Ronald Capuchina

[Ronald Capuchina @CapuchinaRonald]

@DOGE As you may know, most American ski resorts operate on U.S. National Forest land through lease agreements. The ski industry generates billions in annual revenue, yet the corporations leasing these lands pay only $39 million in total per year to the federal government. Two major companies now control most of the industry, limiting competition and driving up costs for consumers.

I am writing to bring attention to two critical areas where change is needed:

1. Lease Pricing Reform

When these leases expire, the U.S. should increase rental rates on ski resort corporations, ensuring a fairer return to taxpayers while maintaining industry viability.

2. Expanding Lease Areas for More Ski Resorts

We need to increase both the size and number of skiable areas on leased federal land. This would:
   •    Make skiing more affordable by increasing supply and competition. There has been no significant expansion in 30 years. This will expand the base of skiers and open it up to less affluent customers.
   •    Reduce overcrowding and long lift lines at existing resorts.
   •    Generate more federal revenue while promoting outdoor recreation and economic growth in mountain communities.

I believe there is a win-win solution that benefits both the government and the American people, balancing responsible land use with industry growth

[Ronald Capuchina @CapuchinaRonald]

A fortune teller performing a “cold read” is a master at creating the illusion of insight. They might begin with a vague statement like, “I sense you’ve experienced a tragedy.” Most people will nod in agreement, and the fortune teller can then “deduce” details based on your reactions. For an older individual, they might guess that a parent has passed away. If wrong, they’ll adjust, trying again until they hit upon something that feels eerily accurate. It’s not magic—it’s a clever psychological trick.

This same type of intellectual sleight-of-hand can appear in other domains, such as science or analysis, when someone forms a hypothesis and only tests it in ways that won’t disprove it. By avoiding genuine scrutiny, they work backward to confirm their original conclusion.

Allan Lichtman’s much-lauded election predictions, I suspect, rely on a similar method. But even with this inside track, his results are surprisingly unimpressive.

Here’s why. Over the last 11 presidential elections, Lichtman has correctly predicted 9 of them. At first glance, that might seem remarkable. But let’s put it into perspective: elections are often as predictable as college football games where a powerhouse like Alabama plays an underdog early in the season. You don’t need deep analysis to predict Alabama will win, just as you didn’t need a complex system to predict Reagan would beat Mondale or Obama would beat McCain.

Out of the last 11 elections, only about four were genuinely close—those rare “toss-ups” where predicting the winner in advance would be a challenge. And in these cases, Lichtman’s record is mediocre. He’s essentially gone 2 for 4, which is what you’d expect from flipping a coin.

What’s more telling is how Lichtman handles the “gimme” elections—the ones where the winner is obvious to anyone paying attention. He uses his 13 “keys” to justify the outcome, assigning winners to each key in a way that aligns with the expected result. But his keys are often so loosely defined that they can be manipulated to fit the narrative. The evidence he provides for why a particular candidate “wins” a key often feels subjective, flimsy, or simply unverifiable.

This isn’t analysis—it’s performance. By the time Lichtman’s predictions are made public, they’ve already been engineered to look like foresight when, in reality, they are the result of retrofitting the keys to the conclusion everyone already sees coming.

Here are the 13 keys Lichtman uses to “predict” elections:
https://t.co/CNe9Js1mXQ Mandate: The incumbent party gains seats in the House during midterm elections.
2.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.Incumbency: The sitting president is running for re-election.
4.Third Party: There is no significant third-party candidate.
5.Short-Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.Long-Term Economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.Policy Change: The incumbent administration achieves major policy changes during its term.
https://t.co/EuSVl6gfKn Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.Foreign or Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.Foreign or Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.Challenger Charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

The keys, when stripped of their mystique, boil down to general observations that can often be stretched or bent to fit the desired conclusion. Like a cold read, Lichtman’s system works not because it’s accurate, but because it’s vague enough to make almost any result seem inevitable in hindsight.

[Ronald Capuchina @CapuchinaRonald]

Mark Rowen, if you had been a women’s swimmer, would the final straw been men dressing up as women and swimming against them? It seems you are a little late to the party! Welcome aboard! Many saw this coming back when you gave 50 million and guys could call themselves girls.

[Ronald Capuchina @CapuchinaRonald]

i hope the irony of having the @BronxDAClark honored at the @Yankees game just before a moment of silence for an EMT stabbed multiple times would have been noticed by more. #enforcethelaw #politicstoday #yankees