Prof Allan Lichtman who has correctly predicted every US president since 1984, says...

[ailsagirl]

Last edited Sun Nov 1, 2020, 11:23 PM - Edit history (2)

Professor Allan Lichtman has correctly predicted every US president since 1984. He says Joe Biden will defeat Trump.

Professor Allan Lichtman has correctly predicted the winner of every US presidential election since 1984. The professor of perfect presidential predictions tells Brent Goff on The Day why he is convinced Donald Trump will be beaten and Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States.

https://www.dw.com/en/professor-allan-lichtman-has-correctly-predicted-every-us-president-since-1984-he-says-joe-biden-will-defeat-trump/av-55404679

NOTE: A thank you to NJCher who listed the 13 items in post #30, below.

[Sherman A1]

1. K&R

[edhopper]

2. If he predicted

Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016, he was wrong, unless he also predicts when elections will be stolen.

[WheelWalker]

3. +1

[uponit7771]

4. I'd agree but this guy has been looks at district level data since 84 and says its way more accurate

... than state level LV polling with low MOE.

I think this is the guy, he hides nothing in regards to what data he's looking at and saw that HRC's polling post Comey fell off the grid on the district level.

I want the guy to keep talking and telling us what data at the district level he's looking at but it might be district races.

[DeminPennswoods]

16. He doesn't use polls

He uses more qualitative, historial markers. He is an historian after all.

[DeminPennswoods]

7. He did predict Trump in 2016

Trump won the electoral college, which is what counts in US elections.

[edhopper]

11. but did he predict that

Or Trump winning more votes?
And Bush lost in 2000, the Supreme Court gave him the election.

[Boogiemack]

8. I assume that he knows the vote against Trump will huge so as not able to be stolen.

That's how I take it.

[Quixote1818]

10. At the very least he was super lucky that things like Comey's FBI announcement were made

as Hillary would have otherwise won with Trump winning by razor thin margins in the rust belt.

[yaesu]

13. Plus the over 200,000 voters just in Wisconsin alone that were thrown off the polls, which happened

in MI, PENN & other repuke run states.

[LostinRed]

12. His explanation for 2000

Is he was right because al gore won popular vote after that election he moved to EC prediction. Kind of weasely since his determination is by 13 factors not polls but you should watch it and watch his 2016 one where he went for Trump

[Baltimike]

15. + 1,000,000 nt

[nuxvomica]

18. He predicted Gore was the winner in 2000 and Trump in 2016

His model is supposed to predict the popular vote so he was right in 2000, wrong in 2016.

[Dopers_Greed]

22. His model predicts who wins the election

2000 was stolen by the Florida vote count stoppage. Gore would have won the popular and EC if not for the Supreme Court.

2016 was bullshit, but Trump handily won the EC, so the model was right there.

[Ford_Prefect]

24. Like I said there's a bias he's not correcting for.

His prediction only applies to an unrealistic circumstance. I agree that in a correctly functioning election he would no doubt be on target. However, this is most certainly NOT a "normal" election. No more so than 2000 or 2016. As such while I would like to credit his prognostication I have little faith that it proves the outcome. I have seen behind the curtain previously and I have no doubt the little man there is up to no good at all.

I am not saying we cannot win nor that his predictions are not valid. I am saying we are a long way from proving him correct as yet. Let us say that he grasps the conventional wisdom rather well enough to measure it.

I am looking for hope just as all of us are. I am concerned when those who claim to have meaningful insight apparently ignore history.

[Dopers_Greed]

25. No doubt

The point I was trying to make is that his model is mostly subjective anyway, so even when he was "wrong", one could make the argument that he was actually correct.

It's just one guy's analysis. I sure hope he's right though.

[Wicked Blue]

5. He predicted a Biden win at least a couple of months ago

I looked up what he was saying because he's got such a good track record.
(And because he wrote a column for a paper I briefly worked for ages ago.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman

PS the websites called Lichtman 2020 are fakes, I suspect. They seem to be pro-Trump.

[ailsagirl]

6. Interesting

I'd never heard of him until I saw the item

[smirkymonkey]

9. I so hope he is right.

[Ford_Prefect]

14. I'd love to know the brand of his ouija board.

I don't think he corrects for bias well and I doubt he's referring to anything other than conventional estimates. He clearly has no working concept of how much the vote can tilt due to interference on any level at all.

He reminds me much of the people who explained away 2000 by saying we didn't win because we didn't try hard enough. Then they proceeded to denigrate anyone who proposed vote hacking of any kind occurred in Ohio or anywhere else because they couldn't get their conventional heads around the idea that voting Could be hacked or how small the degree of change needed to be for us to lose.

I'd like to think his outlook reflects meaningful trends in real time and space that are going to lead to a new president on Jan 20, 2021. But I've seen too many times how this rodeo runs especially when the Republicans hold the kinds of cards they do now. I think realistically his estimations tell how a correct and conventional election should go.

I have no doubt that we are in for a very difficult time between now and Jan. 20. It could turn into something very,very ugly indeed depending on far too many situations we cannot reliably predict today. I don't see that this guy has a grasp of that.

[Ms. Toad]

23. His 13 keys are apolitical.

He isn't estimating anything at all (voting/polling is irrelevant). The 13 keys are statements that are either True/False. 6 or more False keys and the incumbent party loses. Trump has 7.

The information about how he predicts the races is easily available (including by watching the video).

[brooklynite]

17. I don't care...

....for the same reason I don't care about the academics who've "predicted every election" and think Trump is going to win.

Academic analysis comes afterwards.

[BobTheSubgenius]

19. I absolutely devour every article like this.

I hope that it isn't just confirmation bias on my part, but this kind of news from someone with a "pedigree" does a lot to bolster my spirits.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. By chance there is always someone w perfect record of predicting stocks or elections

If you have a hundred monkeys throwing darts to predict an election, 50 % will predict one election correctly.

Of those 50%, half will predict the next one correctly too, just randomly by chance. So after two, 25% of the monkeys will have a perfect record for 2012 and 2016

After 3, 12.5% (08,12,16)
After 4, 6.25% (04,...)
After 5, 3% (00,...)
After 6 1.5% (96,...)

Now, presumably professors are smarter than dart throwing monkeys, so the odds are presumably better than 50%. If it is 70%, then 6 cycles leaves 12 %, and 9 leaves 4%.

So out of 25 professors, one would just by 70% chance have a perfect record through 9 cycles from 1984. There may be more than 25 professors making predictions, but 32 years is a long time.

Even so, elections are notoriously difficult to predict, so kudos to Prof. Lichtman.

[Dopers_Greed]

21. It's only one election prediction model, it's not infallible

It just turns out that he's right most of the time.

As people are pointing out, 2000 broke his model. So what? It's not a crystal ball.

[Upthevibe]

26. ailsagirl...

Thank you for posting. PLEASE GOD....

[Upthevibe]

27. ailsagirl...

Thank you for posting. PLEASE GOD....

[bucolic_frolic]

28. Did he put a Cheetolini factor in his model? /nt

[BlueInPhilly]

29. Logit model

If it's Yes / No (1/0 binary) predictors and he has a track record, chances are the Lichtman model is accurate. Not 100%, but high enough probability. His predictors are social metrics and not state-specific. At the end of the day, the assumption is that the metrics are more universal (e.g., how the economy is doing).

Compared to the Norpoth model which is so skewed towards the incumbent and uses support during the primaries as the main predictor (NY turning red???), the Lichtman model is more robust.

[NJCher]

30. this is for people who want to read the 13 items

If any six of these statements are false, Lichtman says, the White House will likely change parties. He said in May 2019 that Trump is losing on items 1, 11 and 12 but that list could swell if House democrats impeach him.

Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/fb-7088493/Allan-Lichtmans-13-keys-predicting-presidential-elections.html

[StevieM]

31. James Comey won the 2016 election. (eom)