The Allan Lichtman Test: Obama will win re-election

[Nichlemn]

I put no stock in this Lictman Test. He is basically saying it does not matter, don't vote.

Your vote doesn't matter (more than a negligible amount) anyway, regardless of what Lichtman says.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hey Landslide Lyndon, go bankrupt another country.

Probably older than you are.

Time to hit ignore like some even with red avatars have already done to you.

Yeah, don't let the door hit your ass kid.

[pbrower2a]

I was looking at this again because it could easily be relevant in 2016.

A year and a half after the 2012 election I can think of faults with the model. One is that the keys are all equal in significance. Whether the Presidential candidate (unless a war hero like Grant, TR, or Eisenhower) or his VP nominee has experience in winning statewide elections matters greatly. Since 1930 such candidates have had a bad record. Hoover in 1932, Miller (VP, 1964), Shriver (VP, 1972), Ford (1976), Ferraro (VP, 1984), Kemp (1996), and Ryan (VP, 2012) were all involved in losses. The elder Bush split his experiences. Before you say "Cheney"... he at least won Wyoming in an at-large statewide race for a Congressional district.

Another -- the nominee from the state with the most electoral votes during the bulk of his political career looks like an edge.  Of course that does not apply to Truman in 1948, Eisenhower either time, Kennedy in 1960, Ford in 1976, or especially Clinton either time.