Oh, for God's sake. This guy with his keys. I really hope Harris loses if for no other reason than we never have to hear from this guy again. Of the elections that he has 'called', all but two had a clear favorite and he only gone one of those right.
When you strip out SC interference and the procedural shit show that WAS Florida elections back then, I believe that Gore won. Mind you, I voted for Bush (twice, to my regret) and called myself a Reagan republican. I've since matured and moderated my beliefs to include other points of view...
I disagree. 1988 between Bush I and Dukakis, the polls were similar to what we are seeing now, with just a few points difference. 2012 had Obama and Romney in a virtual tie in almost every poll up to Election Day. I respect his opinion based on fundamentals rather than polls, but of course he is human and could very well be wrong. Stuff happens.
Agree with the skeptics (GreatDarkSpot and SATXbassplayer, even if bassplayer confuses the professor with a European country) here. Whatever he got right in the past 40 years doesn't much apply today in the new partisan and Trumpy politics. Sure - an economic or foreign-policy catastrophe would impact the election, but you don't need a professor's 13 keys to know that. Also agree with Chris's skepticism on "charisma" (BOTH sides would give their own candidate very high scores and the other person very low ones). That proves nothing. Not to mention the gap (well reported by Chris) between objective economic conditions and voters' perceptions - not captured in Lichtman's model. And so on. My probability on Harris is maybe 51% today, same as yesterday...
To echo what GreatDarkSpot, Lichtman isn't that impressive, given that almost anyone could've picked the results of the last whatever elections.
Props to him for getting 2016 right, but in the one election that was super close, he got it wrong.
This is like how everyone decided Nate Silver was a deity because he picked all the swing states right in 2012. I predicted every state right in 2004, where's my Substack?
100% agree, Sam! (written with good humor on my Mac which doesn't allow emoticons in posts...) But note you can start a Substack for free in 5 minutes...maybe you could title yours "I've been wrong about everything since 2005"?
I decided Nate Silver was a deity in 2008 when he predicted the results of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary with shocking exactness based solely on the results of the Ohio Democratic primary and a county-by-county demographic comparison. My mind was blown. No one in the MSM was doing anything like this.
Of course, Lichtman had Biden winning based on his “keys” - which even at the time I found unbelievable. Take him with a healthy heaping tablespoon of salt.
I remember in 2016 when he predicted Trump would win inspite of what all the polls and pundits were saying then, the Democrats were saying exactly what you're saying now. So I'm not surprised you are not buying his prediction
I will take the predictions of someone who's been correct 90% of the time over pundits and polls
I’m sure that Lichtman’s model works well in normal times with normal parties and normal voters. But those days are long gone.
We’ve got a Nazi running for President who is supported by a cult of followers impervious to facts. These are not normal times and normal models aren’t going to perform well.
Any model that had Biden beating Trump - even after the debate debacle - is highly suspect.
To the subscribers who are saying that Lichtman was predicting Biden to win based on the keys, that notion was pre-debate. The debate debacle changed a couple of keys, such as RFK Jr being a viable 3rd party candidate, plus there was a lot of noise regarding a contest for the Dem nomination of Biden again. Remember when virtually all Dems wanted Biden to drop out (which of course he did)? Not to mention the possibility of social unrest which was going on in the Spring when Biden was still the candidate.
If Biden had stayed in the race to now, assuming he'd be the nominee, I would venture to say that the Keys would have pointed to a Trump victory. At least 2 keys would have turned, probably 3. But Biden dropped out and was smart enough to nominate Harris, who was and is overwhelmingly supported by Dems. Because if Biden had not endorsed Harris and declared the DNC as an open convention, Trump would be the pick by Lichtman.
It’s a fun thing to think about. But clearly both Trump and Harris have a huge amount of charisma. So I’d debate his point there. A better way to determine who will be the next President is to look at the over performance of candidates in swing states. That’s a measure of enthusiasm for the party and ability to get Americans of a different party to vote for you. Fetterman and Shapiro’s wins in Pennsylvania in 2020 and the 18-29 demographic enthusiasm today bode well for Democrats and Harris. IMO
I'm not Prof. Lichtman, but he defines charisma as someone with "broad appeal". Trump does NOT have "broad appeal", except to his MAGA-ites. He doesn't even have appeal to some Republicans like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and others like WIlliam Barr and John McCain's son. As for Harris, I might agree about her having charisma based on the donations, new registrations, and many new volunteers, but these aren't my keys.
And Lichtman in his piece even brings up the fact that Trump’s charisma is limited to MAGA, so doesn’t fit his key, not sure what Chris was saying about Trump and charisma
I forgot to add that Trump does not even have appeal to some of his family who have written books against him, and his wife who has disappeared in a cloud of smoke. Harris at least has her husband by his side most, if not all, of the time.
JVL basically calls “BS” on it, noting that his “keys” have *way* too much subjective interpretation.
Chris does rightly note the “charisma” question isn’t black-or-white: Harris-Walz have energized the Democrats and undecided/independents, which *certainly* says *something* about charisma; and as Chris also points out, it’s hard to deny Trump’s charisma, as you don’t form a cult of personality with 10s of millions of followers without charisma.
And on the subject of “major legislation”, would the ACA qualify? Would the Trump tax cuts qualify?
He compares Lichtman to the octopus (not joking here!) that had an 85.7% correct rate on “predicting” World Cup game winners! As Chris says, the “results are the results”, with Lichtman at 90%, ie not significantly better than the octopus, but should we believe the octopus?!?
Exactly, DK! And what happened to the DOJ press conference that they’ve found *significant* Russian disinformation in *this* election cycle and have started cases against the perpetrators? It totally disappeared! Not even a single News cycle dominance and it’s gone!
I guess it doesn’t work with corporate media’s pro-Trump agenda….
Lichtman has been correct 100% of the time. The only time his predicted candidate did not take office was when the Supreme Court refused to allow the recount the votes in Florida where Bush’s brother was Governor. When they eventually did recount the votes, it showed that Gore really won and the election was actually stolen.
The only key that got changed by Biden dropping out was the Incumbent key. The keys are based mainly on the party in office.
I would agree with you RE SCOTUS and their “election interference” in the Gore v Bush case, Christine!
If Democrats had pursued legal options in the way Trump’s legal teams did in 2020 (and I’m NOT talking about the illegal ones, like fake electors, etc.), I strongly believe Gore would have been President, we would *never* have pursued the controversial military action in Iraq, etc.
I offer apt aphorisms from two sources of Biblical wisdom: 1) "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Matthew 6:34 and 2) "You are what your record says you are." Bill Parcells. I will feel a little better today b/c of LIchtman. Will deal with what comes when it comes.
I think you are right. Chris has posted an enthusiasm chart for the last few elections which I think tells the story today. Voter enthusiasm in 2016 for both candidates was very low. Today it’s off the hook. Harris has Obama levels of enthusiasm. The key for Democrats has always been to get out the vote. They lose when they don’t do that. Waiting for Biden to decide not to ring for a month was painful. Particularly with all the negative press. It increased the stakes. When he handed the torch to Harris it was like releasing an arrow. All that pent up angst propelled Harris. Capturing the 18-29 Demographic is key. They are the most dispassionate group. Harris ability to capture the younger vote almost immediately was inspired. Now there are other policies which can help too, like being pro woman’s right to choose. But driving enthusiasm in that demographic I believe holds the key. Not keys necessarily in this close election. Those things just comes out as a wash for both candidates.
Lichtman lost me when he said that because of the incumbency key, Biden should still be the nominee after the terrible debate performance. This is clearly a case where he's not using common sense.
Plus, many of the keys like charisma are subjective as you pointed out.
The problem is that points 7-13 are completely subjective, based on Lichtman's own preferences. For example, #8 Social Unrest; Lichtman obviously doesn't consider the various college protests as social unrest, whereas many right leaning voters would.
Lichtman's opinions are not in any way different from any other subjective driven commentary. He just tries to obscure his punditry with pseudoscience meta analysis that claims objectivity when actually it is as subjective as all the rest.
Small correction.
Democrats aren't going to have a good day today.
America is going to have a great day today. Hopefully on Election Day as well.
This is about our country and its future.
Oh, for God's sake. This guy with his keys. I really hope Harris loses if for no other reason than we never have to hear from this guy again. Of the elections that he has 'called', all but two had a clear favorite and he only gone one of those right.
When you strip out SC interference and the procedural shit show that WAS Florida elections back then, I believe that Gore won. Mind you, I voted for Bush (twice, to my regret) and called myself a Reagan republican. I've since matured and moderated my beliefs to include other points of view...
Thank you!
I disagree. 1988 between Bush I and Dukakis, the polls were similar to what we are seeing now, with just a few points difference. 2012 had Obama and Romney in a virtual tie in almost every poll up to Election Day. I respect his opinion based on fundamentals rather than polls, but of course he is human and could very well be wrong. Stuff happens.
Agree with the skeptics (GreatDarkSpot and SATXbassplayer, even if bassplayer confuses the professor with a European country) here. Whatever he got right in the past 40 years doesn't much apply today in the new partisan and Trumpy politics. Sure - an economic or foreign-policy catastrophe would impact the election, but you don't need a professor's 13 keys to know that. Also agree with Chris's skepticism on "charisma" (BOTH sides would give their own candidate very high scores and the other person very low ones). That proves nothing. Not to mention the gap (well reported by Chris) between objective economic conditions and voters' perceptions - not captured in Lichtman's model. And so on. My probability on Harris is maybe 51% today, same as yesterday...
LOL!!!! I didn’t catch that… damned autocorrect!!! 😂😂😂
To echo what GreatDarkSpot, Lichtman isn't that impressive, given that almost anyone could've picked the results of the last whatever elections.
Props to him for getting 2016 right, but in the one election that was super close, he got it wrong.
This is like how everyone decided Nate Silver was a deity because he picked all the swing states right in 2012. I predicted every state right in 2004, where's my Substack?
100% agree, Sam! (written with good humor on my Mac which doesn't allow emoticons in posts...) But note you can start a Substack for free in 5 minutes...maybe you could title yours "I've been wrong about everything since 2005"?
I decided Nate Silver was a deity in 2008 when he predicted the results of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary with shocking exactness based solely on the results of the Ohio Democratic primary and a county-by-county demographic comparison. My mind was blown. No one in the MSM was doing anything like this.
Of course, Lichtman had Biden winning based on his “keys” - which even at the time I found unbelievable. Take him with a healthy heaping tablespoon of salt.
I remember in 2016 when he predicted Trump would win inspite of what all the polls and pundits were saying then, the Democrats were saying exactly what you're saying now. So I'm not surprised you are not buying his prediction
I will take the predictions of someone who's been correct 90% of the time over pundits and polls
I’m sure that Lichtman’s model works well in normal times with normal parties and normal voters. But those days are long gone.
We’ve got a Nazi running for President who is supported by a cult of followers impervious to facts. These are not normal times and normal models aren’t going to perform well.
Any model that had Biden beating Trump - even after the debate debacle - is highly suspect.
Well ... you know what that meme says ...
Project 2025 is better in its native German. 😉🤣😂
Project 2025 translates to Mein Kampf in German….
I can't wait until this election is over just so I can stop hearing about Allan Lichtman and his "keys".
To the subscribers who are saying that Lichtman was predicting Biden to win based on the keys, that notion was pre-debate. The debate debacle changed a couple of keys, such as RFK Jr being a viable 3rd party candidate, plus there was a lot of noise regarding a contest for the Dem nomination of Biden again. Remember when virtually all Dems wanted Biden to drop out (which of course he did)? Not to mention the possibility of social unrest which was going on in the Spring when Biden was still the candidate.
If Biden had stayed in the race to now, assuming he'd be the nominee, I would venture to say that the Keys would have pointed to a Trump victory. At least 2 keys would have turned, probably 3. But Biden dropped out and was smart enough to nominate Harris, who was and is overwhelmingly supported by Dems. Because if Biden had not endorsed Harris and declared the DNC as an open convention, Trump would be the pick by Lichtman.
It’s a fun thing to think about. But clearly both Trump and Harris have a huge amount of charisma. So I’d debate his point there. A better way to determine who will be the next President is to look at the over performance of candidates in swing states. That’s a measure of enthusiasm for the party and ability to get Americans of a different party to vote for you. Fetterman and Shapiro’s wins in Pennsylvania in 2020 and the 18-29 demographic enthusiasm today bode well for Democrats and Harris. IMO
I'm not Prof. Lichtman, but he defines charisma as someone with "broad appeal". Trump does NOT have "broad appeal", except to his MAGA-ites. He doesn't even have appeal to some Republicans like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger and others like WIlliam Barr and John McCain's son. As for Harris, I might agree about her having charisma based on the donations, new registrations, and many new volunteers, but these aren't my keys.
And Lichtman in his piece even brings up the fact that Trump’s charisma is limited to MAGA, so doesn’t fit his key, not sure what Chris was saying about Trump and charisma
Jim McCain announced he's now a Democrat.
DIdn't know that.
I forgot to add that Trump does not even have appeal to some of his family who have written books against him, and his wife who has disappeared in a cloud of smoke. Harris at least has her husband by his side most, if not all, of the time.
Chris, what is your opinion of Jonathan Last's piece in the Bulwark today re Lichtman?
Yes, exactly, Anne!
JVL basically calls “BS” on it, noting that his “keys” have *way* too much subjective interpretation.
Chris does rightly note the “charisma” question isn’t black-or-white: Harris-Walz have energized the Democrats and undecided/independents, which *certainly* says *something* about charisma; and as Chris also points out, it’s hard to deny Trump’s charisma, as you don’t form a cult of personality with 10s of millions of followers without charisma.
And on the subject of “major legislation”, would the ACA qualify? Would the Trump tax cuts qualify?
He compares Lichtman to the octopus (not joking here!) that had an 85.7% correct rate on “predicting” World Cup game winners! As Chris says, the “results are the results”, with Lichtman at 90%, ie not significantly better than the octopus, but should we believe the octopus?!?
The predictors list doesn’t account for foreign interference.
Exactly, DK! And what happened to the DOJ press conference that they’ve found *significant* Russian disinformation in *this* election cycle and have started cases against the perpetrators? It totally disappeared! Not even a single News cycle dominance and it’s gone!
I guess it doesn’t work with corporate media’s pro-Trump agenda….
Lichtman has been correct 100% of the time. The only time his predicted candidate did not take office was when the Supreme Court refused to allow the recount the votes in Florida where Bush’s brother was Governor. When they eventually did recount the votes, it showed that Gore really won and the election was actually stolen.
The only key that got changed by Biden dropping out was the Incumbent key. The keys are based mainly on the party in office.
I would agree with you RE SCOTUS and their “election interference” in the Gore v Bush case, Christine!
If Democrats had pursued legal options in the way Trump’s legal teams did in 2020 (and I’m NOT talking about the illegal ones, like fake electors, etc.), I strongly believe Gore would have been President, we would *never* have pursued the controversial military action in Iraq, etc.
I offer apt aphorisms from two sources of Biblical wisdom: 1) "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Matthew 6:34 and 2) "You are what your record says you are." Bill Parcells. I will feel a little better today b/c of LIchtman. Will deal with what comes when it comes.
Hmmm….he also predicted Biden to win and was railing against him getting out of the race, sooo….I’m not getting too excited about this!
I think you are right. Chris has posted an enthusiasm chart for the last few elections which I think tells the story today. Voter enthusiasm in 2016 for both candidates was very low. Today it’s off the hook. Harris has Obama levels of enthusiasm. The key for Democrats has always been to get out the vote. They lose when they don’t do that. Waiting for Biden to decide not to ring for a month was painful. Particularly with all the negative press. It increased the stakes. When he handed the torch to Harris it was like releasing an arrow. All that pent up angst propelled Harris. Capturing the 18-29 Demographic is key. They are the most dispassionate group. Harris ability to capture the younger vote almost immediately was inspired. Now there are other policies which can help too, like being pro woman’s right to choose. But driving enthusiasm in that demographic I believe holds the key. Not keys necessarily in this close election. Those things just comes out as a wash for both candidates.
Lichtman lost me when he said that because of the incumbency key, Biden should still be the nominee after the terrible debate performance. This is clearly a case where he's not using common sense.
Plus, many of the keys like charisma are subjective as you pointed out.
The problem is that points 7-13 are completely subjective, based on Lichtman's own preferences. For example, #8 Social Unrest; Lichtman obviously doesn't consider the various college protests as social unrest, whereas many right leaning voters would.
Lichtman's opinions are not in any way different from any other subjective driven commentary. He just tries to obscure his punditry with pseudoscience meta analysis that claims objectivity when actually it is as subjective as all the rest.