Alan Lichtman and Cenk get in intense argument, lichtman accuses cenk of blasphemy

[Matty]

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1859005673381785605

[TheReckoning]

I don’t know why Lichtman gets so much hate TBH, anyone who accurately predicted the 2016 election is pretty impressive IMO.

[Blue3]

Who cares?

Also, we need to stop using the word “destroys.” It’s really only used when fans of someone think they made a good point. How many “Harris destroys Trump” and similar headlines did we see? Guess what - no one was destroyed.

[EpicHistory]

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1859005673381785605

Surprised no one has posted the two monkeys fighting image from the Simpsons yet lol. Anyway, what's really funny is that Nate Silver pointed out that, if Lichtman had just accurately applied his keys, it would've been right and predicted a Trump victory.

[America needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I don’t know why Lichtman gets so much hate TBH, anyone who accurately predicted the 2016 election is pretty impressive IMO.

His prediction was specifically that Trump would win the popular vote, which was wrong in 2016.

[TheReckoning]

I don’t know why Lichtman gets so much hate TBH, anyone who accurately predicted the 2016 election is pretty impressive IMO.

His prediction was specifically that Trump would win the popular vote, which was wrong in 2016.

Doesn’t he claim that he changed his model after 2000 to predict the EC instead of the NPV?

[KakyoinMemeHouse]

Can we stop with the Lichtman bashing for once?

[EpicHistory]

Can we stop with the Lichtman bashing for once?

Yeah, Peter Zeihan deserves it worse lol:

https://twitter.com/NapoleonBonabot/status/1858859445716918632

[HagridOfTheDeep]

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1859005673381785605

Damn, who’s that cute guy to the right of Lichtman?

[New World Man]

Both are awful.

[SteveRogers]

I don’t know why Lichtman gets so much hate TBH, anyone who accurately predicted the 2016 election is pretty impressive IMO.

Okay y’all, let’s review the magic trick that lead to Lichtman’s 2016 “prediction.”

Lichtman does now claim that his model was changed at some point from predicting the popular vote to merely predicting the electoral college winner (exactly when he decided on this change is immaterial for today’s discussion). And in his final September 2016 assessment of the keys, he did predict a Trump victory. Here were the keys he had turned FALSE against the Dems:
1. Party mandate
3. Incumbent seeking re-election
4. No Third Party
7. Major policy change
11. Major Foreign/Military success
12. Charismatic incumbent

Notably he considered Key #2, no primary contest, to be UNDETERMINED. His reasoning was that although Bernie won more than 40% of the primary delegates, he released them and endorsed Hillary, so it wasn’t clear how the party challenge key should be counted. Still, he had 6 keys as FALSE, indicating the challenger party (Trump) would win.

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/assuming-historys-a-good-guide-trumps-going-to-win

However, come Election Day Gary Johnson did NOT in fact get over 5% of the vote, and thus the “No Third Party” key #4 would go down as TRUE. (Here we see that maybe it’s a problem if your “model” has one variable that objectively can’t be determined until after the election). And that would only be 5 False keys, which should have indicated a Hillary win.

So how did he reconcile this after the fact? Well obviously in his book he marked down Key #2 for the primary contest as having been FALSE all along. If Hillary had won, he could just as easily have decided after the fact that it was TRUE. See how that works? That’s some fun sleight of hand!

 Can we be done with this guy now?

[David Hume]

I don’t know why Lichtman gets so much hate TBH, anyone who accurately predicted the 2016 election is pretty impressive IMO.

He got it wrong. He originally said his key predicts the election result, and got it wrong in 2000. He then claimed it only predicts popular votes. He got it wrong in 2016, yet he denied it again. In 2024, his BS got both electoral and popular vote wrong, and he came up with some other excuses. This is why I think he has 0 credibility and is a complete liar. 

[qrdlelections]

Facts:  I love the keys, and repeatedly told people it won't work this year.

Lichtman is a smart (if unstable) guy who did a great historical study and came up with a beautiful model similar to what's used for predicting earthquakes.

Is it perfect?   FF No.   No model is (Except maybe whatever Atlas intel does

But it's very intuitive and can be used for predicting lots of complex things that don't easily fall to models.   It also gives some good guardrails on how a president should govern if they want to be re-elected.

So yeah, I agree with the above.  Stop with the Lichtman bashing.  He's done some great work and should be very proud of it.  

[SteveRogers]

Facts:  I love the keys, and repeatedly told people it won't work this year.

Lichtman is a smart (if unstable) guy who did a great historical study and came up with a beautiful model similar to what's used for predicting earthquakes.  

Lol.

[qrdlelections]

I think the problem is everyone wants a silver bullet.

Some 'one model to rule them all'.  It rarely works like that.

When doing inference, it's best to have a diverse set of models and to blend and weight them appropriately for a given scenario.   Lichtman's only mistake this year was his inability to chill and appreciate that a model largely based on historical precedent isn't going to work in very unprecedented times.

[Can't Back Down When Punched!]

Cenk Uygur, voice of reason and good sense. Never thought I would live to see the day. This is beautiful.

[SteveRogers]

I think the problem is everyone wants a silver bullet.

Some 'one model to rule them all'.  It rarely works like that.

When doing inference, it's best to have a diverse set of models and to blend and weight them appropriately for a given scenario.   Lichtman's only mistake this year was his inability to chill and appreciate that a model largely based on historical precedent isn't going to work in very unprecedented times.

Can you please explain to me how it even counts as a “model” if one of the keys, namely the third party vote being over or under 5%, cannot be determined until after the election? How can the model claim to predict the election result if one of the keys requires knowing the vote totals from the election?

[LBJer]

I don’t know why Lichtman gets so much hate TBH, anyone who accurately predicted the 2016 election is pretty impressive IMO.

He got it wrong. He originally said his key predicts the election result, and got it wrong in 2000.

To be fair, Gore may have actually won the 2000 election.

[David Hume]

Facts:  I love the keys, and repeatedly told people it won't work this year.

Lichtman is a smart (if unstable) guy who did a great historical study and came up with a beautiful model similar to what's used for predicting earthquakes.

Are you kidding me???

I did my PhD in an institute which is arguably the best in the world for seismology research. My colleague there all said there is no way to predict earthquakes. These are the best scientists with the best statistics and equipments. You think a crapy "historian" can come up with some "models" based on a few arbitrary keys that does better than them???


Also see USGS https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-you-predict-earthquakes
"Can you predict earthquakes?
No. Neither the USGS nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake. We do not know how, and we do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future."

Lichtman is a complete liar, period.

[Can't Back Down When Punched!]

Lichtman's a hack who's too far up his own.

First of all, his "13 keys" are nothing revolutionary. That's not to say that they're wrong or not useful, I think it's a good summary of what kinds of factors usually affect presidential elections, but that's all it is.

He also leaves some of his "keys" to be vague and open to interpretation. Which ended up hurting Lichtman's own credibility in this campaign where he chose to interpret some keys in a way that favoured Harris. His keys weren't necessarily wrong, but the way he chose to interpret them were extremely generous to Harris. I won't belabor the point here because I assume most of us will be familiar with the Silver-Lichtman debate over the keys.

Another thing with Lichtman, again already mentioned here but just to hammer it home: he moved the goalpost on what his keys are supposed to predict, not once but twice after he got it wrong. Now he's gotten three wrong. In the 21st century, Lichtman's keys have been correct four times, and incorrect three times. That's 57%, barely a passing grade.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Lichtman's a hack who's too far up his own.

First of all, his "13 keys" are nothing revolutionary. That's not to say that they're wrong or not useful, I think it's a good summary of what kinds of factors usually affect presidential elections, but that's all it is.

He also leaves some of his "keys" to be vague and open to interpretation. Which ended up hurting Lichtman's own credibility in this campaign where he chose to interpret some keys in a way that favoured Harris. His keys weren't necessarily wrong, but the way he chose to interpret them were extremely generous to Harris. I won't belabor the point here because I assume most of us will be familiar with the Silver-Lichtman debate over the keys.

Another thing with Lichtman, again already mentioned here but just to hammer it home: he moved the goalpost on what his keys are supposed to predict, not once but twice after he got it wrong. Now he's gotten three wrong. In the 21st century, Lichtman's keys have been correct four times, and incorrect three times. That's 57%, barely a passing grade.

57% is an F anywhere and is only 7 percentage points better than a coin flip.

[qrdlelections]

Lol, I always have a simple rebuttal in these discussions - show me your superior model.

[Can't Back Down When Punched!]

Lichtman's a hack who's too far up his own.

First of all, his "13 keys" are nothing revolutionary. That's not to say that they're wrong or not useful, I think it's a good summary of what kinds of factors usually affect presidential elections, but that's all it is.

He also leaves some of his "keys" to be vague and open to interpretation. Which ended up hurting Lichtman's own credibility in this campaign where he chose to interpret some keys in a way that favoured Harris. His keys weren't necessarily wrong, but the way he chose to interpret them were extremely generous to Harris. I won't belabor the point here because I assume most of us will be familiar with the Silver-Lichtman debate over the keys.

Another thing with Lichtman, again already mentioned here but just to hammer it home: he moved the goalpost on what his keys are supposed to predict, not once but twice after he got it wrong. Now he's gotten three wrong. In the 21st century, Lichtman's keys have been correct four times, and incorrect three times. That's 57%, barely a passing grade.

57% is an F anywhere and is only 7 percentage points better than a coin flip.

It was a D for most classes in my program so you still got full credits, but your term average couldn't slip below 60%.

Regardless, yeah I wouldn't be going on TV accusing my detractors of "blasphemy" for disagreeing with me on a topic, if my own record on said topic was like you said barely better than a coin flip.

[Voice of low info America]

Only very dumb people who don't follow politics ever took Lichtman seriously. He could at least exit the stage with some dignity like Selzer but I guess he prefers being a clown.

[Can't Back Down When Punched!]

Lol, I always have a simple rebuttal in these discussions - show me your superior model.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed to have a better model lol.

If the standard for criticizing a public figure is being able to do it better, then a wide receiver who keeps fumbling the ball should never be criticized, because he's still better at catching passes than 99% of the general public. Obviously we don't use that standard, same thing here.