CASTING TEA LEAVES ANYONE? WHO WILL WIN THE 2024 RACE: TRUMP OR HARRIS? WE PLACE OUR MONEY ON TRUMP!
_________________________________________
NOTE TO OUR READERS: AQ IS UNDER A TIME CRUNCH TO POST THIS ESSAY ON NOVEMBER 4, 2024. IT IS ALMOST 12:00 MIDNIGHT AS WE PLACE THIS ESSAY ONLINE.
WE ARE PUBLISHING THIS ARTICLE NOW IN ROUGH DRAFT, PRIOR TO EDITING SO THAT THE READER UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS ARTICLE HAS IN FACT BEEN POSTED BEFORE THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER (ELECTION DAY) AND THAT OUR COMMENTS HEREIN REFLECT NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION.
UPDATE: 7:00 A.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME: WE HAVE CONCLUDED MAJOR EDITING OF THIS ARTICLE. WE WILL CONTINUE TO PROOF IT. WE ENCOURAGE EVERY ELIGIBLE PERSON TO VOTE TODAY (D-DAY) IF HE OR SHE HAS NOT ALREADY DONE SO. AND FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR OWN WELL-BEING AND THAT OF YOUR FAMILY AND OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN AND OUR NATION, AND FOR GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS TO COME, WE URGE YOU TO CAST YOUR VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP.
DONALD TRUMP HAS PROVEN TO BE AN EXEMPLARY STEWARD OF OUR GREAT NATION AND IS DESERVING OF A SECOND TERM THAT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENIED HIM IN 2020.
THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO PRESERVE THE NATION IN THE FORM THE FOUNDERS GAVE IT TO US: A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
THERE WILL BE NO THIRD CHANCE IF HARRIS PREVAILS.
THERE ARE TWO COMPETING VISIONS OF AMERICA ON THE TABLE. THEY CANNOT BE RECONCILED. THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE.
ONE VISION SEEKS TO PRESERVE THE IDEALS OF THE FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY, CONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION THEY CRAFTED—ONE THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.
THE OTHER VISION SEEKS TO UPTURN OUR NATION—TURN IT INSIDE OUT. THE AIM OF THE PROPONENTS OF THIS VISION IS THE CREATION OF A MARXIST STATE. THE U.S. WILL CEASE TO EXIST. THIS NATION WILL BE BUT ONE MORE COG IN A MAMMOTH WORLD EMPIRE THAT BODES ILL FOR OUR NATION AND FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION.
WHICH VISION DO YOU WISH FOR: THAT OF HARRIS AND THE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY A.K.A. THE INTERNATIONAL RULES-BASED ORDER CONTROLLED BY POWERFUL AND RUTHLESS FINANCIERS AND TECHNOCRATS WHO ARE BEHOLDEN TO NO NATION AND NO CULTURE, AND WHO DISAVOW A SYSTEM OF ETHICS BASED ON NATURAL LAW, IN FAVOR OF ABSURD UTILITARIAN MORAL RELATIVISM?
WE CAN PRESERVE THE PROMISE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION UNDER TRUMP OR EMBRACE THE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST, MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION, DISPLACING OUR NATION’S SOVEREIGNTY/INDEPENDENCE AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT. WHAT WE HAVE WITNESSED AND LIVED THROUGH UNDER THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION IS JUST A FORETASTE OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY WILL SUFFER UNDER A HARRIS ADMINISTRATION, THAT CONTINUES THE DISASTROUS POLICIES OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION.
THE CHOICE IS YOURS. THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE TO PRESERVE OUR COUNTRY AND OUR CORE VALUES.
THIS IS OUR FINAL BATTLE. VOTE FOR TRUMP AND PRESERVE OUR COUNTRY AS A TRULY FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, OR INVITE CHAOS AND SUFFERING AND THE LOSS OF OUR HERITAGE UNDER A MARXIST DICTATORSHIP.
_______________________________________
The Premier “Soothsayer” Statistician of Polling, Nate Silver—who dislikes the descriptor “Pollster” that the Press continually applies to him” because he knows that too many ”Pollsters” deliberately skew results—sees a tight race leading up to the U.S. Presidential Election, now upon us. See the article in the New York Post, published on November 1, 2024.
For Nate Silver, accuracy in polling correlates with his personal integrity in positing inferences drawn from use of precision analytical tools, shunning the insertion of statistical content meant to mislead the Electorate. The use of dubious statistical data is, unfortunately, the hallmark of many scurrilous “Pollsters” whose findings reflect their personal bias—hence Nate Silver’s distaste for the term, as sloppily applied to him by news media.
Nate Silver is a person to rely on for accurate information on the state of an electoral race.
He is not, therefore, a Pollster, despite the continual use of the appellation by the Press in mentioning him, as illustrated in the news report, below.
Pollster Nate Silver has become the person many Americans look to for an election prediction they can trust on the strength of his reliable track record.
With Election Day on Tuesday, many will be looking to Silver again, especially with the polls showing that the race remains extremely tight, with any leads enjoyed by Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump being by just a few percentage points, often within the margin of error.
Silver, who founded 538 but is no longer affiliated, has essentially said the same thing, writing that "50-50 is the only responsible forecast," in an October 23 column for The New York Times.
Newsweek has rounded up what Silver has said about Harris, her chances of winning, how she could achieve a victory and what other election outcomes are possible for her. Newsweek has contacted the Harris campaign, via email, for comment.
Silver put Harris' winning odds at 46.2 percent on Thursday, calling it a "very close to a coin flip."
Both Harris and Trump would have to "beat their polls" to win, he said, before explaining how polling, and different methods used, could be underestimating either candidate. . . .
Silver, a self-described journalist and an applied statistician, shares his predictions through his Substack publication, the Silver Bulletin, which is a model he calls a "direct descendent of the FiveThirtyEight election forecast," which is famous for correctly predicting the outcome in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. presidential election and all 50 states in 2012.
In 2016, when 538 gave Donald Trump a 29 percent chance of victory, Silver was one of the few analysts to stress this pointed to a real chance he could win. In 2020, 538 correctly predicted that Joe Biden would win.
The Silver Bulletin, which weights reliable polls more heavily, had Harris in the lead with 48.5 percent to Trump's 47.4 percent as of Thursday. But it also put Harris in the lead in just two—Michigan and Wisconsin—of seven swing states.
“If she loses Pennsylvania, Harris's Plan B would have to involve a two-state parlay: either Georgia or North Carolina plus either Arizona or Nevada, or both Georgia and North Carolina," Silver wrote.
With Trump having a 0.8 percentage-point lead in Pennsylvania, according to the Silver Bulletin's averages, Nate asked whether Harris should have picked Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate instead of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, which he made a case for in August, calling Shapiro an "extremely popular governor of what is by far the most important swing state." [See Microsoft encapsulation of Newsweek article].
Plausible Individual Election Day Scenarios show either Trump or Harris as victor, but no given set of plausible scenarios favor one side or the other.
Silver says one factor cuts across all the plausible scenarios, shaping who will emerge the victor: VOTER TURNOUT!
Voter turnout will likely be the deciding factor in the razor-thin presidential race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, according to polling expert Nate Silver.
"It's a cliché," Silver wrote on Silver Bulletin, his Substack publication, "but turnout—particularly whether Donald Trump can turn out his marginal voters...may determine who wins."
Enthusiasm among voters will likely sway the results, particularly in key battleground states where demographics and past voting trends could drive turnout variability, he said.
Silver projects a total national turnout of approximately 155 million voters, with a confidence interval ranging from 148 million to 162 million, according to his model. He said that's significantly higher than in 2016, when 137 million went out to vote for president, but slightly lower than 2020's record turnout of 158.7 million.
"I think I feel OK about projecting a very slight decrease," Silver said. "The 2020 election was outlier-ish from a turnout standpoint, perhaps in part because people had so many ways to vote (and so little else going on) during COVID." [MSN citing recent Newsweek article]
No Pollster has, to our knowledge, dared—even up to this moment—to predict a clear victor in the U.S. Presidential race.
As of November 3, 2024, the Polling Company, “538,” provides, at best, probabilities, having run one thousand simulations. Its findings:
Trump wins 53 times out of 100 in our simulations of the 2024 presidential election. Harris wins 47 times out of 100. There is a less than 1-in-100 chance of no Electoral College winner.
Trump 533
Harris 465
No winner 2
In other words, a toss-up.
One soothsayer Allan Lichtman, though, claims to know who will win. He has a system, and truth to tell, it has proved uncannily prescient in the last nine of ten U.S. Presidential cycles. His only one inaccurate prognostication came in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore race. Lichtman said Gore would win that race. See recent article from “Real Clear Politics” and accompanying video.
In that bitter hotly contested November 7, 2000 involving the State of Florida, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that had the last word in declaring the winner. It wasn’t the voter. The Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush.
See, e.g., the article published by “Constitution Center.”
https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-weak-spot-ukraine-allan-lichtman-1971358
So, a reasonable argument could perhaps be made that Allan Lichtman wasn’t (entirely) wrong in declaring Al Gore the victor in the 2000 U.S. Presidential race, after all, given the peculiarities of it.
What sort of Pollster is Lichtman? Lichtman ISN’T ANY kind of Pollster. On even the loosest definition of ‘Pollster,’ Lichtman can’t properly be discerned as a Pollster at all. In fact, Allan Lichtman eschews polls. To hear him describe his methodology, and to peer into it, one would wonder he poses as a clairvoyant? He doesn’t claim to be, but one cannot help but think he might be one. And several news sources have recently equated him, ostensibly, if tongue-in-cheek, as a modern day Nostradamus—suggesting that Allan Lichtman is some sort of Magician. And, if so, the hallmark of the system he has created “TO PREDICT” winners (and losers) of U.S. Presidential contests does seem to have more in common with the esoteric magical system devised (or “discovered”) by the Sixteenth Century Magician, John Dee than to either a typical “Pollster” or to Nostradamus, the latter of whom didn’t establish a specific, unique methodology or system for divining the future, even as both he and many modern day Pollsters, claim to be prognosticatores of future events.
BUT NOW, ON TO ALLAN LICHTMAN——
Would Lichtman prefer the appellation ‘MAGICIAN’ to ‘POLLSTER’ if one or the other Descriptor were to be attached to him? Our guess is that, if he were forced to accept one label over the other, he would prefer to be called a “MAGICIAN”, or more accurately: “OCCULT FORECASTER OF THE OUTCOME OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACES.” And, if so what sort of OCCULT FORECASTER OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACES DOES LICHTMAN PURPORT TO BE?
He doesn’t construct and interpret natal horoscopes. He doesn’t cast Rune Stones or divine meaning from a Crystal Ball. He doesn’t read Tarot Cards, consult the Chinese “Book of Changes,” or Evoke Demons in an attempt to elicit our Nation’s fate through the choices, very good, or very, very bad that the Electorate makes.
Lichtman’s background is more mundane. He is an American historian and Professor at American University. His Curriculum Vitae is impressive.
SO THEN, TO CUT TO THE CHASE: What is Lichtman’s system for discerning, discovering, determining (“divining”) U.S. Presidential race outcomes? IT IS UNIQUE. A person who delves into it, must give Lichtman points for creative imagination, if nothing else.
His system involves the application of 13 factors, facets, or determinants—or what he prefers to call “KEYS,” (AN OCCULT TERM IF EVER THERE WAS ONE), which he claims are objective determiners of U.S. Presidential races. His assertion of these tools of his trade—“KEYS”—sure sound like he is utilizing a DIVINER’S tool, no less so than those abstruse occult mechanisms abovementioned. And truth to tell, it may be a personal quirk or an intentional if quixotic attempt to allude to ancient occult enterprises that he happens to use the word, ‘KEYS,’ to refer to the components of his unique system.
But for all the pretense or allusions to the Esoteric Arts (not unlike the ancient Natural Philosophers of olde), Allan Lichtman, insists his system is objective, grounded in down-to-Earth, practical quantitative measures, and, so, firmly grounded in physical, everyday reality. But is it, really? See, e.g., articles in Newsweek, and Economic Times/India Times. AND LICHTMAN HAS DECLARED (OR “DIVINED”) A WINNER IN THIS 2024 RACE.
ONE WEEK BEFORE ELECTION LICHTMAN DECLARES HARRIS TO BE THE VICTOR. See, e.g., the article in USA Today.
With the most important Presidential race in modern times, and perhaps in all of U.S. History, just days away, major media sources have taken a close look at Lichtman’s stated prediction.
He asserts a Harris victory. Lichtman, by the way, is a diehard Democrat, who detests Trump, and has unsubscribed to the leftist Washington Post, as many other Political Progressives and Marxists have done in recent days—to protest the paper’s owner, Jeff Bezos, for having nixed endorsing any candidate for 2024. So Lichtman is capable of displays of animosity despite an attempt at appearing stoical, and above the fray of emotion.
Yet the fact remains, Lichtman is very much concerned about the outcome of the race. And THAT FACT says, to our mind, MUCH MORE about whom Allan Lichtman wishes would win the election and a GOOD DEAL LESS about whom he truly believes will be the likely winner.
Still, Lichtman insists his personal feelings about Trump and his wish fulfillment for a Harris victory on the 5th of November have nothing to do with his decision in the matter at hand. That his personal socio-political leanings do not cloud his judgment. But is that true? Might not those personal socio-political proclivities not help but cloud his judgment?
To be sure, Nate Silver (who scoffs at Lichtman, no less so than the crafter of the “THIRTEEN KEYS” scoffs at Silver) will, as with Lichtman, vote for Harris, too. He has said so. See Newsweek article, published September 12, 2024. But he has not so much as intimated that Harris WILL BE THE WINNER on November 5.
Silver’s doesn’t make prognostications. He only lays out what he deems the probabilities that favor this Candidate or that Candidate, at a particular moment in time.
Silver relies solely on statistical analysis. And to this moment in time, he “DOES NOT PROCLAIM” a WINNER.
The tools of his trade don’t support declaring a winner before the fact, and he would not make a bold pronouncement in any case, even if he wishes, in the instant case, that Harris would win this race for President of the United States.
Can the same modesty be applied to Allan Lichtman? Not by a long shot. He proclaims Kamala Harris indisputable victor over Trump, and his TOOLS OF THE TRADE (HIS THIRTEEN “KEYS”) ARE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR DIVINING THE FUTURE—PROGNOSTICATING THE ACTUAL WINNER WITH CERTAINTY.
His five takeaways for a Harris victory are presented in an article out of Brandeis University.
But what are these 13 “Keys” that Lichtman created and utilized in his determination of a Harris victory on November 5? The Keys are stated in many news sources, but the best source to view them and to obtain a handle on them and the meaning for them and behind them, is from a paper written by the creator of them, Allan Lichtman himself. See article from the site Social Studies.
These then are the 13 Keys that Lichtman utilizes in inferring the outcome of United States Presidential races——
KEY 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.
KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.
KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. [Note article from The National Review apropos of “Third Parties”].
KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. FOR TRUMP
KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. FOR TRUMP
KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. FOR HARRIS
Lichtman says: “The Keys are statements that favor the reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins.”
Another way of saying this is as the Politically Progressive slanted magazine, “The Atlantic,” asserts:
“Each of the 13 keys can be defined as a true-or-false statement. If eight or more of them are true, the incumbent-party candidate will win; seven or fewer, and they will lose.” See also the article in Newsweek.
Lichtman says that Keys 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13 (EIGHT OUT OF THIRTEEN) are true for Harris, and thus favor her to win this year.
BUT——
OF THE THIRTEEN “KEYS,” ONLY TWO ARE TRULY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, LENDING TO A CLEAR TRUE OR FALSE ANSWER SANS ANY SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.
STILL, WHETHER THESE TWO “OBJECTIVE” “KEYS” IN TANDEM WITH THE OTHERS ARE TO BE TREATED AS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACES, HAS NOT BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY ESTABLISHED, SUGGESTING THAT, WHAT SEEM TO BE PREDICTIVE OF PRESIDENTIAL OUTCOMES ARE ONLY DESCRIPTIVE OR PRESCRIPTIVE INDICATORS, NOT PREDICTIVE, EVEN IF UNCANNILY PRESCIENT. A good hunch is, for all that, still a hunch. Flip a coin a hundred times. Suppose it comes up heads ninety-nine times. Now, toss it one more time. Assuming the coin isn’t weighted or asymmetrical, the odds of that coin turning up heads on the next toss remains as it did on the first toss, 50/50, and will ever remain so or nearly so should one toss the same coin a million times (accounting for a slight fluctuation due, for example to wobble when flipping the coin, or due to minute fluctuations in the minting of the coin, according to the latest theory).
Can one logically apply the coin-toss analogy to Lichtman’s system of his having seemingly “predicted” nine out of ten U.S. Presidential races, or has his own intellect tricked him into believing his system is something more than it actually is—akin to reading of tea leaves. And is Lichtman attempting to trick us, the American Electorate into thinking that a Harris victory is, for all intents and purposes, fated to happen.
Note: Lichtman is reticent when it comes to explaining how he makes his decisions. See, e.g., the article posted in Newsweek on August 14, 2024.
The premier pollster, Nate Silver, vehemently disagrees with Lichtman’s strategy for determining a Presidential victor, and, hence, his prognostication that Harris will emerge the victor. Silver concludes that Lichtman’s methodology is flawed and his apparent application of it is grounded on hunch only, not sound logical analysis.
Silver, who draws his inferences through application of the tools of sound statistical analysis says this race is too close to call. It has remained so for several weeks:
Last update: 10:45 a.m., Saturday, November 2. At this point, there’s enough new polling that it’s hard to know exactly what’s influencing the model, but Harris is gaining in our forecast, and it’s converging toward a truly 50/50 forecast. A strong set of YouGov polls, plus a Washington Post poll showing her ahead by 1 point in Pennsylvania, are surely part of the reason why. Her win probability remains ever-so-slightly below Trump’s but is the highest it has been in two weeks.” [See the article in Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin].
[NOTE: NATE SILVER DREW THIS INFERENCE THREE DAYS AGO, NOVEMBER 2, 2024, AS NOTED ABOVE. HIS LATEST PREDICTION, THIS MORNING, JUST A FEW MINUTES AFTER MIDNIGHT, IS SET FORTH BELOW. IT IS FOUND IN THE SAME LINK SET FORTH ABOVE].
Last and final update: 12:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 5. Happy Election Day! At exactly midnight on Tuesday, we ran our simulation model for the final time in this election cycle. Out of 80,000 simulations, Kamala Harris won in 40,012 (50.015%) cases. She did not win in 39,988 simulations (49.985%). Of those, 39,718 were outright wins for Donald Trump and the remainder (270 simulations) were exact 269-269 Electoral College ties: these ties are likely to eventually result in Trump wins in the U.S. House of Representatives. [NATE SILVER ADDS THIS]—I’m not quite sure what to say about this, but we’ll have a newsletter out for you later tonight/this morning and link to it here once it’s ready. See
Most pollsters agree with Nate Silver’s conclusion that this race, IS NOW as it HAD BEEN, FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, A TOSS-UP.
Lichtman, for his part, adamantly disagrees with Silver’s recent and past assessments.
Lichtman claims the election is in the bag for Harris.
Further, Lichtman insists that his “KEYS” ARE MUCH BETTER PREDICTORS OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OUTCOMES than POLL FORCASTING.
See what he says about his methodology in the article published in the “Harvard Data Science Review” (HDSR), published just a few days ago, on October 30, 2024.
Allan Lichtman says in his “Abstract” to the Article:
This article revisits my predictive model, the Keys to the White House, which I presented to HDSR readers 4 years ago. In 2020, the model predicted that Joe Biden would defeat Donald Trump, primarily due to Trump’s failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article demonstrates that the Keys model remains valid despite the turmoil of Trump’s felony convictions, Biden’s withdrawal from the election, and the nomination of a woman of color. It provides the rationale for predicting that Trump will fail to regain the White House in 2024 and Kamala Harris will become the next American president.
In the body of the article proper, Lichtman says, in principal part:
The Keys to the White House follow the premise that governing, not campaigning, primarily determines the outcomes of American presidential elections. The Keys comprise 13 true-false questions that gauge the strength and performance of the party holding the White House, with an answer of true favoring the incumbent’s reelection. If six or more of the keys are false, the incumbent party is a predicted loser; otherwise, they are a predicted winner. The Keys gauge the big picture of a president’s record, such as midterm election results, internal nomination contests, third-party challenges, the short- and long-term economy, policy change, social unrest, scandal, and foreign and military failures and successes. Only two keys relate to the presidential candidates.
I developed the Keys in 1981 through collaboration with Vladimir Keilis-Borok, founder of the International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics in Moscow. To develop our model, we reconceptualized presidential elections not as Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter, Republican vs. Democrat, or liberal vs. conservative, but in geophysical terms. Stability meant that the party holding the White House stayed in power, and the earthquake meant the party lost power. We began our study in 1860 when most African Americans were enslaved and women could not vote. There were no automobiles, airplanes, radios, or televisions, and America was still an agricultural nation dominated by White people of Northern and Western European descent. Thus, our analysis covered vast changes in American society, politics, demography, and economics.
To develop this model, we applied a simple pattern recognition algorithm known as the Hamming distance to two binary vectors. We coded elections from 1860 to 1980 where the incumbent party prevailed as Class I (0) and those where the challenger won as Class C (1). The second vector consisted of true or false answers to questions that are answerable before an upcoming election. The model phrases the indicators so that an answer of true favors stability and an answer of false favors earthquake. For example, Key 5 states, ‘The economy is not in recession during the election year.’ Rather than randomly trolling through history, we followed my theory that presidential elections primarily reflect the electorate’s up-or-down vote on the strength and performance of the party in power. Thus, the Keys are grounded theoretically and empirically.”
Newsweek published an article on October 1, 2024, detailing the tête-à-tête between the premier pollster, and the so-called “Nostradamus” Lichtman. At times the arguing between the two became heated, derisive.
“The back and forth continued with Lichtman calling Silver ‘a compiler of polls, a clerk,’ . . . .” See the article in newsweek, dated October 1, 2024.
“Lichtman continued to accuse Silver of misinterpreting the purpose of his model, and claimed that he [Silver] doesn't have the faintest idea how to turn the keys.” Id.
At another point in the same Newsweek article, the reporter for magazine says,
“In early September, Lichtman released his official prediction for the 2024 race, confidently asserting that Kamala Harris would be the next president of the U.S. and again receiving criticism from Silver.”
On Friday, Silver responded to Lichtman's forecast, writing on X: ‘At least 7 of the keys, maybe 8, clearly favor Trump. Sorry brother, but that's what the keys say. Unless you're admitting they're totally arbitrary?’ [See the article in the New York Post, dated November 1, 2024] [NOTE: AQ SETS FORTH ITS OWN APPLICATION OF THE LICHTMAN KEYS WITH OUR RATIONAL, INFERRING THEY ALL FAVOR TRUMP. SEE OUR ANALYSIS INFRA].
On both X and TikTok, Lichtman continued to accuse Silver of misinterpreting the purpose of his model, and claimed that he “doesn't have the faintest idea how to turn the keys.” [See the article in Newsweek posted October 1, 2024] [Allan Lichtman’s use of the cryptic and esoteric/occult sounding phrase “turn the keys” gives one pause). What does that phrase mean? Is Lichtman suggesting that deciphering the KEYS requires abstruse knowledge (or hidden knowledge that only Lichtman is privy to—suggesting that his ability to “TURN THE KEYS” is something only he, as the crafter of the KEYS is able to successfully perform? If so, if his methodology for reading the KEYS cannot be replicated by others, than both his KEYS and whatever it is that he does to decipher the KEYS isn’t science at all, but mysticism].
Yet, Lichtman insists his Thirteen Keys (all of which are given equal weight) are objective and valid indicators of the outcome of an election between incumbent and challenger. That may be, but those KEYS are not to be construed as science. Lichtman seems to want it both ways. HE SAYS THAT HIS KEYS WORK, SO THEY ARE AS PREDICTIVE AS IS A LAW OF PHYSICS, BUT HE HAS NOT EXPLAINED AND WILL NOT EXPLAIN TO OTHERS HOW HE APPLIES THESE KEYS TO DEDUCE THE TRUE/FALSE ANSWERS FOR EACH KEY, FROM WHICH HE PREDICTS THE WINNER IN A U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST. SO THEN, IF THESE KEYS ARE A SOUND PREDICTIVE TOOL, BUT THE APPLICATION OF THEM IS INSCRUTABLE, THEN HE CANNOT SERIOUSLY CLAIM THAT HE IS ENGAGING IN SCIENCE. HIS SUCCESSES ARE MERELY A SET OF LUCKY HUNCHES, AS NATE SILVER ARGUES. LICHTMAN MAY HAVE HAD A RUN OF SUCCESSES, BUT A RUN OF FAILURES IS NOW PAST DUE.
“Lichtman encourages viewers to disregard polling data, emphasizing that his 13 ‘keys’ are grounded in underlying forces that historically determine election outcomes. He assigns a ‘true’ or ‘false’ designation to each key, with eight of them pointing to Harris and the Democrats maintaining control of the White House.” See, e.g., the article in The Economic Times, as reported by MSN.” See also, the article in The Independent.
The Pollster, Nate Silver, isn’t alone in his criticism of Lichtman. In an earlier article published in Newsweek.
Despite its track record—it has correctly predicted nine of the last 10 elections—the model has come under scrutiny, with some critics calling it "superficial" and "prone to bias."
The model has come under a particularly harsh spotlight amid President Joe Biden's decision to not seek re-election in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris. Lichtman called the pressure on Biden from Democrats to drop out of the race was a "foolish, self-destructive escapade," and that the president had enough "keys" to win.
Speaking to Newsweek for this article, Lichtman said: "The Keys became the hottest model in forecasting."
"Any successful forecasting model, especially one that challenges the approach taken by pundits and pollsters, will attract critics."
And attract them it has.
Lars Emerson and Michael Lovito are two reporters and alumni of American University, where Lichtman teaches, who earlier this year (saying that they cared about their "alma mater's reputation") wrote a detailed critique of the model for The Postrider and said Lichtman was "dishonest" when he said he correctly predicted the outcome of the 2016 election.
Lichtman's model was designed to correctly predict the winner of the popular vote, which it did, up until 2016 when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Donald Trump won the Electoral College.
Despite that, Lichtman is one of the few people credited with predicting Trump's win. [BUT DID HE? LICHTMAN’S MODEL AS POSITED [SEE DISCUSSION SUPRA AND INFRA] IS DESIGNED TO BE PREDICTIVE OF THE POPULAR VOTE, ONLY, AND NOT THE ELECTORAL VOTE WHICH IS DECISIVE]. He won the Stekler Award for Courage in Predictions and was invited to present the model at the American Political Science Association Convention. Political scientist Gerald M. Pomper said in a 2016 book about that year's election that Lichtman continued "his perfect record of election predictions, using simpler evaluations of the historical setting."
Emerson and Lovito argued that Lichtman rewrote "history to obfuscate that his model only predicted the popular vote, which Trump lost."
"This defamatory claim does not withstand scrutiny," Lichtman told Newsweek. He cited a September 2016 Washington Post interview where he said, "Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory [...] But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory."
"Also, at the same time, I predicted that Trump would be impeached after his election--, which made no sense if I were talking about the popular vote," he added to Newsweek.
Since 2016, Lichtman has taken to predicting the election winner, not who won the popular vote.
"By claiming he's never been wrong, he's done his model a disservice," Emerson and Lovito said in an email to Newsweek. "It's totally fine to have been wrong in 2016, almost everyone was, that requires some self-reflection and transparency about what could be done better."
In response, Lichtman told Newsweek that Emerson and Lovito "have sought to make a name for themselves by gratuitously attacking me and the Keys model with misleading, ad hominem claims."
Emerson disagreed with Lichtman's assessment of their Postrider article and told Newsweek "we fully stand by all of our reporting and obviously do not feel we've engaged in any kind of defamation."
Nate Silver would agree with the Emerson and Lovito analysis of Lichtman’s model, and Silver has stated the Lichtman “KEYS” are “totally arbitrary.” See the article in USA Toady, posted October 31, 2024. Lichtman doesn’t seen to care what his detractors say.
Still, given Lichtman’s undisguised hatred of Trump, one cannot help but come to infer that an inherent, if unconscious, bias against Trump exists that influences the decision he reached in this present U.S. Presidential Election cycle. It is one that makes Lichtman’s determination that Harris will defeat Trump in the upcoming Election, suspect.
Then too, the inherent abstruseness attached to the application of the Lichtman KEYS is a matter that should not be ignored, which unlike the KEYS, Lichtman will not explain, although the application of them seems to be straightforward even if the use of them to predict U.S. Presidential Elections strikes us as more akin to engaging in a parlor game rather than in a serious scientific pursuit. This raises the question: How, after all, DOES Lichtman interpret/apply his KEYS. And, if no one but Lichtman can “TURN THE KEYS” (OBVIOUSLY USING THE PHRASE AS A METAPHOR, ALLUDING TO TURNING A KEY TO OPEN A DOOR OR DRAWER OR TO UNLOCK A SAFE) what is it he is hiding from Pollsters or from the Press or from the Public? And, why the subterfuge?
Lichtman’s perfunctory, even smug, dismissal of Nate Silver’s criticism of the KEYS through Lichtman’s assertion that Silver ‘doesn't have the faintest idea how to turn the keys,’” doesn’t engender confidence in Lichtman’s assessment of the outcome of the Election. How, after all, does one “TURN THE KEYS”? Does a person need occult knowledge to do that. The phrase itself is cryptic, abstruse. Lichtman doesn’t explain how he assessed his “KEYS.” He says he utilized the KEYS to come to an assessment, but never explains how he did this. Does an assessment require, itself, occult, arcane knowledge that only he, Lichtman possesses?
If the “the keys in question are judgmental, not subjective”, as Lichtman claims, then anyone should be able to duplicate the results. Lichtman doesn’t claim to hold a patent on unlocking the secret for assessing the KEYS to see into the future, as if looking into a crystal ball. Lichtman seems to be toying with his detractors. Or perhaps he is simply a charlatan, who having been lucky is playing his lucky streak to get Press coverage. If so, then, that is plain enough. See newsweek article.
In his “five key takeaways [“key” NOT THE “KEYS”], Lichtman defends his assessment of the outcome of 2024 election but by discussing matters tangential to, but not directly related to “THE KEYS,” apart from one,(KEY 12), pertaining to the charisma of the incumbent Party candidate for U.S. President, but that assessment is notoriously subjective, heavily emotionally laden. At best, it would require a consensus among a majority of the Electorate to come to a rational conclusion.
Our guess is that most Americans would rate General George S. Patton and President John F. Kennedy, as two individuals who have true Charisma—a characteristic cutting cuts across Party Lines, and can be deduced from the many books and news articles about these past notable individuals. But does anyone truly believe that Kamala Harris has native charisma? Not even Lichtman has claimed that. And one need not have access to arcane knowledge to deduce that to “TURN THAT KEY” (in Lichtman’s parlance).
Democrats themselves turned away from Harris—not so long ago in 2020, during the 2020 Primaries. If Harris didn’t have Charisma then—and from what one can see of Harris now—would she ever have that quality—something more innate, than acquired?
Charisma is an intrinsic characteristic, internal to one’s nature. It is not a thing external to—artificially created by image makers in the Press or by Public Relations Experts—a person, to be tacked onto someone like a label, if that person doesn’t naturally have that quality.
Apropos of that, consider the word, ‘incumbent’, a major aspect or component of Lichtman’s KEYS.
Does the word ‘incumbency’ correctly apply in this instance to Harris given the circumstances of her ascendancy to the status of Democrat Party Candidate for U.S. President.
Kamala Harris’ ascendancy is a result of behind-the-scenes machinations of the Party Leadership, and has nothing to do with merit, or ability to convince rank and file Democrats of her worthiness to ascend to station of Democrat Party’s choice for U.S. President. See discussion infra.
Joe Biden remains de jure President, even if he isn’t treated as such, which suggests a thing more concerning to or that ought to be concerning to Americans. How can a man be divested of his status of U.S. President simply by Party Operatives who have tired of him? What does that say of Biden, and those who have banished him to relative obscurity in his remaining days as President? And what does that say about the sanctity and authority of the Office of President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution if a President can unceremoniously be cast aside, unconstitutionally, by underlings who have tired of him?
And, more to the point to the theme of this essay, what does this say of the failings of Lichtman’s KEYS, which do not deal with the peculiar fluctuations concomitant with political states of affairs that are always in flux. Perhaps, as Nate Silver asserts, Lichtman will have to create several more “KEYS” to account with so many dodgy disparities and myriad matters that cannot be foreseen.
"The White House party (Democrats) loses key 1, the mandate key, because they lost US House seats in 2022. They lost key number 3, the incumbency key, because the sitting president is not running. They lose key number 12, the incumbent charisma key, because whatever you may think of Harris, she's only been a candidate for a little while. She's not reached the status of a Franklin Roosevelt. And she loses key number 11, the foreign policy failure key, because the Middle East is a disaster, a humanitarian crisis with no good end in sight," the professor lists. See article in Conflict Watcher.
Lichtman eventually includes KEY TEN as a loss for Harris, as well.
Let us use these Keys to see if Lichtman’s application of the Keys bear up against scrutiny apropos of Nate Silver’s concerns along with our own analysis. AND, WE ACKNOWLEDGE BEFORE THIS EXERCISE, THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ARCANE KNOWLEDGE “TO TURN THE KEYS.” We just use reason and what we have gained from empirical observation of events.
KEY ONE—WHO CONTROLLED THE HOUSE AFTER THE 2022 MIDTERM ELECTIONS?
Although the 2022 Midterm Elections did not see a “Red Wave,” the Republicans DID nonetheless retake the House, if only by a narrow margin.
The turnover of the House in 2022 is a fact that isn’t subject to interpretation. It is objectively determinative and is ONE of only TWO “KEYS” that are OBJECTIVELY TRUE OR FALSE. It is an EITHER/OR PROPOSITION. The event either occurred or it did not. But that doesn’t tell us—despite Lichtman’s claim to the contrary—why it is that THIS KEY OR ANY OTHER KEY, FOR THAT MATTER, is to be deemed PRESUMPTIVELY VALID FOR DEDUCING THE WINNER AND LOSER OF A U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE. HOW IS IT THAT ANY “KEY SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, or SCIENTIFICALLY PREDICTIVE OF STATES OF AFFAIRS IN THE REAL WORLD?
Now, why it is this matter OF WHICH PARTY CONTROLS THE HOUSE SHOULD HAVE any rational bearing on the outcome of a future election, Lichtman never explicates. The American public is to take on faith, apparently, that the methodology is logically sound because it works (until of course it doesn’t).
In any event, KEY NUMBER ONE IS FALSE FOR HARRIS, AND IS THEREFORE TRUE FOR TRUMP AND, THUS, FAVORS TRUMP OVER HARRIS.
KEY TWO—THERE IS NO SERIOUS CONTEST FOR THE INCUMBENT-PARTY NOMINATION.
Lichtman says this Key is “TRUE” for Harris, and therefore “FALSE” for Trump.
But is this KEY even applicable here? Remember, Biden IS STILL THE incumbent U.S. President, NOT Harris, even if he “dropped out” of the race (likely under protest. THAT WOUL MAKE HIM UNDERSTANDABLY BITTER). Even so, he remains, de jure, U.S. President, until January 20, 2025, when the new U.S. President is inaugurated. The only way Kamala Harris would stand, today, as de jure, not merely de facto, U.S. President is if she and Biden’s Cabinet invoked the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to formally remove Biden from Office. This didn’t happen. Biden dropped out of the race, whether voluntarily or not, but HE DID NOT RESIGN THE PRESIDENCY.
Curiously, Lichtman has maintained that the Democrats best shot at victory have, all along, rested in Biden as the incumbent Party Candidate coupled to the fact that he is still the present U.S. President.
Secondly, there was no primary. PARTY LEADERSHIP SIMPLY INSTALLED THE VICE PRESIDENT AS INCUMBENT-PARTY CANDIDATE, EVEN IF THE PARTY LEADERSHIP MAKES MUCH OF THE FACT THAT THE DELEGATES VOTED HARRIS AS THE INCUMBENT-PARTY CANDIDATE, ALBEIT THROUGH AN UNPRECEDENTED “VIRTUAL VOTE.” THAT WAS ALL A SHOW—A PRETEXT TO GIVE HARRIS THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING BEEN POPULARLY ELECTED PARTY CANDIDATE FOR u U.S. PRESIDENT TO RUN AGAINST TRUMP. SEE DISCUSSION, INFRA.
Back in 2020, Harris was one of the first people to drop out of the Democrat-Party Primary Race—having done so after she commenced her campaign with great fanfare only to see it “fizzle” rapidly, mirroring her artificially crafted meteoric rise after the Democrat-Party Convention in 2024.
Back in 2019, NBC News said this about Harris’ dropping out of the 2020 race:
Sen. Kamala Harris of California dropped out of the Democratic presidential race on Tuesday, ending a once-promising campaign that began with an explosion of enthusiasm but fizzled quickly.
An aide told NBC News that the senator had notified her staff Tuesday that she was dropping out and the campaign emailed the news to supporters soon after.
In the email, Harris said her campaign "simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue."
"I'm not a billionaire. I can't fund my own campaign," Harris continued. "And as the campaign has gone on, it's become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete. In good faith, I can't tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don't believe I do."
She added, "So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret — but also with deep gratitude — that I am suspending my campaign today."
Her exit comes just weeks before the deadline to get off the ballot in California, a move that could spare her some embarrassment if she thought she would lose in her home state. She had already qualified for the debate on Dec. 19 — the only candidate of color to have done so at the moment.
A senior aide to Harris told NBC News that the senator made the decision to drop out on Monday after talking with family and top advisers. Harris, over the weekend, conducted a full audit of the campaign's finances and questioned the sustainability of the cash-strapped campaign. Harris' campaign has not been on the airwaves for months and had laid off several dozen staffers last month.
Harris, according to the aide, did not want to continue to ask supporters to fund the campaign because the current financial situation made Harris feel the path forward to success in Iowa and beyond was no longer possible.
Harris, the daughter of an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, launched her campaign to great fanfare on Jan. 21, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Days later, she held her first rally in front of a crowd of more than 20,000 people in Oakland.
In April, she reported raising $12 million in the first quarter — second only to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who raised $18 million.
Then, at the first Democratic debate in June, she drew notice for attacking former Vice President Joe Biden for his stance on busing and school segregation. After that, her polling numbers shot into the double digits, including registering at 13 percent in the national NBC/WSJ poll.
But her fundraising began lagging over the summer (she reported in July having raised $11.8 million in the second quarter — trailing South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg's $24.9 million, Sen. Elizabeth Warren's, D-Mass., $19.1 million, and Sanders' $18.2 million) and was put on the defensive on health care at the second Democratic debate at the end of July.Following that debate, her polling numbers dropped to the single digits — and never really recovered.
Amid those problems, Harris' campaign reorganized — laying off some staffers in early states to focus its resources and attention on Iowa.
The latest RealClearPolitics average of recent polling showed Harris with just 3.4 percent support nationally, and just 3.3 percent and 2.7 percent backing in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively.”
Apart from New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris was the first major contender for the 2020 Democrat-Party nominee for U.S. President to drop out of the race—before the first Primary, held in Iowa.
The term ‘NOMINEE,’ has a specific meaning under our Constitutional framework. As stated on the Cornell Law School website, the word ‘NOMINEE’ means “A person elected or designated by a convention, caucus, or any elective body to serve an office, appointment, or award.”
The Democrat Party Leadership forced Biden to relinquish running for a second term. With a proverbial gun pointed at his head, he reluctantly (UNCONVINCINGLY AND VERY RELUCTANTLY) agreed to do so. And, if that were so—if he did not wish to resign, and there is no evidence that he wished to do so (to the contrary, he proclaimed a desire to continue to run for a second term and stated he believed he was the only person who could defeat Donald Trump), then machinations behind the scenes suggest a true illegal, unconstitutional coup took place.
Apart from a truly voluntary decision to refrain from running for a second term, Harris cannot replace Biden, unless Biden suddenly dies or otherwise is incapacitated. If the Latter, then, Harris, as Vice President, AND Biden’s Cabinet, would have to invoke the 25th Amendment to oust Biden from Office.
If successful, that means Biden NO LONGER IS THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AT THAT MOMENT, KAMALA HARRIS BECOMES THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRAT PARTY NOMINEE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT—PERHAPS—BUT NOT NECESSARILY SO.
LET’S BACKTRACK A BIT.
Can a Party’s First Term President who SEEKS TO RUN for a Second Term be legally prevented from doing so, apart from invoking the 25th Amendment. Yes, but it has happened only once in American history. See, e.g., the NPR article, when the Democrat Party prevented the 14th President, Franklin Pierce, from running for a Second Term. “When Democratic delegates gathered in Cincinnati for their convention in 1856, it was clear that they had had enough of Pierce. James Buchanan, who had been defeated by Pierce for the nomination four years earlier, won the nomination on the 17th ballot.” The major takeaway here is that Democrat Party Delegates elected Buchanan to replace Pierce. See article in NPR.
OF COURSE THE 25TH AMENDMENT DIDN’T EXIST IN 1856 AND WOULDN’T BE RATIFIED UNTIL OVER 110 YEARS LATER, IN FEBRUARY, 1967. But, even if the Amendment was available a century earlier, it could not be invoked because Buchanan was not incapacitated. The Democrat Party simply wanted to get rid of him.
There is a parallel between the Buchanan episode in 1856, and the Biden episode in 2024. Had Biden not made a fool of himself in the Debate with Trump, the Party Leadership likely would have been happy to keep him on. He wasn’t running anything. He was simply a messenger, a compliant tool. If it appeared he could win the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election, they would have kept him on. Of course, the Leadership may have come to the realization that Biden’s dementia had progressed to the point that his dementia could not be plausibly ignored or explained away as an acute problem of stuttering. The Leadership may have orchestrated the debate (it was after all held months before such Presidential debates traditionally occur. The Party Leadership likely knew that Biden would fail miserably, demonstrating Dementia such that Biden’s deterioration physically and mentally could not be plausibly denied.
The Leadership needed sufficient time to push Biden aside (not an easy task because Biden did wish to run for a second term and the Leadership did not wish to invoke the 25th Amendment against him as that would proclaim loudly to the public that the Democrats (along with a Press that had colluded with the Party), had perpetrated a massive fraud on the public. That would doom any chance of securing control of the Executive Branch, no matter whom they dropped on the public.
Whatever the Party Leadership did to urge or cajole Biden to give up his run for a second term, he did so reluctantly, and, as is apparent, angrily, and it took time. Eventually they succeeded. They had a “LADY IN WAITING”—another willing lackey, perfectly happy to play the part of President—securing the trappings of the Office, but no power.
The Leadership installed Kamala Harris as the new puppet. But, Biden would retain the Presidency—at least until January 20, 2025—and that proved to be awkward for the Party and increasingly embarassing to the Party as Joe Biden would emerge at inopportune moments, making a fool of himself that extended to Harris, and to the Party as a whole. The first matter was to create the illusion that it was the Party Delegates who elected Harris as the Party’s Nominee. It was all a charade.
“Vice President Kamala Harris (D) won the Democratic presidential nomination on August 2, 2024, during a virtual roll call vote of Democratic convention delegates. Harris received 4,563 delegate votes, which amounted to 99% of the delegates. Almost all of the delegates were unbound following President Joe Biden's withdrawal from the race.” The “Virtual Roll Call Vote” of Delegates here lacks substance, if it appears fine in form. See the article in ABC News.
“Technically, other candidates can still run in the virtual roll call. They must meet the party and legal qualifications to be president, file their candidacy formally with the DNC and secure the signatures of supporting delegates before the nomination vote. They also must be Democrats, not registered as independents or with another party.”
This never happened. The Party Leadership had set machinery in motion weeks before the Convention—
First to remove Biden from contention,
Second, to replace Biden with Harris as the “Nominee,”
Third, effectively prevent/preempt the other candidates (that had waited patiently in the wings) from campaigning before an open Convention, and
Fourth, turning the Convention into a vacuous conjuror’s side-show to rally public support for the new puppet, Harris.
NOTE THE “PETER PRINCIPLE” AT WORK——
THE “PETER PRINCIPLE” POSITS THAT AN EMPLOYEE IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL HIERARCHY CONTINUES TO BE PROMOTED UNTIL HE REACHES HIS LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCE.
ONE CANNOT HELP BUT BE ASTOUNDED AT THE MULTITUDE OF LEVELS KAMALA HARRIS HAD RISEN TO AFTER LAW SCHOOL AND EVENTUALLY PASSING THE CALIFORNIA BAR (APPARENTLY AND ARGUABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT TASK SHE HAD EVER ACHIEVED AS SHE HAD NO ONE THAT COULD ACT AS A STAND-IN FOR HER. AFTER THAT SINGULAR DIFFICULT HURDLE, SHE COULD ACHIEVE THE TRAPPINGS OF POWER, HIDING BEHIND OTHERS TO DO THE ACTUAL WORK. SHE BEGAN BY IMMEDIATELY RISING TO HER FIRST LEVEL OF INCOMPETENCE: DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF OAKLAND. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHERE SHE STOPPED. BUT, SHE THEN ROSE TO THE POSITION OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF OAKLAND. AT THIS POINT THE PETER PRINCIPLE IS REDUCED TO ABSURDITY SINCE HARRIS CONTINUES TO RISE HIGHER LEVELS OF OFFICE DESPITE INCOMPETENCE REACHED LONG AGO. SHE BECOMES ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, AND THEN PROCCEDS TO U.S. SENATOR. SHE THEN RUNS FOR DEMOCRAT PARTY NOMINEE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2020. SHE FAILS MISERABLY AND IS ONE OF THE FIRST MAJOR CANDIDATES TO DROP OUT OF THE RACE.
YET, MYSTERIOUSLY, AND DISCONCERTINGLY, SOMEONE APPOINTS HER TO SERVE AS VICE PRESIDENT TO BIDEN. DID BIDEN CHOOSE HER? NOT LIKELY. YET, THERE SHE IS, DOING NOTHING, AND BLAMING HER STAFF FOR HER OWN LAZINESS INCOMPETENCE, AND LIMITED INTELLIGENCE. AND, NOW, HERE SHE STANDS AS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY NOMINEE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT.
SOMEONE OR SOME GROUP OF VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GUIDING HER RISE FROM THE DAYS SHE PASSED THE STATE BAR.
What is incomprehensible is that Lichtman pointed out that it is not enough for Biden to remain in Office as President if he has agreed to stand down from campaigning for a Second Term. For, if he remains in office, the question is why ought he not continue to campaign as the Incumbent Party Nominee? If not, then there is no good reason for him to remain in office, for he appears as what he is—a useless, ridiculous appendage. That is how he appears to both the Electorate and to the leaders of nations around the world. Yet, the useless, ridiculous appendage sticks around. And Lichtman uses HIS KEYS AS MUCH MORE THAN A MERE PREDICTIVE TOOL BUT AS A CAUSAL AGENT AFFECTING CHANGE. PERHAPS HE IS A CONJURER AFTER ALL, IF HE CAN PULL THAT OFF, FOR LICHTMAN NEVER WANTED THE PARTY LEADERSHIP TO FORCE BIDEN OUT.
BUT, HAVING DONE SO AND YET ALLOWING HIM TO REMAIN AS PRESIDENT EVEN AS HE NO LONGER IS THE INCUMBENT PARTY NOMINEE, PLACES HIM IN A STATE OF LIMBO, A STATE OF BEING THAT WEAKENS BOTH THE PARTY AND MORE, THE NEW INCUMBENT PARTY NOMINEE, KAMALA HARRIS. SHE IS CHAINED TO BIDEN AND THAT IS DEMONSTRATED BY HER INABILITY TO EXPLAIN A COHERENT POLICY UPON WHICH TO ESTABLISH A PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR THE ELECTORATE TO CAST A BALLOT FOR HER. SHE SAYS SHE IS NOT BIDEN. THAT IS A TRIVIAL POINT. BUT THE REAL POINT GOES TO POLICY. IF SHE IS NOT BIDEN, IN TERMS OF POLICY, THEN WHAT IS SHE? SHE HAS NEVER EXPLAINED AND AT ONE POINT SHE STATED AFFIRMATIVELY THAT SHE IS BIDEN.
Allan Lichtman’s methodology doesn’t bother with the many problematic features of and circumstances inherent in the 2024 Democrat Party Campaign. He should have asserted that given this odd state of affairs, affecting the notion of “INCUMBENCY” here, this SECOND KEY ought to simply be cast aside, as inapplicable, or otherwise checked as TRUE FOR TRUMP AND FALSE FOR HARRIS. But Lichtman didn’t do that.
LICHTMAN RATES THE SECOND KEY TRUE FOR HARRIS AND FALSE FOR TRUMP.
AQ WOULD RATE THIS KEY AS EITHER TRUE FOR TRUMP OR ARGUE IT IS INAPPLICABLE IN THIS U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE. BUT, IF WE MUST USE IT, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODOLOGY THAT ALL KEYS MUST BE TABULATED, THEN WE WOULD RATE THIS KEY AS TRUE FOR TRUMP, AS WE DISAGREE WITH LICHTMAN’S DECISION.
The American public may rightly demonstrate outrage over the irregularities of and oddities inherent in the Democrat Party’s actions here.
KEY THREE—THE INCUMBENT-PARTY CANDIDATE IS THE SITTING PRESIDENT. Lichtman says this factor is FALSE for Harris because, although Biden is the INCUMBENT-PARTY PRESIDENT HE NO LONGER IS THE INCUMBENT-PARTY CANDIDATE. That is true. And it is a clear, objective truth. BUT, IT IS FALSE FOR HARRIS. THAT IS THE IMPORTANT POINT. AND IT IS THEREFORE TRUE FOR THE CHALLENGER PARTY NOMINEE, TRUMP, AND SO THIS KEY, KEY THREE, FAVORS TRUMP.
KEY FOUR—THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT THIRD-PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGN. Had he remained in the Race, Robert Kennedy Jr. would, arguably, be a significant Third-Party Candidate.
However, not only did Kennedy drop out of the Race he then joined ranks with Trump, THEREFORE STRENGTHENING, AND SOLIDIFYING TRUMP’S DOMINANCE IN THE RACE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT.
Furthermore, there remains no other viable, tenable, Third Party Candidate in the running. Jill Stein, for one, doesn’t come close. And notwithstanding that the Secretary of State of Michigan refuses to remove Kennedy’s name from the ballot, even after Kennedy has made clear he is not running as an independent candidate, his name on the ballot serves as nothing more than a nugatory placeholder.
Perhaps it is enough for Allan Lichtman to proclaim this KEY as TRUE for Harris. But this is where Lichtman’s bias shows.
Had RFK, Jr. remained in the race, Lichtman would have rated the Fourth Key TRUE for Trump, as mudding up the water, although, once again, analysis doesn’t say, that, in this election cycle a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE WOULD BE MORE HARMFUL FOR HARRIS RATHER THAN TRUMP.
Lichtman assumes a strong Third Party Candidate’s run, as SPOILER, would operate invariably to harm the INCUMBENT PARTY NOMINEE. But, taking that as a given, would not Kennedy’s endorsement of and active, avid campaigning for Trump support Lichtman’s own argument that this THIRD KEY emphatically assistsTrump, as the SPOILER’S VOTE WOULD GO ENTIRELY OR PREDOMINATELY FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NOMINEE HERE, TRUMP, INSTEAD OF FOR THE INCUMBENT PARTY NOMINEE, HARRIS?
By accepting this KEY AT FACE VALUE, rather than for the MEANING BEHIND IT in this instance, Lichtman’s methodology is inherently flawed. It is incompatible with THE REALITY of present circumstances.
LICHTMAN DOESN’T CARE. HE RATES THIS KEY TRUE FOR HARRIS AND FALSE FOR TRUMP. AQ DISAGREES.
WE RATE THIS KEY FALSE FOR HARRIS AND TRUE FOR TRUMP, UNDER ANY REASONABLE APPLICATION OF THIS KEY THAT WE CAN SEE.
KEY FIVE—THE ECONOMY IS NOT IN RECESSION DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. The Economy is not, at the moment, in a recession and notwithstanding that the economy may fall into one in the next few months—and, more likely than not, would worsen significantly under a Harris Presidency. Harris would continue the policies HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION THAT CREATED ECONOMIC CALAMITY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
STILL, TAKEN, AT FACE VALUE, SINCE THERE IS NO RECESSION AT THE MOMENT, KEY FIVE IS TRUE FOR HARRIS, CONSISTENT WITH LICHTMAN’S FINDING. KEY FIVE IS THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP, THEREFORE FAVORING HARRIS.
THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION HAS DEVASTATED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. ONCE AGAIN LICHTMAN RATES HIS KEYS ON A BASIC WHITE-BLACK FRAMEWORK, WITHOUT GIVING ANY THOUGHT TO THE IMPACT OF EVENTS. IT IS, AFTER ALL, VOTERS, WHO VOTE, AND WHAT IMPACTS THEM IS GROUNDED ON A MULTITUDE OF FACTORS, GROUNDED ON THE EVENTS AFFECTING THEM AS THEY PERCEIVE THEM AND UPON THEIR PREDISPOSITIONS, WEIGHTING EMOTIONS, AND INTELLECT, AND BELIEF SYSTEM, ACCORDING TO THEIR PRESENT LIFE CONDITIONS AND NATIVE INTELLIGENCE.
LICHTMAN RATES THIS KEY TRUE FOR HARRIS, AND THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP.
AQ WOULD PREFER TO RATE THIS KEY INAPPLICABLE. BUT WE ARE REQUIRED TO TABULATE ALL THE KEYS.
SO, TAKEN, AT FACE VALUE, SINCE THERE IS NO RECESSION AT THE MOMENT, KEY FIVE IS TRUE FOR HARRIS, CONSISTENT WITH LICHTMAN’S FINDING. KEY FIVE IS THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP. THE KEY FAVORS HARRIS.
KEY SIX—REAL PER-CAPITA ECONOMIC GROWTH DURING THE TERM EQUALS OR EXCEEDS MEAN GROWTH DURING THE PREVIOUS TWO TERMS. This is a matter of both fact and perception. And it is often, of itself, the salient indicator of how a U.S. Presidential election will turn out, but as stated supra, Alan Lichtman GIVES EACH KEY EQUAL WEIGHT. Moreover, by taking them at FACE VALUE, he fails to consider or adamantly refuses to consider that events in any given ELECTION CYCLE may require modifying how a KEY ought to be rated.
Should a determination not cohere with events?
At worst, comparison of the economy between the Biden-Harris Term and Trump’s term is a toss-up. And, of course, Trump had to deal with the COVID Pandemic during the last year of his Term. Even as between Trump’s economy and the second term of Obama’s (Obama’s First Term came on the Heels of the “Great Recession), there are positive and negative correlates to consider.
Economics is an abstruse subject even as, for Americans, among both Democrats and Republicans, it ranks as first in importance. Inflation is a mess under Biden-Harris. It is what the majority of Americans feel even if the far smaller wealthy class remains unaffected by it, given that their wealth from investment reduce the import of inflation to a nullity for them. The phrase, “Are you worse off under the Biden-Harris years or Under the Trump years” has become an adage and as a question, it is rhetorical.
So, if the economists argue that, how the real economy fares under Biden-Harris and under Trump, is a toss-up, as some factors work to Trump’s benefit and other’s to Biden and as is likely the case, economists vehemently disagree as to whether the economy fared better or worse under a given Administration and at a given point in time, given a plethora of variables, the fact is that for average Americans the reality of inflation hits hard in a very real physical sense during the Biden-Harris tenure and under the Obama tenure in office than under Trump’s.
We would add, in reference to this KEY, that, despite Lichtman’s academic credentials, impressive though they be, Lichtman is not an economist. He doesn’t pretend to be and yet claims this KEY is TRUE for Harris and therefore FALSE for Trump. But is Lichtman correct on this?
He has not, to our knowledge, consulted with any economist. And, from what we have found, reviewing the thoughts of several economists, this matter is not clear-cut. We would prefer not to tabulate this KEY, given the nebulousness of economics, or otherwise rate it in favor of Trump in terms of the average negative impact that inflation has had and continues to have on tens of millions of American families.
LICHTMAN RATES THIS KEY AS TRUE FOR HARRIS AND THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP.
AQ WOULD THEREFORE RATE THIS KEY AS INDETERMINATE PREFERRING NOT TO GIVE IT CONSIDERATION IN A FINAL TALLY, BUT, SINCE LICHTMAN INSISTS THAT ALL KEYS MUST BE TABULATED, WE WOULD BE COMPELLED TO ARGUE THIS KEY IS TRUE FOR HARRIS, AND FALSE FOR TRUMP. This is consistent with Lichtman’s findings. We therefore tick it for Harris, contra TRUMP.
As we note, several of these KEYS simply have no practical application in the present circumstances, and some appear to be of dubious value under any set of circumstances and THEREFORE OUGHT TO BE ignored altogether. But Lichtman doesn’t do that. To do so is anathema to him and disrupts the integrity of his methodology.
So, to cohere with THE RULE that all KEYS MUST BE TABULATED AND GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHT, WE WILL COMPLY WITH THAT RULE. See the articles in “Money”, “Forbes”, and the BBC.
KEY SEVEN——(POLICY CHANGE): THE INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION EFFECTS MAJOR CHANGES IN NATIONAL POLICY.
THIS KEY IS INCONGRUOUS. Is Lichtman implying that any major change in national policy from that of the preceding Administration is an inherent positive? If so, half the Country would disagree with that interpretation. If the KEY does not intend to assume that no association is to be made as between GOOD or BAD NATIONAL POLICY, only that THE POLICY BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION, THEN THE POLICY OF THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATION IS CERTAINLY THAT. But if so, then that makes the KEY inherently incongruous.
A MAJOR CHANGE IN POLICY THAT IS ONE INHERENTLY BAD FOR THE COUNTRY, AT LEAST AS SEEN FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ONE HALF OF THE ELECTORATE, WOULD RENDER THIS KEY EITHER IMPOSSIBLE TO RATE FOR BOTH THE INCUMBENT NOMINEE OR THE CHALLENGER, AND SO MEANINGLESS, OR OTHERWISE, PATENTLY ABSURD.
AND, IF MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE COUNTRY SEES THE INCUMBENT NOMINEE’S “MAJOR CHANGES” AS A NEGATIVE, OR IF SUCH CAN BE LOGICALLY DEDUCED AS NEGATIVE, AS AQ HAS CONCLUDED, THEN LICHTMAN’S RATING OF THIS KEY IS BIZARRE AND INCOHERENT.
CONSIDER——
Lichtman rates this KEY TRUE FOR HARRIS AND THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP. How Lichtman comes to this conclusion is puzzling. From DAY ONE of the BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION, EVERY MAJOR POLICY ACHIEVEMENT AND POLICY AIM OF TRUMP WAS REVERSED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER.
THE NATION’S SOUTHERN BORDER WAS FLUNG WIDE-OPEN, ALLOWING MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM OVER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY COUNTRIES TO ENTER WITHOUT VETTING. THOUSANDS OF MURDEROUS CARTELS ENTERED AS WELL. DISRUPTION TO OUR SOCIETY PLAYED OUT IN EVERY STATE. SOCIETAL INSTABILITY HAS OCCURRED APACE. THIS IS THE BIDEN-HARRIS GOAL AND ITS LEGACY. FOREIGN POLICY IS A COMPLETE DISASTER. INFLATION HAS SKYROCKETED. BIZARRE ALIEN DOGMAS, INCOHERENT, AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR NATION’S JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHIC AND INCONSISTENT WITH OUR NATION’S CORE VALUES, CULTURE, AND HERITAGE, HAS TAKEN ROOT AND ARE NOW EMBEDDED IN GOVERNMENT AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS.
DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT AND BUREAUS AND AGENCIES OPERATE AGAINST THE VERY PEOPLE THEY WERE CREATED TO SERVE. INFLATION HAS SKY-ROCKETED. OUR ENERGY POLICY IS IN RUINS. THE BIDEN-HARRIS AIMS ARE DISJOINTED AND THE OBVERSE OF TRUMP’S POLICIES TO REINVIGORATE OUR ECONOMY, STRENGTHEN OUR NATION, MILITARILY, AND RETURN OUR NATION TO ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS, CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONSTITUTION AND NATURAL LAW.
LICHTMAN RATES THIS KEY TRUE FOR HARRIS. AQ CANNOT DISAGREE MORE WITH THIS PRONOUNCEMENT. WE WOULD RATE IT TRUE FOR TRUMP AND FALSE FOR HARRIS, THEREBY FAVORING TRUMP. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WE WOULD STATE THIS KEY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECLARATION THAT SUCH MAJOR CHANGE MUST BE “GOOD” (AT LEAST IN THE MIND OF LICHTMAN), ISN’T MERELY INAPPLICABLE, IT IS, ON ITS FACE, LOGICALLY INCOHERENT.
BUT, AGAIN, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT IN TABULATING ALL KEYS HOWEVER INCONGRUENT, WE DO SO, AND RATE KEY SEVEN TRUE FOR TRUMP, AND FALSE FOR THE INCUMBENT PARTY CANDIDATE, HARRIS. IN OUR ESTIMATE, KEY SEVEN FAVORS TRUMP.
KEY EIGHT—— (SOCIAL UNREST): THERE IS NO SUSTAINED SOCIAL UNREST DURING THE TERM.
The problem with this KEY and many of the others is that the salient expression—in this case, the phrase, “SOCIAL UNREST”—is vague.
What kinds of events constitute “UNREST” sufficient to warrant the appellation of the phrase, “SOCIAL UNREST?” How WIDESPREAD, that is to say, how EXPANSIVE in scope must such “UNREST” be to constitute “SOCIAL UNREST?” How SEVERE a “DISTURBANCE” must there be to warrant the descriptor “SOCIAL UNREST?” How many people must be involved? And what is the nature of the response required? Must THE DISTURBANCE be of a magnitude such as to require a SUBSTANTIAL POLICE RESPONSE including, perhaps, a FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE, AND, IF SO, HOW MASSIVE, must THE DISTURBANCE or the DISRUPTION BE, AND HOW MANY POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL, including EMT PERSONNEL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO QUASH THE DISTURBANCE, and to ASSIST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HARMED BY THE DISTURBANCE, and to RESTORE DAMAGED BUILDINGS? WOULD SUCH DISTURBANCE, RISING TO THE LEVEL OF “SOCIAL REQUEST” REQUIRE A GOVERNOR TO CALL ON THE STATE’S NATIONAL GUARD? AND MUST “SOCIAL UNREST” BE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO ACTUALLY REQUIRE “SUBSTANTIAL” DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES AND HARM TO INDIVIDUALS?
Consider, millions of illegal aliens have been released into our Country by the present Administration, as a matter of policy. That policy has resulted in TERRORISTS and MURDEROUS INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CARTELS UNLEASHED INTO OUR MIDST? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL ALIEN CHILDREN ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR.
RAMPANT DRUG TRAFFICKING, SEX TRAFFICKING, AND MURDEROUS, VIOLENT ASSAULTS HAVE BEEN INFLICTED ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, PRIMARILY WOMEN, INCLUDING CHILDREN.
THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION DISMISSES THE SEVERITY OF THIS ASSAULT ON OUR NATION’S COMMUNITIES AND THE EXTENT OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITIES’ RESOURCES. The Government deliberately “keeps a lid” on this. A compliant, seditious Press doesn’t investigate any of this, or otherwise doesn’t report what it has uncovered.
LICHTMAN, DETERMINING THERE IS NO “SOCIAL UNREST”, RATES THIS KEY AS TRUE FOR HARRIS AND THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP THEREBY FAVORING HARRIS. AQ WOULD ARGUE THE OBVERSE, INFERRING THAT SOCIAL UNREST IS GRAVE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, SIMMERING, AND READY TO EXPLODE IN AN ACTUAL CONFLAGRATION OF VIOLENCE.
AMERICAN SOCIETY IS ALREADY IN THE THROES OF DECAY. OUR INSTITUTIONS ARE CRUMBLING, THE PHYSICAL SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS HAS ERODED AS HAS THEIR FINANCIAL SECURITY.
WE RATE THIS KEY TRUE FOR TRUMP, FALSE FOR HARRIS, AND THEREFORE FAVORING TRUMP.
KEY NINE—— (SCANDAL): THE INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION IS UNTAINTED BY MAJOR SCANDAL.
While this KEY—unlike KEY SEVEN—is LOGICALLY COHERENT, it is, like most of the KEYS, nebulous, because Lichtman fails to define the salient terminology. Those words or phrases require refinement in meaning.
Furthermore, in the context of actual events, the terms employed in the KEYS ought to be explicated in reference to the nature of events, past and present, and their impact on our society and the world, and the terms and phrase must, or, at least, ought to be explicated in reference the factors that impact and shape the ELECTORATE’S view of the PRESENT ADMINISTRATION, sufficient for a rational decision to be made concerning a particular KEY.
The SALIENT PHRASE “UNTAINTED BY MAJOR SCANDAL” as applied to the BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION, requires explication.
It is true that members of BIDEN’S ADMINISTRATION, including BIDEN, himself, have not been impeached, but not for lack of trying on the part of Republicans in the HOUSE. Biden is corrupt. The Heads of DOJ and DHS have utilized their authority to further the corruption and to debase the INSTITUTIONS in their charge. To conclude as Lichtman has that KEY NINE IS TRUE FOR HARRIS and THEREFORE FALSE for TRUMP demonstrates that Lichtman has tacitly applied a very narrow definition to the phrase, “UNTAINTED BY MAJOR SCANDAL.” Rather, the entire Biden-Harris Administration is tainted by scandal. THE ADMINISTRATION has wholly corrupted the Executive Branch. The Administration, or those unelected individuals behind the scenes who are using the public faces of THE ADMINISTRATION to thwart the will of the American people and to subvert THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, have gained such massive control over the Government, that the corruption has now grown so pervasive that it is essentially unnoticeable. CORRUPTION IS CONCOMITANT WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION.
LICHTMAN RATES THIS KEY TRUE FOR HARRIS AND THEREFORE FALSE FOR TRUMP. AQ WOULD RATE THIS KEY FALSE FOR HARRIS AND TRUE FOR TRUMP, THEREBY FAVORING HIM, NOT HARRIS.
KEY TEN (FOREIGN/MILITARY FAILURE)—THE INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION SUFFERS NO MAJOR FAILURE IN FOREIGN OR MILITARY AFFAIRS
KEY ELEVEN (FOREIGN/MILITARY SUCCESS)——THE INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATION ACHIEVES A MAJOR SUCCESS IN FOREIGN OR MILITARY AFFAIRS.
We can treat these two KEYS together.
THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION’S FOREIGN POLICY, ALONG WITH ITS HANDLING OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS WAS AND IS, TO SAY THE LEAST—ABYSMAL AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HORRIFIC. FROM THE TRAGIC, IDIOTIC HANDLING OF THE AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL, WHICH LED DIRECTLY TO PUTIN’S ENTRY INTO T UKRAINE, AND TO THE HORRIFIC MASSACRE OF INNOCENT ISRAELIS BY PSYCHOPATHIC AND/OR PSYCHOTIC HAMAS TERRORISTS, WORKING AT THE BEHEST OF IRAN, THE WORLD IS IN THE THROES OF THE GRAVEST DISASTER SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR.
CHINA AND NORTH KOREA, TOO, ARE FLEXING THEIR MUSCLE. CHINA IS THREATENING TAIWAN AND ENCROACHING ON THE ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC. NORTH KOREA IS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONRY. AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, IRAN IS DOING THE SAME. THE ADMINISTRATION’S STRATEGY OF APPEASEMENT WITH AN AGGRESSIVE CHINA AND AN EQUALLY AGGRESSIVE IRAN HAS CAN LEAD TO A CONFLAGRATION IN THE PACIFIC REGION OR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. AND THE LACK OF ANY COHERENT POLICY FOR DEALING WITH RUSSIA CAN ALSO LEAD TO A CONFLAGRATION IN EUROPE.
ON THESE TWO KEYS, LICHTMAN RATES THEM TRUE FOR TRUMP, AND FALSE FOR HARRIS. THEY BOTH THEREFORE FAVOR TRUMP.
KEY TWELVE (INCUMBENT CHARISMA)—THE INCUMBENT-PARTY CANDIDATE IS CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO.
KEY THIRTEEN (CHALLENGER CHARISMA)—THE CHALLENGING PARTY CANDIDATE IS NOT CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO.
THESE LAST TWO KEYS HAVE DUBIOUS VALUE EVEN IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE A SOUND DETERMINATION OF WHAT ‘CHARISMATIC’ MEANS AND WHAT ‘NATIONAL HERO’ MEANS. AND EVEN THEN, HOW DO YOU ASCRIBE IT TO A PERSON THAT A MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE MAY HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH. AND WOULD THAT DETERMINATION COHERE WITH THE ACTUAL DETERMINATION MADE BY LICHTMAN?
THEORETICALLY, BOTH THE INCUMBENT-PARTY CANDIDATE, AND THE CHALLENGING PARTY CANDIDATE CAN BE DEEMED CHARISMATIC (OR A NATIONAL HERO) OR BOTH CAN BE DEEMED NON-CHARISMATIC (OR NOT A NATIONAL HERO).
MAKING KEYS TWELVE AND THIRTEEN DICHOTOMOUS DOESN’T SERVE TO MAKE THE KEYS ANYTHING OTHER THAN REDUNDANT, EXCEPT IN ONE INSTANCE. LET’S CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE THAT THE INCUMBENT PARTY CANDIDATE IS CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO, AND THE CHALLENGING PARTY CANDIDATE IS NOT-NOT CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO, WHICH MEANS THAT THE CHALLENGING PARTY IS ALSO CHARISMATIC OR IS A NATIONAL HERO. IN THAT CASE, THE TWO KEYS CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
THE SAME IS TRUE IF BOTH PARTIES ARE DEEMED NOT CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO. THE KEYS CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
IN THE INSTANT CASE LICHTMAN FINDS HARRIS NOT CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO IN REFERENCE TO KEY TWELVE. SO KEY TWELVE IS FALSE FOR HARRIS, AND, GIVEN THE TWO TRUTH-VALUE SYSTEM USED IN THIS METHODOLOGY, KEY TWELVE MUST BE TRUE FOR TRUMP.
FOR KEY THIRTEEN HE FINDS THAT TRUMP IS NOT CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO EITHER. SO KEY THIRTEEN IS FALSE FOR TRUMP AND THEREFORE KEY THIRTEEN MUST BE TRUE FOR HARRIS.
KEYS TWELVE AND THIRTEEN WOULD THEREFORE CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
ONLY IN THE INSTANCE WHERE EITHER THE INCUMBENT PARTY CANDIDATE IS DEEMED CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO AND THE CHALLENGER IS NOT DEEMED CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HEROR, OR VICE VERSA, DO THE KEYS NOT CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
BUT IT IS STILL DIFFICULT TO DEFINE THE TERMINOLOGY WHICH PLAGUES THE ENTIRE SYSTEM THAT LICHTMAN DEVISES.
HARRIS IS UNCHARISMATIC—ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE. AS FOR TRUMP, AT LEAST HALF OF THE ELECTORATE WOULD SAY TRUMP IS CHARISMATIC. TO SAY THAT TRUMP IS CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO MEANS THAT KEY THIRTEEN MUST MEAN THAT THE KEY WHICH SAYS THE CHALLENGING PARTY CANDIDATE IS NOT CHARISMATIC OR A NATIONAL HERO IS FALSE FOR TRUMP SINCE WE ARGUE THAT HE IS CHARISMATIC. SO, THE TRUTH VALUE, FALSE, MUST BE A POSITIVE HERE FOR OTHERWISE KEY THIRTEEN COULD NEVER WORK TO FAVOR THE CHALLENGING PARTY CANDIDATE, WHETHER DEEMED CHARISMATIC OR NOT.
To sum up, Lichtman rates EIGHT KEYS FAVORING HARRIS TO TRUMP’S FIVE. HE THEREFORE PREDICTS A WIN FOR HARRIS.
We find, as set forth in detail supra, many KEYS inapplicable and would prefer to discount them entirely. But, since we have to make use of all of them, we would argue that ELEVEN KEYS FAVOR TRUMP AND TWO KEYS FAVOR HARRIS. ACCORDINGLY WE “PREDICT”, UNDER LICHTMAN’S “KEYS,” TRUMP IS THE VICTOR IN THE 2024 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
The only other thing to add here is that the methodology of POLLING and the methodology of LICHTMAN’S “KEYS” all go out the door if rampant Democrat Party cheating occurs in this Election as it had occurred in the 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
Let us hope that whatever cheating does occur is de minimis and doesn’t negatively impact on the integrity of the 2024 election taking place on November 5, 2024.
WE PLACE OUR MONEY ON DONALD TRUMP, AS VICTOR IN THE 2024 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL RACE—NOW IMMINENT, AS THE FIFTH DAWNS, AS AQ CONCLUDES THIS ESSAY.
_________________________________________