Polling "Nostradamus" calls US election for Kamala Harris
"Kamala Harris will be the next president of the United States," historian Allan Lichtman has predicted.
www.newsweek.com
Presidential historian who has correctly predicted every election since Ronald Reagan predicts Kamala Harris will be your next President.
- Thread starter BrianNole777
- Start date
www.newsweek.com
I hope he’s right about this but he is a dumb ass. After Biden’s brain fell out of his head at the debate and while Jill was insisting that he remain the candidate, this joker was on every show that had open time citing his “Keys” that Biden was still going to beat Agent Orange.
Yeah I remember that. I thought it was weird, and maybe the guy is right most of the time with his keys but you have to consider that there might be outside factors that would throw things off.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 96,833
- 200,040
- 113
- Sep 13, 2002
- 96,833
- 200,040
- 113
Allan Lichtman's "Keys" Are BSThis one weird trick does not actually predict election results.
1. I Guess We’re Doing ThisThe idiosyncratic mobile gaming company that publishes a dead-tree newspaper released a video this morning in which the 77-year-old Allan Lichtman runs and flexes and shimmies his hips. And then goes through his “keys” to predict the 2024 election.The video is here, but you’ll hate yourself if you watch it. That’s why I did it for you. First let me spoil it: Lichtman says that Kamala Harris is going to win. His “model” requires 8 of his 13 “keys” to be true for the incumbent party to hold the White House. The Harris campaign satisfies at least 8 of them. Lichtman leaves open the possibility that Harris will ultimately satisfy as many as 10 of the keys, so it’s not even all that close. Should you be comforted by this news? Hard no. Lichtman’s “keys” are nothing more than parlor tricks and folkways, the political equivalent of wearing garlic to protect yourself from vampires.¹ Let’s talk about them. Lichtman’s keys are not objective. The professor sells his model as a series of straightforward “true/false” propositions. But he leaves a lot of room for subjectivity. Some of the keys have actual answers. (“Did the incumbent party gain House seats in the previous midterm?”) But most of them are nebulous. Are the incumbent and challenger nominees charismatic? Lichtman says that neither Harris nor Trump qualifies as charismatic. I do not understand this judgment. Harris has excited and unified her party in less than a month. Trump has created a cult of personality unlike anything in American political history. This isn’t a “key” so much as a way for the modeler to build in some wiggle room. Ditto for the “key” which asks “Did the incumbent party make major policy changes?” What counts as major? The ACA? The Trump tax cut? You can judge this any way you want. Lichtman’s keys are restatements of well-understood dynamics. Stop me if you’ve heard this but incumbent office holders get reelected at very high rates. It’s true! In fact, let’s pretend I ask you to predict who will win an election between Smith and Jones. You know nothing about the two candidates or the race. But you’re allowed to ask me one question. What should you ask? You should ask me if one of them is the incumbent officeholder. Lichtman takes this truism about incumbency and turns into a “key.” Ditto for the “Is America embroiled in a war” and “is the short-term economy good” keys. Peace and prosperity are are helpful to reelection. Who knew? A lot of this reminds me of sabermetrics and baseball. When data analysis came to baseball it uncovered some valuable insights.² But to a large degree it merely validated truths that had been observed for generations. A guy who bats .300 and steals 40 bases helps his team a lot? Thanks, Poindexter. I never would have known that without your WAR calculation.
Lichtman’s keys ignore the Electoral College. This is the biggest problem with his system. I might buy Lichtman’s argument that the keys provide insight into which candidate will win a national popular majority. And for the first 20 years after Lichtman published his book on the subject, popular majorities and Electoral College outcomes were tightly linked. But that linkage began to slip in 2000 and has accelerated. One party now has a >3 percentage point advantage in the Electoral College. And Lichtman’s model has nothing to say about this! It’s crazy. The single most important development in presidential elections over the last generation has been the Republican party sorting into an efficient geographical position by trading more highly-educated suburban voters for less-educated rural voters. This evolution has given Republicans the ability to win the White House even while losing by millions of votes nationally. Yet Lichtman’s model equates popular majorities with Electoral College victory. Again: I have nothing against Allan Lichtman. He seems like a sweet guy who’s had a rich and interesting life. (Did you know that he won a bunch of money on Tic Tac Dough?)
But please: Don’t get suckered into believing that his “keys” are anything more than a conversation piece. |
Allan Lichtman's "Keys" Are BS
This one weird trick does not actually predict election results.
Sep 5
∙ Paid
1. I Guess We’re Doing This
The idiosyncratic mobile gaming company that publishes a dead-tree newspaper released a video this morning in which the 77-year-old Allan Lichtman runs and flexes and shimmies his hips. And then goes through his “keys” to predict the 2024 election.
The video is here, but you’ll hate yourself if you watch it. That’s why I did it for you.
First let me spoil it: Lichtman says that Kamala Harris is going to win. His “model” requires 8 of his 13 “keys” to be true for the incumbent party to hold the White House. The Harris campaign satisfies at least 8 of them. Lichtman leaves open the possibility that Harris will ultimately satisfy as many as 10 of the keys, so it’s not even all that close.
Should you be comforted by this news?
Hard no.
Lichtman’s “keys” are nothing more than parlor tricks and folkways, the political equivalent of wearing garlic to protect yourself from vampires.¹
Let’s talk about them.
Lichtman’s keys are not objective. The professor sells his model as a series of straightforward “true/false” propositions. But he leaves a lot of room for subjectivity.
Some of the keys have actual answers. (“Did the incumbent party gain House seats in the previous midterm?”) But most of them are nebulous.
Are the incumbent and challenger nominees charismatic? Lichtman says that neither Harris nor Trump qualifies as charismatic. I do not understand this judgment. Harris has excited and unified her party in less than a month. Trump has created a cult of personality unlike anything in American political history.
This isn’t a “key” so much as a way for the modeler to build in some wiggle room.
Ditto for the “key” which asks “Did the incumbent party make major policy changes?”
What counts as major? The ACA? The Trump tax cut? You can judge this any way you want.
Lichtman’s keys are restatements of well-understood dynamics.
Stop me if you’ve heard this but incumbent office holders get reelected at very high rates. It’s true!
In fact, let’s pretend I ask you to predict who will win an election between Smith and Jones. You know nothing about the two candidates or the race. But you’re allowed to ask me one question. What should you ask?
You should ask me if one of them is the incumbent officeholder.
Lichtman takes this truism about incumbency and turns into a “key.” Ditto for the “Is America embroiled in a war” and “is the short-term economy good” keys. Peace and prosperity are are helpful to reelection. Who knew?
A lot of this reminds me of sabermetrics and baseball.
When data analysis came to baseball it uncovered some valuable insights.² But to a large degree it merely validated truths that had been observed for generations.
A guy who bats .300 and steals 40 bases helps his team a lot? Thanks, Poindexter. I never would have known that without your WAR calculation.
Lichtman’s keys ignore the Electoral College. This is the biggest problem with his system.
I might buy Lichtman’s argument that the keys provide insight into which candidate will win a national popular majority. And for the first 20 years after Lichtman published his book on the subject, popular majorities and Electoral College outcomes were tightly linked.
But that linkage began to slip in 2000 and has accelerated. One party now has a >3 percentage point advantage in the Electoral College.
And Lichtman’s model has nothing to say about this!
It’s crazy. The single most important development in presidential elections over the last generation has been the Republican party sorting into an efficient geographical position by trading more highly-educated suburban voters for less-educated rural voters. This evolution has given Republicans the ability to win the White House even while losing by millions of votes nationally.
Yet Lichtman’s model equates popular majorities with Electoral College victory.
Again: I have nothing against Allan Lichtman. He seems like a sweet guy who’s had a rich and interesting life. (Did you know that he won a bunch of money on Tic Tac Dough?)
But please: Don’t get suckered into believing that his “keys” are anything more than a conversation piece.
"Lichtman’s keys ignore the Electoral College"
This does take most of the wind out of the sails of his "keys." Unless she effs up royally, it's a given that Harris will win the popular vote.
