So the Lichtman Test so far

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Which one failed the test?  I'm thinking 1960 or 1948?

The election that failed was 2000.

1932 analysis

Prove you aren't a hack by doing a Republican one. Use 1988, I'd like to see how a 17 point lead sink so low. Or 1980 if you want similarities.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Nice to know.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Here's Lichtman's own analysis from last month.

1. MAN: false (Pubs hold more seats than after the 2010 midterms)
2. CON: undecided (becomes true if Clinton wraps up the race early)
3. INC: false (Obama isn't running)
4. 3RD: undecided (no forecast until next year)
5. STE: true (the economy is not headed for recession in 2016)
6. LTE: true (real per capita growth in 2013-2016 exceeds the average of the two previous terms)
7. POL: false (Obama has no policy change like Obamacare this term)
8. UNR: true (there is no sustained social unrest)
9. SCA: true (there is no scandal that touches the presidency)
10. FMF: true (Obama has avoided any notable foreign or military failure)
11. FMS: undecided (Obama has no major foreign success to date)
12. ICH: false (Clinton is not charismatic nor a military hero)
13. CCH: true (none of the Pubs are charismatic or a military heroes)

That makes 4 false and 3 undecided. Unless two more keys go false the Dems should win.

He doesn't conceder The Iran Deal or Cuba FMS?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Well, sure it does great when you know what result you're aiming for when you retroactively decide the subjective ones.

It was created in the 80's and has been used to predict every election from 1984 to the present. Again, all but one time it was correct. Then it was retroactively applied to elections going all the way back to 1860 and it still worked.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Well, sure it does great when you know what result you're aiming for when you retroactively decide the subjective ones.

It was created in the 80's and has been used to predict every election from 1984 to the present. Again, all but one time it was correct. Then it was retroactively applied to elections going all the way back to 1860 and it still worked.

Um, nope. Nope nope nope. Lichtman looked at every election from 1860 to 1980 and identified common factors in order to create the model. The model cannot predict the data points that were used to derive the model in the first place. When you plug in an election from 1860 to 1980, the model spits out the right answer because it was designed (overfitted) in the first place specifically to account for each and every one of those elections.

As for whether or not the model got 2000 right, doesn't that just kind of go to show the inherent uselessness of a model for U.S. presidential elections that doesn't even purport to tell you what percentage of the popular vote a candidate will win by?

The only reason it got 2000 wrong was because 2000 was stolen by Bush.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Bumped because I was thinking:

Considering that nearly Sanders won Iowa, could he turn out to  qualify as a serious competitor, thus turning a key for the Republicans?

By the way, after looking up info, the only candidates that qualified for #13 (for Lichtman himself) are Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Reagan. Trump is not as charismatic as either of those guys, no matter what the people at AAD will tell you.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Now that the nominees are pretty much in the bag, what does it look like now?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Isn't the charisma one so subjective as to render it useless?

The whole test is, so that no matter what happens, the test is always right.

How is  the number of seats in the House subjective?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Here's what Lichtman himself said back when this thread started, with an update:

1. False, of coruse
2. Sanders needs 1590 and he has 1409, so False.
3. Neither Trump nor Clinton is the current president, False.
4. True
5. True, There isn't a recession right now, and I don't think one will start this summer.
6. True
7. False, Obama hasn't done anything as drastic as he did in his first term
8. True, There hasn't been major social unrest
9. True, Obama's clean
10. True, no big failures
11. False, Cuba is irrelevant and Iran is unpopular.
12. False, Clinton is not charismatic nor did she even serve in the military.
13. True, Trump may be charismatic, but he's no Reagan or Kennedy

That's 7 True, 6 False. Unless Obama does some God-tier foreign policy change Trump is the next president.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Since both keys will go false, say hello to President Trump. Ugh.