• ganksy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yet more signs pointing to Trump’s path to victory being to cheat and coup instead of trying to win votes legitimately.

      • ganksy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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.

      • stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

          • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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?

              • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

              • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                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…

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.