Current Events > professor who has predicted almost every election since 84 says Trump will lose

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/07/us/allan-lichtman-trump-biden-2020-trnd/index.html

History professor Allan Lichtman is used to being right.
He has correctly predicted the winner of each presidential race since Ronald Reagan's reelection victory in 1984 using his "13 keys" system. (It's worth mentioning that in 2000, Lichtman predicted that Al Gore would win the election. Although Gore won the popular vote, he ultimately lost the presidency to George W. Bush after the Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount for Florida's electoral votes. Lichtman stands by validity of his prediction.)
<img src="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161112163534-donald-melania-trump-medium-plus-169.jpg">
Professor predicted Trump win, says he will be impeached
Now, Lichtman and his "13 keys" are ready to call 2020.
In an interview with CNN, Lichtman was definitive in his answer: "The keys predict that Donald Trump will lose the White House this year."
Lichtman bases his prediction on a model of "13 keys" that can be answered as either true or false for any given election. The "13 keys" in his system include factors such as the economy, incumbency, social unrest and scandals, as well as the candidates' personal charisma.
"The secret is keeping your eye on the big picture of incumbent strength and performance. And don't pay any attention to the polls, the pundits, the day-to-day ups and downs of the campaign. And that's what the keys gauge. The big picture," Lichtman explained.
<img src="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190529160246-professor-allan-lichtman-medium-plus-169.jpg">
After 2016, Americans have been (understandingly) wary of presidential prediction models. But "dismissing Lichtman's findings would seem like sticking your head in the proverbial sand," CNN's Editor at Large Chris Cillizza said in his political audio briefing this week.
When asked if the key model could account for something as cataclysmic as the Covid-19 pandemic, Lichtman remained confident. "Look, retrospectively and prospectively, the keys go all the way back to 1860. They are what we call a robust system. So, I don't fiddle with them. They've lasted through enormous changes in our politics, in our economy, in our democracy. Don't fiddle with the keys," he explained.
Although Lichtman has been predicting elections since 1982, he explained that he still feels the same amount of pressure every four years. "I'm 73 years old," he said to CNN. "But every time, without fail, I get butterflies."


---

Time will tell if his prediction streak holds steady

---

I saw this. I think its stupid because he got 2000 wrong by saying Gore would win. Who cares if he won the popular vote, he still predicted Trump to win and Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million.

Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were fairly easy pick, though. I'm not saying I disagree with his prediction for this election, but I don't find his historical accuracy to be all that impressive.

Anyone with a working could predict the elections he got right, and lol at his bush vs Al "Bore".

---

CE: "Anyone could have predicted all of these. The fact that he got one wrong proves he's a phony."

---

I really hope Trump loses. This'll be pretty intense.

---

Boombam99 posted...

I saw this. I think its stupid because he got 2000 wrong by saying Gore would win. Who cares if he won the popular vote, he still predicted Trump to win and Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million.

This.

He cant have it both ways. Either he takes the W in 2000 but is forced to take the L in 2016, or vice versa.

---

The Popo posted...

This.

He cant have it both ways. Either he takes the W in 2000 but is forced to take the L in 2016, or vice versa.

He learned from his miscalculation in 2000 and changed his prediction methods.

---

Pepys Monster posted...

He learned from his miscalculation in 2000 and changed his prediction methods.

He claims this but there's nothing about his model that takes into account anything about the electoral college, so the idea that it now predicts the electoral college results instead is a joke.

---

Pepys Monster posted...

He learned from his miscalculation in 2000 and changed his prediction methods.

That's adorable.

---

I agree that the model is likely an excellent predictor, but the problem comes with the interpretations of each key. Very few of them are objective.

By my reading, I see trump as having about eight keys, give or take one. If we listed them all out, there would be people here giving him anywhere between 3 and 11. Some people would say other numbers, but they arent serious individuals.

Its an interesting tool, but still wildly subjective.

Boombam99 posted...

I saw this. I think its stupid because he got 2000 wrong by saying Gore would win. Who cares if he won the popular vote, he still predicted Trump to win and Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million.

Gore won 2000, people seem to forget that Bush rigged the Florida vote

---

There's two of them. Helmut Norpoth from Stony Brook University also has a pretty good track record with his primary model.

Both these guys predicted Trump. This time Lichtman is predicting Biden and Norpoth is predicting Trump.

I think the pandemic probably screws with both, still leaving it uncertain.


---

DuranOfForcena posted...

people here, and i assume you included, aren't Harvard graduates and distinguished history professors with literally 40 years experience in their field with many awards and honors, and a proven track record. sure, aspects of the tool are subjective, but that doesn't mean that any internet rando's guess is as good as Allan Lichtman's.

Fair enough. What keys does he think trump has?

Letron_James posted...

Boombam99 posted...

I saw this. I think its stupid because he got 2000 wrong by saying Gore would win. Who cares if he won the popular vote, he still predicted Trump to win and Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million.

Gore won 2000, people seem to forget that Bush rigged the Florida vote

Do you also think 9/11 was an inside job, and Trump is trying to save us from deep state pedos?
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

people here, and i assume you included, aren't Harvard graduates and distinguished history professors with literally 40 years experience in their field with many awards and honors, and a proven track record. sure, aspects of the tool are subjective, but that doesn't mean that any internet rando's guess is as good as Allan Lichtman's.

tbf, the main time where you should be skeptic of such people is when they're making the media circuit with a "These 13 sick keys will help you predict the election".

---

Didn't we already have this thread, complete with the malformed html tags?

trumpers tryin to poke holes xD

DuranOfForcena posted...

lol so let me get this straight. you think this guy is doing this merely for the media attention? and that his experience and proven track record shouldn't factor in at all to how much weight we should give to his prediction? simply because he's in the media about it?

I do, because he's made excuses for why his failed predictions were actually correct and as others has pointed out, his model has many subjective components.

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

and that his experience and proven track record shouldn't factor in at all to how much weight we should give to his prediction?

If he's changed his model at all across these elections, then it's not much of a track record.

---

Trumpies are mad I see

---

lmao if you think literal election fraud = the 2016 election

2016 was just an example of our shitty system (which he predicted)

2000 was literally stopping the counting of votes to ensure that Bush didnt lose

its totally reasonable that he would not possibly account for that, because it was a sham election with no precedent

hopefully he considers the fact that this election will be a sham as well

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

ah yes, the "excuses" that the election was literally rigged and that Gore actually did win the popular vote but Dubya still came out on top because he had his brother hand Florida to him on a silver platter.

That's not his excuse. His excuse is that his model "predicted popular vote winner" and he "changed it" so now it picks electoral vote winner.

DuranOfForcena posted...

and i already addressed the thing about the subjective components. subjective =/= anyone's guess is as good as his.

It's easy to back propagate successes when you can retroactively justify why the keys applied ("It's been correct since 1860!") is the point of the subjective comment.

Also:

TheHoldSteady posted...

"The secret is keeping your eye on the big picture of incumbent strength and performance. And don't pay any attention to the polls

The polls are a direct reflection of incumbent strength and performance and this comment of his reads more like "Trust my snake oil!".

---

While politicians is soundin' like strippers to me
They keep sayin' but I don't want to hear it...

His prediction is nonsense

---

Bananana posted...

hopefully he considers the fact that this election will be a sham as well

if trump wins i guarantee you that he will

---

I doubt these predictions take Trump cheating into account

---

Irony posted...

I doubt these predictions take Trump cheating into account

---

Lol 13 keys. I could flip a fucking coin and get those right.

---