Professor accurately predicted last nine elections

[JayJay]

@calirepub

The Keys are based on the theory that presidential election results turn primarily on the performance of the party controlling the White House and that campaigning by challenging or incumbent-party candidates will have no impact on results. According to this theory, a pragmatic American electorate chooses a president based on the performance of the party holding the White House as measured by the consequential events and episodes of a term – economic boom and bust, foreign policy successes and failures, social unrest, scandal, and policy innovation.

If the nation fares well during the term of the incumbent party, that party wins another four years in office; otherwise, the challenging party prevails. According to the Keys model, nothing that a candidate has said or done during a campaign, when the public discounts conventional electioneering as political spin, has changed his or her prospects at the polls. Debates, advertising, television appearances, news coverage, and campaign strategies count for virtually nothing on Election Day.

Pretty crazy… I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it’s crazy to think that none of that matters.

I’m not surprised. The anecdotal evidence is quite strong…not surprised that rigorous data collection is also showing this.

[Calvin_Reagan]

Lets be clear here: Alan Lichtman has not made an official prediction. He goes through 9 questions and if 6/9 are false, then the incumbent party loses. I am not 100% sure if that is precisely correct, but it’s pretty much in the ball park.

I currently have Trump in the 45% to 50% range of being elected.

Pro - Good economy, strong base support (at least 80%)
Con - Least popular President in U.S history. That’s right, worse than Carter and Ford.

[mobulis]

@Roxiebelle

@AZslim

How often do prosecutors bring a case to trial if they know a jury would not convict?

Does that make their client innocent

Does that make the client guilty?

Yes…

[BillBrown]

@JayJay

Only once since FDR has the American public left one party in control of the Presidency for three consecutive terms.

When was that? I can’t think of an instance unless you’re counting Truman additional term after Roosevelt.

[JayJay]

@BillBrown

@JayJay

Only once since FDR has the American public left one party in control of the Presidency for three consecutive terms.

When was that? I can’t think of an instance unless you’re counting Truman additional term after Roosevelt.

Reagan/Bush

And you’re right I should have stated FDR/Truman.

And for those old enough to remember, it wasn’t a sure thing with Bush- he ran a pretty tepid campaign, and the electorate wasn’t really energized by him.

Lucky for him Dukakis ran an even worse campaign.

[BillBrown]

@JayJay

@BillBrown

@JayJay

Only once since FDR has the American public left one party in control of the Presidency for three consecutive terms.

When was that? I can’t think of an instance unless you’re counting Truman additional term after Roosevelt.

Reagan/Bush

And you’re right I should have stated FDR/Truman.

You’re right. I don’t know how I missed that.

[JayJay]

Yeah- I added commentary to that as well.

Dems pick a better candidate- they may have even won in 1988…but Dukakis was a terrible, terrible candidate.

[BillBrown]

@JayJay

Yeah- I added commentary to that as well.

Dems pick a better candidate- they may have even won in 1988…but Dukakis was a terrible, terrible candidate.

Dukakis was a good human being. You should read the accounts of his refusing to be ungentlemanly during the campaign against Bush. For example he refused to bring up Iran-Contra. He said ‘Bush says he had nothing to do with that. I believe him’.

[JayJay]

@BillBrown

@JayJay

Yeah- I added commentary to that as well.

Dems pick a better candidate- they may have even won in 1988…but Dukakis was a terrible, terrible candidate.

Dukakis was a good human being. You should read the accounts of his refusing to be ungentlemanly during the campaign against Bush. For example he refused to bring up Iran-Contra. He said ‘Bush says he had nothing to do with that. I believe him’.

Oh yeah he was a great guy…he just ran a lousy campaign.

I met him once…in fact it’s a funny story how I met him.

I was in college at the time…he was on campus for an event in our union building. I wasn’t even aware…I just saw a crowd and in my stupid young college student way, shoved myself to the front of the crowd to see what was going on…and nearly bowled him over as he was getting out of his car.

Exchanged a few words with the Secret Service agents protecting him, then they let me go- but Dukakis stopped to talk to me a few minutes so I could apologize to him. He was very nice.

Whole incident lasted less than 15 minutes. What different times! I shudder to think what might happen to me today. Even then it was scary enough being a 20-year-old being talked to by Secret Service agents.

[Toll_Collector]

@BillBrown

Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections, says President Trump will win the 2020 election unless congressional Democrats impeach.

Not impressed. I’m 8-1 when I think of the last 9. Most were pretty easy to predict. I thought Hilldog would beat Trump easily.

[Snow96]

Bush was elected because of Reagans excellent republican/conservative policies (well conservative at the time)

[JayJay]

@Snow96

Bush was elected because of Reagans excellent republican/conservative policies (well conservative at the time)

Yeah but he did his best to blow it.

Too bad too because Bush is probably the most competent President we’ve had in 30 years. A travesty that Clinton beat him. World might be a better place had Bush gotten a second term.

A recession that wasn’t a recession worth even chirping about, Ross Perot, and Bush’s failure to connect in our new “media celebrity age” did him in.

[Blackwolf]

Got a prediction for 2020 this early?

[BillBrown]

@Toll_Collector

@BillBrown

Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections, says President Trump will win the 2020 election unless congressional Democrats impeach.

Not impressed. I’m 8-1 when I think of the last 9. Most were pretty easy to predict. I thought Hilldog would beat Trump easily.

It depends on when in the campaign seasons the predictions were made.
Bush was a heavy favorite over Clinton in 1991. Bush-Gore wasn’t obvious at any time during the campaign, same thing with Clinton-Trump.

[Toll_Collector]

@Blackwolf

Got a prediction for 2020 this early?

I was under the ignorant assumption that he waited until both candidates were established. But I see now that he uses a method to determine whether or not a party stays in power with little regard for the candidates themselves.

@BillBrown

It depends on when in the campaign seasons the predictions were made.
Bush was a heavy favorite over Clinton in 1991. Bush-Gore wasn’t obvious at any time during the campaign, same thing with Clinton-Trump.

I was just going by election night predictions. Remember I said most were pretty easy. I also don’t remember Bush being a heavy favorite over Clinton. Maybe he was at some point, but certainly not come election night.

[JayJay]

I think Bill was pointing out that in 1991, right after the Gulf War and before the mini-recession, George H.W. Bush had 99+% favorable ratings and was a lock for re-election.

[AZslim]

@thinkingman

@AZslim

That’s not true. You are simply making this up.

Read the report.

the one that says there was no evidence?

ok

It clearly does not state innocence. You are admitting you haven’t read it…you should. Why filter it through somebody else?

[Drs]

@AZslim

@thinkingman

@AZslim

That’s not true. You are simply making this up.

Read the report.

the one that says there was no evidence?

ok

It clearly does not state innocence. You are admitting you haven’t read it…you should. Why filter it through somebody else?

They interviewed a person who went to Justin Amash’s town hall and they had no idea that the Mueller report did not completely exonerate Trump. If all a person does is listen to talk radio or watch Fox in the evening they have no clue about the reality of the report.

[AZslim]

@Drs

@AZslim

@thinkingman

@AZslim

That’s not true. You are simply making this up.

Read the report.

the one that says there was no evidence?

ok

It clearly does not state innocence. You are admitting you haven’t read it…you should. Why filter it through somebody else?

They interviewed a person who went to Justin Amash’s town hall and they had no idea that the Mueller report did not completely exonerate Trump. If all a person does is listen to talk radio or watch Fox in the evening they have no clue about the reality of the report.

Clearly.

[thinkingman]

@Drs

@AZslim

@thinkingman

@AZslim

That’s not true. You are simply making this up.

Read the report.

the one that says there was no evidence?

ok

It clearly does not state innocence. You are admitting you haven’t read it…you should. Why filter it through somebody else?

They interviewed a person who went to Justin Amash’s town hall and they had no idea that the Mueller report did not completely exonerate Trump. If all a person does is listen to talk radio or watch Fox in the evening they have no clue about the reality of the report.

“not exonerate” in legal terms is meaningless.

not a prosecutor’s job to indicate that unless they are being political