hink the historian sort of discounted it.

How about the incumbent party candidate has charisma? Well to his credit the historian did say that Trump has the charisma and Kamala is not the charisma candidate. So that one he gave to Trump.

How about the challenger is uncharismatic? No, again that one goes to Trump because he's charismatic.

How about the White House had foreign policy success? What was the White House's foreign policy success? Opening the border, war in Ukraine, or not helping Israel enough? I don't see any big foreign policy success. Or how about leaving Afghanistan? How about the White House had foreign policy failure? Well I think they got some failures.

Here's how I read this. There are 13 indicators in favor of Trump or they're inapplicable. They're either inapplicable or they favor Trump. Now do you remember what I told you about data versus assumptions? The data is in favor of Kamala Harris eight and five, but how did you get the data? It's all based on assumptions and the assumptions are whack. I mean they're not any worse than any other voter's assumptions but it's just one person's assumptions. And I look at it, I go well I'm one person, I pay attention, I look at the news. I don't see any of these as being the right assumptions. They all look like the wrong assumptions to me.

So how could it be that I have so many questions about this and yet it accurately predicted who would win the White House a whole bunch of times in a row? How do you explain that? Well I have a hypothesis. Do you remember when James Carville told the Clinton campaign, the Bill Clinton campaign, it's the economy, stupid. He said basically just ignore everything else. People are going to vote on the economy. And then it was true. That was the most important part. Well one of his 13 things is that the short-term economy looks good. It could be that the person who wins is the one who has the best argument about the economy and that's the whole game. It might be that you didn't need 13. You just needed one. And you didn't need the historian. You just needed James Carville to say it's the economy, stupid.

Well what about the social unrest, scandal or the charisma? Well no, it's the economy, stupid. Well what about who had a primary contest? Third party candidate running? It's the economy, stupid. So I'm going to take Carville over the historian.

Kamala Harris said out loud yesterday that she will sign a reparations bill. This fills me with deep hatred. Deep hatred. There are other things that I say, oh that would be a problem. This might not work out for me. I don't like higher taxes for example. But this one fills me with hate. I just hate her guts and I hate anybody who would be in favor of this. Why? Because your problems are not magic and special. Is there any legacy of slavery that has impacted current Black Americans? Yes, absolutely. Systemic racism, completely real. But I don't care because I've got problems too. Everybody I know has problems. Some have health problems. Some were abused as children. Some had parents who were addicts. Some just were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some were born in bad parts of the world. Your problems are not special and magical. They're real. They're real. And if you want to say the government caused it I'd say sure. I just don'