Welcome to Madame President Kamala Harris and First Gentleman Doug Emhoff!

 

 

You can take this to the bank.

You can ignore debates.

You can ignore polls.

It's over, baby! 

Explaining the all important KEYS, the backbone of the almost flawless prediction system of Professor Lichtman.

 

 

This is the final straw MAGA. Nice while it lasted, good time so much fun laughing.

Bye forever

Wait, there's MUCH more.

 

 

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Welcome to Madame President Kamala Harris and First Gentleman Doug Emhoff!

 

 

You can take this to the bank.

You can ignore debates.

You can ignore polls.

It's over, baby! 

This clown gave Obama a 31% chance 

11 minutes ago, maesariang said:

This clown gave Obama a 31% chance 

As I mentioned in the other thread, he correctly predicted that Obama and the Dems would prevail in 2008....

 

[The Keys to the White House firmly pre-
dict a Democratic victory in the popular
vote in 2008. It is most improbable that
the course of events will swing the Keys
back in line for the GOP.]

 

https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_720110.pdf

3 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

As I mentioned in the other thread, he correctly predicted that Obama and the Dems would prevail in 2008....

 

[The Keys to the White House firmly pre-
dict a Democratic victory in the popular
vote in 2008. It is most improbable that
the course of events will swing the Keys
back in line for the GOP.]

 

https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_720110.pdf

He gave Obama 5/13 in 2008. Yet claims afterwards he picked him to win. On a score of 5/13? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House

 

Says 9 false keys in 2008

23 minutes ago, maesariang said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House

 

Says 9 false keys in 2008

You're misreading the table.  The false keys are positive if the nominee is not from an incumbent party, and negative if he is.  In the case of Obama in 2008 and Biden in 2020 (not the incumbent party), more false keys are better.  And in the case of Harris--from an incumbent party--more green keys are better.

39 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

You're misreading the table.  The false keys are positive if the nominee is not from an incumbent party, and negative if he is.

Huh?

5 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Huh?

You don't understand?  I went to YOUR link and saw that chart/table for the first time and was able to figure it out.  Here's another explanation...from your link...

 

[The system consists of 13 true/false statements pertaining to circumstances surrounding a presidential election. If five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the election. If six or more are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose.]

Aside from Lichtman's remarkable success in predicting, a really cool thing about him is that he's open about his political views while at the same time being totally objective on his presidential keys analysis.

The same man posted this and also correctly predicted Trump would win in 2016 which went against the consensus.

 

 

7 hours ago, Berkshire said:

You don't understand?  I went to YOUR link and saw that chart/table for the first time and was able to figure it out.  Here's another explanation...from your link...

 

[The system consists of 13 true/false statements pertaining to circumstances surrounding a presidential election. If five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the election. If six or more are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose.]

Very subjective measures.

9 hours ago, maesariang said:

He gave Obama 5/13 in 2008. Yet claims afterwards he picked him to win. On a score of 5/13? 

False:

This is from an article written in 2008 after the conventions and before the election:

"For this election, Lichtman says the Republicans have lost Key 1 (the 2006 mid-term election was a huge setback), Key 3 (the incumbent-party candidate is not the current president), Key 6 (long-term economic growth), Key 7 (there were no significant policy changes during this term), Key 10 (the Iraq war is widely regarded as a failure that has cost the United States much support from its allies), Key 11 (there were no major military or foreign-policy successes) and Key 12 (the incumbentparty candidate is not very charismatic or a national hero.) They seem likely to lose Key 5, as well, as many people believe the country is sliding into a recession, and Barack Obama’s charm and appeal could still turn Key 13, although that’s not easy, as only the two Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan have turned it in the past century."

https://pubsonline.informs.org/do/10.1287/orms.2008.05.12/full/

 

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Welcome to Madame President Kamala Harris and First Gentleman Doug Emhoff!

 

 

You can take this to the bank.

You can ignore debates.

You can ignore polls.

It's over, baby! 

 

50/50 and most of them were pretty easy to predict, he's going to look red faced in November. Harris is honestly the stupidest politician I have ever seen.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Aside from Lichtman's remarkable success in predicting, a really cool thing about him is that he's open about his political views while at the same time being totally objective on his presidential keys analysis.

The same man posted this and also correctly predicted Trump would win in 2016 which went against the consensus.

 

 

 

Lincoln was the worst president, his invasion of the CSA cost at least 600k American lives.

Just now, proton said:

 

50/50 and most of them were pretty easy to predict, he's going to look red faced in November. Harris is honestly the stupidest politician I have ever seen.

Well, he did predict Trump would win.

That said, I don't assign much importance to his opinion or method.

The funny thing is, though, Fox News was trumpeting news that Lichtman was about to issue his conclusion. But as soon as he did, the topic vanished from the Fox website. I wonder why that was?

2 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Lincoln was the worst president, his invasion of the CSA cost at least 600k American lives.

Even worse, it put an end to slavery...oh wait a minute...

Of course, back then, they didn't exactly count as Americans...

He said Al Gore would be president too. His method looks a bit ridiculous.

 

Plus he's a historian, not a statistician.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even worse, it put an end to slavery...oh wait a minute...

Of course, back then, they didn't exactly count as Americans...

 

The war was to re unite the CSA with the Union, ending slavery was a side issue that Lincoln was never bothered about. He said if he could save the Union by freeing no slaves or just some he would. He also offered the CSA a deal keeping slavery legal until 1900 if they would rejoin the Union. When they refused almost 2 years into the war he announced the proclamation to free slaves and only in the CSA where he had no authority, slavery was still legal in 4 Union states. The proclamation was just a tactic to effect a slave rebellion in the CSA. Lincoln freed no slaves, that was not done until the 13th amendment 8 months after Lincoln was killed. Americans have been brainwashed about the great 'liberator'.

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Even worse, it put an end to slavery...oh wait a minute...

Of course, back then, they didn't exactly count as Americans...

IMO they still don't, in TrumpWorld. They will probably be next, after the immigrants and Hispanics. Back to Africa, you poisoners of our blood.

 

I wonder what he will do with Indians, the local ones.

1 minute ago, proton said:

 

The war was to re unite the CSA with the Union, ending slavery was a side issue that Lincoln was never bothered about. He said if he could save the Union by freeing no slaves or just some he would. He also offered the CSA a deal keeping slavery legal until 1900 if they would rejoin the Union. When they refused almost 2 years into the war he announced the proclamation to free slaves and only in the CSA where he had no authority, slavery was still legal in 4 Union states. The proclamation was just a tactic to effect a slave rebellion in the CSA. Lincoln freed no slaves, that was not done until the 13th amendment 8 months after Lincoln was killed. Americans have been brainwashed about the great 'liberator'.

I'm not going to debate with you the history that led up to the emancipation. The fact is that slavery was ended. And you condemned the war on the grounds that it cost 600K lives.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

He said Al Gore would be president too. His method looks a bit ridiculous.

 

Plus he's a historian, not a statistician.

His excuse was the hanging chads in Florida, But apart from that, in 2016 Pennsylvania and Florida were very close. Had the gone the other way, Clinton would have won the election. So not much reason to respect his method.

2 minutes ago, proton said:

 

The war was to re unite the CSA with the Union, ending slavery was a side issue that Lincoln was never bothered about. He said if he could save the Union by freeing no slaves or just some he would. He also offered the CSA a deal keeping slavery legal until 1900 if they would rejoin the Union. When they refused almost 2 years into the war he announced the proclamation to free slaves and only in the CSA where he had no authority, slavery was still legal in 4 Union states. The proclamation was just a tactic to effect a slave rebellion in the CSA. Lincoln freed no slaves, that was not done until the 13th amendment 8 months after Lincoln was killed. Americans have been brainwashed about the great 'liberator'.

He seems to have a lot of statues commemorating him.

 

Do you think Trump will ever get a statue, or have a ship named after him?

24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, he did predict Trump would win.

 

Looking at it, he predicted Trump would win the popular vote. Which was wrong. Trump lost the popular vote.

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Looking at it, he predicted Trump would win the popular vote. Which was wrong. Trump lost the popular vote.

Did he? Not according to this story dated sep 26, 2008 which explicitly made this correction:

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated with a correction. It has been corrected to read that Prof. Lichtman’s 13 Keys system predicts the winner of the presidential race, not the outcome of the popular vote.

https://www.american.edu/media/news/092616-13-keys-prediction.cfm

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I'm not going to debate with you the history that led up to the emancipation. The fact is that slavery was ended. And you condemned the war on the grounds that it cost 600K lives.

 

Not your strong point then! Lincoln could have ended slavery by other means than slaughter. The Brits ended slavery in it's colonies in the 1830's by purchasing slaves then freeing them. Of course that would not have solved the problem of the CSA which was all Lincoln was interested in. The war did not end slavery, congress did, which they could have done before.

23 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

He seems to have a lot of statues commemorating him.

 

Do you think Trump will ever get a statue, or have a ship named after him?

 

Should be pulled down, he was a tyrant and a traitor to the constitution, as well as a white supremacist Read some of his speeches eg 18th Sept 1858

 

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. 

1 minute ago, proton said:

 

Not your strong point then! Lincoln could have ended slavery by other means than slaughter. The Brits ended slavery in it's colonies in the 1830's by purchasing slaves then freeing them. Of course that would not have solved the problem of the CSA which was all Lincoln was interested in. The war did not end slavery, congress did, which they could have done before.

Congress could have ended slavery? Even if the Constitution would have allowed for it, how do you think the South would have reacted? In fact, the reason that the South seceded was that it was clear the as new states were added, slave states would be more and more outnumbered.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Congress could have ended slavery? Even if the Constitution would have allowed for it, how do you think the South would have reacted? In fact, the reason that the South seceded was that it was clear the as new states were added, slave states would be more and more outnumbered.

 

You need to go back to school