Interestingly enough there have been a few post-debate polls where he has slightly better scores compared to polls before the debate. I don't think that's due to Biden himself, but more so because of Project 2025 finally being talked about more and more. People who hadn't heard of the GOP's insane goals are slowly becoming aware what effects another Trump presidency could have. Curious to see how that will continue.
Interestingly enough there have been a few post-debate polls where he has slightly better scores compared to polls before the debate. I don't think that's due to Biden himself, but more so because of Project 2025 finally being talked about more and more. People who hadn't heard of the GOP's insane goals are slowly becoming aware what effects another Trump presidency could have. Curious to see how that will continue.
This is Biden’s only hope imo. Maybe if enough people remember that they didn’t like Trump being president and are afraid of his policies in a second term, they will vote for Biden. We have seen this logic play out in midterm and special elections, but it’s a pretty big risk for a presidential. It’s possible, maybe even in the realm of 50-60% chance, but super risky and requires the campaign to recalibrate.
Re: Alan Lichtman, I’m not a big fan for a few reasons. One is a small sample size. Like think about the elections he has “called.”
1984 - Nobody expected Reagan to lose.
1988 - Closer, but nobody really expected Bush to lose.
1992 - Obviously weak incumbent, easy to predict a Clinton victory.
1996 - Popular incumbent, nobody really doubted Clinton.
2000 - An actual close election, and he got it wrong.
2004 - Arguably close, but I don’t think anyone ever expected Bush to get dumped while in the middle of two wars.
2008 - Obama obviously was going to win.
2012 - This one I can actually give him credit for as a lot of punditry had written off Obama and even polls were dicey. Still, not an upset win by any means.
2016 - Definitely credit due on this one. I would even say his “keys” to the White House make more sense in the context of this election (more on that in a bit). He did a good job recognizing Trump’s potency when few pundits took him seriously.
2020 - Polls consistently showed Biden well ahead of Trump and Trump was a weak incumbent with a low approval rating. Trump never had a realistic chance of winning this election imo.
So of the last ten presidential elections, 7 were easy calls where his predictions matched basic expectations in largely non competitive races. Of the 3 that were closer calls, he got one wrong. So I don't really find it to be that impressive nor do I think he is some election clairvoyant.
When you look at the actual methodology, his logic is even more suspect. The biggest flaw in the reasoning is that all 13 of the "keys" are given equal value. If you have at least eight of them, you are supposed to win the White House. But some of his measures are more valuable than others IMO. Additionally, he has a couple subjective measures that, while important, can be difficult to measure especially in a binary question.
Take a look at 2016, as this is his best call imo:
• KEY 1 (Party Mandate): After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. (FALSE)
• KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. (UNDETERMINED) Note - At the time the primary hadn't happened yet, but there was a serious contest for the Democratic party nomination between Clinton and Sanders
• KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. (FALSE)
• KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third party or independent campaign. (FALSE)
• KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (TRUE)
• KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (TRUE)
• KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (FALSE)
• KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (TRUE)
• KEY 9 (Scandal): The administration is untainted by major scandal. (TRUE)
• KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (TRUE)
• KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (FALSE)
• KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (FALSE)
• KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (TRUE)
According to this, Clinton lost for the following reasons:
1: Republicans held a majority in Congress
2: A competitive primary
3: Clinton wasn't a sitting president
4: There was a significant third party campaign
5: The incumbent administration did not affect major changes in national policy
6: The incumbent administration did not have a major success in foreign or military affair.
7: Clinton was not charismatic or a national hero.
Of these, I think the most relevant are by far 2 and 7. Additionally, while at the time of Lichtman's prediction, he stated that Clinton was not tainted by a major scandal. I would argue this isn't even true as Clinton had suffered due to Benghazi and the email scandal, which ultimately probably cost her the election. The fact that this isn't even taken into account kinda negates his Trump prediction. Without the Comey letter, Clinton probably becomes president and Lichtman's reasoning for Trump proves incorrect.
According to this, Biden wins for the following reasons:
1: No significant primary contest
2: Biden is an incumbent president
3: The short term economy is good
4: The short term economy is good
5: Biden has had significant policy changes
6: No social unrest
7: No major scandal
8: Trump is uncharismatic and not a national hero.
This is where we run into major problems.
- While it's true that Biden is an incumbent president, I think there's reason to think his incumbency advantage has all but eroded in the polls. Not just is he a historically unpopular president, but I think facing off another former president is negating the advantage. I also think the national mood is one that makes incumbency possibly a disadvantage.
- The economy is good yes, but voters don't perceive it to be good. Biden's low numbers particularly with minority and lower income groups kinda shows that perception of the economy is actually quite negative. This is a big deal and voters perception of the economy is going to affect the outcome more than the actual economic numbers.
- Saying no significant social unrest is a stretch. There is reason to think that the Gaza protests have had an affect on Biden's popularity. Whether it is the perception of Biden as "Genocide Joe" or criticisms that he isn't strong enough on Israel, I think he is suffering between both factions. Whether it is enough to affect the outcome is secondary, but this speaks to my point that not all keys are created equal.
- While not a scandal per se, I would argue that Biden's debate performance more or less has the effect of one. Being old isn't a scandal, but an October surprise where Biden has a senior moment will cost him the election.
- Trump is charismatic and a national hero to some. I think it is foolish to assume that everybody sees Trump as uncharismatic or as the criminal that most rational people see him as. Trump has been lionized by a group of people and I think is even winning over swing voters with his persona, as much as I hate to say it.
So right off the bat, I think 5 of the "true" keys are debatable. But I also just think these keys fail to capture the dynamic of the race. None of the keys take into account the actual struggles Biden is having on the campaign trail. Nor do they take into account how a convicted felon former president is ahead in polls.
Anyway, this got really long winded but it is something that causes me to roll my eyes every time it comes up. I don't think this guy's predictions are that impressive and I think his actual methodology is extremely flawed.
I think his keys can be applied successfully in pre 1984 elections and that is the big deal here.
The importance of the keys is not to be underestimated as none other than Bill Clinton decided to run based on that study itself!
For Al Gore, it’s quite interesting as many think that the election was stolen from him, and this is what I thought at the time.
I follow the keys since 2016 and there was no case that a candidate was so well ahead as Biden is today, so thought it’s worthy to mention.
Trump is charismatic and a national hero to some. I think it is foolish to assume that everybody sees Trump as uncharismatic or as the criminal that most rational people see him as. Trump has been lionized by a group of people
It's kind of given me a different perspective on history. For the likes of us who weren't there in the 30s you think of guys like Mussolini and Hitler, as monsters but at least on some level actual politicians and supported by actual people. But after seeing Trump in real life, I reckon they have to have been loud mouth dipshits like Trump supported by stupid angry knuckle draggers, sociopaths and contrarians. I don't think any real policitian can actually win over real people to batshit theories in the numbers that Trump is doing.
He has loads of political opinions - most (not all, there is a clear fundamental world view, how atrocious it is for the most part) are just, errrhh, dynamic in the sense that it caters to whatever is politically expedient at the time.
Fucked up. We’re supposed to address our differences with words and votes in this country, no matter how reprehensible we may think a person is. Hopefully we’re not looking at a rerun of our 1960s political violence again…
See, I keep seeing this take, but I've yet to grasp the logic behind it. His base was going to vote for him anyways and wasn't planning on staying home. Undecideds/Democrats aren't going to flip over out of sympathy.
Hell, when Reagan got shot, his approval/favorability didn't shoot up. It was business as usual.
Roosevelt survived an assassination attempt and still lost the election, so I wouldn't say that this event will really change the outcome of the election. Like seriously, do we really think there is a sizeable chunk of people who were undecided or leaning Dem that would now vote for Trump because he got shot? I'm sure the entire right wing is going to capitalize on this as much as possible (we're already seeing this), but I'm not sure how this will actually affect November. Though the secret service royally fucked up and there'll be some heads rolling after this.
Having said that however, I'm not endorsing political violence but I have to say I'm surprised it took this long for something like that. I genuinely thought there would've been an open assassination attempt back in 2016 or so. Finally, it's exhausting living in "interesting times".
I don't know if this will significantly influence the election outcome, but it sure as hell will further radicalise the right. They can point out that it was the Others who drew first blood.
There have been some first reports that the shooter was allegedly a registered Republican. Even if that turns out to be true, I can see the right wing claiming false flag and ignoring that.
I'm not saying it was staged or anything like that. There are people on the right wing who are not fans of Trump. Anyone unhinged enough to try to assassinate a political candidate obviously has plenty of problems. The shooter was only 20 years old, who knows what drove him to this action?
Edit: To clarify, the name was released by the FBI and people started looking into the public records.
There's no evidence it was staged, but I think the moment the trigger was first pulled, the truth became irrelevant to Trumpists. Not that truth was ever relevant to them in the first place.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
