Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(94,598 posts)
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:33 AM Oct 2016

Professor who’s predicted 30 years of presidential elections correctly is doubling down on Trump win

Washington Post

Last month, the man who's tried to turn vote prediction into a science predicted a Trump win.

Allan J. Lichtman, distinguished professor of history at American University, said Democrats would not be able to hold on to the White House.

In the intervening weeks, the campaign was rocked by a series of events. The release of the Access Hollywood tape obtained by The Washington Post was followed by accusations from a growing list of women of various improprieties on Trump's part, ranging from verbal abuse and harassment to outright sexual assault. Fix founder Chris Cillizza named Trump the winner of the inauspicious “Worst Week in Washington” award for four weeks running. At the same time, WikiLeaks released internal Clinton campaign emails, and the U.S. government flatly accused the Kremlin of being involved. And let's not forget those presidential debates.

So plenty has changed. But one thing hasn't: Lichtman, author of “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016,” is sticking with his prediction of a Trump victory.


Panic!
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Professor who’s predicted 30 years of presidential elections correctly is doubling down on Trump win (Original Post) brooklynite Oct 2016 OP
Then he should the money he has wagered on trump winning beachbumbob Oct 2016 #1
He should what the money? dofus Oct 2016 #13
A lot of financial gurus were "never wrong" about the stock market UtahJosh Oct 2016 #2
This does kind of make me nervous Farmgirl1961 Oct 2016 #3
That there are more white nationalist than we ever thought possible? grossproffit Oct 2016 #4
Agree. And the issue is public vs. private behavior. CincyDem Oct 2016 #8
As long as a President Trump is even theoretically possible, Hortensis Oct 2016 #11
That's how I feel too Farmgirl1961 Oct 2016 #16
Me too. grossproffit Oct 2016 #20
He is using an analog system, not statistics. yellowcanine Oct 2016 #19
Exactly. The Trump factor is a brand new variable. His model can't account for this. anneboleyn Oct 2016 #30
Everything makes you nervous since you signed up for DU Democat Oct 2016 #24
Heads I win, tails I don't lose 7worldtrade Oct 2016 #26
I thought this was going to be about Professor Irwin Corey pinboy3niner Oct 2016 #5
"who's tried to turn vote prediction into a science" - "social sciences" aren't real "science"s... PoliticAverse Oct 2016 #7
But this is not a typical US election meadowlark5 Oct 2016 #10
Everything is the way it was, until it isn't. BobbyDrake Oct 2016 #12
How demoralizing. Just because he was right for 30 Cha Oct 2016 #14
He has one of the keys worded wrong "change in Washington because of incombent" doesn't mean the uponit7771 Oct 2016 #15
Thanks for the good news! book_worm Oct 2016 #17
Mathematically speaking, his method doesn't sound very impressive at all. DetlefK Oct 2016 #18
Well, if he's wrong his prognosticating career is over. Blue Idaho Oct 2016 #21
He was right... workinclasszero Oct 2016 #23
If more True is answered for the 13 questions I posted - the incumbant party nominee will win meadowlark5 Oct 2016 #25
Let me go ahead and leave this here: mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2016 #27
First of all Lictman's model is for the popular vote, NOT the electoral college. Here is the still_one Oct 2016 #28
Keeping it kicked molova Oct 2016 #29
A turkey thinks it has a good life until the day before Thanksgiving AngryAmish Oct 2016 #31
Dec 1969 #
 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
1. Then he should the money he has wagered on trump winning
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:36 AM
Oct 2016

Can get 6-1 odds...that's a good return...the bookies still seeing it as a Hillary slam dunk

UtahJosh

(131 posts)
2. A lot of financial gurus were "never wrong" about the stock market
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:38 AM
Oct 2016

all the way up until 2008 when they all were.

Farmgirl1961

(1,493 posts)
3. This does kind of make me nervous
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:38 AM
Oct 2016

I mean it seems practically statistically impossible, so on what basis would he said that Trump will win? What does he know that we don't?

CincyDem

(6,363 posts)
8. Agree. And the issue is public vs. private behavior.
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:50 AM
Oct 2016


What makes this unpredictable to me is that I believe there are many women out there who live in homes with Trump signs in the front year and who walk around the rallies with hubby. They have a hard edge and say all the right things...and when it comes to the privacy of the voting booth where one can keep the ultimate secret, the vote HRC. Maybe because deep down they really do think Trump is an asshat. Maybe it's because they get to stick one to hubby. who knows - a vote a vote.

In that same privacy, I think there a lot of guys with HRC signs in the front yard and "feel" like total democrats and in their private moment, they're going trump. Whether it be sexism or racism, I have this concern (I know I know - +12, don't worry)...I have this concern that more so than any other election people are being "not honest" with the pollsters either purposefully or sub consciously.

My goal is to just keep working my friends group and keep them on the right path.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
11. As long as a President Trump is even theoretically possible,
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:04 AM
Oct 2016

I'll be nervous. That such a dangerous person could come within an election of the oval office is already a failure of our democracy.

Btw, that anti-Trump nuclear war ad with the mushroom cloud is playing in battleground states. It's not hyperbole. We really could wake up one morning to find millions of people were dead and dying because a President Trump thought someone wasn't being "nice" to him.

Farmgirl1961

(1,493 posts)
16. That's how I feel too
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:17 AM
Oct 2016

Theoretically it is possible...perhaps not probable, but the whole possibility puts me on edge. And I agree...he's a dangerous man who must be stopped. I'm just hoping the majority of Americans are sane enough to make the right choice.

yellowcanine

(35,699 posts)
19. He is using an analog system, not statistics.
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:25 AM
Oct 2016

And his system has worked fairly well up to now. But some things have changed - notably the "electoral college lock" which has developed for Democrats over the last several elections. And of course we have never had a candidate like Trump and his model depends on major parties selecting candidates who the parties unite around.

The statistical sites such as 538 have a very good track record in recent years for general elections.

anneboleyn

(5,611 posts)
30. Exactly. The Trump factor is a brand new variable. His model can't account for this.
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:39 PM
Oct 2016

That is why I think sites like 538 are much better at determining the likely outcome in a year like this one.

Democat

(11,617 posts)
24. Everything makes you nervous since you signed up for DU
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:00 PM
Oct 2016

You and VaderMike post concern about Clinton quite often.

7worldtrade

(85 posts)
26. Heads I win, tails I don't lose
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:08 PM
Oct 2016

Anybody predicting what everyone else is predicting gets zero news now and later. If his prediction fails (which it will) nobody blames him - just chalk it up to the circumstances. But if he's right, he becomes the most popular person on the right for a very long time. its a win, no lose or win/win proposition. That's all it is.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
7. "who's tried to turn vote prediction into a science" - "social sciences" aren't real "science"s...
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:46 AM
Oct 2016


Lichtman has apparently found some correlations which are only useful for predictions until they're not.


meadowlark5

(2,795 posts)
10. But this is not a typical US election
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 10:59 AM
Oct 2016

Here are the 13 questions that he makes his prediction on:

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.

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

Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

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

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

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

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

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

Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

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

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

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

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

 

BobbyDrake

(2,542 posts)
12. Everything is the way it was, until it isn't.
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:04 AM
Oct 2016

I doubt this model accounted for one candidate bragging about all the sexual assault he committed.

Cha

(297,323 posts)
14. How demoralizing. Just because he was right for 30
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:11 AM
Oct 2016

years better not mean he's right about this one.

uponit7771

(90,347 posts)
15. He has one of the keys worded wrong "change in Washington because of incombent" doesn't mean the
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:15 AM
Oct 2016

... party you're supporting.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
18. Mathematically speaking, his method doesn't sound very impressive at all.
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 11:24 AM
Oct 2016

13 questions only?
And the possible answers are binary Yes-vs-No only?


Come oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooon. Any fuzzy-logic routine from the 1990s is more sophisticated than that.

If that professor tried to apply a similar technique for predicting anything scientific, he would get laughed out of the room by his colleagues.

meadowlark5

(2,795 posts)
25. If more True is answered for the 13 questions I posted - the incumbant party nominee will win
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:02 PM
Oct 2016

But it seems the answer to some of those questions could be quite subjective. And the first one about the congress and midterms should not even be considered due to gerrymandering over the last 8yrs. More dems voted in 2014 than republicans but because of gerrymandering, republicans still won/held seats.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,499 posts)
27. Let me go ahead and leave this here:
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:17 PM
Oct 2016


Just because they're rare, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Metaphorically:

Black swan theory

The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. The term is based on an ancient saying which presumed black swans did not exist, but the saying was rewritten after black swans were discovered in the wild.

And this:

Long-Term Capital Management

Downturn

....
LTCM was essentially betting that the share prices of Royal Dutch and Shell would converge because in their belief the present value of the future cashflows of the two securities should be similar. This might have happened in the long run, but due to its losses on other positions, LTCM had to unwind its position in Royal Dutch Shell. Lowenstein reports that the premium of Royal Dutch had increased to about 22%, which implies that LTCM incurred a large loss on this arbitrage strategy. LTCM lost $286 million in equity pairs trading and more than half of this loss is accounted for by the Royal Dutch Shell trade.

The company, which had historically earned annualised compounded returns of almost 40% up to this point, experienced a flight-to-liquidity. In the first three weeks of September, LTCM's equity tumbled from $2.3 billion at the start of the month to just $400 million by September 25. With liabilities still over $100 billion, this translated to an effective leverage ratio of more than 250-to-1.


Full disclosure: I made an investment in the wake of this black swan event, and it turned out well.

Black swans do happen.

According to other posts I've seen by brooklynite, I am sure that he is well aware of LTCM. They had a foolproof algorithm that took account of everything - until a black swan event occurred that the algorithm could not accommodate. The one guy saying "it can happen" might be right.

When Genius Failed

When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management is a book by Roger Lowenstein published by Random House on October 9, 2000. The book puts forth an unauthorized account of the creation, early success, abrupt collapse, and rushed bailout of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). LTCM was a tightly-held American hedge fund founded in 1993 which commanded more than $100 billion in assets at its height, then collapsed abruptly in August/September 1998. Prompted by deep concerns about LTCM's thousands of derivative contracts, in order to avoid a panic by banks and investors worldwide, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stepped in to organize a bailout with the various major banks at risk.
....

Overview

The book tells the story of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), an American hedge fund which commanded more than $100 billion in assets at its height. Among LTCM's principals were several former university professors, including two Nobel Prize-winning economists.
....

Between 1994 and 1998, the fund showed a return on investment of more than 40% per annum. However, its enormously leveraged gamble with various forms of arbitrage involving more than $1 trillion went bad, and in one month, LTCM lost $1.9 billion. On the precipice of not only an American financial disaster, the fund's imminent collapse had significant international monetary implications, jeopardizing the financial system itself. Prompted by deep concerns about LTCM's thousands of derivative contracts, in order to avoid a panic by banks and investors worldwide, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stepped in to organize a bailout with the various major banks at risk.

Don't stay home on November 8 in the belief that your vote isn't needed.

still_one

(92,219 posts)
28. First of all Lictman's model is for the popular vote, NOT the electoral college. Here is the
Fri Oct 28, 2016, 12:26 PM
Oct 2016

criteria he uses:

METHOD:

Lichtman first developed the Keys system in 1981, in collaboration with Vladimir Keilis-Borok, founder of the International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics. The methodology used in the development of the Keys is described in Keilis-Borok and Lichtman (1981) and Lichtman (2008, 2010a). As shown in Table 1, each of the thirteen keys is stated as a threshold condition that always favors the re-election of the party holding the White House. For example, Key 5 is phrased as “The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.” Each key can then be assessed as true or false prior to an upcoming election and the winner predicted according to a simple decision rule. Unlike other systems for predicting election results, the Keys do not assume a fixed relationship between election results and one more dependent variables, such as economic growth or presidential approval ratings. Rather predictions are based on an index comprised of the number of false or negative keys: When five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party wins; when any six or more are false, the challenging party wins.

The 13 Keys to the White House and their coding (1: True; 0: False) for 2016

1 Party Mandate After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.
2 Contest There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
3 Incumbency The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.
4 Third party There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5 Short-term economy The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6 Long-term economy Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7 Policy change The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8 Social unrest There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9 Scandal The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10 Foreign/military failure The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11 Foreign/military success The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12 Incumbent charisma The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.13 Challenger charisma The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

https://pollyvote.com/en/components/index-models/keys-to-the-white-house/

The question is what f**king excuse is Lichtman going to use if trump loses? A more likely scenario is he won't even be covered

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Professor who’s predicted...