US Politics, August 2024 -- "Unburdened By a Has-Been"

I was assuming we were talking about election prediction "engines" that weren't just one person making educated guesses (which I think Lichtman's "engine" is still a little too close to).

Yeah but if you design something that works on its own, you wouldn't get interviewed on TV. Nobody interviews a plug & play engine. They interview gurus with secret inside knowledge.

if you design your prediction engine after those "easy" elections have taken place, those elections are obviously going to influence your engine design and increase its accuracy.

Shoot first, THEN draw the bullseye.

well, it's the media that is drawing the bullseye after watching everyone take their shots at the side of the barn.

Lichtman's probably glad Biden dropped out because Biden getting shellacked by Trump would have blown his keys system. After that debate, fuck your keys... Biden was toast. Trump would have run rampant at the second debate against Biden, now he's too scared to even show up.

The Lichtman model was not only applied to presidents from the 80s onwards it’s based on 31 elections since 1860. However it’s not perfect since there has been two instances in which his model failed by a wide margin:

While developing the keys, Lichtman retrospectively applied them to every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980.
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's election in 1904 is the only occasion where all 13 keys were true for the incumbent party, while the elections of 1876 and 1960 both had nine false keys against the incumbent party (the Republicans in both years): there were also nine false keys against the incumbent Republicans in 2008, an election the keys predicted prospectively.
In 29 of the 31 elections, the keys corresponded with the elected president,with the exceptions being:
In 1876, when there were nine false keys against the incumbent Republicans, indicating the defeat of Republican nominee Rutherford B. Hayes: Democratic nominee Samuel J. Tilden won a majority of the popular vote, but an Electoral Commission declared Hayes the winner of the Electoral College by a single vote in a disputed election, and Hayes was therefore elected president.

In 1888, when there were five false keys against the incumbent Democrats, indicating the re-election of Democratic President Grover Cleveland: Cleveland won the popular vote, but Republican nominee Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College and was therefore elected president.

So yeah it’s not foolproof but I still think it has some interesting concepts to analyze behind each “key” and how important certain factors are to win an election.

I could see 2024 being a case where once again KH wins by popular vote but gets Trumped by the electoral college.

Lichtman was melting down for a solid week about the disaster that would befall Democrats if Biden dropped off the ticket. I think he’s now just playing catchup, doesn’t want to be left out. He’s kind of a doofus. But I hope he’s right (now).

https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/

the 2000 election was decided by Palm Beach ballot design choices, which was probably not one of the 13 keys. his tone of absolute confidence about predicting future events is annoying.

also like everyone itt I hope his current prediction is correct!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU-MGQksnZ4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3b4Jg8K5L0

the 2000 election was decided by Palm Beach ballot design choices

I've been thinking about New Hampshire's results and how ~8000 third-party votes there decided that election.

I was going to ask how Alan Keyes scored on his system the three times he ran, but I guess you have to win the nomination first.

https://media.tenor.com/iWT1Dtw2ScoAAAAM/keymaster-rick.gif

Lichtman's Keys Are Making Sense

xxpost Did just fine thanks

that Postrider article is pretty damning imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prMDFtTZGFI

"President Keyes"--that had never occurred to me! Is that actually the source?

Yeah, joke name chosen in 2008. Still haunts me.

Really glad to see Clipse showing up here

i think harris will debate trump on sep 4. it makes sense to not cave right away to make him look like a wuss and extract a couple concessions on format. but ultimately it's in her interest to debate him no matter what and she can claim the higher ground of "any time any place" plus the glory of beating trump on his own turf

No. Don't allow him to dictate the terms, fuck all of that shit.

yeah, if Harris agrees to that she has already lost

ultimately it's in her interest to debate him

Why? Seriously. Tell me what the point of "debating" Donald Trump is. Who will gain new information by watching a game show hosted by one or two lobotomized corporate newsreaders, at which one person will articulate potential future policies and the other will lie about his own record, call his opponent stupid and crooked, and vomit up nonsense? What the fuck could anyone possibly gain from that?

i think it would awesome if she showed up at ABC and did it by herself. people could really get to know her and she could just laugh at Trump on national t.v. It would make him look so dumb.

Why? Seriously. Tell me what the point of "debating" Donald Trump is. Who will gain new information by watching a game show hosted by one or two lobotomized corporate newsreaders, at which one person will articulate potential future policies and the other will lie about his own record, call his opponent stupid and crooked, and vomit up nonsense? What the fuck could anyone possibly gain from that?

― Instead of create and send out, it pull back and consume (unperson), Saturday, August 3, 2024 5:12 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

to win over voters, get more votes and win the election

It's in her interest to debate him, it's in her bigger interest not to yield to him even if she shows up by herself. Barack Obama was prepared to do it in '08.

You can’t evaluate Lichtman’s model since the majority of features are subjective. It’s no different than tarot where only the cartomancer can read the cards. It’s anti-scientific flim-flam.

No. Don't allow him to dictate the terms, fuck all of that shit.

― Cow_Art, Saturday, August 3, 2024 5:06 PM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah, if Harris agrees to that she has already lost

― the absence of bikes (f. hazel), Saturday, August 3, 2024 5:08 PM (thirteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

is there any evidence that the terms of the debate matter? trump wants the same format as the cnn june debate, which biden agreed to. the race is still close, and a debate will get lots of media attention and draw a direct contrast between them. imo she will come out very favorably in that contrast, unlike in the june debate which made trump look good. she stands to win big from a good debate, i don't see her passing up the opportunity

The time prepared for a debate is better spent doing retail politics in swing states. Most of the country has made their decision, per usual, the focus should be on Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Moreover, there’s far better ways than a debate to keep the base energized.

you can't win a debate with Trump because he doesn't debate. you're just giving him an hour or two of the narrative being all about Trump

Most of the country has made their decision,

she's been candidate for like a week

you can't win a debate with Trump because he doesn't debate. you're just giving him an hour or two of the narrative being all about Trump

― the absence of bikes (f. hazel), Saturday, August 3, 2024 5:32 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

whether or not it qualifies as debate on some epistemological level doesn't really matter, you're just putting them both up on tv next to each other speaking extemporaneously to make a salient contrast. the contrast in the last debate was so extreme it ended in biden exiting the race. this contrast in harris-trump will be pretty sharp too imho; 78 year-old incoherent asshole everyone's tired of seeing v.s. 59 year-old relatively fresh face who can form sentences. winning a debate gives you a short term 2-3 percentage point bump, some of which surely dissipates over time but (1) only 56 days between sep 10 and voting day (2) race is close so why not take it? could be the difference between the race being a toss-up and her being clear favorite

"FULL ARENA AUDIENCE" makes it a street fight instead of a debate -- I'd say don't do it.

I get the "What's the point of debating a total fucking weirdo liar?" opinion. There's but one reason that I do not agree:

The big upside of her debating him: its a great opportunity for her to bully him a bit and make him look stupid, showing the skittish indies that she's fearless, essentially destroying their one potentially-effective (not that I agree with the substance, just that indie voters might) campaign message, which is "Is she tough enough? Do you really want her negotiating with China?", etc. Of course, I'd not do it with Fox frauds because the questions will be framed in a way to help him, so we need neutral moderators. But if she was to stand up to him really strongly and get him all flustered and confused, hello 2020 map plus maybe NC

I think the piece y'all aren't getting is (a) debating in front of a FOX audience of screaming monkeys (b) if you've got momentum you don't yield to terms. He's the chicken shit.

i think the smart way for her to play it is to be tough for a couple weeks, make him look really scared and weak begging for his preferred terms, roast him for it in the media, but then ultimately extract some concessions on format and agree to sep 4 debate on fox (maybe no audience, or bipartisan audience of joe the plumbers), play it off like *sigh* it's clear one of us is the adult in the room, then smoke him in the debate anyways

if you've got momentum you don't yield to terms

This is exactly right. There shouldn't be a debate at all, frankly, but if there must be one it's gotta be the ABC one that was already agreed to, and he should have to crawl to get that.

Yes, exactly! That's what Harris is doing by being tough now!

i'm wary of reading too much into her momentum tbh. she's at an amazing place in the polls relative to biden but (1) that's a low bar, (2) trump tends to outperform his polls, and (3) she's still not looking great on electoral college. momentum is fickle this could easily be a transient bump of enthusiasm. don't want to leave any arrows in the quiver on the theory that she's super far ahead based on momentum and can coast to victory imo

I agree that there is an inherent value in the public being able to watch the candidates in operation side-by-side. at least that has applied in the past, where both the nominees are more conventional politicians and neither one is the incumbent, so there are more voters who can be swayed by a good performance.

This time it feels to me like Trump is a thoroughly known quantity to voters. They already hate him or love him. He is struggling to get his footing and he needs Harris to make mistakes that change the focus away from his struggles. He trusts his FOX allies to gin up some weird gotcha questions to tilt the playing field for him.

Harris's main need is look and sound like someone people could trust to lead the government. A really good debate performance would go a long way in that direction, but it isn't necessary. She can do it other ways.

If she does the Fox debate and does spectacularly well, flopson, I'll be here to do some cutting-and-pasting with you. Ideally, I hope she does both. I get the no-capitulation argument, and Harris's press release is good, but I just can't see him not looking comparatively foolish in any debate context.

This was a good point, though:

8 years ago, doing a debate in front of a packed arena of jeering idiots who interjected constantly was unimaginable. then trump entered us politics.

It's unfortunate Trump has managed to sometimes make me forget how things operated before he came along.

cant see harris agreeing to a weird format trump debate, maybe theyll agree on something more normal idk

unfortunately i can't make my case based on her own record in the 2019-20 primary debates, since she arguably won the first debate (slamming biden on busing) but badly lost the second (got lost in the weeds litigating the cockamamie version of m4a she was pretending to support versus the public option biden never actually tried to pass). but i think my optimism is a combination of (1) feeling that she's levelled up as a public speaker, and (2) the 2020 dem primary highlighted a lot of her weaknesses

Just to correct myself above, I think the "packed arena of jeering idiots" started in 2012 with Gingrich, that debate where he turned on John King. Trump seemed to feed of off that four years later.

If she doesn't agree to the Fox debate, the Dems can spend their whole convention making fun of Trump for chickening out of the ABC debate

don't know how much that would be worth in votes, but it would be a good time for everyone involved

in the entire history of the universe, not a single person has gained any advantage from conceding or agreeing to anything proposed by convicted rapist Donald J Trump. utter rejection is the only legitimate response.

Harris and Trump held events in the exact same venue five days apart:

Sad, @realdonaldtrump pic.twitter.com/H7O3GDr6nF

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 4, 2024

nice

She’s not going to agree with a Fox debate, please. No point to it, and the only people who would care about her not bothering are their own audience.