Allan Lichtman's final prediction for the 2024 presidential election

[Emerald]

On 9/5/2024 at 1:46 PM, Leo Gura said:

This prediction stuff is peak bad science.

His keys are based off of clearly defined qualifiers that have been observed consistently in every election going back to the mid-1800s.

And he has gotten every election outcome correct in his lifetime, with the exception of Bush v. Gore... of which Gore would have won the electoral college without voter suppression in Florida.

So it's actually pretty good science despite the relative subjectivity of human patterning, because it deals with observing repeatable clearly defined phenomena over time.

So even though he's not studying bacteria in a petri dish here... he is studying how human patterning generally works.

Think of it more as a social science.

I'd be curious if you could apply these qualifiers outside of the US context to predict head to head election outcomes in other representative democracies.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

So it's actually pretty good science despite the relative subjectivity of human patterning, because it deals with observing repeatable clearly defined phenomena over time

I have seen how Lichtman reasons. And it is not good.

This is the perfect example of how science is taken to be something legitimate and objective when in this case it is half-baked, oversimplified, and reductionistic.

Just because some academic can isolate and formalize a handful of variables does not mean he is being intelligent, or that his model is superior to human intuition. I will trust my intuition over Lichtman's models.

This election is unique and will not fit any model.

This election will be very close. To think one can predict it is foolishness. We will probably be up all night counting every last vote in a nail-biter. And the economy might crash before the election.

Edited September 6, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I have seen how Lichtman reasons. And it is not good.

This is the perfect example of how science is taken to be something legitimate and objective when in this case it is half-baked, oversimplified, and reductionistic.

Just because some academic can isolate and formalize a handful of variables does not mean he is being intelligent, or that his model is superior to human intuition. I will trust my intuition over Lichtman's models.

This election is unique and will not fit any model.

This election will be very close. To think one can predict it is foolishness. We will probably be up all night counting every last vote in a nail-biter. And the economy might crash before the election.

The economy crashing is one of his keys, so that would change the election outcome within his model as well. And I'm sure it will be a close race too.

But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a predictive model that has consistently worked election year over election year.

Of course, models are just models. But it's at least as viable of a source as polling is, given its track record.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I have seen how Lichtman reasons. And it is not good.

This is the perfect example of how science is taken to be something legitimate and objective when in this case it is half-baked, oversimplified, and reductionistic.

Just because some academic can isolate and formalize a handful of variables does not mean he is being intelligent, or that his model is superior to human intuition. I will trust my intuition over Lichtman's models.

This election is unique and will not fit any model.

This election will be very close. To think one can predict it is foolishness. We will probably be up all night counting every last vote in a nail-biter. And the economy might crash before the election.

Lichtman has always been told since 1984 that you "gotta change your keys" because "we have a black man for the first time in US History running as a major party nominee in 2008 or because we now have the rise of the cable tv and talk radio in the late 1900s/early 2000s or because we have the rise of the internet and social media since the 2010s and so on and so forth.

Additionally, he never said that he is predicting that Harris will win by a landslide. He only predicts the winner of the electoral college.

Of course he has said that he's not so arrogant to say that his election model can never been wrong. However, his model has proven to work.

I don't see how the economy will crash before the election, especially given that there are now only less than two months left before the election?

You predicted that Trump would lose the 2020 presidential election many months before that election.

Also, what about the fact that Trump has caused himself and his party to lose in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023?

How do you know for certain that this election will be very close?

How do you know that you may not be overestimating Trump this time?

Btw, we gotta stop trusting the pollsters, pundits, and the campaign handlers as being the most right on elections. The vasty majority of them have a had terrible track record of understanding and foreseeing elections.

Edited September 7, 2024 by Hardkill

[Extreme Z7]

"It fails the vibe check, and that's all that matters at the end of the day sometimes" - Vaush

[Forestluv]

28 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I don't see how the economy will crash before the election, especially given that there are now only less than two months left before the election?

It depends on what you mean by "crash".

There won't be a recession before the election, since a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. . . 

People judge the economy many different ways. Probably the two most common are affordability in their daily lives and stock market performance.

In terms of affordability: prices for groceries, homes and rent won't change much before the election (yet have had large increases the past few years). Gas prices can be very volatile. If things turn ugly in the middle east, there could be a spike in gas prices - yet U.S. production has significantly increased in recent years - which would be a buffer.

In terms of the stock market. . . markets have been frothy lately and I could see a significant drop. The big run up this year has been based on expectations for a rate cut. Due to weakening job numbers, it's likely that the Fed will cut rates this month (the first time in years). The CPI inflation report is release Sept. 11th - if it's low (around 3%), it's nearly guaranteed the Fed will cut rates on Sept. 18th. This would create a narrative that we've "turned the corner" and are heading toward future rate cuts. The stock market would rally and it would be very positive news in mainstream media. . . If the CPI report is high and the Fed doesn't cut, things will get ugly in the markets since they've expected a September rate cut all year. 

[Leo Gura]

Same way it crashed in 2008.

You don't gotta wait 2 quarters to feel it. When the crash comes it will be quick and bloody.

Edited September 7, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Same way it crashed in 2008.

You don't gotta wait 2 quarters to feel it. When the crash comes it will be quick and bloody.

No, there were several months of net job losses per month from January 2008 and through the election year. Plus, the first quarter of 2008 had a negative GDP. Also, a number of top independent economists by around 2007 December had already predicted that it was clear at that point that there would be a financial crisis around 2008. They knew that something was terribly wrong with the economy, but of course Bush and the Republicans ignored it until it was too late. Not to mention that the Fed which was run by that libertarian Republican Alan Greenspan during the first 6 years of Bush's presidency, was too hands off with the matter.

I mean anything is possible, but I’ve been following many of the top independent economists out there, top executive bankers, and the Fed. None of them see any truly serious warning signs now of the economy crashing on the horizon. Also, the US economy is still creating a decent amount of jobs per month.

Now, it’s more possible that we could have a recession next year if the Fed doesn’t act quickly enough with lowering the interest rates.

Edited September 7, 2024 by Hardkill

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

It depends on what you mean by "crash".

There won't be a recession before the election, since a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. . . 

People judge the economy many different ways. Probably the two most common are affordability in their daily lives and stock market performance.

In terms of affordability: prices for groceries, homes and rent won't change much before the election (yet have had large increases the past few years). Gas prices can be very volatile. If things turn ugly in the middle east, there could be a spike in gas prices - yet U.S. production has significantly increased in recent years - which would be a buffer.

In terms of the stock market. . . markets have been frothy lately and I could see a significant drop. The big run up this year has been based on expectations for a rate cut. Due to weakening job numbers, it's likely that the Fed will cut rates this month (the first time in years). The CPI inflation report is release Sept. 11th - if it's low (around 3%), it's nearly guaranteed the Fed will cut rates on Sept. 18th. This would create a narrative that we've "turned the corner" and are heading toward future rate cuts. The stock market would rally and it would be very positive news in mainstream media. . . If the CPI report is high and the Fed doesn't cut, things will get ugly in the markets since they've expected a September rate cut all year. 

The Fed is extremely likely to cut interest rates this month. The question is by how much.

[Jayson G]

@Leo Gura your research suggests a crash as big as 2008 soon?

I didnt check the context, maybe you're saying a similar crash in terms of dynamics, but not severity?

Edited September 7, 2024 by Jayson G

[Whitney Edwards]

From the polls, it's Kamala who is going to win. 

 

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, Jayson G said:

@Leo Gura your research suggests a crash as big as 2008 soon?

I didnt check the context, maybe you're saying a similar crash in terms of dynamics, but not severity?

The stock market is very inflated. There can be a rug pull any day. Once people start the sell-off the dominoes will fall very quickly.

I'm not saying it will be as bad as 2008, but there can easily be a 30% correction, with a crypto crash and an AI bubble burst.

I'm not predicting its timing, but I pulled all my money out of the markets. I'm not gonna follow these Wall Street pigs to the slaughter.

Edited September 7, 2024 by Leo Gura

[Lyubov]

I’m so fucked if the markets crash, a lot of my assets are in individual stocks but it’s all blue chip stuff, old companies and whatnot that have been around a long time. I’ll have to pick up my old job if it gets really bad but I’m riding the waves and believe I can cope with whatever comes my way, I’ll survive. 

why is Vance a bad vp ? Seems like he’s just very basic 

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The stock market is very inflated. There can be a rug pull any day. Once people start the sell-off the dominoes will fall very quickly.

I'm not saying it will be as bad as 2008, but there can easily be a 30% correction, with a crypto crash and an AI bubble burst.

I'm not predicting its timing, but I pulled all my money out of the markets. I'm not gonna follow these Wall Street pigs to the slaughter.

Couldn’t in theory I just hold and let it rise back up if I have an income that can support me? I don’t invest in ai and crypto it’s in stock like Pfizer and DuPont, old companies for essential stuff people always use. 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Couldn’t in theory I just hold and let it rise back up

Of course, if you can stomach the short-term pain.

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The stock market is very inflated. There can be a rug pull any day. Once people start the sell-off the dominoes will fall very quickly.

I'm not saying it will be as bad as 2008, but there can easily be a 30% correction, with a crypto crash and an AI bubble burst.

I'm not predicting its timing, but I pulled all my money out of the markets. I'm not gonna follow these Wall Street pigs to the slaughter.

Wait, couldn't you have just hold on to some good stocks like Procter and Gamble?

[Lyubov]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course, if you can stomach the short-term pain.

I mean it wouldn’t be that bad but who knows. I’m in good health and can support myself now paycheck to paycheck, have friends. I’ve found even just putting energy into thinking about this shit is a drag. I’d rather just go with the flow and make the best of whatever happens. I’ve never been good at prep for anything and every time something goes wrong in my life it’s always something I didn’t see coming. Like they say the stock market is really a source of anxiety if we wish to make it one, and to think there’s people so neurotic they follow it daily sweating bullets as it goes up and down. 

[Hardkill]

12 hours ago, Lyubov said:

Couldn’t in theory I just hold and let it rise back up if I have an income that can support me? I don’t invest in ai and crypto it’s in stock like Pfizer and DuPont, old companies for essential stuff people always use. 

Yes. That's a good idea. That's how my dad has been making for our family for many years now. You have to be a smart, knowledgeable, disciplined, and methodical buy-and-hold investor like Warren Buffett has been all of his life. 

Steer clear from fast trading, crypto, and questionable tech stocks. Only do fundamental trading, which involves choosing stocks that you clearly see have solid prospects for long-term growth.

Btw, even though a lot of stocks are overvalued, the stock market isn't so inflated to the degree that it was during dot.com bubble in the late 1990s to 2001.

Edited September 7, 2024 by Hardkill

[Joshe]

On the surface, I see at least two issues with his model, which might indicate deeper issues:

• Social unrest key: Would social unrest always be detrimental to the incumbent?
• Charisma: Who gets the key if both candidates are equally uncharismatic? He has a seeming arbitrary rule for application here.

Just came across the first lefty channel calling it something like a "feel-good thing for Trump haters", which I think is largely accurate. People want to think it's valid. 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2024 by Joshe

[Lyubov]

14 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Yes. That's a good idea. That's how my dad has been making for our family for many years now. You have to be a smart, knowledgeable, disciplined, and methodical buy-and-hold investor like Warren Buffett has been all of his life. 

Steer clear from fast trading, crypto, and questionable tech stocks. Only do fundamental trading, which involves choosing stocks that you clearly see have solid prospects for long-term growth.

Btw, even though a lot of stocks are overvalued, the stock market isn't so inflated to the degree that it was during dot.com bubble in the late 1990s to 2001.

This is the only stuff I buy. I lose money in this shit whenever I go off the beaten path. All my shit is in classic blue chip. Oil. I sold Lockheed Martin years ago. I inherited thousands of dollars in this stock but profiting off of a company that makes weapons for war, idk.