Talk:Allan Lichtman

Can't have it both ways

He was wrong in predicting the President in 2000, as he choose Gore.

However, if his model simply chooses the winner of the popular vote, then he was wrong by choosing Trump in 2016. So, which year was he wrong: 2000 or 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE5F:2CE0:9C06:1CC:3EF8:1D84 (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss well-sourced article content. Instead of asking others to do the research, you will be a more effective contributor if you research the matter, find WP:RS references and propose any edits you feel reflect the sources within Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I've since corrected the article to properly reflect this editor's concern. It would appear that Litchman, in his desire to be "right" has indeed contradicted himself. While Litchman excused his previous error of 2000 by pointing out the discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral vote, he should not be permitted to then reverse this same logic in the 2016 election, and still claim that he was accurate in both elections. He cannot "have his cake and eat it too."

Still, I think that it is fair to give Litchman credit for the 2016 election and to disqualify his prediction on the 2000 election, because Litchman does not appear to be consistently referring to popular vote results, but to instead be predicting electoral outcomes. As requested above, I have now inserted an appropriate cite regarding Litchman's erroneous prediction for the 2000 election. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No, he's been pretty consistent in that his model is only for the the popular vote. His model retrospectively claimed Tilden and Cleveland should have won in 1876 and 1888, respectively, and I recall in his book on the 13 keys, he flat out said that the Electoral College was irrelevant. I've updated with the relevant source. Somebody Who Exists (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's inconsistent to fault Lichtman on both the 2000 and 2016 presidential races. If his system predicts the popular vote, then he was correct in 2000 and incorrect in 2016. But if his system predicts the electoral vote, then he was incorrect in 2000 and correct in 2016.

From there it becomes the task of determining whether his system is supposed to predict the popular or electoral vote. Since his books are called "The Keys to the White House," it seems to be indicating that his system is designed to predict who will end up in the White House, i.e., who will win the electoral college. After all, a model that predicts the popular vote but doesn't predict a winner seems futile and pointless. So, I believe the intro to this article should indicate that he has predicted the winner for every presidential election since 1984 except 2000 (with no mention of popular vs electoral vote).

That being said, Lichtman's possible inconsistency as to whether his model predicts the popular vs the electoral vote is a worthwhile inclusion in the article, but should be addressed in greater detail in the main body of the article. Walkingf00l (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

He’s publicly calling out this page for misquoting him and proporting false information-are we sure all linked sources are entirely accurate beyond a shadow of doubt? 180.200.201.84 (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how his model can be considered valid for the electoral vote. He doesn't consider differences between states in his analysisJsnyder527 (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC).

He's still teaching and seems very approachable; why don't you write him at his university email address and ask? – Aboudaqn (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

We should settle this point, as there's been a lot of dispute about this recently on the 13 Keys page. Here are several sources regarding this discrepancy:

1. This source is the one most cited, but I cannot get access.
2. His 2016 book (preview on Amazon says popular vote on page 2). A citation to his 2016 book here would also be consistent with this inconsistency, there is a quote in it: “predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states.”
3. Not that a Reddit thread is a source, but it explains this more coherently: here
4. Another article explaining the discrepancy: here.

His books from the 1990s do say popular vote only, so I am inclined to count 2000 but not count 2016, consistent with the sources. Anyone with access to that document or with insight, it would help Caraturane (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone was able to get a link to the document in question over on Talk:The Keys to the White House, they strongly support the fact he was using the popular vote in 2016. Caraturane (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a reliable source yet , but I remember him saying that after 2000 he revised his model to consider the electoral vote instead of the popular vote. I will continue to look for a source, before editing the article. 09:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC) RevDan (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

He revised it after 2016. At least, that's the first time he communicated it officially. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate Intro

The intro makes this false statement: It says he "accurately predicted the winner of every U.S. presidential election since 1984, with the exception of 2000 … and 2016, where he predicted Donald Trump would win, despite Trump's popular vote loss." Of course, Trump did win, despite his popular vote loss. After looking up the prediction, I'm changing it to this: "… and 2016, where he predicted Donald Trump would win the popular vote." (At least I think that's what Lichtman predicted. When he makes his prediction, he's not clear if he's predicting a popular vote victory or an electoral victory. They're usually the same thing, but his two failures happened when the winner lost the popular vote. MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I updated this a bit to say he correctly predicted the "outcome" as I think that's a more useful word here since he changed what it was predicting (this lets him get due credit for 2000 but not for 2016, in line with the sources). Tomcleontis (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Lichtman pushed for edit

Just wanted to highlight that Lichtman specifically called on his fans to edit this page in his Youtube livestream tonight, which looks like it corresponds with edits made regarding his 2000 and 2016 predictions. Not sure how this sort of thing is usually handled but seems like it should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmeriMike (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a conflict-of-interest edit and raises other policy violations. I have reverted these edits and informed Wiki admins. Caraturane (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Protection has been requested. Knitsey (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a conflict of interest. Lichtman was correct. He predicted Trump would win the 2016 election and that's exactly what happened. Jimv1983 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Lichtman was correct (which was discussed at length months ago, and included the Wikipedia community paying to access his October 2016 paper mentioned by recent reporting and explanation on several platforms, which was a major part in resolving the question), it is a conflict-of-interest edit in violation of Wikipedia policy to ask supporters to remove material on a Wikipedia page related to you, that it was only material which serves to flatter the subject makes it additionally suspect. Caraturane (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI he is doing it again: https://x.com/jaffejuice/status/1835639646774006021 Tomcleontis (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying Lichtman's Keys

It seems that Lichtman revised the system to predict the winner of the election after the 2000 election, but before the 2016 election. So his 2016 prediction was correct as it was accounting for the overall winner. [1] Wikentromere (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Keys-model was wrong in 2016, just as the references say. Lichtman wrote a paper where he described the model:

As a national system, the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes.

He also believed the popular vote was very correlated with the Electoral College votes (of course), but he was very clear that "the Keys" predicted the popular vote. But in 2016 the Keys predicted that Trump would win the popular vote, who lost the popular vote. So the Keys were wrong in 2016. Paditor (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So is he just lying when he says he revised the model after 2000 to predict the actual winner, not just the popular vote winner, in that NYT piece? (Forgot to login, also genuine question) 2601:194:8380:7D60:7D9D:1CC:DA74:EF1C (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

His recent statements about his 2016 prediction are untrue (we shouldn't be calling people liars), there's no doubt that every time he was pressed before 2016, and in his own works, he always said it was just the popular vote being predicted by the keys. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So when Lichtman predicted in 2016 that Trump would be impeached, was he predicting that Trump would not be president? He has made it clear he was calling the winner in 2016. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

He released a paper in October of 2016 (after he said he was predicting Trump would win and would be impeached) which said that he was only predicting the popular vote and it goes a step farther and says he was not predicting the electoral college. He cannot have claimed to have it both ways because he said the keys only predicted the popular vote in 2000 so he was right when he predicted Al Gore. Caraturane (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

submitted for your approval

Please append to the "2024 presidential election" subsection:

Vice president Kamala Harris was nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate the next month. Lichtman predicted on September 5, 2024 that Harris would win the 2024 presidential election.

Robert Tait (September 5, 2024). "Kamala Harris will win election, predicts leading historian Allan Lichtman". The Guardian. soibangla (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Allan Lichtman did not fail to predict the winner (Al Gore) of the 2000 Presidential election, both in the Electoral College and in the popular vote. Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the vote count in Florida and then voted to install Bush as President. Later, after Bush had been inaugurated, the votes were counted by NORC and it was shown that Gore had won, no matter which decision-rule (concerning hanging chads, dimpled chads, etc.) was used. Little attention was given to this in the media, as the attacks of 9/11 had occurred in the meantime. Norshanson (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a specific edit you would like made (ie "please add 'this text' in such-and-such paragraph"), which must be supported by reliable sources. Happy‑melon 09:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this chance due to the speculative and hypothetical nature. The page already notes that he did predict the popular vote outcome correctly (what his book, model, and himself said he was predicting), but that Al Gore did not win the election. This is asking for an additional step, to assert that Gore actually won the election. That is a dispute better resolved on pages on the 2000 election. Perhaps adding a word like "...with the exceptions of the disputed election of 2000, where he..." would do the job? Caraturane (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)