Professor Allan Lichtman’s Foolproof Model Predicted Harris Would Win. Oops

Liberal Professor Says Model Could Have Worked If “Trump and Right-Wing Media” Didn’t Lie. Isn’t That the Equivalent of “My Dog Ate My Homework”.

Allan Lichtman, American University Professor and historian, hailed by the mainstream media as the “Nostradamus” of American politics, because he reportedly is great at predicting who will win Presidential elections. He is now taking heat for a botched prediction. The media is surprised, that his great prediction model failed this time. You see he had a nearly perfect record until last week.

He has now correctly predicted 9 out of the last 11 Presidential elections. On the surface that seems impressive, but I think most people who follow politics could have, with a little determined objectivity, predicted 9 of the last 11 Presidential races. And the average political junkie probably could have guessed 7 or 8 out of 11 contests. All without the assistance of Lichtman’s model. But Lichtman’s model seems so scientific to members of the mainstream press, it seems so historical, it has a whiff of sophistication. Almost on par with the United Nationals climate models, or Dr. Fauci’s covid recommendations.

I must say that all my life people have tried to come up with ways to predict which party will win the White House. And when someone tells me about the latest formula it almost always comprises of fifty percent coincidence and fifty percent post hoc reasoning.

I remember in the 1980’s hearing that a sure-fire way of predicating who will win the Presidency could be linked with the national pastime. Check and see which league won the World Series in October. I forget exactly which way but as I remember it went something like this, if the National League won in October a Republican would win and if the American League team won then a Democrat would be elected. I knew a guy that worked for the Washington Times who seemed to believe it. He used to remind me of this every election eve, and I would respond sarcastically, “Well, I am sure that the theory is sound but just in case vote anyway.”

One guy told me that the taller Presidential candidate always wins. For the next several minutes we went through all the Presidents going all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century. And you know what. It was true! My friend had figured it out. John McCain was shorter than Obama, and guess what, Obama won. But I think this theory died in 2020, when the shorter Biden defeated the taller Trump.

Now in fairness to Professor Lichtman, his formula is a little more substantial than World Series winners and the height of candidates – but not much more. His model has nothing to do with polls. It is based on 13 keys, which are based on the current political environment. The keys require a one-word answer, True of false. The 13 keys, deal with incumbency, economy, scandal, how the party did in the midterm etc. If 6 or more of the questions are false, then the incumbent party will lose. I won’t mention all the keys but will link them for you. He boosts that these keys are “the NorthStar to an unchanging system”, that is before election day 2024.

The first problem I have with this model is that despite his effort at objectivity, and I will give him credit for that, it is still somewhat subjective. For example, he might say that the economy is good right now because we are not technically in a recession, while that is true, we are not in a recession, I’d say it still not a good economy and it will still hurt Harris. He might say there are no foreign policy failures I’d say that there are several.

The other problem with this, and indeed all the other models is that it is post hoc reasoning. He is interpreting history and guessing why things happened, but elections are about people, that is the candidate and their connection with the voter at the moment, as Kamala might muse, “an election is moment in the passage of time.” It is a personal decision that a voter makes. Sometimes the reasons are clear sometimes not so much.

The biggest key is not the economy, or foreign policy, while those are very important considerations for any voter, what matters most in my opinion is the candidate. It may not come down to 13 keys that Lichtman lists, but just one, that is who is the better retail politician. Who does the voter trust more?

Trump was a good candidate, and Kamala was awful. No model, or key can account for that. I will give an example. Trump going to McDonald’s, perhaps the most iconic of American companies and working the drive thru. It was brilliant. He came across like a regular average American. The working-class hero. No amount of ad money recreates that. No pundit or pollster could have foreseen that. As he was working drive thru, he handed a customer his order, the guy said to him, “Thank you for fighting for ordinary people like us.” Trump responded, “You are not ordinary, I can tell.” It had to be one of the greatest photo ops in history.

Compare Kamala’s response when a couple hecklers at her rally yelled, “Jesus is lord”, her response? She laughed and said “you are at the wrong rally.” Indeed, they were. And her response to a question about what she would do differently than Joe Biden as President. Her response, “I can’t think of anything.” The public wanted change. She failed to offer any. Which of the 13 keys in her favor would counterbalance that?

The other problem with Lichtman’s model, is that as he acknowledges, “it couldn’t hold up in the face of Trump’s lies” Well, if it can’t account for a Presidential candidate’s lies then it is no good. Think of it, the model will work as long as the candidates and media only tell the truth. Fat chance of that happening.

Kamala outspent Trump nearly two to one, and she still lost. That is clear proof that the model is faulty. Either that or Lichtman subconsciously misinterpreted a couple of his keys to favor Harris. Either way, I don’t believe that there is any model or formula, created years ago that can accurately predict how voters are going to choose between two candidates, in a fast-paced campaign with a changing environment, full of sound bites, photo ops, charges and counter charges.

On the plus side I can’t wait to hear the next theory on how to predict which party will win the White House.

David Shephard is the author of two books. Elections Have Consequences, A Cautionary Tale.

Norton’s Choice: An Inside Politics Exposé: Shephard, David: 9781892538802: Amazon.com: Books