Historian who predicted 9 of the last 10 election results says Democrats shouldn't drop Joe Biden
Historian who predicted 9 of the last 10 election results says Democrats shouldn't drop Joe Biden
He got 2000 "wrong"... Or did he?
Meaningless considering he still hasn't predicted whether or not Biden will win this election. He says he needs another month lol.
Edit: As a bonus he can't even apply his own rubric to a new potential candidate. So the real questions are: How could he possibly know they'd be worse, and why the fuck is he even saying anything?
Not meaningless, his prediction system always gives the incumbent an advantage over anyone else in his party.
And yet, he hasn't predicted yet because there are many other "keys". Case-in-point: see how incumbency worked for Trump.
Also should be noted other reputable science-based algorithm designers like Nate Silver advises Biden to step down.
Finally, the unprecedented nature of an open convention also means this guy has nothing to go on for extrapolation.
i bet you i could predict it with 100% accuracy if you give me another 4 months
Yeah you say that and should be right but I'm more worried about January than I am November...
First, he didn't get 2000 wrong, Gore won.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
2nd though... 2024 is a lose/lose no matter what the Democrats do at this point.
A weakened Biden can't win.
A replaced Biden changes the dialog to "See! Even the Democrats know they can't do the job!" which is a losing strategy.
The only way to pull out a win would be for Biden to die in office and have his successor get the sympathy vote, a la Johnson in '64.
I disagree 100%. Having Biden step down and put his support behind a solid candidate many can agree on (not just corporate Dems) while saying he has given it thought and realizes it is best for Democrats & America means not only does he get to do so gracefully, but people can emphasize with honesty and not having and old man spend his final days being abused by those around him.
The problem is he would never put his support behind anyone other than a corporate approved neoliberal. If he does step down, the person he picks is 110% going to be contentious among base Democrat voters especially among the younger voters. We're not getting Bernie or AOC, full stop.
I also think Democrats are the worst about their purity tests and will turn their noses up at anyone for the slightest reason. When put into that perspective, I'll take the chances with Biden.
If he stepped down and endorsed Bernie, I have ould say there is a chance. Short of that, you guys are heading for a second Trump.
Win first, hand power to Harris, then step down.
There's still plenty of room for a senile fumbling corporate puppet to be retained in office, assuming mass media and the party continue to back him.
But quite a bit of mass media is owned and operated by ultra-conservative ghouls and wanna-be fascist demagogues.
The real fear is that they cash out Biden and start running an endless train of hit pieces, like they did against Hilary and Bernie. Biden's senility seems to be acceptable to majority of Dem voters, on the grounds that "Trump is worse". It's all the low info Indies who are yet to be swayed. And they're only interested in the news cycle a couple weeks outside the general election.
Hey math people, if they all selected 1 of the 2 main candidates for every election, and they all selected different candidates, how many historians would it take to cover every combination for 10 years? (bonus points to see how many would take before guaranteeing someone could get 9/10)
1024 historians assuming they all pick different combinations at random. Probability of randomly guessing at least 9 of 10 goes up to 1.075% or 93 historians (on average to get one person with 9/10 predictions right) or like the other commenter mentioned 1024-11= 1013 to guarantee a 9/10 but that's a little overkill.
Note that many of those elections were easier to guess than just flipping a coin, so you don't really need to cover every potential combination to cover like 95% of the likely outcomes.
It's Biden all the way. Fortunately unfortunately.
Drop him for who?
They'll not nominate a Justice Democrat as that won't make corporate donors money. I don't see how anyone or anything could recover the resultant shitshow except the Justice Democrat platform.
Kamala seemingly the only one with some name recognition, is the same vague bullshit with some identity politics, which would be inadequate.
Who else is there?
the only way another candidate can be successful is if Biden himself drops out and endorses (and indeed continues to campaign for) them.
But Biden's ego won't allow that, so the party's choices are either to forcibly remove him and split the vote or take the flaming, burning ship down into the ocean.
hope people can swim.
the only way another candidate can be successful is if Biden himself drops out and endorses (and indeed continues to campaign for) them.
And he had 4 years to decide on and build up a successor, but chose to not do so. And neither did the democratic party.
His age and the related issues can't be a surprise to anyone, so i really don't see why there should be a sudden change in direction.
When pressed about whether the questions surrounding Biden’s age and mental acuity are “fundamentally different” than his metrics as president, Lichtman doubled down.
“Debate performances can be overcome,” he said. “At the first sign of adversity the spineless Democrats want to throw under the bus, their own incumbent president. My goodness.”
So, he refuses to factor anything in if it doesn't fit his system... Literally refusing to acknowledge any health concerns
His system is this:
Lichtman is best known for the "Keys" system, presented in his books The Thirteen Keys to the Presidency and The Keys to the White House. The system uses thirteen historical factors to predict whether the popular vote in the election for president of the United States will be won by the candidate of the party holding the presidency (regardless of whether the president is the candidate).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
And it doesn't account for specific candidate...
So by his own argument that his system can't acknowledge a candidates fitness would come into play, logically I don't understand why he is speaking on who the specific candidate should be.
His hypothesis is that elections are mostly not about individuals. People vote for Team Blue or Team Red. And given the embrace by evangelicals of a criminal who has never read the bible, I think he may have a point.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency, which is why Democrats shouldn't throw that advantage away.
And the popular vote means fuck all for the election anyway, so who cares about this system if it didn’t factor in the electoral college?
The system is currently meant to predict the electoral college winner, not the popular vote winner.
I don't think it means fuck-all. IIUC to win the necessary Electoral College votes, one has to win at least 37% of the popular vote in a 2-way (or mostly 2-way) race.
I'm calling it. 9 of 11. That's a good number for America.
Thats some broken Windows on the World there.
I'd say that was a lot of broken windows.
Just let Bernie fuckin' giv'er...
as much as I may love Bernie (as we all do), he's a year older than even Biden.
Old white man schtick can only take us so far.
Every President in US history has been a man and all but 1 was white.
Will this election be a tales from the crypt?
Duh
This way the expert can go 10 for 11 by picking Trump.
Are you promoting an article?
Seeing as how the name of the site and the user match, I'm gonna go with yes.
I went through their history, it was all self promotion, either to their website or their instagram.
All removed and banned.
I actually think you had a flawed process if you were projecting a Trump win in 2016, getting that "right" doesn't impress me. Comey re-announcing new emails was 11 days before the election, there wasn't time to see what people thought of it.
Edit: The downvoters don't remember the election. Clinton was winning basically every poll, her numbers peaked after the Access Hollywood tape and dropped from that peak, she was still winning polls by 4 points on election day. There are vagueries of voting behavior based on weather in different locations and the vote was super close in the swing states. Even with perfect state by state information adjusted by poll error, it was less than 50/50 Trump would win. It was a bad prediction.
It happened to happen, because things with 40% odds happen 40% of the time, but predicting the 40% outcome is bad process.
Except polling isn’t what this guy relies on
So he would have been wrong if the Comey announcement didn't come out and turn people off from voting for Hillary. Bad process, right result.
Hillary was winning every poll because the only polled middle aged white women.
I want to hear the opinion of the octopus that predicted the world cup results first
Died. Now they are using a turtle but he always votes Nadar
Let him cook, it'll get there eventually
Holy shit this was funny!
stares in confused Mitch McConnell *
I hear there’s a groundhog in Pennsylvania that’s a pretty good meteorologist.
How good is it at delegating tasks?
I saw a groundhog this weekend for the first time by my home. In point of order it was not afraid of its shadow.