Professor Masks Evidence, Discredits Own Election Model in Trump Victory Prediction

Free Republic ^ | 9/24/2016 | Pocono Pundit

[poconopundit]

For the last few days, the news has spread about history professor Allan Lichtman's prediction that Trump would win the election.  Trump retweeted it today and many FReepers have commented on the the original WaPo story.  Lichtman claims his model has accurately predicted the POTUS winner for 30 years. 

Being curious how the professor came up with his conclusion, I searched and I found his methodology in a Wikipedia entry entitled, The Keys to The White House.

Now when I listened to Professor Lichtman's analysis in a Washington Post video, it immediately raised some red flags about the guy's legitimacy and objectivity.  For instance:

1. For a supposedly objective observer of elections, Lichtman spent quite a lot of time explaining how evil a candidate Trump is. 

2. At the end of his analysis, Lichtman was strident about Trump being such an unusual candidate that you could more or less throw Lichtman's predictive model out of the window. 

3. Finally, Lichtman claimed that 6 of the 13 Keys to the White House this year favored Trump.  However, when I scored the Keys myself, I counted 10 of the 13 Keys are positive for Trump!  That's a very big difference, suggesting Lichtman is biased.

According to the Election Prediction Model, the 13 Keys are statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party.  The winner is determined as follows:

The incumbent party wins when: Five or fewer statements are false
The challenging party wins when: Six or more statements are false.

So here's my own scoring of Lichtman's model.  Please refute me if you disagree with my True/False answers:

1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S.  House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. 

   False, the Republican Party gained House seats in the 2014 mid-terms. 
   

2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. 

   False, Bernie Sanders put up a substantial fight for the Democratic nomination. 
   

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. 

   False, the incumbent candidate, Hillary, is not the sitting president. 
   

4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

   False, the Gary Johnson candidacy is a significant one.  Polls show him gaining a decent, but small share of votes. 
   

5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

   True, we are not currently in recession.
   

6. Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

   True, while the accuracy of data and the meaning of "real" can be questioned, the per capita GDP in the most recent term is higher than in previous terms. 
   

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

   True, the Obama administration has effected massive changes in national policy -- Obamacare, wide open borders, massive environmental regulations, federal censure of local law enforcement, exit of ground troops in Iraq, support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and more.

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

   False, mass murders by ISIS terrorists, illegal immigrant/gang violence, and BLM-sponsored riots and police killings is a growing trend in our inner cities. 

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

   False, are you kidding me? The scandals never end.  Benghazi, Iran ransom for hostages, national security breaches around email, IRS targeting of conservatives, Clinton Foundation collusion with State Department business, etc.

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

    False.  The global rise of ISIS terrorism and massive refugee exits from Syria occurred during Obama and Hillary's terms in office.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

    False.  No recent successes to speak of.  In fact, the Iran agreement and policy clashes with Russian on Syria have made the world more dangerous.  Respect the for US is down.  On arrival in Shanghai for the global summit, the Chinese government would not even provide a stairway for our sitting president to exit Air Force One. 

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

    False.  The incumbent candidate is a national disgrace through her breaches of national security, her constantly lying, labeling one fourth of the voting public as "racist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, and xenophobic", her international corruption and US policy influence peddling through the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.  As far as charisma goes, when a major candidate in the last 60 days of a national election can only draw an audience of 200, her candidacy can only be described as repulsive.

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

    False.  Trump is one of the most charismatic of candidates ever to run for President.  He is a national business hero and for 15 years was the star of the hit NBC TV show, the Apprentice.  Several times a week he draws thousands of people to his rallies.  He also captured more primary votes than any Republican candidate in history, and this was against a field of 16 opponents.

[KavMan]

I remember this DBag Professor on BOR’s show! He was talking about what a GREAT Legacy Obama would have! I was like WTF?

Did you see how this Professor slammed TRUMP when he siad he would be POTUS??!! It was UNBELIEVABLE!

[ozzymandus]

The “expert” had to discredit his own method when he got the result he didn’t want. This often happens in academia.

[YogicCowboy]

Well done!

[poconopundit]

I hear what you're saying. And certain it appears that many of the contests were easy to pick.

However, many of them were toss ups.

By the numbers there's a one in 256 chance that a model will predict 8 elections in a row

The formula is 2⁸ = 256

Four elections in a row is not as hard at 2⁴ = 16

I wouldn't be surprised if FReepers would pick winners more readily than the public at large.

[poconopundit]

Yes, it’s a scary thought indeed.

[poconopundit]

Exactly HL27, the guy pretends to be this innocent, academic observer and does a hit job on Trump.

Hopefully when his students reads these comments, they’ll learn what a charlatan he really is.

V K, you have a good memory of this guy and his shenanigans so many years back...

[poconopundit]

Yes, the guy is in an interesting dilemma but he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Hey I love your tag line. Very creative and makes you think. If Trump gets elected, the pitch forks can be lowered. If Hillary gets in, then black rifles will doubtless grow.

[Windflier]

“I love your tag line. Very creative and makes you think.”

Thanks. Wish I’d thought of it, but I snagged it from a comment I once saw at Conservative Treehouse. That’s a great bunch over there.

You’re right about the pitchforks being put away if Trump wins. If Hillary wins, you’ll see the biggest run on guns and ammo in American history. The people may even be forced to plead the 2nd Amendment.

[V K Lee]

LOL - it’s really saddening what is retained in memory banks when comparing memories year after year. Some are most enjoyable; others, not so much. That we of ‘a certain age’ are capable of any memory is something to celebrate :-)

[Ozark Tom]

5 & 6 are faked statistics. Currently in a depression for the bottom 95% which would be evident with soup lines and massive homeless camps if not for EBT, section 8 housing, etc.

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-if-were-in-depression-but-dont.html

[tinyowl]

Yeah, my sense is he's uncomfortable that his model predicts Trump.

he may even LIKE Trump ... but is just covering his butt so his prediction doesn't appear as support.

It's going to be interesting to see how much the polls were off because of people lying to protect their reputations.

I bet money on Trump many weeks ago after the Hill convention when odds were still 3 and 3.5 to 1. VERY MUCH looking forward to taking all my workmates out to lunch. Will they all puke when after the meal I reveal that Trump's victory paid for it? Although many have been mocking him, how many secretly will have voted for him?

POCO thanks for the analysis ... I read the newspaper article and was a little surprised that even though he predicted victory every other sentence was 'but Trump is different, he's a total bully ahole know-nothing liar .... etc."

[poconopundit]

Yes, agree. The purpose of questions 5 and 6 is to provide an objective measure of the voters’ mood on the economy and jobs.

Now, while the those statistics may have been more relevant 30 years ago, they are certainly less a measure today.

We know clearly that the American electorate is feeling economic pain. This election is clearly a rerun of “It’s the economy, stupid.”

And with that, we can now safely say that 12 of the 13 points in the Election Prediction Model point to Trump!

* * * *

And thank you for pointing me to the fantastic and scholarly work of Charles Hugh Smith. I have great interest in his economic charts and his analysis. Much to read.

In fact, maybe FReeper spend too much energy rebutting silly stuff from the NYT, WaPo, and HuffPost. I understand why we do it. You get a chance to vent anger and make jokes.

Still, Smith’s quality economic analysis — because it’s aimed at educating the layman — is highly appropriate here and I hope we’ll see more excerpts of his work here.