A problem with his system is that it does not take into account events and factors that were NEVER seen before in the time period he has focused on. If the events and factors leading up to this election were sorta similar and confined to the ones of other elections, I could buy his argument. THEY HAVE BEEN ANYTHING BUT! If Biden were to stay in and he loses (including both Houses…), I believe Prof.Lichtman will be there to go: “Ah! There’s a new thing we had in play that was not in any election before this!!” He’ll then revise his keys model, and we will be here to suffer the consequences.
Just remember what they say in investment ads citing any discussion of past events used to oracle a future outcome: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results…”
For a great example of what I am talking about, check out this doc:
The Black-Scholes Model they discuss in that documentary is one of the best models you can use to minimize losses in the market over the long run; but it CANNOT limit catastrophic losses for all events; you get “Black Swan” ones…
Maybe Professor Lichtman should “trade” his keys in for darts. (Sorry, I’m a total dork.) Seriously though, you gave the perfect analogy–thanks for the links!
Well, he first got picked up by the Wall Street Journal. And who owns the Journal??
Why do you think even Stupid Hitler at this point is calling for Biden to stay in??
I think Prof.Lichtman is sincere, but I’m sorry to say his being blinded to the shortcomings of quantitative modeling lent him to being a useful idiot for corporate media. In his field I’m sure he’s very knowledgeable; but watch that doc and you’ll see a lot of knowledgeable rocket scientists who had gotten hoodwinked into misapplying the Black-Scholes model.
The bigger problem with his keys is that there’s no axis for severity of any of them, they’re just a “yes” or a “no,” and they’re so subjective that “yes vs. no” is not clear at times.
He regards 2 keys as “no’s” for Biden (Dems lost House seats in 2022, and Biden has no charisma). He regards 4 keys as “shaky” (3rd party, military success, military failure and social unrest).
This means that he regards as “safe-Biden” keys “that Biden has not had any scandals,” “that Trump is not a charismatic challenger,” and “that Biden has underseen a major policy change.” All of these are very debatable, and in a system in which any one key can be the difference in his prediction model (Biden can only lose 5 total and “still win”), there aren’t really 4 shaky keys, there are 7 shaky keys. And an 8th one–“no serious primary challenge” only happened because the voters were lied to about Biden’s mental state, so it is barely going to be a positive for him in November.
how is military success and military failure shaky? Biden has not had a single military success and Afghanistan was a major military failure. So much so that that was the event which flipped Biden’s approval from net positive ot net negative and it has never recovered.
Plus I would consider handling of Gaza and Ukraine as massive failures but that is just me.
He doesn’t even address short and long term economy which are also a no.
Also major policy change is a yes? The IRA? Really? As the inflation is through the roof? At best you can call it shaky by claiming it would have been worse without it. At worst you can call is hard no because IRA contributed to inflation.
So the tally should be - No military success, military failure, no charisma, short and long term economy, house seats lost in 22.
shaky - 3rd party, social unrest, major policy change.
Yes - Biden is incumbent, no scandals, Trump not a charismatic challenger, no serious primary challenger. (regardless of how it happened)
The problem is that changing Biden on the ticket doesn’t change any of the other things, but knocks off Incumbent and no serious primary challenger keys. you can still keep them as “shaky” if you pick harris but if you pick someone else, they both become NO
Hey everybody! The guy who advised against Biden stepping down has a prediction. Wonder what it will be? Was Walz’s impact covered by one of his ““keys””??
Ask me if I’m surprised. I never believed in his analysis in the first place because it could not account for “Black Swan” events, but he even disregarded his economy component. He got shnookered into buying the corporate media narrative that the economy is not that bad. It’s not that bad if you’re in the top 10% of income earners. Sanders statement after the loss said it all…
(Sorry, I’m a total dork.) Seriously though, you gave the perfect analogy–thanks for the links!
