“Debate performances can be overcome,” Allan Lichtman said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president.”
When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.
“Debate performances can be overcome,” he said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.”
So, he refuses to factor anything in if it doesn’t fit his system… Literally refusing to acknowledge any health concerns
His system is this:
Lichtman is best known for the “Keys” system, presented in his books The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency and The Keys to the White House. The system uses thirteen historical factors to predict whether the popular vote in the election for president of the United States will be won by the candidate of the party holding the presidency (regardless of whether the president is the candidate).
So by his own argument that his system can’t acknowledge a candidates fitness would come into play, logically I don’t understand why he is speaking on who the specific candidate should be.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn’t throw that advantage away.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.
Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.
However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a war hero or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
Since then, his signature legislation has failed to pass as intended, he’s broken a strike, he’s supported a genocide, he’s moved to the right on immigration, and he’s claimed to have defeated Medicare. He’s alienated his base and demonstrated that people who were fretting about his age might have been on to something after all.
He beat Trump in a nail-biting squeaker of a contest in 2020, and centrists have been pretending he’s invincible ever since.
I’ve never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.
So, he refuses to factor anything in if it doesn’t fit his system… Literally refusing to acknowledge any health concerns
His system is this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
And it doesn’t account for specific candidate…
So by his own argument that his system can’t acknowledge a candidates fitness would come into play, logically I don’t understand why he is speaking on who the specific candidate should be.
And the popular vote means fuck all for the election anyway, so who cares about this system if it didn’t factor in the electoral college?
The system is currently meant to predict the electoral college winner, not the popular vote winner.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn’t throw that advantage away.
The incumbent lost in 2020. There may be other factors.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency.
Most other factors mostly do not depend on the individual who is running. For example, recession, military victories/losses, results of midterm elections, significant third party challenger, etc. The party can run anyone and it would not affect those points.
However, I overlooked another individual characteristic: there is an extra point if the incumbent is a war hero or has significant appeal to members of the opposing party. The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The only one to win the Democratic primaries, at least.
This system is only meant to predict the general election. It ignores any primary candidates who were not nominated.
Seems to me that the model has some blind spots.
It does what it means to do.
Until it doesn’t.
Democrats used to trust polls, too. Now they only trust them if they confirm existing biases.
The other factor is that the incumbent lost in 2020, to the 2024 incumbent.
Like wtf. People saying he can’t do it. He already did it once.
Since then, his signature legislation has failed to pass as intended, he’s broken a strike, he’s supported a genocide, he’s moved to the right on immigration, and he’s claimed to have defeated Medicare. He’s alienated his base and demonstrated that people who were fretting about his age might have been on to something after all.
He beat Trump in a nail-biting squeaker of a contest in 2020, and centrists have been pretending he’s invincible ever since.
There’s also the 100% tariff on EVs that he supports.
Oh boohoo, my team didn’t win everything it wanted so I’m going to take my ball and go home.
Still by far the most progressive president in my lifetime.
Some might want to play ball with West, Stein, or JFK Jr.
I’ve never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.
How likely is Biden, or his possible replacement, to be elected?
Your team didn’t? Did Biden not move far enough to the right for you?
I see. He really isn’t far enough to the right for you. Well you should vote for him anyway. No matter who and all that.