreign policy failure during the term, substantial enough that it appears to undermine America’s national interests significantly or threaten its standing in the world. (UNCERTAIN)
There has been a military or foreign policy success during the term substantial enough to advance America’s national interests or improve its standing in the world. (TRUE)
The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. (TRUE)
The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. (TRUE)
If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses.
So you can see, opinion is in the answers.
Trump gets a score of 1 < 6, a couple of them I guessed at, but still less than 6 if FALSE.
The virus came from my ASS!
Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.
Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.
The rich create jobs and pay people. They give more than every other class. Increasing their taxes amounts to less jobs, lower wages. Business owners pay taxes for each employee too. The employee can say they pay taxes, but that money is held back and used by the employer, who is paying them anyway. The other classes don't do any of that and combined the other classes make more than the 1%.
In the grand scheme, taxing the rich the most makes the nation less prosperous. It also makes it more difficult to get rich for those who start to make 400k and up cause the government will take "more than half"
How much would you tax the rich? It sounds like you almost want them non-taxed.
I believe you greatly overestimate the effect the Biden tax "hike" will have on the very rich (and it's only really the top 5% who will suffer it). The context here is that income and wealth inequality has risen dramatically in the US over the last 50 years. In the last 20 years the middle class has seen almost no wealth growth at all. High marginal tax rates on the rich also used to be the norm back in that halcyon past the MAGA slogan refers to.
In the grand scheme of things, slashing the tax cuts the rich got under Trump is only a small step back towards the tax code that arguably made the US as prosperous as it is today. And don't you worry about the wealthy, they're going to see their wealth grow ever bigger anyway. Just tad bit slower.
Aside from that, everyone's taxes will rise, so you too will get a pay cut, though I think you're a welfare case who is unlikely to obtain wealth.
False. Middle and low-income earners will hardly be touched and families with children will even be entitled to expanded tax credits. Biden's Tax Plan is almost solely aimed at high earners and businesses.
Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.
Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.
I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.
The rich create jobs and pay people. They give more than every other class. Increasing their taxes amounts to less jobs, lower wages. Business owners pay taxes for each employee too. The employee can say they pay taxes, but that money is held back and used by the employer, who is paying them anyway. The other classes don't do any of that and combined the other classes make more than the 1%.
In the grand scheme, taxing the rich the most makes the nation less prosperous. It also makes it more difficult to get rich for those who start to make 400k and up cause the government will take "more than half"
How much would you tax the rich? It sounds like you almost want them non-taxed.
I believe you greatly overestimate the effect the Biden tax "hike" will have on the very rich (and it's only really the top 5% who will suffer it). The context here is that income and wealth inequality has risen dramatically in the US over the last 50 years. In the last 20 years the middle class has seen almost no wealth growth at all. High marginal tax rates on the rich also used to be the norm back in that halcyon past the MAGA slogan refers to.
In the grand scheme of things, slashing the tax cuts the rich got under Trump is only a small step back towards the tax code that arguably made the US as prosperous as it is today. And don't you worry about the wealthy, they're going to see their wealth grow ever bigger anyway. Just tad bit slower.
This difficulty with this subject is that we've seen, at least in free market societies, that as taxes go up returns decrease after a certain point. The simple reason for this is that the rich and middle class are more likely to use loopholes and right offs in extreme ways while the poor are less likely to work (as seen with correlations between taxes, returns, and unemployment).
I can't tell you what the proper percentage is nor the structure but I know that merely raising taxes on the rich or whoever does not meet the desired goal - at least historically it doesn't-.
A better question is "How do we optimize returns from taxes" given that's the desired result.
Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.
Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.
The majority of scientists back it ? Who told you that ?
Again. Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system that's warming. Science knows the Sun gets excited.
The rich create jobs and pay people. They give more than every other class. Increasing their taxes amounts to less jobs, lower wages. Business owners pay taxes for each employee too. The employee can say they pay taxes, but that money is held back and used by the employer, who is paying them anyway. The other classes don't do any of that and combined the other classes make more than the 1%.
In the grand scheme, taxing the rich the most makes the nation less prosperous. It also makes it more difficult to get rich for those who start to make 400k and up cause the government will take "more than half"
How much would you tax the rich? It sounds like you almost want them non-taxed.
I believe you greatly overestimate the effect the Biden tax "hike" will have on the very rich (and it's only really the top 5% who will suffer it). The context here is that income and wealth inequality has risen dramatically in the US over the last 50 years. In the last 20 years the middle class has seen almost no wealth growth at all. High marginal tax rates on the rich also used to be the norm back in that halcyon past the MAGA slogan refers to.
In the grand scheme of things, slashing the tax cuts the rich got under Trump is only a small step back towards the tax code that arguably made the US as prosperous as it is today. And don't you worry about the wealthy, they're going to see their wealth grow ever bigger anyway. Just tad bit slower.
Everyone got tax cuts. Including the rich.
And don't come at me about "wealth inequality" bullshit because I believe in earning wealth, not every ass be paid like a star.
Aside from that, everyone's taxes will rise, so you too will get a pay cut, though I think you're a welfare case who is unlikely to obtain wealth.
False. Middle and low-income earners will hardly be touched and families with children will even be entitled to expanded tax credits. Biden's Tax Plan is almost solely aimed at high earners and businesses.
Um no. Everyone. Because Biden WILL repeal Trump's 4 tax cut brackets.
No politician is bound to what they told you. Once in office they'll do what they want.
.
.
.
You never read Alice's findings on the effects of tax cuts. It's on par with what I've been telling you for years.
last edit on
10/31/2020 6:15:08 PM
Nasa - Is the sun causing global warming?
literally nasa said:No. The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.