53
At least there's a spoiler at the top of the article. He's taking Harris and his L of the past 10yrs was Bush v Gore.
Yet more signs pointing to Trump's path to victory being to cheat and coup instead of trying to win votes legitimately.
Yes it's hard to take the cheating, voter suppression, and coup-ing into account statistically. I wasn't really advocating for the author or prediction. Just wanted those elements of the article when I saw the post.
Yeah, but his last prediction was 100% wrong, or his current one is...
In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election in the United States, amidst widening calls by Democratic Party representatives, members, voters, and supporters for incumbent president Joe Biden to withdraw from the race in favor of another candidate with "better chances,"[36][37] Lichtman denounced that demand as a "foolish, destructive escapade," accusing "pundits and the media" of "pushing" the Dems into a losing choice. He added that "all" those calling for Biden's resignation have "zero track record" of predicting election outcomes.[38] By July 21, 2024, Biden announced he was withdrawing from the race, adding that he will serve out the remainder of his term.[39]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
So if he's right with this prediction that Harris wins, his last L was just like a month ago.
That wasn't a prediction, he just said Biden had a better chance of winning in 2024 than Harris.
Since that is now an alternate timeline, we will never know if he was right.
Keep in mind that he doesn't try to predict who will poll better, in fact he thinks polls are irrelevant.
Or, we could just accept the simple fact that if the candidates change, so too does the prediction. He made his predictions based on the options available at the time.
Kinda shortsided to consider that an L.
shortsided
Bone apple tea!
Ah shit! Guilty af
Also, his keys aren't supposed to need frequent reevaluation based on fine-grade events, so if they predict she'd win now, they should have predicted she'd win last month. The only information that's been revealed is there wasn't a "primary" challenge for the eventual nominee.
"Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half-century, except for the race in 2000, in which Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore."
In which Gore actually did win:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
Lichtman argues he was right in 2000 because his system predicted the popular vote winner, but that means in 2016 he was wrong because Trump didn't win the popular vote. He then tried to say the keys are now about predicting the electoral college winner, but there wasn't any change in the keys. He's just trying to redefine his targets to say he was right after the fact.
If a hundred people try to guess ten coin flips, odds are at least one of them will guess nine out of ten. That doesn’t make them an expert.
And that's on coin flips. Many of the last 10 elections weren't hard to predict.
Gotta get them an octopus.
Coincidentally the odds are that almost exactly one will guess 9 out of 10 correctly, and about four people will guess 8 out of 10 correctly. Odds drop to about 1 in 1000 for guessing all 10 correctly.
In other news, they interviewed 200 historians and by chance found one that happened to predict 9 of the last 10 elections correctly.
Seriously. Might as well quote a professional phrenologist.
If you try to forget who the picture on the right is, and just look at him as a random person, he looks so fucking strange with that makeup and that skin texture.
The "chicken rotisserie" look.
Better get a discount on that chicken, it's cooked unevenly.
Looks like ‘The Orange Ladies’ to me. The women that ran the attendance office in my high school.
I don't want to diminish the talent of the historian in vain but past performance is not always an indicator of being good at predictions, he might just have been lucky in a completely random guess 9 times out of 10. Given the amount of historians making such predictions it is not unlikely that such an historian exists and it would be fairly easy to mistake their success for talent.
I don't know where I found this but I found a scheme somewhere to scam some investors: Find a large list of potential victims. Tell one part of it that you predict that market will do A, and the other part that the market will do B. Repeat the process several times, selecting only the investors to whom you've always told the correct prediction. Eventually you will have a handfull of people who have "solid proof" that you are a visionnary and you can scam them.
Again, I absolutely do not mean to say that this particular historian is bad. This story just reminded me of these ideas and I wanted to share.
I'm curious if at this point it would be possible to train an LLM on this type of estimation. But I don't understand Ai really well or if they are even good at predictive work. Im going off of research that involved predicting disease (I think it was diabetes)
LLMs don't handle booleans, and the 13 keys is an open statement, so the best you could do is train 13 neural networks to determine each of the keys, but you'd need a lot of data for that I suspect we simply don't have.
It'd probably be better to train a neural network to just output probabilities of each candidate winning based on specific information, like polling data.
It would say trump would win 99% of the time because he already wone once
Well... I meant train in on a larger data set going back for republican/Dems a long way back
It would do the same thing
Had to run this through ChatGPT and funny enough it sites this article in the first paragraph. It also has no idea about Kennedy dropping out and endorsing Trump.
As of now, predictions for the 2024 U.S. presidential election suggest a tight race. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has been forecasted by election expert Allan Lichtman to win, based on his "13 Keys to the White House" model. Lichtman has a strong track record, having correctly predicted most U.S. presidential elections since 1984. He argues that Harris holds more favorable indicators than her main rival, Donald Trump, who is seeking a second non-consecutive term.
On the other hand, some models, like those from Race to the WH, show a more competitive scenario, with polling and swing state dynamics still evolving. Trump's ongoing legal issues and the emergence of strong third-party candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. add complexity to the race.
Ultimately, the final outcome will depend heavily on how these factors unfold in the coming months, as both candidates continue their campaigns
Predictions for the 2024 Presidential Elections - Live Forecast — Race to the WH
well given the odds of a know-nothing correct pick being 50% then at best one would expect a coin flip to do on average is 5/10 though there were maybe a couple easy calls in there
USA Today - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for USA Today:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/05/historian-allan-lichtman-2024-election-prediction/75082875007/
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
53 points (81.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4584 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS