"Never wrong pundit" Allan Lichtman predicts Clinton win.

[ursulahx]

Can't find the link, but about six months ago Lichtman was arguing that the only ambiguous key was 'major foreign policy success'. He was unsure how major the deal with Iran was going to be. If that had been False, he would have been forced to predict a Trump victory (at the time, he seemed quite sure Key 2 counted as False). Obviously he figured predicting a Trump win, in the face of all other evidence, would open him up to humiliation.

I agree with many of the above comments, the '13 Keys' model is ridiculously subjective and suffers from the same flaw as many fundamentals-based models: just because you can find a set of factors common to all past elections does not mean the same factors will be valid for all future elections. Those familiar with the xkcd 'Electoral Precedent' cartoon will already know this...

[ursulahx]

Lichtman moves the goalposts again...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-is-going-to-win-beat-hillary-clinton-predictions-polls-al-a7325716.html

He seems to be following opinion now, not predicting it.

[ursulahx]

He was actually stuck following opinion earlier, as I posted before. His system clearly has predicted a Trump win for months now, but Lichtman just couldn't accept that. He has now committed on foreign policy success against the Dems. Even so, he's still hedging a little in his comments. He still won't credit Bernie's primary performance, so that way if Johnson stays below 5% and Clinton wins he can claim victory.

Yes, his comments on Trump being a model-busting candidate basically amount to, "even if I'm wrong, I'm right."

[ursulahx]

Of course if one candidate wins the PV and the other wins the EV, Lichtman wins either way!

[ursulahx]

How the hell is he still claiming Democrats have Key 2? In the book, he clearly states the winner must have 2/3's of the delegates...HRC got 3/5's of the delegates. 3/5's is less than 2/3's. This is not rocket science.

He believes that since Clinton was never in serious danger of losing her lead after SC, and because Bernie was supportive at the convention, it doesn't count as a "serious" challenge.

Back in March, he was saying just the opposite. He had Key 2 as a 'False'. (Don't have the link to hand). Lichtman has been all over the place this year, and using "oh, but Trump is different" as an excuse is just a bit feeble.

To be fair on Lichtman, citing him as a "never wrong" pundit is the media's spin on his predictions. He was 'wrong' in 2000 - people don't want to know who's going to win the popular vote, they want to know who their president is going to be for the next four years. A prediction that tells them anything else is just not as valuable.