Statisticians (or whatever he is; I’ve seen his report but haven’t investigated it fully) like him are right, until they’re not. Then they adjust their parameters for next time. It’s good news, but not a guarantee.
Interesting, thanks!
No guarantee, that’s for sure. But statistically speaking, a far better predictor than polling on any given day. And note, he’s never adjusted the system.
Trump can win if he can convince enough Democrats to think like you.
Two different countries in many ways but a few things I learned about working in many elections in my Canadian province, the main one being is getting your vote out.
Here anyway, 3 groups that ALWAYS reliably vote are seniors, rich people & farmers. The least reliable are youth (unless there is a “youth issue” they want addressed.
Polls mean squat if the voting numbers are low.
Not really.
Bastard trump can win if he can convince enough Democrats to not bother voting. There are no circumstances except my own (much unexpected) death that will stop me from voting.
That’s a great XKCD cartoon! While I’m not familiar with Allan Lichtman’s “13 keys” model, ISTM that it has the same vulnerability as the 538 model that ignores polls and runs a simulation with so-called “fundamentals”. The problem with such models is that they’re almost certainly not complete and don’t include factors that are important in a specific instance, and conversely, that the factors that they do include may not have the relevance attributed to them in a specific situation.
For example, Lichtmans’s “13 keys” do NOT include “frail old man who looks like he’s at death’s door”, so his prediction of a Biden win was probably wrong. I still believe that Biden’s physical condition was a major liability. But hopefully his prediction of a Harris win is probably right, even if not necessarily for all the right reasons. For instance, although his model accounts for the candidate’s charisma, it doesn’t account for the warm chemistry between the two candidates on the ticket and the spirit of optimism they project. As opposed to Trump and Vance’s generally negative and often unhinged diatribes, and the sense that Trump regrets his choice of Vance.
I wouldn’t mind seeing them driven before me however.
The problem with people like Lichtman is that they always make those “keys to victory” so incredibly vague that no matter the election outcome, they could always claim they were right.
Charisma, foreign policy failure, social unrest, scandal and policy change - those could always be shoehorned to defend himself as right with EITHER a Kamala or Trump win.
And how could Lichtman have possibly correctly predicted the 2000 election with his keys to victory? That election literally came down to a Bush margin of victory that was smaller than one college dorm’s worth of voters.
This is a horrifying idea in which you legitimize using the Department of Justice to go after political rivals. The political implications of the prosecutorial decision and the prosecutors’ personal political feelings should have no impact on the settlement terms that are offered. I don’t see any prosecutor even considering such a plea deal and even raising it would give Trump’s constant plaintive whines that he is being unfairly persecuted some basis in fact.
This is exactly the idea I would expect to come from Trump’s swamp denizens (hello, Mr. Scaramucci!) but that no right thinking person should support. Biden has scrupulously avoided politicizing the DOJ at considerable personal pain given that he refused to intervene in the prosecution of his only living son. I see no chance that Biden’s DOJ would suggest or pursue such a deal. Scaramucchi is an idiot who couldn’t last a week even among the incompetents of the Trump administration. Who cares what he thinks?
IIRC “Likely” corresponds to an ~85-95% chance of victory. Most safe states are not 100.0%. Probabilities can shift over time.
My point was that if Trump loses, but wins in Texas and Florida then there will be insufficient pressure for the Republicans to retool, even if the Dems win the House and the Senate.
Indeed! I loved 1996, when ‘Bill beat Bob’.
Yeah, I’d like to see his ‘final’ prediction on the eve of each election. Predicting 10 elections in a row is pretty damn good, if indeed he’s done so.
History shows that a lot of Vice President candidates do not move the needle very much. I like the purported enthusiasm regarding Walz. I don’t know that much about him, but hear good things. But will he change history?
From his wiki page:
Lichtman has accurately predicted the outcome of most U.S. presidential elections since 1984, with the exceptions of 2000, where he predicted an Al Gore victory (but did caution his model only pertained to the popular vote), and 2016, where he predicted a Donald Trump popular vote victory and afterwards revised his model to note it picked the Electoral College winner.
I’ll tell you what will help him win is this ridiculous hyperbole of continuing to call every Republican presidential candidate going back to at least George W of being a literal Nazi or fascist. Demonizing approximately half the country is a risky strategy for the long term.
I’ll make the same argument here that I made about the various prediction models, namely, that this statement is generally true but in specific circumstances may not be true at all. One of Harris’s major strengths is the energy and optimism that she projects, and Walz is the perfect running mate to amplify that, the two of them together shining brighter than either one alone, while Trump and Vance come across as Darth Vader and Ochi of Bestoon.
Half the country is not being demonized. Fearing that thoughtlessly voting pure ideology or based on cult-like devotion will bring on unintended consequences is not “demonization”. It’s these two candidates, not the voters, who are demons. The German people didn’t vote for the consequences of electing Hitler. They were duped.
I see the significance less him per se but the strategic and tactical shift his choice is part of. Which correctly identifies the fascist intent of Trump but respects the demographic, @octopus.
Sure. but even 1/2 of one % could turn a purple state.
You said he can’t lose. Why bother voting?
Do you only do the right thing when it is a foregone conclusion?