What is your opinion on Allan Lichtman's methodology?

[The Arizonan]

Allan Lichtman is an American political historian who predicted Donald Trump's win in 2016 and he uses a model known as the Keys to the White House. What do you think about his formula?

[Sestak]

I don't consider it to be gospel, but I find it useful to keep in mind.

[Pericles]

I think it is more credible than most pundits and forecasts but not extremely credible.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Allan Lichtman is an American political historian who predicted Donald Trump's win in 2016 and he uses a model known as the Keys to the White House. What do you think about his formula?

Actually it didn't. He twisted the keys to argue Trump wouldnt win based on it and then argued it was still right because it only predicts the popular vote.

[TheSaint250]

His methodology is fine, but I think he's a narcissistic little s*** who thinks he's some sort of prediction god.

[SteveRogers]

It's bad and stupid.

[junior chįmp]

All historical models are trash but they all have a grain of truth to them

[pbrower2a]

It makes sense.

There is at least one little tweak that I would make: that if there is a third-party or independent nominee seeming to get support from the incumbent's side of the political spectrum, then the incumbent's party has a problem.

[kyc0705]

It’s fine, and one of the more generally reliable models out there.

It's bad and stupid.

Actually it didn't. He twisted the keys to argue Trump wouldnt win based on it and then argued it was still right because it only predicts the popular vote.

Of course, Hot Take Atlas hates it, because everything which isn’t magically and eternally infallible is hack trash apparently.

[SteveRogers]

All historical models are trash but they all have a grain of truth to them

Sure, there's a "grain of truth" to what Lichtman says in that it is obviously true that the incumbent party is more likely to win an election when the economy is good or when the opposing party is in disarray or when the party's candidate is "charismatic." However, it is not proper to describe that groundbreaking #analysis as a model.

[SteveRogers]

It’s fine, and one of the more generally reliable models out there.

It's bad and stupid.

Actually it didn't. He twisted the keys to argue Trump wouldnt win based on it and then argued it was still right because it only predicts the popular vote.

Of course, Hot Take Atlas hates it, because everything which isn’t magically and eternally infallible is hack trash apparently.

It's not the fallibility of the model that makes Lichtman's methodology hack trash. What makes it hack trash is fact that Lichtman's "methodology" consists of changing the definitions of his variables several times throughout the campaign to make the model end up "predicting" the correct result.

[kyc0705]

It’s fine, and one of the more generally reliable models out there.

It's bad and stupid.

Actually it didn't. He twisted the keys to argue Trump wouldnt win based on it and then argued it was still right because it only predicts the popular vote.

Of course, Hot Take Atlas hates it, because everything which isn’t magically and eternally infallible is hack trash apparently.

It's not the fallibility of the model that makes Lichtman's methodology hack trash. What makes it hack trash is fact that Lichtman's "methodology" consists of changing the definitions of his variables several times throughout the campaign to make the model end up "predicting" the correct result.

That sounds more like a problem with Lichtman, and not his work (the model). The idea of a series of multi-fielded variables—the economy, the stability of the incumbent's party, and the success of the administration—interplaying to provide a rule-of-thumb idea on said president's chances of re-election, is fundamentally sound.

[SteveRogers]

It’s fine, and one of the more generally reliable models out there.

It's bad and stupid.

Actually it didn't. He twisted the keys to argue Trump wouldnt win based on it and then argued it was still right because it only predicts the popular vote.

Of course, Hot Take Atlas hates it, because everything which isn’t magically and eternally infallible is hack trash apparently.

It's not the fallibility of the model that makes Lichtman's methodology hack trash. What makes it hack trash is fact that Lichtman's "methodology" consists of changing the definitions of his variables several times throughout the campaign to make the model end up "predicting" the correct result.

That sounds more like a problem with Lichtman, and not his work (the model). The idea of a series of multi-fielded variables—the economy, the stability of the incumbent's party, and the success of the administration—interplaying to provide a rule-of-thumb idea on said president's chances of re-election, is fundamentally sound.

That's just the thing though.
1. If several of the so-called keys are so subjective that we have to wait for Lichtman's assessment of the keys before we can know which of the keys are turned, and thus, whether we should consider the model to have correctly predicted the winner, then Lichtman and his model are one in the same.
2. Lichtman's model does NOT tell us the chances of a party winning the election. Nor does it tell us what the margin of victory will be. Instead it purports to give us only a binary declaration of whether the incumbent party will win or lose the White House. Because it doesn't tell us how much the winner will win by, we cannot measure the error rate of the model, which makes it pretty useless.

Again, there is nothing groundbreaking about the idea that the factors Lichtman identifies will effect a candidate's chances of getting elected. The idea that Lichtman has assembled these factors into some magic formula that can predict the outcome with any certainty is pure garbage.

[kyc0705]

It’s fine, and one of the more generally reliable models out there.

It's bad and stupid.

Actually it didn't. He twisted the keys to argue Trump wouldnt win based on it and then argued it was still right because it only predicts the popular vote.

Of course, Hot Take Atlas hates it, because everything which isn’t magically and eternally infallible is hack trash apparently.

It's not the fallibility of the model that makes Lichtman's methodology hack trash. What makes it hack trash is fact that Lichtman's "methodology" consists of changing the definitions of his variables several times throughout the campaign to make the model end up "predicting" the correct result.

That sounds more like a problem with Lichtman, and not his work (the model). The idea of a series of multi-fielded variables—the economy, the stability of the incumbent's party, and the success of the administration—interplaying to provide a rule-of-thumb idea on said president's chances of re-election, is fundamentally sound.

That's just the thing though.
1. If several of the so-called keys are so subjective that we have to wait for Lichtman's assessment of the keys before we can know which of the keys are turned, and thus, whether we should consider the model to have correctly predicted the winner, then Lichtman and his model are one in the same.
2. Lichtman's model does NOT tell us the chances of a party winning the election. Nor does it tell us what the margin of victory will be. Instead it purports to give us only a binary declaration of whether the incumbent party will win or lose the White House. Because it doesn't tell us how much the winner will win by, we cannot measure the error rate of the model, which makes it pretty useless.

Again, there is nothing groundbreaking about the idea that the factors Lichtman identifies will effect a candidate's chances of getting elected. The idea that Lichtman has assembled these factors into some magic formula that can predict the outcome with any certainty is pure garbage.

This is precisely my point. The idea that the outcome will be predicted with "certainty," in addition to demanding that it somehow predict the margin of victory, is a fundamental misreading of what any model like this is capable of doing. It's a 13-part guide. What do you expect, a database of every voter in the country and their predicted vote from now until their deaths?

Imagine that each election cycle is like a darkened room. This model is like a small flashlight that gives you an idea of your environment until the lights come on. You want it to power the entire city, and when it doesn't, you declare it summarily worthless.

[junior chįmp]

All historical models are trash but they all have a grain of truth to them

Sure, there's a "grain of truth" to what Lichtman says in that it is obviously true that the incumbent party is more likely to win an election when the economy is good or when the opposing party is in disarray or when the party's candidate is "charismatic." However, it is not proper to describe that groundbreaking #analysis as a model.

You have a big brain.good luck with that

[Kringla Heimsins]

Useful but incredibly superficial. The fact that it has been mostly right since the beginning is an indication Lichtman's "keys" are good to grasp the fundamentals of the presidential race, but it is only working until it isn't.

I do however like Allan Lichtman if only for his ties.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A lot of it is subjectively cherry-picked.

[Pericles]

The fundamentals are underrated. They predicted a Trump win, and pundits should have paid more attention to them in 2016 and previous elections. In 2020 generally the day to day contours of the race will matter far less than the GOP's overall performance in office.

[Vega]

Out of date and on the whole pretty useless.

[pbrower2a]

It obviously does not work in the situation in which someone wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college vote.

Here's one problem: it holds few surprises. Noting is counterintuitive. An example of a counterintuitive predictor was shown by the baseball analyst Bill James, who surprised people by telling that baseball teams with the higher team batting average fare worse in post-season play. How could that be?

The teams with the higher team batting average hit more singles and doubles. Scoring three runs by putting five singles together against teams with bad pitching staffs that never reach post-season play. The teams in post-season play have pitchers who don't allow that many singles in an inning. Fewer runs score in postseason baseball games, as a rule, because the pitching is better. Those teams also have better defenses, which means that the pitcher is more likely to get a double play following a single -- and teams that hit lots of singles also ground into lots of double plays against good defensive teams.  Add to this, a higher team batting average often indicates teams that play in ballparks that favor hitters over pitchers (like Fenway Park as opposed to Dodger Stadium). Doubles? Good defensive teams have mobile first basemen  and third basemen who cut off more ground balls down the lines and turn those into outs. 


All offense weakens in postseason play, but the teams that make the playoffs that rely upon pitching, defense, and home runs fare better.

At least Lichtman's test isn't as silly as predicting that Republicans win after an American League victory in the World Series. (You know that one - the 1984 Detroit Tigers made the San Diego Padres look really awful, and Ronald Reagan made Walter Mondale look really awful in the Presidential election). If there is no logical connection, then all that one has is coincidence.

[SWE]

Pretty clearly discredited last year.