At least there’s a spoiler at the top of the article. He’s taking Harris and his L of the past 10yrs was Bush v Gore.
Yet more signs pointing to Trump’s path to victory being to cheat and coup instead of trying to win votes legitimately.
Yes it’s hard to take the cheating, voter suppression, and coup-ing into account statistically. I wasn’t really advocating for the author or prediction. Just wanted those elements of the article when I saw the post.
Yeah, but his last prediction was 100% wrong, or his current one is…
In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election in the United States, amidst widening calls by Democratic Party representatives, members, voters, and supporters for incumbent president Joe Biden to withdraw from the race in favor of another candidate with “better chances,”[36][37] Lichtman denounced that demand as a “foolish, destructive escapade,” accusing “pundits and the media” of “pushing” the Dems into a losing choice. He added that “all” those calling for Biden’s resignation have “zero track record” of predicting election outcomes.[38] By July 21, 2024, Biden announced he was withdrawing from the race, adding that he will serve out the remainder of his term.[39]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
So if he’s right with this prediction that Harris wins, his last L was just like a month ago.
That wasn’t a prediction, he just said Biden had a better chance of winning in 2024 than Harris.
Since that is now an alternate timeline, we will never know if he was right.
Keep in mind that he doesn’t try to predict who will poll better, in fact he thinks polls are irrelevant.
Or, we could just accept the simple fact that if the candidates change, so too does the prediction. He made his predictions based on the options available at the time.
Kinda shortsided to consider that an L.
shortsided
Bone apple tea!
Ah shit! Guilty af
What?
He claimed replacing Biden was bad…
Despite all evidence showing anyone else would do better.
Biden was replaced, and despite being very unpopular the last time she was up for president, she skyrocketed in the polls compared to Biden.
Hell, we don’t even need to wait for the election, the massive gains in polls alone shows it was a good idea to replace a candidate that Dem voters just didn’t fucking want.
Like, do you even know his method?
https://www.american.edu/cas/news/13-keys-to-the-white-house.cfm
We don’t meet 8 of his 13 criteria, so by his “proven method” Republicans will win.
So either his prediction is right and his method is wrong, or hes not using the same method and past predictions aren’t relevant
We don’t meet 8 of his 13 criteria, so by his “proven method” Republicans will win.
Uh, no. He said Democrats meet 8 of 13 keys, and that’s why he thinks Harris will win.
Key 2 – No Primary Contest: With Joe Biden’s endorsement clearing the field for Harris, there are no significant challengers from within the party.
Key 4 – No Third Party: Historically, third parties are detrimental to the White House party. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would need 5% of the vote to influence this key, with a potential stabilization at 10% deemed unlikely by Lichtman.
Key 5 – Strong Short-Term Economy: No recession has been declared by the National Bureau of Economic Research this year.
Key 6 – Strong Long-Term Economy: Economic growth under Biden has exceeded that of the previous two terms, adjusted for inflation.
Key 7 – Major Policy Change: Biden’s policies mark a significant departure from the Trump administration.
Key 8 – No Social Unrest: Lichtman notes that only massive unrest, akin to the 1960s or Black Lives Matter protests, could impact this key. The current unrest is not considered significant enough.
Key 9 – No Scandal: There has been no bipartisan-recognized corruption scandal involving the president.
Key 13 – Uncharismatic Challenger: Donald Trump is perceived as unappealing to voters across party lines.
He claimed replacing Biden was bad…
Despite all evidence showing anyone else would do better.
\sigh
As stated oh, so, so-so, so, so many times, replacing the incumbent has historically been suicidal. Based on the trends, it’s a horrible idea.
One, this seems like a different type of prediction.
Two, it sounds like a few of his predictors could only be determined after she began her run, so there was no way to make this call until it happened. I don’t think anyone could have predicted the excitement she’s created, either.
I don’t think anyone could have predicted the excitement she’s created, either
I did, a long with a metric shit ton of other people, literally all over…
When we kept saying:
Literally anyone except Hillary would do better.
That included literally everyone except Hillary.
Kamala Harris is not Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, and predictably numbers immediately improved.
It’s bad enough moderates kept saying that was wrong at the time, but the complete revisionist history just weeks after it happened is fucking ridiculous.
trump voters barely rewrite history this fast…
You couldn’t see it coming.
The politicians you support couldn’t see it coming.
The political commentators you listen to couldn’t see it coming.
And rather than take a second to see if maybe that means your views are wrong, you just claim “gee, no one could have guessed!”. And March forward to the same bullshit, once again insisting your opinions are correct
Like, how the fuck can anyone even pretend that they didn’t hear anyone say that Biden was a shit candidate and replacing him would help regardless of who it was?
When we kept saying:
Literally anyone except Hillary would do better.
But did anyone listen after you said ‘literally’? I usually tune out when a ‘litchally’ hits the floor. Sorry, but it’s true.
I don’t see that he’s rewriting history. He thought Biden would do better - but still thinks Harris can win. Or else he thought Biden could do better, but now with the additional new data that came with Harris getting nominated he has indeed changed his mind. But it’s not like he’s going back and denying his earlier concerns or support of Biden…
Also, his keys aren’t supposed to need frequent reevaluation based on fine-grade events, so if they predict she’d win now, they should have predicted she’d win last month. The only information that’s been revealed is there wasn’t a “primary” challenge for the eventual nominee.
“Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half-century, except for the race in 2000, in which Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore.”
In which Gore actually did win:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
Lichtman argues he was right in 2000 because his system predicted the popular vote winner, but that means in 2016 he was wrong because Trump didn’t win the popular vote. He then tried to say the keys are now about predicting the electoral college winner, but there wasn’t any change in the keys. He’s just trying to redefine his targets to say he was right after the fact.
If a hundred people try to guess ten coin flips, odds are at least one of them will guess nine out of ten. That doesn’t make them an expert.
And that’s on coin flips. Many of the last 10 elections weren’t hard to predict.
Gotta get them an octopus.
Coincidentally the odds are that almost exactly one will guess 9 out of 10 correctly, and about four people will guess 8 out of 10 correctly. Odds drop to about 1 in 1000 for guessing all 10 correctly.
In other news, they interviewed 200 historians and by chance found one that happened to predict 9 of the last 10 elections correctly.
Seriously. Might as well quote a professional phrenologist.
If you try to forget who the picture on the right is, and just look at him as a random person, he looks so fucking strange with that makeup and that skin texture.
The “chicken rotisserie” look.
Better get a discount on that chicken, it’s cooked unevenly.
Looks like ‘The Orange Ladies’ to me. The women that ran the attendance office in my high school.
I don’t want to diminish the talent of the historian in vain but past performance is not always an indicator of being good at predictions, he might just have been lucky in a completely random guess 9 times out of 10. Given the amount of historians making such predictions it is not unlikely that such an historian exists and it would be fairly easy to mistake their success for talent.
I don’t know where I found this but I found a scheme somewhere to scam some investors: Find a large list of potential victims. Tell one part of it that you predict that market will do A, and the other part that the market will do B. Repeat the process several times, selecting only the investors to whom you’ve always told the correct prediction. Eventually you will have a handfull of people who have “solid proof” that you are a visionnary and you can scam them.
Again, I absolutely do not mean to say that this particular historian is bad. This story just reminded me of these ideas and I wanted to share.
I’m curious if at this point it would be possible to train an LLM on this type of estimation. But I don’t understand Ai really well or if they are even good at predictive work. Im going off of research that involved predicting disease (I think it was diabetes)
LLMs don’t handle booleans, and the 13 keys is an open statement, so the best you could do is train 13 neural networks to determine each of the keys, but you’d need a lot of data for that I suspect we simply don’t have.
It’d probably be better to train a neural network to just output probabilities of each candidate winning based on specific information, like polling data.
Had to run this through ChatGPT and funny enough it sites this article in the first paragraph. It also has no idea about Kennedy dropping out and endorsing Trump.
As of now, predictions for the 2024 U.S. presidential election suggest a tight race. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has been forecasted by election expert Allan Lichtman to win, based on his “13 Keys to the White House” model. Lichtman has a strong track record, having correctly predicted most U.S. presidential elections since 1984. He argues that Harris holds more favorable indicators than her main rival, Donald Trump, who is seeking a second non-consecutive term.
On the other hand, some models, like those from Race to the WH, show a more competitive scenario, with polling and swing state dynamics still evolving. Trump’s ongoing legal issues and the emergence of strong third-party candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. add complexity to the race.
Ultimately, the final outcome will depend heavily on how these factors unfold in the coming months, as both candidates continue their campaigns
Predictions for the 2024 Presidential Elections - Live Forecast — Race to the WH
It would say trump would win 99% of the time because he already wone once
Well… I meant train in on a larger data set going back for republican/Dems a long way back
It would do the same thing
well given the odds of a know-nothing correct pick being 50% then at best one would expect a coin flip to do on average is 5/10 though there were maybe a couple easy calls in there
USA Today - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for USA Today:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
