Biden to defeat Trump in election 2024 | Allan Lichtman

[RockyRoadTravel]

On 7/6/2024 at 2:00 PM, EmmetK said:

Liz Cheney is a LIAR, HYPOCRITE, and a CRIMINAL.

Angelo Roncalli was a forger, a smuggler and lied to authorities to commit his crimes. His crime, smuggling Italian orphans out of the hands of Nazis. He became Pope John XXIII.

Even IF Liz Cheney was a criminal, which obviously she isn't, her crime would have been bringing the worst President (you can pick worst in which way - incompetence, self-enrichment and corruption, morally, threat to the rule of law, flat out lazy) to justice.  Brava Liz.  

[stevenkesslar]

On 6/28/2024 at 6:55 AM, EmmetK said:

Biden Odds to Win Election Fall Below 20% 

 

Any reports of that fool, democrat hack Allan Lichtman jumping off his roof?  lol

https://www.realclearpolling.com/betting-odds/2024/president

 

MAGA
Trump 2024

Poor clown!  Poor thing!  How sad to be wrong.

So this week Lichtman made his official prediction.  HARRIS IS GOING TO WIN!

 

I almost started a new thread on this.  But I thought it would be more interesting to post it in the thread I started in February, when it looked like Lichtman's Keys were pointing to a Biden victory.

This year is interesting for that reason.  He's basically saying that Harris and Democrats have no more than five keys against them as the incumbent party.  And in his system it takes six to toss the incumbents out.  One of the keys the Democrats lost when Biden stepped aside is his incumbency key.  So if Biden were the nominee, Lichtman would also have predicted Biden would win.  That is certain.

Some people have already reacted saying that just doesn't make sense.  How could Biden be more likely to win than Harris?  But I think it makes sense.  Lichtman, unlike Nate Silver, is not prediction percentage chances.  He's just making a binary yes or no prediction.  So I think his way of looking at it is that neither Biden nor Harris have enough going against them to make them losers.  An interesting counterfactual with Biden.  We'll never know.

The important thing is that Lichtman has been predicting, in advance, since 1984.  He has gotten it right every time, with one possible exception: 2000, when he predicted Gore would win.  He maintains he got that right, and Gore actually did win but for SCOTUS allowing Florida Republicans to cheat and not count votes they should have.  Either way, that election did come down to a handful of votes in one state.  And Gore did win the popular vote.  So even if you believe Lichtman was wrong, he was razor thin close to being right.

I went into detail because if Harris loses, it will be a lot like Gore's loss in 2000.  First, she'll probably win the popular vote by millions even if she "loses", just like Gore in 2000.  And Hillary in 2016, when Lichtman predicted Trump would win two months before the election. 

The only two times times Lichtman has been wrong since The Civil War is when he predicted the incumbent party, which had five keys against them, would win.  Gore in 2000 is one example.  Gore was running for the incumbent party, and he had five keys against him.  Same thing with Grover Cleveland in 1888, who Lichtman retrospectively said should have won. He was the incumbent, and he had five keys against him.  Like Gore, he won the popular vote.  But Benjamin Harrison won the electoral college.  

All of this makes sense to me.  Lichtman is concerned with historical forces.  He's argued in some elections - like 1932 and 2008 - incumbents like Hoover and Bush had so much going against them (eight to nine keys, in his system) that they were going to be crushed.  And they were.  Sometimes history is a tossup.  2024 looks like one of those years.

One final super geeky point.  On Mark Halperin's daily 2Way podcast, he just basically trashed Lichtman.  He argued that this "data in, data out" system is a rigid and "creaky old machine".  The lack of respect is mutual. Lichtman constantly trashes the pollsters and pundits, who he argues - correctly, mostly - have no proven ability to predict how elections are going to go,  Halperin, who I view as one of the best pundits around, would argue that his brilliant insight about the day to day play of the election is what matters, and what will determine the outcome.  I'm with Lichtman on this one.

[Pete1111]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

Poor clown!  Poor thing!  How sad to be wrong.

So this week Lichtman made his official prediction.  HARRIS IS GOING TO WIN!

 

I almost started a new thread on this.  But I thought it would be more interesting to post it in the thread I started in February, when it looked like Lichtman's Keys were pointing to a Biden victory.

This year is interesting for that reason.  He's basically saying that Harris and Democrats have no more than five keys against them as the incumbent party.  And in his system it takes six to toss the incumbents out.  One of the keys the Democrats lost when Biden stepped aside is his incumbency key.  So if Biden were the nominee, Lichtman would also have predicted Biden would win.  That is certain.

Some people have already reacted saying that just doesn't make sense.  How could Biden be more likely to win than Harris?  But I think it makes sense.  Lichtman, unlike Nate Silver, is not prediction percentage chances.  He's just making a binary yes or no prediction.  So I think his way of looking at it is that neither Biden nor Harris have enough going against them to make them losers.  An interesting counterfactual with Biden.  We'll never know.

The important thing is that Lichtman has been predicting, in advance, since 1984.  He has gotten it right every time, with one possible exception: 2000, when he predicted Gore would win.  He maintains he got that right, and Gore actually did win but for SCOTUS allowing Florida Republicans to cheat and not count votes they should have.  Either way, that election did come down to a handful of votes in one state.  And Gore did win the popular vote.  So even if you believe Lichtman was wrong, he was razor thin close to being right.

I went into detail because if Harris loses, it will be a lot like Gore's loss in 2000.  First, she'll probably win the popular vote by millions even if she "loses", just like Gore in 2000.  And Hillary in 2016, when Lichtman predicted Trump would win two months before the election. 

The only two times times Lichtman has been wrong since The Civil War is when he predicted the incumbent party, which had five keys against them, would win.  Gore in 2000 is one example.  Gore was running for the incumbent party, and he had five keys against him.  Same thing with Grover Cleveland in 1888, who Lichtman retrospectively said should have won. He was the incumbent, and he had five keys against him.  Like Gore, he won the popular vote.  But Benjamin Harrison won the electoral college.  

All of this makes sense to me.  Lichtman is concerned with historical forces.  He's argued in some elections - like 1932 and 2008 - incumbents like Hoover and Bush had so much going against them (eight to nine keys, in his system) that they were going to be crushed.  And they were.  Sometimes history is a tossup.  2024 looks like one of those years.

One final super geeky point.  On Mark Halperin's daily 2Way podcast, he just basically trashed Lichtman.  He argued that this "data in, data out" system is a rigid and "creaky old machine".  The lack of respect is mutual. Lichtman constantly trashes the pollsters and pundits, who he argues - correctly, mostly - have no proven ability to predict how elections are going to go,  Halperin, who I view as one of the best pundits around, would argue that his brilliant insight about the day to day play of the election is what matters, and what will determine the outcome.  I'm with Lichtman on this one.

My understanding of Halperin and his GOP strategist guest's discussion of the Lichtman prediction model is that the criteria is not applicable to this election cycle.   They believe Lichtman is wrong, at least this time.

I have just begun listening to Halperin.  So far he seems more apt to criticize Democratic arguments such as his comments on the Walz/Harris CNN interview.   When there is a mountain of Republican hypocrisy for all to see, Halperin nitpicking the Dem's seems annoying and suggests to me an underlying bias.

Perhaps I need to listen more to gain a clearer appreciation.

I recall Halperin latched onto Nate Silver predicting Trump would win PA, and therefore probably the White House.  I hope I am remembering the correct vloggers.  Please correct me if not.  

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

9 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

I recall Halperin latched onto Nate Silver predicting Trump would win PA, and therefore probably the White House.  I hope I am remembering the correct vloggers.  Please correct me if not.  

I don't recall any comments Halperin has made about Silver.  Although it would make sense to me that Halperin would tend to prefer Silver to Lichtman. This is overly simplistic.  But one could describe Halperin and Silver as believing in a theory of campaigning.  They're the pundits and pollsters who will give you their brilliant analysis of how the campaign shaped who won.  Or what the polls told us about the percentage chances that Hillary would win.  Lichtman says hogwash to all that.  He has a theory of governance.  At the simplest level, his keys say that strong governance is rewarded with another term for the incumbent party.  Weak governance means we throw the bums out.  I think Lichtman is right.

9 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

My understanding of Halperin and his GOP strategist guest's discussion of the Lichtman prediction model is that the criteria is not applicable to this election cycle.   They believe Lichtman is wrong, at least this time.

Which drives Lichtman nuts.  He says that every election people say something is different this time so his keys don't apply.  And then they do.

I think if Biden had NOT dropped out and gone on to win, that would have been a validator of Lichtman's theory.  Meaning that the incumbent party had enough going for it that they managed to elect someone who voters did not particularly like.  I think Truman in 1948 would be an example of that.  There's a good argument that people were not voting for Truman.  They were voting for FDR's policies.  If Harris wins it's a different version of the same thing.  Lichtman's keys suggest the incumbent party has the wind at its backs.  So if you switch out an old and unpopular leader for a younger and fresher one, the incumbent party should win.

While Lichtman is a historian, he is dealing with mathematical probabilities as well.  He says that his party mandate key is the single best predicter of all the keys.  23 out of 28 times the incumbent party was united behind their candidate, he won. She would be the first woman, but these odds are on her side.  By comparison, his scandal key has only turned 11 times, and 7 out of the 11 times the incumbent party was involved in scandal, like Watergate or Monicagate, they lost.  Lichtman has argued that Republicans lost the battle by impeaching Clinton, but won the war because it was a key factor in Gore's defeat.  The polling for that election backs him up on that.  A President appearing senile is NOT something that happens a lot, so you can argue with either Biden or Trump you can't really measure age or infirmity being a factor based on the past.  Although FDR in 1944 might be an example.  He was on his last legs, sick pun intended.  But he won anyway.

9 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

I have just begun listening to Halperin.  So far he seems more apt to criticize Democratic arguments such as his comments on the Walz/Harris CNN interview.   When there is a mountain of Republican hypocrisy for all to see, Halperin nitpicking the Dem's seems annoying and suggests to me an underlying bias.

I think his main bias is that pundits like him, who try to be objective and dig deep, are brilliant.  And he is. I think his deepest bias is against what he views as crappy mainstream media.   He trashed Dana Bash for what he saw as a softball interview with Harris and Walz.  But many of his Republican guests trash Trump regularly for being such an awful candidate.  What I like about him most is the breadth of his contacts.  Right now he is definitely a force for hearing out all sides politely.  But also not buying the bullshit.

[RockyRoadTravel]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

I don't recall any comments Halperin has made about Silver.  Although it would make sense to me that Halperin would tend to prefer Silver to Lichtman. This is overly simplistic.  But one could describe Halperin and Silver as believing in a theory of campaigning.  They're the pundits and pollsters who will give you their brilliant analysis of how the campaign shaped who won.  Or what the polls told us about the percentage chances that Hillary would win.  Lichtman says hogwash to all that.  He has a theory of governance.  At the simplest level, his keys say that strong governance is rewarded with another term for the incumbent party.  Weak governance means we throw the bums out.  I think Lichtman is right.

Which drives Lichtman nuts.  He says that every election people say something is different this time so his keys don't apply.  And then they do.

I think if Biden had NOT dropped out and gone on to win, that would have been a validator of Lichtman's theory.  Meaning that the incumbent party had enough going for it that they managed to elect someone who voters did not particularly like.  I think Truman in 1948 would be an example of that.  There's a good argument that people were not voting for Truman.  They were voting for FDR's policies.  If Harris wins it's a different version of the same thing.  Lichtman's keys suggest the incumbent party has the wind at its backs.  So if you switch out an old and unpopular leader for a younger and fresher one, the incumbent party should win.

While Lichtman is a historian, he is dealing with mathematical probabilities as well.  He says that his party mandate key is the single best predicter of all the keys.  23 out of 28 times the incumbent party was united behind their candidate, he won. She would be the first woman, but these odds are on her side.  By comparison, his scandal key has only turned 11 times, and 7 out of the 11 times the incumbent party was involved in scandal, like Watergate or Monicagate, they lost.  Lichtman has argued that Republicans lost the battle by impeaching Clinton, but won the war because it was a key factor in Gore's defeat.  The polling for that election backs him up on that.  A President appearing senile is NOT something that happens a lot, so you can argue with either Biden or Trump you can't really measure age or infirmity being a factor based on the past.  Although FDR in 1944 might be an example.  He was on his last legs, sick pun intended.  But he won anyway.

I think his main bias is that pundits like him, who try to be objective and dig deep, are brilliant.  And he is. I think his deepest bias is against what he views as crappy mainstream media.   He trashed Dana Bash for what he saw as a softball interview with Harris and Walz.  But many of his Republican guests trash Trump regularly for being such an awful candidate.  What I like about him most is the breadth of his contacts.  Right now he is definitely a force for hearing out all sides politely.  But also not buying the bullshit.

Lichtman's keys predate the alternate reality of the MAGA echo chamber of fake news, or if not fake, only reporting on a selected set of facts which would support the preordained "truth".  There are at least three of his keys that are heavily impacted by the partisan right news ecosystem.  My point being, the keys are probably less neutral to the manipulation of public opinion than they use to be. 

[stevenkesslar]

4 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Lichtman's keys predate the alternate reality of the MAGA echo chamber of fake news, ,,, My point being, the keys are probably less neutral to the manipulation of public opinion than they use to be. 

Good point.  I'd argue social media has dumbed things down and made things more divisive, period.  MAGA is a subset of that.

But that also goes back to the idea that Lichtman has a theory of governance, not of campaigning.  Fake news and social media are both.  Fake news and social media can create an alternative reality of how people are being governed.  A good example is that if you live in MAGA world, the S & P 500 is down this year, when it is actually up.  We're in a recession, when we are actually not.

That said, I agree with Lichtman that, on average, Americans are smart.  And they choose Presidents based on how well they govern.  It's not just that fake news, including a left-wing version of it, has people hypnotized.

That chart is the percentage of White working class voters who vote Republican.  If Harris loses, that will be why.  Stated differently, if nothing else changed but you gave Harris the percentage of White working class voters Clinton got in 1992 and 1996, or even that Obama got in 2008, she would win in a landslide.

So one way to explain the above is the rise of fake news, and MAGA.  But this was happening in 2012, and 1984, before Trump was on the scene.

An alternative explanation is racism.  Clinton did well because he comes off as a Bubba White working class guy.  Obama was a somewhat professorial Black man.  That theory would work if we stipulate that Obama disguised himself as White in 2008, when he won the White working class vote.  And Kerry ran as a Black man in 2004, when he lost it.

I would argue this is proof of concept for Lichtman.  Something happened between 2008 and 2012.  And it was not that Obama changed his race, like Harris apparently did.  😉  Maybe social conservatism has something to do with it.  But I'd argue it was mostly pocketbook economics.  The Great Recession happened.

I'll give two examples.  Millions of people, including lots of working class Whites, lost their home.  All of us lost our home equity. And the banks got bailed out.  In his book at the time, Bill Clinton came up with some great policy ideas, similar to what FDR did in the New Deal, to basically bail out the little guy and stabilize the economy for everyone.  It was not radical socialist stuff.  He said the government should refi all these mortgages so they are sound and affordable.  Then when you sell the home the government gets some of its money back.  That would have made a huge difference.

America lost 4.5 million factory jobs under W., from 17 million in Jan. 2001 to 12.5 million in Jan. 2009. By Jan. 2013 we had about 12 million factory jobs.  So Obama turned a gushing and mortal wound into a slow bleed out.  The areas hurt the most - Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio - are the ones that shifted from Obama to Trump.  We all know the Rustbelt was the key to Trump's success. If he wins in 2024, it will be again.

So my point is that this is about governance, not fake news or campaigning.  

So to make my point, I'll create my own fake news or alternative set of facts.

Lichtman always makes the point that the keys are interactive, and play on each other.  In other words, strong governance begets strong governance.  Weak governance begets weak governance. 

So let's assume that Obama was a second FDR, which he wanted to be.  Let's assume he sent bankers to jail, bailed out working class White home owners, stabilized the economy.  And working class Whites felt this guy is on my side - based on governing, not words.  Instead of having a wipeout in the House and Senate in 2010 and 2014, he would have had the votes to actually get a second term agenda passed.  If you buy Lichtman's keys, Hillary lost because she had six keys against her as the candidate of the incumbent party in 2016.  If Obama had gotten a significant economic populist agenda passed in his second term, rather than gridlock because he lost the House and Senate, Lichtman would argue Hillary would have won.  Alternatively, Lichtman would argue if Biden had NOT gotten his agenda passed it would hurt Harris, and be a nail in her coffin.

We'll of course never know whether any of this could have been.  We do know that if Democrats want Senate and House majorities, they have to pay attention to working class White voters.  Ron Brownstein said it was a good sign that just switching from Biden to Harris did not send these voters running for the hills. But that is her challenge, and the challenge of Democrats. 

I am absolutely convinced that an economic populist agenda - not as a campaign tactic, but as a governing strategy - is what is needed.

 

 

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

19 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I am absolutely convinced that an economic populist agenda - not as a campaign tactic, but as a governing strategy - is what is needed.

 

 

 

 

I agree that an economic populist agenda is needed. I made that point in the Great Debate thread, label the convicted felon and then pivot to the economy, label the anti-choice extremist and pivot to the economy, label the self-dealing corruption and pivot to the economy. Rinse and repeat. 

However, when pundits talk about the "white-working class" there's this veil of unspoken racism it feels to me. I have the same reaction to the phrase "white slavery", as if it's somehow more important and needs to be singled out from slavery in general. 

Trump is appealing to the WHITE working-class (with all the implied racism), and Harris needs to appeal to the white WORKING-CLASS (without the racism).  If they both do that, the election will demonstrate if people care more about their race privilege situation or about their economic situation. Complicating things is that I recognizing in some economically distressed town in West Virginia, it's got the poorest county in the country, it's pretty hard to hear you've got any king of privilege (racial or otherwise) at all. 

[stevenkesslar]

16 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

Trump is appealing to the WHITE working-class (with all the implied racism), and Harris needs to appeal to the white WORKING-CLASS (without the racism). 

That's a very good distinction.   

I think Hillary was right, in fact, but horribly politically wrong on "deplorables". Her husband would never have said that. 

The way he talks about this is that you have to make it clear to people that you get their values.  And you are not some crazy radical who wants to chop their son's dick off or make their daughter share a high school bathroom with a man.  He doesn't say it like that, of course.  But he does not blame what could be called "centrist" people for their conservative social values.  Bill Clinton of course was the one who many Gays despise for "don't ask don't tell".  But what he basically proved, I think, is that if you want to win the White working class vote, that is where you may have to go.  Since Bill Clinton no one has come close to winning that big a chunk of White working class votes.  We can say we don't want those votes.  But if we want a Senate majority by winning seats in Ohio or Missouri or Montana, the math just doesn't work.

So the question is where do you draw the line.  Harris is clearly trying to move to the center.  I think it makes sense that she is doing it mostly on pocketbook issues, like fracking in Pennsylvania.  Immigration is an economic issue.  But in some ways it is even more a culture war issue.  So that is an example where she is coming off as Kamala The Cop, not No Borders Harris.

I think all the demographics are pretty clear that there is a large chunk of White working class voters who are not racist, who do not harbor grudges about Blacks getting ahead, and who will vote for someone like Obama.  Proof of concept is they did in 2008.  And Obama won in a near landslide.  I will always feel if he had governed more like FDR - an economic populist - things might have gone better in 2010 and 2014.  Example:  bail out the White working class home owners who got screwed (as well as the Black and Hispanic and Asian ones) and send the bankers who did it to jail.  He did not do that, really.  But my theory is totally debatable.

One other fact that I don't understand precisely but I think is true.  Some of the best reporting about Trump's jubilant patriotic cop beating at The Capitol when he lied about losing is that many of the "patriots" who broke cop bones were actually middle class people who own small businesses and live in metro areas that are basically on the tipping point of racial change.  Or what could be called "White replacement theory".  I think that aligns with polling.  Like White working class union members still tend to vote Democratic.  I think it is people who are kind of in the middle class, and kind of White, and kind of racist, who Trump appeals to the most.  Again, it's complicated.  And Hillary did not help herself by making it black and white, pun intended, and labeling a whole swath of voters "deplorables".

The flip side of this is that there are lots of socially conservative Blacks and Hispanics.  There have been Black activists who understand this and for years have said that more Blacks would vote Republican if they weren't so damn racist. 

So that is an interesting thing.  You now have guys like Tim Scott, a Black Republican Senator, who are poster children for the fact that these kind of people - socially conservative and upwardly mobile Blacks - are now welcome in the GOP.  But on the other hand, you have Trump being Trump.  The funny moment there of course is when Tim Scott tried to dismiss Trump's coded Proud Boys comment in 2020 by saying maybe he didn't mean it.  Or maybe he did.  So in 2024 we had all these Blacks and Hispanics pissed at Biden and perhaps also more socially conservative who were playing footsie with Trump.  As soon as we swapped out Biden for Harris, they flocked to Harris. 

But that's in play.  If Trump is crushed and the Republican Party runs Tim Scott against Harris in 2028, that will be a very different and very interesting race.  

What all of this says to me is the distinction you made makes sense.  Make it about populist economics, not race or identity politics.  Harris did that masterfully in her acceptance speech by not mentioning her race or gender,  She made it about her immigrant Mom and a working class family trying to get ahead and kitchen table economics.

I'm not saying identity politics is bad.  Quite the opposite.  I think Bill Clinton is right that you have to meet people where they are at.  About half of Republicans now accept same sex marriage.  Those are the people we want.  The bigots who are racists who thinks being Gay is a disease can have Trump and MAGA and be sore losers. 

Fuck em!  They are losers who deserve to lose.   And they will lose.

 

 

[RockyRoadTravel]

7 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

I think all the demographics are pretty clear that there is a large chunk of White working class voters who are not racist, who do not harbor grudges about Blacks getting ahead, and who will vote for someone like Obama.  Proof of concept is they did in 2008.  And Obama won in a near landslide.  I will always feel if he had governed more like FDR - an economic populist - things might have gone better in 2010 and 2014.  Example:  bail out the White working class home owners who got screwed (as well as the Black and Hispanic and Asian ones) and send the bankers who did it to jail.  He did not do that, really.  But my theory is totally debatable.

 

One of my gross generalizations on voting motivations is this: if you think your kids are going to do better than you have, you vote Democrat, and if you think your kids are going to do worse than you have, you vote Republican.  Again, that is a gross generalization. I think that's why Harris' optimism rallied her base vote, and it's why Trump digs into his grievances and "persecution" about his crimes.    

[stevenkesslar]

2 hours ago, RockyRoadTravel said:

One of my gross generalizations on voting motivations is this: if you think your kids are going to do better than you have, you vote Democrat, and if you think your kids are going to do worse than you have, you vote Republican.  Again, that is a gross generalization. I think that's why Harris' optimism rallied her base vote, and it's why Trump digs into his grievances and "persecution" about his crimes.    

Agreed.

There is a racial component to that.  But since we can't really have an honest conversation about it as a nation, it is better left unsaid.

On the face of it, "Make America Great Again" doesn't even make sense if you are Black.  What made America great in the past?  Slavery?  Jim Crow?  Was America greater when one Black actor, Sidney Poitier, was finally able to win an Academy Award?  I believe Harris will win because she represents what most Americans, including White Americans like me, want:  a thriving multi-racial capitalist democracy.  Not many like 'em on the planet.

I just read some right wing article about how Harris represents the welfare state.  Harris represents the idea that we no longer believe in letting the individual be free and see how far he can go on his own.  It's bullshit.  If Harris represented the idea that people need the government to take care of them, why is she pushing small businesses?  Even my Republican small-business-owning Dad said again and again that the best things the government ever did are the GI Bill and Social Security.  Harris represents the idea that America is great, and can be even greater.  

There are some interesting and, to me, positive exceptions:

Unlike with Whites, with Blacks the younger you are the more likely you are to vote for Trump.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  When Jim Clyburn was a young man, what he saw was Strom Thurmond leaving the Democratic Party because it was embracing civil rights.  Clyburn is the poster child for the idea that if you are Black and you want power and success, be a Democrat.  Arguably, he hand picked our current POTUS, and our next one.

A young Black man growing up today looks to what Republicans stand for in South Carolina and sees Tim Scott.  That's a very different message.

That said, the MAGA wing of the Republican Party does not embrace that, and seems to reject it.  They can thank Kevin McCarthy for at least starting to integrate the Republican Party in the US House.  What did they do? They fired him.