Current Events > Allan Lichtman predicted Trump, he predicted Biden, now he's predicting Harris

(+) Yeah! (+)

His "13 Keys" model successfully predicts every president all the way back to Lincoln. He predicted Trump correctly in 2016, Biden in 2020, and now he says it's going to Harris in 2024.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/444a8562.png
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b1287a21.jpg

https://www.13keystracker.com/
https://www.youtube.com/live/IuS98AcKDZQ?si=GFkldNUVCbDDocfS

She's got those keys, baby. But yea, fucking VOTE seriously.

Could they have used harder to differentiate color gradiations for their key?

See that's something I find concerning. The more it becomes "certain" she will win the more some people will choose not to vote figuring it's in the bag anyways not realizing possibly a million others are thinking the same.

That color gradient makes no sense. Why is the darker color the less certain result, and why is the blue gradient out of order?

Edit: Alright, it's corrected if you click on the actual link. So now my question becomes, why is this screenshot so fucked up?

Yeah, I saw that on YouTube a couple of hours ago. If I remember right, Trump needed to turn 6 keys red in order to win, but he only managed to flip 5 (correct me if I'm wrong on that notion).

Still a little bit too close for comfort. Just get out there and vote.

Edit: I also just realized. Is this his definitive prediction for the 2024 election or is he just "leaning" Kamala Harris? I though he said he wasn't going to have a his final prediction laid out until after the Democratic National Convention.

CoyoteTheGreat posted...

Could they have used harder to differentiate color gradiations for their key?

Colorblind?

This is basically political astrology

Smashingpmkns posted...

This is basically political astrology

Pray it works

Explain "uncharismatic challenger" being "likely true." Does that mean Trump is uncharismatic? Because he actually owns a fucking cult, so idk if I'd say he's a charismatic guy, but I wouldn't say he's "uncharismatic."

This dude is a fucking quack

GrandConjuraton posted...

Colorblind?

I'm not at all. I can see a difference, just not a very clear one. It gets better on the actual link. Maybe its the dark background that makes it hard to differentiate.

50/50 odds are why I only play on Black/Red on the roulette table.

ArchonKnight posted...

Explain "uncharismatic challenger" being "likely true." Does that mean Trump is uncharismatic? Because he actually owns a fucking cult, so idk if I'd say he's a charismatic guy, but I wouldn't say he's "uncharismatic."

I think they mean charismatic in the sense of a majority of America likes them. There aren't really going to be any people who qualify as that any more of course.

can't be wrong if you place your bets on all of em

Sufferedphoenix posted...

See that's something I find concerning. The more it becomes "certain" she will win the more some people will choose not to vote figuring it's in the bag anyways not realizing possibly a million others are thinking the same.

Yea but I feel like people won't be making the same mistake they did in 2016. Polls will continue to show that it's not "in the bag", and come November everyone's gonna be sounding the alarm to go fucking vote.

Plus, most people will never hear about these keys tbh

Lichtman was wrong about either Gore winning the EC in 2000 or Trump winning the popular vote in 2016, depending on if you believe his model was tracking the EC or the PV the whole time.

ArchonKnight posted...

Explain "uncharismatic challenger" being "likely true." Does that mean Trump is uncharismatic? Because he actually owns a fucking cult, so idk if I'd say he's a charismatic guy, but I wouldn't say he's "uncharismatic."

Lichtman doesn't characterize Trump as charismatic because his polarization of anti-voters neutralizes his support.

as much as I would like to celebrate, that can wait until after she's actually won as opposed to months out from the election

Seems odd giving Dems points for for short term and long term economy. The macro economy may look good but that's because its so lopsided to the top earners. Many Americans are having trouble with absurd housing costs.

Also odd to say there has been a military failure. You can count Afghanistan I suppose, but no one really cares about that AND anyone who does probably knows the catalyst was Donald Trump on purposely causing a quick withdraw to try and pin the blame on Biden. Most people are also glad the Afghanistan war is done so calling it a "failure" is kind of odd.

Voidgolem posted...

as much as I would like to celebrate, that can wait until after she's actually won as opposed to months out from the election

Definitely. Don't celebrate ya'll, just be aware and of course:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/18cbd8f8.jpg

YellowSUV posted...

Seems odd giving Dems points for for short term and long term economy. The macro economy may look good but that's because its so lopsided to the top earners. Many Americans are having trouble with absurd housing costs.

That's the problem with the keys; they're up to interpretation.

The economy, technically, is good. But the public doesn't view it as good, since they don't feel the post-covid inflated has been compensated for or fully reversed. It's entirely possible that public perception is more relevant to voter habits in an election than technicality, but the keys won't catch that.

Lichtman is potentially being charitable because he despises Trump. He even predicted Trump wouldn't be the 2024 nominee, which was quite a bit hopeful.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

The more it becomes "certain" she will win the more some people will choose not to vote figuring it's in the bag

I don't think this will be a thing. People have an EXISTENTIAL crisis because of Trump. No one wants to miss out on the chance to banish that evil into the pits of hell. This is not a 2016 situation at all. This is far more similar to 08 than 16.

luigi33 posted...

I don't think this will be a thing. People have an EXISTENTIAL crisis because of Trump. No one wants to miss out on the chance to banish that evil into the pits of hell. This is not a 2016 situation at all. This is far more similar to 08 than 16.

I'm talking the swing voters or the ones who typically just don't vote.

I think it would be better to wait to make any predictions about how the election will turn out, until election day when we're mere minutes or hours before polls are closed. Essentially when the "cake is pretty much baked" at that point and we're just waiting for the results. Then again you wouldn't get any attention and views if you waited that late to make your prediction.

A million different things can and will happen from now up until the election. We all have to do our part to make a Harris win a reality by voting and encouraging others to vote as well.

Smashingpmkns posted...

This is basically political astrology

Yeah, I can't believe people keep giving him a pass when he has twice changed the rules for how his model works after it was wrong (once in 2000 and again in 2016).

Diceheist posted...

Lichtman is potentially being charitable because he despises Trump. He even predicted Trump wouldn't be the 2024 nominee, which was quite a bit hopeful.

This is a huge flag showing how out of touch Lichtman is. It's been clear for a long time Trump was going to be the most likely nominee.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

The more it becomes "certain" she will win the more some people will choose not to vote figuring it's in the bag anyways

That's not actually what research suggests. People like to show up for winners, and are more likely to take the effort to vote if they think they'll win.

HairyQueen posted...

His "13 Keys" model successfully predicts every president all the way back to Lincoln.

it's amazing being able to predict events that happened 164 years ago

Just vote lol

Promising.

I'll help make sure this prediction come true.

HairyQueen posted...

But yea, fucking VOTE seriously

It's this.

FL81 posted...

it's amazing being able to predict events that happened 164 years ago

Hes just really old

FL81 posted...

it's amazing being able to predict events that happened 164 years ago

I assume he just did the same thing David Bowie did when he covered Nirvana's The Man Who Sold The World 17 years before Kurt ever performed it.

FL81 posted...

it's amazing being able to predict events that happened 164 years ago

I think the point is based on the model or whatever it would have predicted it.

I've been waiting to see what he has to say about this election. The only election he was wrong about was 2000, but that was stolen anyway.

Shorter video explanation: https://youtu.be/zcxR-bct_Nk?si=nMtOrdcQBnmWykim