Dave bases this view on a few points:
1.    In the paragraph cited above from Schenck, Holmes uses “clear and present danger” language along with “tendency” language.

2.    Furthermore, in the same year that he wrote Schenck, he wrote Frohwerk and Debs and referred to only “bad tendency” test, and this suggests that he really did not see a difference in the tests.

3.    Finally, if Holmes really meant the “Clear and Present Danger” test to be different from the “Bad Tendency” test—that is, if he really meant for the “Clear and Present Danger” test to have a close connection between the speech and the action—then he would have held differently in Schenck than he did.  The document in Schenck did not explicitly advocate illegal resistance to the draft; it only advocated peaceful measures, such as petitioning to repeal the draft act.  It hardly could be said that this was a “Clear and Present Danger.”