Allan Lichtman predicts Biden victory

[Carolina]

The historian who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984 – including President Donald Trump’s win in 2016 – has announced his pick for 2020: Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Allan Lichtman’s predictive method – which puts him squarely in the minority of analysts who were right in calling Trump’s win – largely ignores the detailed cross-tab polling analyses and swing state bean counting that are often prioritized in modern political punditry.

Lichtman has been right in calling the results in every Presidential election since 1984. Does he have it right again?

 

[Carolina]

Source: Biden will beat Trump, says historian who predicted every race since 1984

 

[Phys251]

The historian who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984 – including President Donald Trump’s win in 2016 – has announced his pick for 2020: Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

Allan Lichtman’s predictive method – which puts him squarely in the minority of analysts who were right in calling Trump’s win – largely ignores the detailed cross-tab polling analyses and swing state bean counting that are often prioritized in modern political punditry.

Lichtman has been right in calling the results in every Presidential election since 1984. Does he have it right again?

It's too early to tell. The smart bet right now is on a Biden victory, but anything can happen between now and November.

Voter suppression by Republicans will be a real problem, too.

 

[TheParser]

1. Of course, he has it right.

2. Although I plan to vote for President Trump, I acknowledge that the Dems will win in a landslide.

3. The COVID-19 tragedy, the chaos caused by that three-initial movement, the Resistance media, electoral fraud, the rapidly changing population profile of this country, etc. ensure that the Dems will take the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial (after the Dem Senate packs the Supreme Court).

3. When the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., becomes the (nominal) President in January, the United States of America will become a dictatorship for the first time in its history. (As in my California, the Republicans will for all intents and purposes have no influence in D.C.)

 

[Luther]

1. Of course, he has it right.

2. Although I plan to vote for President Trump, I acknowledge that the Dems will win in a landslide.

3. The COVID-19 tragedy, the chaos caused by that three-initial movement, the Resistance media, electoral fraud, the rapidly changing population profile of this country, etc. ensure that the Dems will take the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial (after the Dem Senate packs the Supreme Court).

3. When the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., becomes the (nominal) President in January, the United States of America will become a dictatorship for the first time in its history. (As in my California, the Republicans will for all intents and purposes have no influence in D.C.)

electoral fraud,

Who needs voting fraud when you have this?

the rapidly changing population profile of this country

 

[Carolina]

1. Of course, he has it right.

2. Although I plan to vote for President Trump, I acknowledge that the Dems will win in a landslide.

3. The COVID-19 tragedy, the chaos caused by that three-initial movement, the Resistance media, electoral fraud, the rapidly changing population profile of this country, etc. ensure that the Dems will take the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial (after the Dem Senate packs the Supreme Court).

3. When the Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., becomes the (nominal) President in January, the United States of America will become a dictatorship for the first time in its history. (As in my California, the Republicans will for all intents and purposes have no influence in D.C.)

You're the first Trump voter I've met that doesn't think Trump is going to win in some historic landslide and that the polling is completely wrong.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Lichtman has been right in calling the results in every Presidential election since 1984. Does he have it right again?

Lichtman called the 2000 race incorrectly. He called it for Gore.

Don't have enough info on his "predictive method" to be able to judge, but this professor has correctly predicted 5 out of past 6 presidential elections, and gives Trump a 91% chance of winning.

Trump has 91% chance of winning second term, professor’s model predicts | The Independent

"President Donald Trump has a 91 per cent chance of winning the November 2020 election, according to a political science professor who has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996.

“The Primary Model gives Trump a 91 percent chance of winning in November,” Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth told Mediaite on Tuesday.

Mr Norpoth told the outlet that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced."

 

[BrotherFease]

Lichtman called the 2000 race incorrectly. He called it for Gore.

Don't have enough info on his "predictive method" to be able to judge, but this professor has correctly predicted 5 out of past 6 presidential elections, and gives Trump a 91% chance of winning.

Trump has 91% chance of winning second term, professor’s model predicts | The Independent

"President Donald Trump has a 91 per cent chance of winning the November 2020 election, according to a political science professor who has correctly predicted five out of six elections since 1996.

“The Primary Model gives Trump a 91 percent chance of winning in November,” Stony Brook professor Helmut Norpoth told Mediaite on Tuesday.

Mr Norpoth told the outlet that his model, which he curated in 1996, would have correctly predicted the outcome for 25 of the 27 elections since 1912, when primaries were introduced."

We have Lichtman and Oxford saying Biden, Norpoth saying Trump.

 

[ReubenSherr]

We have Lichtman and Oxford saying Biden, Norpoth saying Trump.

In 2016 we had Stanford giving Hillary a 99% chance of defeating Trump as well.

Clinton Has a 99% Probability of Winning the Election | Stanford Predicts

All of this comes out in the wash.

I looked up Lichtman BTW, and he ran for Senate in MD as a Democratic Candidate. So he definitely has a political incentive to do this.

 

[BlueTex]

These types of predictions are fun to read but assume no major events between the prediction and the election.

For instance, Trump or Biden or both could get COVID and pass away before the election. A major conflict could arise.. There are so many possible scenarios I don’t spend much time looking at these.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

These types of predictions are fun to read but assume no major events between the prediction and the election.

For instance, Trump or Biden or both could get COVID and pass away before the election. A major conflict could arise.. There are so many possible scenarios I don’t spend much time looking at these.

Exactly, remember the Comey Letter right before the election? That is what handed it to Trump. Hell, Trump won with a lower percentage of the vote than what Romney lost with just 4 years earlier.

Everyone that makes predictions is right until they are wrong.

 

[BrotherFease]

In 2016 we had Stanford giving Hillary a 99% chance of defeating Trump as well.

I am not talking about Stanford. I am talking about Oxford, Lichtman and Norpoth.

If you look at Lichtman's model, it's not partisan. It's based on the reality of the world. If his model was partisan, he would have never predicted that Trump would win.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I am very confident Trump will remain our nations president.

Here in Idaho there is no doubt he wins this state.

 

[BlueTex]

I am very confident Trump will remain our nations president.

Here in Idaho there is no doubt he wins this state.

I’m sure he appreciates Idaho’s four electoral college votes.. [emoji1787]

 

[Robertinfremont]

I am not talking about Stanford. I am talking about Oxford, Lichtman and Norpoth.

If you look at Lichtman's model, it's not partisan. It's based on the reality of the world. If his model was partisan, he would have never predicted that Trump would win.

Why did you mention partisan to Reubensherr?

 

[Robertinfremont]

I’m sure he appreciates Idaho’s four electoral college votes.. [emoji1787]

Every electoral college vote is what counts.

 

[ReubenSherr]

I am not talking about Stanford. I am talking about Oxford, Lichtman and Norpoth.

Stanford was wrong in 2016, so there's no reason to assume that Oxford is necessarily correct.

Norporth says Trump will win, Lichtman says Biden will win.

Lichtman literally ran as a Democrat for the U. S. Senate. Maybe he is being politically objective, maybe not. The timing of this coincides with Biden slipping in the polls.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Exactly, remember the Comey Letter right before the election? That is what handed it to Trump. Hell, Trump won with a lower percentage of the vote than what Romney lost with just 4 years earlier.

Everyone that makes predictions is right until they are wrong.

Trump won with a higher percentage of the electoral college votes than Clinton had.

Given the popular vote has yet to elect any president, that citing makes no sense. It has always been the electoral college.

 

[Helix]

It's too early to make predictions. We need to wait for the Weekly Reader poll.

I voted for Jimmy Carter back then, so don't blame me.

 

[BrotherFease]

Why did you mention partisan to Reubensherr?

He mentioned that Lichtman tried to run for political office as a Democrat. He believes Lichtman's model is liberal-biased.

 

[eman623]

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Especially in this election. All the rules went out the windows an 2016, and even those rules are non-operative now.

Anyone who tells you they can predict the winner of the 2020 election is blowing smoke.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Trump won with a higher percentage of the electoral college votes than Clinton had.

Given the popular vote has yet to elect any president, that citing makes no sense. It has always been the electoral college.

His state margins were small in the battleground states. If you take the Romney vote from 2012 in the battleground states and assume he would have ran against Hillary, he would have won in an electoral landslide. Trump only run because he ran against a very flawed candidate. He has never enjoyed popular support.

 

[BrotherFease]

Stanford was wrong in 2016, so there's no reason to assume that Oxford is necessarily correct.

Norporth says Trump will win, Lichtman says Biden will win.

Lichtman literally ran as a Democrat for the U. S. Senate. Maybe he is being politically objective, maybe not. The timing of this coincides with Biden slipping in the polls.

What does Oxford have to do with Stanford?

Lichtman admits he's a Democrat, but his model is completely objective. Perhaps you're unaware of his model.

 

[Robertinfremont]

His state margins were small in the battleground states. If you take the Romney vote from 2012 in the battleground states and assume he would have ran against Hillary, he would have won in an electoral landslide. Trump only run because he ran against a very flawed candidate. He has never enjoyed popular support.

Trump does not need popular support. Biden does though.

 

[Robertinfremont]

He mentioned that Lichtman tried to run for political office as a Democrat. He believes Lichtman's model is liberal-biased.

That is logical to presume.

Why do you say liberal as opposed to saying Democrat?