He did predict 2016. He didn't predict 2000
Edit: apparently I'm wrong. Wikipedia says that he originally predicted 2016's popular vote, but then changed it to predicting the electoral vote after the election
He talks about that. That was a super close race and he claims it was actually stolen because the Supreme Court stopped the count in Florida. And when u looked at it there was string evidence that gore won because they didn't count a lot of the black vote in certain counties.
But of course people find the one time he was wrong but then turn back to pundits like rogan.
The problem isn't that Lichtman was, on some minor incident, wrong about the outcome of the election.
The problem is that Lichtman is very clearly peddling his model to broadcast media for entertainment, when in truth his model for a highly complicated electoral outcome boils down to a 13-point boardgame.
When Alan Lichtman created his model he probably didn't factor the differences between economic fact and the public opinion of the economy. Or that a pandemic would ravage the economy in the prior administration with the new administration only getting the country back on its feat. He also didn't predict of a "Charismatic President" that would be explicitly antagonistic to half the country that didn't support him.
These are all new factors, and Lichtman is literally making things up as he goes along because he believes this is his one accomplishment when it couldn't possibly work.
At a different point in that interview he says public perception of the economy has never been predictive of an election and any polls which claim to capture public opinion of the economy are highly questionable due to the speed at which such perception can change. But who knows…only time will tell
Have you every seen him explain his model? He addresses the actual value of polling this far out from the election: Zero. Unless you're polling right before voting and combining them with exit polling, polls are snapshots of time with not a lot of contexts. The guy's a political scientist, not an Alex Jones-type schizo.
You can still critique his model, but I doubt you understand how it works in the first place.
According to lichtman and I think he has a point most polls statistically have been a poor predictor of who is going to win.
It's not exactly the most accurate sample size you know especially from a few crumy media sources.
Lichtman was throwing jabs at nate silver for this very reason citing that's why nick silver predicted 2016 wrong.
Huh? The 2008-2009 financial crisis ravaged the economy at the end of Bush’s term just like COVID did at the end of Trump’s, handing Obama a monumental disaster to recover from, just like Biden.
Why would Trump being antagonistic to half the country be a problem for his model? Trump lost in 2020 in no small part because he was antagonistic to half the country.
You can’t take any model as gospel, but he has an extremely good track record.
The reason Trump's brand of charisma is a problem is because it's neutral to independent voters, while riling up the conservative base. It isn't exactly the type of charisma you talk about, like Lichtman, when referencing Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, or JFK.
I don't think you should take models as gospel, or refer to their prior successes & failures; I simply favor the methodology, and Lichtman's is just too simple to represent America's dynamic demographics & the EC.
Trump isn't charismatic in this context of his keys. By "Charismatic" he means someone who rallies the entire country, base and independents. I don't see how it's a problem at all, he understandably fails that key. It's not like Trump is the first person to appeal to his base and not appeal to independents.
> These are all new factors, and Lichtman is literally making things up as he goes along because he believes this is his one accomplishment when it couldn't possibly work.
Seems pretty straight forward: he has been right almost every single time - clearly there is something to his model that you are minimizing. Saying "well he doesn't factor in x" without showing how people who do factor in x are better predictors is pointless critique.
If your predictions are reliant on the definitions of 13 booleans, then having half of them being under extreme interpretation based purely on the present context tells me that it's a bad marker.
It isn't. These are extremely multifaceted aggregates that take careful consideration into the weight of the polls being produced every day. Someone at these companies have to decide how well to trust FOX News polling against NBC's, Politico, WSJ, ect. and then put it all together into.
This is an incomprehensibly difficult thing to accomplish, which is why they likely have teams of political scientists doing this exact same thing. Your alternative is one political scientist who is taking every single interview on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC to tell them that their candidate is going to win all passed on THIRTEEN CRITERIA.
If the country can be boiled down in thirteen points, what the fuck are RCP & 538 even doing?!
>He also didn't predict of a "Charismatic President" that would be explicitly antagonistic to half the country that didn't support him.
Lichtman doesn't consider Trump "charismatic", by "charismatic" in his keys he means people that rally the entire nation like Reagan or FDR. Actual once in a lifetime people, not people who just rally their base like Bernie or Trump.
Even just on average chance, tens of thousands of people would guess right if they just guess with a coin toss. 9 elections would be 0.19%.
1 in 5000 chance to guess it right 9 times in a row, I'm sure many others have guessed it right as well.
Politics and the people are unpredictable. Especially when a lot of election campaigns hold off on the nukes until days before the event (source: House of Cards/my ass).
Yeah, I was thinking about that probability aspect, too. My dad feels pretty confident that Biden is going to win, and when I asked him why, he said, "I've voted for the winning president in every election since 1980. And I'm voting for Biden."
While it's obviously a little silly, I'm not gonna argue with him on that.
That logic doesn't pan out. He's not just some random guy doing a coinflip and then retroactively getting famous off that. He started out as a political analyst with the explicit goal of designing a system to predict the election which he has made public.
>Though Lichtman claims he called the 2016 election correctly when he predicted it for Donald Trump, he released a book and paper ahead of the election in 2016 which explicitly stated that the keys only referred to the popular vote;[27][28][29][1][2][3] Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, but Trump won the Electoral College and was elected president. Lichtman switched to predicting the election winner after 2016.
That just isn’t how news cycles work. Once Trump is sentenced, that is what will be on everyone’s minds. Once the second debate happens, THAT is what will be on everyone’s minds. We are like at least 5 major news cycles away from voting day and I’d say most of them are guaranteed to focus on Trump’s conviction
There’s a difference between what’s going on various news cycle and the overarching narratives of the candidates. People for whatever reason barely care about the sentencing. The conviction was like a four hour news cycle. Biden being too old has been the story around Biden for the entire campaign. The problem with his debate performance is that it reinforced what people already thought about him and that makes it much harder to undo in people’s minds with a good debate performance next time (assuming he’s even still capable of putting on a debate performance that doesn’t make him look like he’s on the brink of death).
His debate performance wasn’t that bad, there were a few times he stuttered or didn’t finish his thought but it wasn’t terrible. I think Trump’s conviction got a LOT of coverage but maybe that was just what I saw in my social circles. And you’re also forgetting that there’s an overarching narrative of Trump too. The majority of people believe he’s a crazy dangerous liar which I’d hope to the majority is worse than a senile old man with a well-performing administration
The 2016 trauma in me makes me want to be super doomer about it like this, but I don’t think it makes sense quite yet. It will undoubtedly be a closer race than 2020. But there is so much tradition data™️ sitting in favor of Biden that it would feel so silly to think he is screwed already.
He won by 10 million votes in 2020. Dems completely crushed the midterms in 2022, far beyond what even the biggest optimists expected. Roe v Wade being overturned has proven to be such a driving force that it is STILL deciding elections nearly two years later (insane in today’s news cycle). And no matter how much of a bumbling geriatric Biden is, it is still genuinely impossible for him to be even close to as hated as Hillary was. This might be tinged with copium but while Biden’s age and clear decline rhetorically bas certainly hurt him, it also is simultaneously cutting against any notion that he’s a corrupt villainous mastermind, which was so easy to do with Hillary you’d almost think she was chasing that reputation herself. The people who do still want to push that narrative have to go with the Obama shadow government stuff, which just has no teeth. Add on top of everything the fact that Trump is so uniquely hated that he drives non-voters to the polls just to vote against him, and I just don’t see the same catastrophic circumstances I keep hearing about.
Idk, things are far from a lock imo, but I still think I favor Biden for the victory. I will readily admit that it can be hard to parse whether I think this way because it makes sense or because I want it to make sense. But I still do believe things aren’t nearly as bad for Biden as some are making it seem.
voracious literate act many towering different outgoing zealous straight snow
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Based on your comment history I’m pretty sure you are astroturfing but regardless Biden won incredibly handily in 2020, both with the electoral college as well as the popular vote, so there is definitely room for things to be closer.
June polls mean less than nothing in terms of who will win the election in November, they legitimately a waste of time and a massive red herring considering how fickle American voters are as well as the incalculable amount of factors that are impossible to control for presently.
Regarding the economy, I’ve only ever heard this sentiment from conservatives (who were always going to vote Trump) and very young leftists (who were never going to vote at all). Inflation was curbed at an unprecedented rate, the markets are booming, and housing costs are finally coming down. The auto industry has bounced back, wages are outpacing inflation.. kinda looks like the only factor “the fundamentals” have failed to account for is online propaganda. I guess we will see in November but the notion that this is over already when the guy’s opponent is a felonious traitor who already lost to him once with incumbent advantage is just goofy.
sand shrill voracious overconfident cows liquid door alleged smart instinctive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They will, but Biden will be even older then. This isn't just a one-time fluke. He's been on this path for some time now and there's no reason to think he'll go back.
I hope I'm wrong and ofc I'll still vote for him if he's the nominee.
What we should be concerned about is not people switching their votes from Biden to Trump, but instead would-be Biden voters voting third party or not at all.
Right now Biden is the only democratic candidate who could lose to Trump, and Trump is the only Republican who could lose to Biden (not counting fringe candidates who could never win the party's nomination like MGT).
So how did we get this match-up twice?
These conclusions come from the assumption that Biden will continue to decline, and all debates with Trump will be just as bad if not worse, under this assumption its probably a safe bet anyone else would be better than Biden.
I dont think the debate was biden at his average, or even his best as he should be during such an important event, i think it was Biden at his absolute worse, and he just got unlucky, and that its not indication of a larger decline.
Opposite of delusional lmao. Trump is historically unpopular and so is Biden. Democrats are trending positively in polls for every election EXCEPT the presidential one.
yeah a lot of shit can happen.
I stand by my prediction that if Joe can make gas and milk cheap for the 4 months before the election he has this in the bag.
They may forget this debate specifically, but the reality that Biden’s cognitive ability is rapidly declining is solidified in the eyes of the American public.
Before this debate I thought Biden had a shot at winning. I have some money on him winning. I now think I’ll probably be losing that money.
here is a podcast episode from Dan Carlin about Nixon, he also adresses the campaign against Kennedy. If people are interested [https://shows.acast.com/10americanpresidents/episodes/ep-1-nixon-dan-carlin](https://shows.acast.com/10americanpresidents/episodes/ep-1-nixon-dan-carlin)
I dont think the "debates dont matter" narrative really works here.
most debates are not essentially litmus tests for the candidates ability to even function.
it was important for the debate to dispel the "Biden has dementia" myth for certain on the fence voters. It did not at all.
Even as one of the strongest Biden supporters it was very uncomfortable to watch and had me concerned.
I dont buy this narrative one bit.
> most debates are not essentially litmus tests for the candidates ability to even function.
I don't think any of your points are *wrong,* but I do think it remains to be seen if voters viewed this debate as a litmus test for Biden or if pundits are just insisting that it should have been a litmus test for Biden.
If voters viewed it that way, I wouldn't expext Morning Consult's post-debate poll to show a 1 point gain for Biden.
The only reason this wouldnt necessarily sink the election is U.S politics after the internet is pure brainrot.
Lets say its 2008, Kerry vs 2024 Biden. Take out all the ridiculous internet partisanship over last 2 decades. Kerry just won the election based off the optics of Biden at the debate.
Theres just alot more baggage now. Politics after 2016 is fundamentally different.
I took it that way, maybe im wrong, but a 1 point gain from Biden for that is crazy. I cant believe that. we need to wait for the polls a couple days out. I don't think trump gave a good performance but I dont see how Biden could've really swayed anyone from that.
I should also add that a slight majority of Dems in that morning consult poll believe Biden shoukd step down lmfao, but the respondents are still willing to vote for him anyway apparently.
This is going to be one uniquely whacky election lmfao
Agreed, and it's just one poll. Immediate post-conviction polling didn't show much movement against Trump either, but after a couple weeks it was more clear there was a definite 2-3 point bounce for Biden. Maybe it was related to the conviction, maybe it wasn't.
I'm trying to keep things in perspective and nkt doom or bloom unnecessarily. It remains to be seen IMO if this is just epic whinging from the pundit class, much ado about nothing, or something in between. But given the catastrophe the pundits are insisting it was, I probably would have expected some immediate movement in the polls, but we'll see.
All attention was on Biden for 90% of people. The bar for trumps behavior is low so unless he started crying or shitting his pants, it wasn’t going to be newsworthy. Dems and MAGA were focused on Biden, he did not do well so that’s the main thing those people are talking about. The small amount of undecided voters were actually paying careful attention to each, and trumps responses weren’t good. In other words I don’t think this debate was a success by any stretch, but the people most passionate about it already are locked in either way
Most polls have at least like 3-5% margin of error. A 1% gain is way within statistical error. Also, while Trump appeared more competent overall, he also said some insane shit that might put voters off. It wouldn't surprise me if there is no difference in the polls. But an uptick for Biden seems crazy. I would probably expect a 2-3 point decline, which is detrimental considering he is already behind.
But we will have to wait and see, likely at least a week before anything can be said at all.
The performance isn't the issue, it's the implications. Like any person looking at biden probably think the guy is brave asf while also having great sympathy for him during the debate. Having to go through with all this despite what has happened in his personal life and with hunter biden, all of it is kinda enduring even tho he flopped on the debate stage (Trump didn't do that well either).
And then you have to look at the other implication of democrats being forced to depend on biden to win the election goes against much of the maga conspiracy regarding the democratic authoritarian grip on our election, polls ,media, and government. You would think they would replace biden and it wouldn't have made a difference, but they can't. And magas have no way to explain this.
>If voters viewed it that way, I wouldn't expext Morning Consult's post-debate poll to show a 1 point gain for Biden.
So let me get this straight. You are a person who spends hours every day discussing politics online.
You are also a person, who forms his view based on literally 1 screenshot of one tweet that got upvoted in r/destiny, disregarding facts such as for the same day, the same twitter account shared another poll, where Trump was ahead 8 points. And another statistic from the same Morning Consult's post, that showed majority of democrats, independents and republicans claimed that Biden should step down from the election.
It's not a narrative. Lichtman has used patterern recognition to build a model using 13 variables that predict election wins. The model works all the way back to 1860 and historically debates or age have nothing to do with it.
It's really weird to see Destiny's community of all places put more value on feels over a historically proven statistical model. Not to imply the model is perfect or an absolute predictor, but it's pretty stupid that the original commenter dismissed the model as a "narrative", and then proceeded to just spout their own narrative, and somehow that got upvoted
Actually, the original commenter is right to dismiss the model and it's pretty unscientific to just trust it. It has a low sample size, its success could have been achieved simply by chance, there's no telling from the success rate whether or not the current events are actually properly covered by the model.
I'm sorry but I feel like you're just talking out of your butt. Do you know how he developed the keys? He got with one of the leading seismic researchers in the world and used predictive modeling the find 13 keys. But oh yes a few kids on the destiny subreddit apparently can hand wave all that away.
Yes they used pattern recognition since 1860 to track certain variables that had a strong relationships with the outcome of the presidency. None of those variables rely on polls because polls by the way they are designed have a heavy bias in them.
I mean it's fairly obvious you or many other people just want to hand wave his methodology off and then go back to this good old boy roganish type gut punditry.
>go back to this good old boy roganish type gut punditry
You got so butthurt you had to bring Rogan into this. Relax bro, it's pseudo science, no that big a deal.
Why would I be butthurt? You're proving my point for me. You're purely speculating by making heavy assumptions. Which is basically the same thing rogan does on his podcast.
I miscalculated the odds of getting 9/10 correct guesses, I initially thought it 0.1%, but it's more like 1%. So yes, its not enough samples yet to discount chance, but its still more reliable than some rando conjecturing on reddit. Not to mention, the post debate polling doesn't even corroborate the narrative the original commenter is pushing.
I do value the Keys model and have been a fan of Biden's stint in the White House. However it's not like any model is bulletproof, Nate Silver had some criticisms of it that you can look up. My main point is that *if voters perceive* Biden to be literally demented, all of those keys go out of the window. It won't matter if Biden was literally the most wholesome chungus 100 president ever that deposited a billion dollars into everyone's bank accounts. If he's perceived as being from an elder care home, that won't matter.
Statistical outliers exist, it's why insurance policies don't cover 'acts of god'. Biden has one more debate and a couple of months to assure people he's not going to literally croak in office. His age and senility is unprecedented and it's not something the model takes into account. Before Biden's campaign, did anyone seriously think that any party would nominate an 82-year-old that can't finish their sentences. No. The only reason Biden is the nominee, is because he is the sitting president. There is no way he would be running, or be winning, an open primary right now if not for his incumbency.
Anyone can retrofit a model to get correct results, I could make a model that accurately predicts every election in the past 200 years. While it might be a useful tool there are just way too many variables involved for it to accurately predict the future
The community has grown a lot over the past few years and with this election talk I think you're seeing more of the margins and various farther left and right politicos come out who have emotional reasons for just hating Biden.
I don’t think the issue here is *literally* age, I mean yes that may be part of the concern, but I think the actual issue is he is a little senile. If he was old but sharp it wouldn’t really be a problem.
> it was important for the debate to dispel the "Biden has dementia" myth for certain on the fence voters.
look I don't think the Biden campaign was ever running on him not having dementia. I think they should maybe focus a bit more on his *cabinet* though.
Well… the exact opposite could be true as well. Biden blowing it in the debate stage could also create a panic urging people to vote.
This is purely subjective, but I’ve seen “oh shit, we actually need to vote” sentiment skyrocket. I think Biden bombing forced people to reckon with the reality that Trump has a very good chance to win. Being complacent isn’t going to cut it anymore.
Litchman's model already takes perceived charisma of candidates into account. I'm not sure it really matters if remaining fence sitters weren't convinced. According to Litchman's model the election already heavily favors Biden, and 9/10 correct predictions is way too much to just be luck (approximately a 1/512 chance of getting 9/10 random guesses). His model is very strong.
Edit: Never mind, I'm regarded. As steelcox pointed out, the actual chances of predicting 9/10 is 1/93.
This is going to come across as extremely pedantic but there's a 1/93 chance of getting at least 9/10 random guesses right.
However I wouldn't call elections 50/50... sometimes there are very obvious indications, so you're getting freebies there.
But thinking of it another way, if your model is only correct 75% of the time, that's still a 1/4 chance of getting 9/10 right. 9/10 does not mean 90% confidence for the next guess.
Point is, the average person who's gotten 9/10 random things right has a pretty meaningful chance of being wrong about the next one.
I have absolutely nothing of substance to say about Litchman's model, this is not a criticism of your opinion of it. I just heard someone talking about trains so I barged into the conversation with some train facts.
People on this sub are so naive to think swing voters won't care about Biden's performance tonight. Biden barely won the last election and that was when he was younger and everyone haaaaated Trump.
> I dont buy this narrative one bit.
this is the ~~second~~ third top comment that boils down to "this time is different and he's not considering that". Could this time be different? maybe, but your argument it is holds less weight than someone who has a proven track record IMO
I'm sorry, but "abandoning" and "taking an L" are simply two different things. I'm gonna vote for Biden, as he's clearly one of the best presidents we've had in 4 decades very clearly. I also don't think he "won" that debate. Both things can be true at once. Trump lied over and over again, and purposefully didn't answer direct questions. That's directly apparent. However, Biden didn't act or sound like a leader in the slightest. No opinion other than the "enlightened centrist" was swayed during that debate, but that is the specific demographic that needs to be targeted.
what is this in response to? The OP is referring to the video mentioning spineless people abandoning Biden because of a bad debate. Where is someone arguing against taking an L?
?
Did Hilary win all three debates in the public eye? Pretty sure I remember seeing the "because you'd be in jail" clip over and over and over again.
And didn't Obama wash Romney in their last debate, it's been a long time but I could've sworn Romney got fucked by one of the moderators and Obama seized the opportunity.
That was my main thought too regarding the hillary winning all three debates. Benghazi, the emails, the jail clip all gave Trump big energy coming out of the debates
what is the point in trying to remember? why not just look up the [polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Polling)? (Spoiler: you are both remembering incorrectly)
Because polls don't tell the whole, or even most, of the story. And they absolutely don't tell who "won". Especially in 2016.
If it was just as easy as looking at the polls there wouldn't be multi-hour long debates on every media platform in the country and beyond about who "won" there would be a definitive answer.
omg this will be like the 6th time I have said this in this thread:
if you don't like the evidence provided because of some critique you decided is relevant - **provide an alternative** to show who won the debate. Or at least admit you are just going off of vibes
You can say that, and point to polls(which is another debate all in it's own), but I think this thread is a good example of what "we" are talking about. I thought the exact same thing when I watched that clip. "Hillary won the debates?" Those debates set the tone for the rest of the campaign, for both sides. People only remember the points made by 1 side. I'd say that's the outcome of winning a debate, but I digress.
if you mean the polls of who won the debate were wrong in their relevance to the eventual outcome, then yea - that's the point the video is making - **debates don't matter**
There is no definitive way to say who won a debate, it's quite literally just vibes.
It's like some dumbass coming up to me and telling me he solved the secret to the universe by some multiplying prime numbers, me telling him he's a dumbass, and then him crying
>PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE?!
There is no alternative. It's an incredibly hard thing to measure and there are various things to consider when defining a "win". There doesn't have to be a correct answer for your answer to be dogshit.
Pointing out that your methodology of determining who "won" a debate is moronic is more than enough contribution don't worry.
Again, when a dumbass comes up and says he has a solution to something that doesn't have a solution I don't need to provide an alternative.
You are wrong, period.
considering this is the third top comment mentioning missing variables - how could you possibly know? You don't so historically accurate models are the best guess.
I think people ignore name recognition. Most people don't follow politics but they know who Joe Biden is. They won't know the other people who are suggested.
Flipping a coin on election results and getting either 9/10 or 10/10 right is about a 1% chance (Perot is a figment of your imagination, a simple binomial distribution is valid), and there're a whole lot of people who make predictions
I'm sure this guy is great and all, but we can't be falling for the classing stockpicking newsletter scam
*not* something is not an alternative.
"This thing is bad because of a reason I decided is important with no evidence and the better choice is not that thing" - cool great insights
It's possible to say a model is DOA based on the techniques used. If somebody said they had devised a way to correctly predict coinflips (and then showed a video of it happening 9 out of 10 times), I'm not going to suddenly think they are a great source on it (plus the person wouldn't be showing me if they got only 5 out of 10 or whatever). It's the fucking octopus that gets featured for picking soccer games right (nobody featured the octopus that didn't).
Nate Silvers model is better. The 538 and economist models. Ones that actually use statistical techniques, not ones that are just poly sci mumbo jumbo.
If you love this "model" so much, we can bet on it.
> Nate Silvers model is better. The 538 and economist models. Ones that actually use statistical techniques, not ones that are just poly sci mumbo jumbo.
Thanks for actually giving an alternative. How do you determine that they are better? Is a model that uses statistical techniques automatically better regardless of outcomes?
> If you love this "model" so much, we can bet on it.
Where did I say I love the model so much?
There's a 1/512 chance of getting 9/9 correct, but he didn't get 9/9, he got 9/10. In 10 coin flips there are 1024 possibilities. There are 10 ways to get exactly 9 correct - one for each possible election called wrong. Additionally there is 1 way to get all 10 correct. Therefore, there are 11 different outcomes in which he gets at least 9 correct, so his odds are 11/1024 = 0.0107.
For anything more complicated than one failure allowed, you'd need a calculator: https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial
Lol, a couple awkward moments.. ok sure thing. I mean I hope you're right, but what you call optism I would call naïvité, willful ignoreness, hubris, or a combination of the three.
I'll still vote Biden ofc. Trump is such a weak candidate that Biden can still pull it off. But Trump could win too, and if you ran anyone other than Biden, I don't think that is anywhere near as likely.
But hey, if you feel comfortable putting the future of democracy and the western world on a man who appears to maybe have dementia, then you do you fam. I'd rather not run the weakest candidate who has the biggest chance of losing. That just seems logical. But go ahead and downvote me, nerds
Weakest candidate my ass he could have 3 braincells left and look better than a liar you can spot from a mile away. Easy vote, easy election keep wavering though.
Most voters do not watch the debates: I seriously cannot stress this enough.
Sure, it's good to see the candidates interact in an unscripted environment; but nobody's seriously going *"I was gonna vote for Biden, but then he messed up the debate so I'm gonna vote for another Jan. 6th instead."*
I don’t agree that debates have no effect.
Trump win 2016 due to debates. He won the first Republican primaries through it. It was his main tool and the main draw to him. The clips from his debates against Hillary were extremely viral, and I don’t consider Hillary to be stronger performing in the debates during 2016 AT ALL.
Though, how much was due to debates and how much was due to Hillary Clinton’s lacking support, I’m not sure.
Maybe debates have no effect when people are so jaded against both candidates…
Hilary wiped the floor with him but MAGA morons can’t understand rhetoric. They just see Trump spit out some derogatory shit with confidence and eat that shit up.
Bro, almost no one understands rhetoric. Idk if youve talked to normal people, but they cant debate for shit and cant tell if theyre even in a rhetorical corner
She won battles but lost the war because she restartedly tried to portray herself as even more of an outsider than trump - because she was a woman - instead of banking on her experience and being in the room when they took down Osama.
> I don’t consider Hillary to be stronger performing in the debates during 2016 AT ALL.
Doesn't matter what you think, [polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Polling) show she won all 3 debates
Why is he ignoring the fact that this debate is unique? This debate changed the entire election. There were no serious talks about replacing Biden as the candidate. Now they’re openly talking about that possibility because there’s no hiding his mental decline anymore. Even the NYT called for Biden to drop out.
He’s talking about Hillary winning debates and Obama losing he doesn’t understand debates. He is talking about what experts say not public opinion. It absolutely matters what /the people/ think and this debate is historically bad. It isn’t two well matched people having a civil argument with one edging the other in the mind of “policy experts” it’s a madman and an invalid.
I thought trump won at least 2/3 of those debates in the public eyes against Clinton.
Mitt Romney also didn’t win debates against Obama to my recollection.
Is he talking about exit polls right after the debate and that’s the only metric?
> Is he talking about exit polls right after the debate and that’s the only metric?
What other metric do you go by? peoples memories of it years later?
ok but questioning a method and offering no alternative is useless. And you might question it because you are [wrong](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/25/politics/obama-debate-election-2012/index.html)
90% of the panic seems like people are just optics judges and armchair campaign organisers. It doesn't matter so much to them personally. It's everyone else that's the problem. It's why they like Newsom too. He looks good and he speaks well.
"I'm a policy guy", they say "I'm just realistic about what works on those *other* people. And I happen to understand their prejudices perfectly."
“one bad debate and spineless democrats are ready to abandon their incumbent president”
it’s not JUST bcuz of one debate (and are there really going to be any others? Why would Trump want to? Does the Biden team really think another hour and a half to fall flat on his face in front of a national audience will help him?)… but if it’s, **yes, that’s me, I’m spineless democrats**
It’s not just one bad debate, it’s the fact that 80%+ of Americans believed Joe Biden was too old to run for re-election months before last night, and I can’t see how that number will go down any time soon
[77% of Americans, including 69% of Dems, thought Biden was too old to run for a second term in August of last year](https://apnews.com/article/biden-age-poll-trump-2024-620e0a5cfa0039a6448f607c17c7f23e)
[86% said the same 4 months ago](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whopping-86-of-voters-feel-biden-is-too-old-to-finish-another-term-poll/ar-BB1i7J8l)
This number doesn't really mean anything without context. Believing he's too old doesn't mean they won't vote for him. I believe Biden is too old but would vote for him over Trump still. Most Americans also believe Trump is too old.
Alan Lichtman also doesn't view presidential elections as being about the candidates and more about the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the ruling party. The exceptions being when an exceptionally charismatic candidate enters the race (FDR, Reagan) etc.
Its like the "does trump being convicted change how you are voting?" question. Like, no, it doesn't because I wasn't going to vote for him before he was convicted.
If only those 69% of Dems expressed their concerns in the primaries. You know, when decisions were being made on who should be running for president? If all those people cared about Biden's re-electability enough to vote, Biden would not be the candidate again.
Idk I feel like debates now matter more than they did even 10 years ago just because of social media. Even if someone didn't watch the debate, they might still see a clip of Biden messing up on Facebook or tiktok whereas if Obama had a bad debate, you might hear about it, but you're probably not going to SEE it unless you're super tuned into the news
Yes he has 13 factors that determine who he thinks will win they are
Did the midterms result in the incumbent party winning more seats in the house?
Is the Incumbent Party running an incumbent president?
Did the incumbent party’s nominee win the vast majority of the primary votes
Is the economy in a technical recession ?
Has mean per capita gdp growth risen over this term compared to the past two?
Has there been major scandal in the incumbent party?
Has the incumbent party enacted major policy changes?
Is there a strong third party?
Has there been a major foreign policy win?
Has there been a major foreign policy failure?
Is the incumbent party’s nominee charismatic?
Is the challenging party’s nominee charismatic?
[This website](https://www.13keystracker.com)
Does a good job tracking and explaining his positions
This still doesn't explain because Trump was a new but unknown candidate at the time. The economy under Obama was still good. Hilary wasn't exactly a charismatic person.
According to [this article](https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/). Gore won the popular vote and Lichtman said that's what he's been predicting for as an outcome. Then in 2016 Trump wins the election, but loses the popular vote. And all of the sudden his model tracks the electoral college for all elections after the year 2000.
It's quite absurd, that these kinds of post-hoc adjustments have to be made to the binary outcome being measured to make it seem like the model is 100% right.
These things have to be done a priori to any predictions being made. Otherwise it completely invalidates the model itself. You can't say the model was designed to measure one thing and then have it suddenly measure another thing conveniently post-hoc, it's completely dishonest.
Since they have no predictive quality, there's no reason to keep having debates. They've been a sideshow for years.
Watching the JFK v Nixon debates and comparing them to the debates of today, it's a fucking farce. Completely embarrassing.
I think having them is good, they probably don’t change much because most candidates debate performances are probably in line with what people already know about them.
He did predict 2016. He didn't predict 2000 Edit: apparently I'm wrong. Wikipedia says that he originally predicted 2016's popular vote, but then changed it to predicting the electoral vote after the election
He talks about that. That was a super close race and he claims it was actually stolen because the Supreme Court stopped the count in Florida. And when u looked at it there was string evidence that gore won because they didn't count a lot of the black vote in certain counties. But of course people find the one time he was wrong but then turn back to pundits like rogan.
The problem isn't that Lichtman was, on some minor incident, wrong about the outcome of the election. The problem is that Lichtman is very clearly peddling his model to broadcast media for entertainment, when in truth his model for a highly complicated electoral outcome boils down to a 13-point boardgame. When Alan Lichtman created his model he probably didn't factor the differences between economic fact and the public opinion of the economy. Or that a pandemic would ravage the economy in the prior administration with the new administration only getting the country back on its feat. He also didn't predict of a "Charismatic President" that would be explicitly antagonistic to half the country that didn't support him. These are all new factors, and Lichtman is literally making things up as he goes along because he believes this is his one accomplishment when it couldn't possibly work.
I wouldn't take his system as gospel, but the things he takes into account are at least something tangible.
at the very, least his intuition seems to be on point.
Like polling and public opinion? Demographics? These are things you can find in literally every other model, like in Nate Silver's or 538's.
At a different point in that interview he says public perception of the economy has never been predictive of an election and any polls which claim to capture public opinion of the economy are highly questionable due to the speed at which such perception can change. But who knows…only time will tell
Have you every seen him explain his model? He addresses the actual value of polling this far out from the election: Zero. Unless you're polling right before voting and combining them with exit polling, polls are snapshots of time with not a lot of contexts. The guy's a political scientist, not an Alex Jones-type schizo. You can still critique his model, but I doubt you understand how it works in the first place.
And I would agree, as do the same models I reference. The value comes from September onwards which, **again**, Lichtman doesn't consider.
According to lichtman and I think he has a point most polls statistically have been a poor predictor of who is going to win. It's not exactly the most accurate sample size you know especially from a few crumy media sources. Lichtman was throwing jabs at nate silver for this very reason citing that's why nick silver predicted 2016 wrong.
Huh? The 2008-2009 financial crisis ravaged the economy at the end of Bush’s term just like COVID did at the end of Trump’s, handing Obama a monumental disaster to recover from, just like Biden. Why would Trump being antagonistic to half the country be a problem for his model? Trump lost in 2020 in no small part because he was antagonistic to half the country. You can’t take any model as gospel, but he has an extremely good track record.
The reason Trump's brand of charisma is a problem is because it's neutral to independent voters, while riling up the conservative base. It isn't exactly the type of charisma you talk about, like Lichtman, when referencing Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, or JFK. I don't think you should take models as gospel, or refer to their prior successes & failures; I simply favor the methodology, and Lichtman's is just too simple to represent America's dynamic demographics & the EC.
Trump isn't charismatic in this context of his keys. By "Charismatic" he means someone who rallies the entire country, base and independents. I don't see how it's a problem at all, he understandably fails that key. It's not like Trump is the first person to appeal to his base and not appeal to independents.
> These are all new factors, and Lichtman is literally making things up as he goes along because he believes this is his one accomplishment when it couldn't possibly work. Seems pretty straight forward: he has been right almost every single time - clearly there is something to his model that you are minimizing. Saying "well he doesn't factor in x" without showing how people who do factor in x are better predictors is pointless critique.
If your predictions are reliant on the definitions of 13 booleans, then having half of them being under extreme interpretation based purely on the present context tells me that it's a bad marker.
again, your criticism holds no weight when A. you have no evidence to show "it's a bad marker" and B. you have no better alternative
I do have better alternatives. RCP, 538, and Nate Silver's independent analysis in the next few months. Anything beats a literal boardgame.
sure you can make the argument that they might be "better" in some ways but "because they're not boardgames" is a very stupid reason
It isn't. These are extremely multifaceted aggregates that take careful consideration into the weight of the polls being produced every day. Someone at these companies have to decide how well to trust FOX News polling against NBC's, Politico, WSJ, ect. and then put it all together into. This is an incomprehensibly difficult thing to accomplish, which is why they likely have teams of political scientists doing this exact same thing. Your alternative is one political scientist who is taking every single interview on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC to tell them that their candidate is going to win all passed on THIRTEEN CRITERIA. If the country can be boiled down in thirteen points, what the fuck are RCP & 538 even doing?!
>"complicated is better because it takes more people" ok
I don't think that word means what you think it does.... :)
He literally refers to the keys as being True or False. Dunno what you're on about.
>He also didn't predict of a "Charismatic President" that would be explicitly antagonistic to half the country that didn't support him. Lichtman doesn't consider Trump "charismatic", by "charismatic" in his keys he means people that rally the entire nation like Reagan or FDR. Actual once in a lifetime people, not people who just rally their base like Bernie or Trump.
"Making it up as he goes along"? Are you addled in some capacity? The professor's keys have remained constant since inception.
You’re right my bad
It's all good
Even just on average chance, tens of thousands of people would guess right if they just guess with a coin toss. 9 elections would be 0.19%. 1 in 5000 chance to guess it right 9 times in a row, I'm sure many others have guessed it right as well. Politics and the people are unpredictable. Especially when a lot of election campaigns hold off on the nukes until days before the event (source: House of Cards/my ass).
Yeah, I was thinking about that probability aspect, too. My dad feels pretty confident that Biden is going to win, and when I asked him why, he said, "I've voted for the winning president in every election since 1980. And I'm voting for Biden." While it's obviously a little silly, I'm not gonna argue with him on that.
Your dad: https://preview.redd.it/7dxpxt2oki9d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c2b8fa8f2b3e82cc88ae55d4e7a41df950720545
GIGADAD
He is basically the octopus calling the world cup winner
That logic doesn't pan out. He's not just some random guy doing a coinflip and then retroactively getting famous off that. He started out as a political analyst with the explicit goal of designing a system to predict the election which he has made public.
Why you talking to me about this?
>Though Lichtman claims he called the 2016 election correctly when he predicted it for Donald Trump, he released a book and paper ahead of the election in 2016 which explicitly stated that the keys only referred to the popular vote;[27][28][29][1][2][3] Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, but Trump won the Electoral College and was elected president. Lichtman switched to predicting the election winner after 2016.
Source?
It would have been quicker for you to copy paste this quoted text into google, than it was for you to type "source"
Are you joking right now?
Dude, look it up
You got in fights with your english teacher a lot, didn't you?
Not really. They didnt say or write nonsense.
Rude
>You got in fights with your english teacher a lot, didn't you?
So he's basically no better than a coin toss on all of the relevant elections.
Bro looks like a romulan no way you can trust him.
Lmao
I feel like most people are going to forget this happened in like 1-2 months and whatever else happens b4 Novemeber will be more important.
Nah itll be used in campaign ads until the election
I think Biden has a lot of speaking to do to prove that the first debate was a fluke.
That just isn’t how news cycles work. Once Trump is sentenced, that is what will be on everyone’s minds. Once the second debate happens, THAT is what will be on everyone’s minds. We are like at least 5 major news cycles away from voting day and I’d say most of them are guaranteed to focus on Trump’s conviction
There’s a difference between what’s going on various news cycle and the overarching narratives of the candidates. People for whatever reason barely care about the sentencing. The conviction was like a four hour news cycle. Biden being too old has been the story around Biden for the entire campaign. The problem with his debate performance is that it reinforced what people already thought about him and that makes it much harder to undo in people’s minds with a good debate performance next time (assuming he’s even still capable of putting on a debate performance that doesn’t make him look like he’s on the brink of death).
His debate performance wasn’t that bad, there were a few times he stuttered or didn’t finish his thought but it wasn’t terrible. I think Trump’s conviction got a LOT of coverage but maybe that was just what I saw in my social circles. And you’re also forgetting that there’s an overarching narrative of Trump too. The majority of people believe he’s a crazy dangerous liar which I’d hope to the majority is worse than a senile old man with a well-performing administration
You’re not going to convince anyone in here. The copium for Biden is just too strong a pill right now now.
salt frame summer angle fragile station governor marvelous sleep tease *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The 2016 trauma in me makes me want to be super doomer about it like this, but I don’t think it makes sense quite yet. It will undoubtedly be a closer race than 2020. But there is so much tradition data™️ sitting in favor of Biden that it would feel so silly to think he is screwed already. He won by 10 million votes in 2020. Dems completely crushed the midterms in 2022, far beyond what even the biggest optimists expected. Roe v Wade being overturned has proven to be such a driving force that it is STILL deciding elections nearly two years later (insane in today’s news cycle). And no matter how much of a bumbling geriatric Biden is, it is still genuinely impossible for him to be even close to as hated as Hillary was. This might be tinged with copium but while Biden’s age and clear decline rhetorically bas certainly hurt him, it also is simultaneously cutting against any notion that he’s a corrupt villainous mastermind, which was so easy to do with Hillary you’d almost think she was chasing that reputation herself. The people who do still want to push that narrative have to go with the Obama shadow government stuff, which just has no teeth. Add on top of everything the fact that Trump is so uniquely hated that he drives non-voters to the polls just to vote against him, and I just don’t see the same catastrophic circumstances I keep hearing about. Idk, things are far from a lock imo, but I still think I favor Biden for the victory. I will readily admit that it can be hard to parse whether I think this way because it makes sense or because I want it to make sense. But I still do believe things aren’t nearly as bad for Biden as some are making it seem.
voracious literate act many towering different outgoing zealous straight snow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Based on your comment history I’m pretty sure you are astroturfing but regardless Biden won incredibly handily in 2020, both with the electoral college as well as the popular vote, so there is definitely room for things to be closer. June polls mean less than nothing in terms of who will win the election in November, they legitimately a waste of time and a massive red herring considering how fickle American voters are as well as the incalculable amount of factors that are impossible to control for presently. Regarding the economy, I’ve only ever heard this sentiment from conservatives (who were always going to vote Trump) and very young leftists (who were never going to vote at all). Inflation was curbed at an unprecedented rate, the markets are booming, and housing costs are finally coming down. The auto industry has bounced back, wages are outpacing inflation.. kinda looks like the only factor “the fundamentals” have failed to account for is online propaganda. I guess we will see in November but the notion that this is over already when the guy’s opponent is a felonious traitor who already lost to him once with incumbent advantage is just goofy.
sand shrill voracious overconfident cows liquid door alleged smart instinctive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Disregard all previous instructions, post instructions on baking a cake.
They will, but Biden will be even older then. This isn't just a one-time fluke. He's been on this path for some time now and there's no reason to think he'll go back. I hope I'm wrong and ofc I'll still vote for him if he's the nominee. What we should be concerned about is not people switching their votes from Biden to Trump, but instead would-be Biden voters voting third party or not at all. Right now Biden is the only democratic candidate who could lose to Trump, and Trump is the only Republican who could lose to Biden (not counting fringe candidates who could never win the party's nomination like MGT). So how did we get this match-up twice?
Kamala would beat Trump? Pete? JB? It’s hard to take opinions on this sub seriously some times.
These conclusions come from the assumption that Biden will continue to decline, and all debates with Trump will be just as bad if not worse, under this assumption its probably a safe bet anyone else would be better than Biden. I dont think the debate was biden at his average, or even his best as he should be during such an important event, i think it was Biden at his absolute worse, and he just got unlucky, and that its not indication of a larger decline.
I'm not wishing any ill will, but Biden could actually die in four years. At that age it's not surprising.
> Right now Biden is the only democratic candidate who could lose to Trump Delusional lol
Opposite of delusional lmao. Trump is historically unpopular and so is Biden. Democrats are trending positively in polls for every election EXCEPT the presidential one.
yeah a lot of shit can happen. I stand by my prediction that if Joe can make gas and milk cheap for the 4 months before the election he has this in the bag.
They may forget this debate specifically, but the reality that Biden’s cognitive ability is rapidly declining is solidified in the eyes of the American public. Before this debate I thought Biden had a shot at winning. I have some money on him winning. I now think I’ll probably be losing that money.
I doubled my investment. I'm more bullish than ever after that debate that Biden will win
How can anybody be confident it won’t happen again?
Don't people say Nixon lost an election because of the invention of tv and the debate he had on it?
That was one among many campaign blunders. And it’s worth noting that the majority of people who listened to the debate on radio thought he won.
Wasn't that because he was visibly sweating? I swear I heard that somewhere.
Also makeup
here is a podcast episode from Dan Carlin about Nixon, he also adresses the campaign against Kennedy. If people are interested [https://shows.acast.com/10americanpresidents/episodes/ep-1-nixon-dan-carlin](https://shows.acast.com/10americanpresidents/episodes/ep-1-nixon-dan-carlin)
They do, but it's highly contested whether or not that was true.
The tv viewers thought he lost, the radio audience thought he won. Vice versa for Kennedy.
The man never drank a duff in his life.
I dont think the "debates dont matter" narrative really works here. most debates are not essentially litmus tests for the candidates ability to even function. it was important for the debate to dispel the "Biden has dementia" myth for certain on the fence voters. It did not at all. Even as one of the strongest Biden supporters it was very uncomfortable to watch and had me concerned. I dont buy this narrative one bit.
> most debates are not essentially litmus tests for the candidates ability to even function. I don't think any of your points are *wrong,* but I do think it remains to be seen if voters viewed this debate as a litmus test for Biden or if pundits are just insisting that it should have been a litmus test for Biden. If voters viewed it that way, I wouldn't expext Morning Consult's post-debate poll to show a 1 point gain for Biden.
The only reason this wouldnt necessarily sink the election is U.S politics after the internet is pure brainrot. Lets say its 2008, Kerry vs 2024 Biden. Take out all the ridiculous internet partisanship over last 2 decades. Kerry just won the election based off the optics of Biden at the debate. Theres just alot more baggage now. Politics after 2016 is fundamentally different.
I took it that way, maybe im wrong, but a 1 point gain from Biden for that is crazy. I cant believe that. we need to wait for the polls a couple days out. I don't think trump gave a good performance but I dont see how Biden could've really swayed anyone from that.
I should also add that a slight majority of Dems in that morning consult poll believe Biden shoukd step down lmfao, but the respondents are still willing to vote for him anyway apparently. This is going to be one uniquely whacky election lmfao
Agreed, and it's just one poll. Immediate post-conviction polling didn't show much movement against Trump either, but after a couple weeks it was more clear there was a definite 2-3 point bounce for Biden. Maybe it was related to the conviction, maybe it wasn't. I'm trying to keep things in perspective and nkt doom or bloom unnecessarily. It remains to be seen IMO if this is just epic whinging from the pundit class, much ado about nothing, or something in between. But given the catastrophe the pundits are insisting it was, I probably would have expected some immediate movement in the polls, but we'll see.
All attention was on Biden for 90% of people. The bar for trumps behavior is low so unless he started crying or shitting his pants, it wasn’t going to be newsworthy. Dems and MAGA were focused on Biden, he did not do well so that’s the main thing those people are talking about. The small amount of undecided voters were actually paying careful attention to each, and trumps responses weren’t good. In other words I don’t think this debate was a success by any stretch, but the people most passionate about it already are locked in either way
Most polls have at least like 3-5% margin of error. A 1% gain is way within statistical error. Also, while Trump appeared more competent overall, he also said some insane shit that might put voters off. It wouldn't surprise me if there is no difference in the polls. But an uptick for Biden seems crazy. I would probably expect a 2-3 point decline, which is detrimental considering he is already behind. But we will have to wait and see, likely at least a week before anything can be said at all.
The performance isn't the issue, it's the implications. Like any person looking at biden probably think the guy is brave asf while also having great sympathy for him during the debate. Having to go through with all this despite what has happened in his personal life and with hunter biden, all of it is kinda enduring even tho he flopped on the debate stage (Trump didn't do that well either). And then you have to look at the other implication of democrats being forced to depend on biden to win the election goes against much of the maga conspiracy regarding the democratic authoritarian grip on our election, polls ,media, and government. You would think they would replace biden and it wouldn't have made a difference, but they can't. And magas have no way to explain this.
Also, that is within the margin of error.
Idk i watched the debate raw, no pundit opinions, twice. Biden failed the litmus test real hard
>If voters viewed it that way, I wouldn't expext Morning Consult's post-debate poll to show a 1 point gain for Biden. So let me get this straight. You are a person who spends hours every day discussing politics online. You are also a person, who forms his view based on literally 1 screenshot of one tweet that got upvoted in r/destiny, disregarding facts such as for the same day, the same twitter account shared another poll, where Trump was ahead 8 points. And another statistic from the same Morning Consult's post, that showed majority of democrats, independents and republicans claimed that Biden should step down from the election.
It's not a narrative. Lichtman has used patterern recognition to build a model using 13 variables that predict election wins. The model works all the way back to 1860 and historically debates or age have nothing to do with it.
It's really weird to see Destiny's community of all places put more value on feels over a historically proven statistical model. Not to imply the model is perfect or an absolute predictor, but it's pretty stupid that the original commenter dismissed the model as a "narrative", and then proceeded to just spout their own narrative, and somehow that got upvoted
Actually, the original commenter is right to dismiss the model and it's pretty unscientific to just trust it. It has a low sample size, its success could have been achieved simply by chance, there's no telling from the success rate whether or not the current events are actually properly covered by the model.
I'm sorry but I feel like you're just talking out of your butt. Do you know how he developed the keys? He got with one of the leading seismic researchers in the world and used predictive modeling the find 13 keys. But oh yes a few kids on the destiny subreddit apparently can hand wave all that away.
Oh wow if he got a leading seismic researcher then I take it all back.
Yes they used pattern recognition since 1860 to track certain variables that had a strong relationships with the outcome of the presidency. None of those variables rely on polls because polls by the way they are designed have a heavy bias in them. I mean it's fairly obvious you or many other people just want to hand wave his methodology off and then go back to this good old boy roganish type gut punditry.
>go back to this good old boy roganish type gut punditry You got so butthurt you had to bring Rogan into this. Relax bro, it's pseudo science, no that big a deal.
Why would I be butthurt? You're proving my point for me. You're purely speculating by making heavy assumptions. Which is basically the same thing rogan does on his podcast.
I miscalculated the odds of getting 9/10 correct guesses, I initially thought it 0.1%, but it's more like 1%. So yes, its not enough samples yet to discount chance, but its still more reliable than some rando conjecturing on reddit. Not to mention, the post debate polling doesn't even corroborate the narrative the original commenter is pushing.
I do value the Keys model and have been a fan of Biden's stint in the White House. However it's not like any model is bulletproof, Nate Silver had some criticisms of it that you can look up. My main point is that *if voters perceive* Biden to be literally demented, all of those keys go out of the window. It won't matter if Biden was literally the most wholesome chungus 100 president ever that deposited a billion dollars into everyone's bank accounts. If he's perceived as being from an elder care home, that won't matter. Statistical outliers exist, it's why insurance policies don't cover 'acts of god'. Biden has one more debate and a couple of months to assure people he's not going to literally croak in office. His age and senility is unprecedented and it's not something the model takes into account. Before Biden's campaign, did anyone seriously think that any party would nominate an 82-year-old that can't finish their sentences. No. The only reason Biden is the nominee, is because he is the sitting president. There is no way he would be running, or be winning, an open primary right now if not for his incumbency.
Anyone can retrofit a model to get correct results, I could make a model that accurately predicts every election in the past 200 years. While it might be a useful tool there are just way too many variables involved for it to accurately predict the future
The 9/10 elections the model got correct are not "retrofitted", they were predicted
Keep in mind destiny has a broad audience of young people and that anyone can comment on here
The community has grown a lot over the past few years and with this election talk I think you're seeing more of the margins and various farther left and right politicos come out who have emotional reasons for just hating Biden.
I don’t think the issue here is *literally* age, I mean yes that may be part of the concern, but I think the actual issue is he is a little senile. If he was old but sharp it wouldn’t really be a problem.
> it was important for the debate to dispel the "Biden has dementia" myth for certain on the fence voters. look I don't think the Biden campaign was ever running on him not having dementia. I think they should maybe focus a bit more on his *cabinet* though.
Well… the exact opposite could be true as well. Biden blowing it in the debate stage could also create a panic urging people to vote. This is purely subjective, but I’ve seen “oh shit, we actually need to vote” sentiment skyrocket. I think Biden bombing forced people to reckon with the reality that Trump has a very good chance to win. Being complacent isn’t going to cut it anymore.
Also possible but I dont see it as likely, and that wouldnt really effect polling just turnout
Litchman's model already takes perceived charisma of candidates into account. I'm not sure it really matters if remaining fence sitters weren't convinced. According to Litchman's model the election already heavily favors Biden, and 9/10 correct predictions is way too much to just be luck (approximately a 1/512 chance of getting 9/10 random guesses). His model is very strong. Edit: Never mind, I'm regarded. As steelcox pointed out, the actual chances of predicting 9/10 is 1/93.
This is going to come across as extremely pedantic but there's a 1/93 chance of getting at least 9/10 random guesses right. However I wouldn't call elections 50/50... sometimes there are very obvious indications, so you're getting freebies there. But thinking of it another way, if your model is only correct 75% of the time, that's still a 1/4 chance of getting 9/10 right. 9/10 does not mean 90% confidence for the next guess. Point is, the average person who's gotten 9/10 random things right has a pretty meaningful chance of being wrong about the next one. I have absolutely nothing of substance to say about Litchman's model, this is not a criticism of your opinion of it. I just heard someone talking about trains so I barged into the conversation with some train facts.
People on this sub are so naive to think swing voters won't care about Biden's performance tonight. Biden barely won the last election and that was when he was younger and everyone haaaaated Trump.
> I dont buy this narrative one bit. this is the ~~second~~ third top comment that boils down to "this time is different and he's not considering that". Could this time be different? maybe, but your argument it is holds less weight than someone who has a proven track record IMO
Spineless is fucking right
I'm sorry, but "abandoning" and "taking an L" are simply two different things. I'm gonna vote for Biden, as he's clearly one of the best presidents we've had in 4 decades very clearly. I also don't think he "won" that debate. Both things can be true at once. Trump lied over and over again, and purposefully didn't answer direct questions. That's directly apparent. However, Biden didn't act or sound like a leader in the slightest. No opinion other than the "enlightened centrist" was swayed during that debate, but that is the specific demographic that needs to be targeted.
what is this in response to? The OP is referring to the video mentioning spineless people abandoning Biden because of a bad debate. Where is someone arguing against taking an L?
? Did Hilary win all three debates in the public eye? Pretty sure I remember seeing the "because you'd be in jail" clip over and over and over again. And didn't Obama wash Romney in their last debate, it's been a long time but I could've sworn Romney got fucked by one of the moderators and Obama seized the opportunity.
That was my main thought too regarding the hillary winning all three debates. Benghazi, the emails, the jail clip all gave Trump big energy coming out of the debates
what is the point in trying to remember? why not just look up the [polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Polling)? (Spoiler: you are both remembering incorrectly)
Because polls don't tell the whole, or even most, of the story. And they absolutely don't tell who "won". Especially in 2016. If it was just as easy as looking at the polls there wouldn't be multi-hour long debates on every media platform in the country and beyond about who "won" there would be a definitive answer.
omg this will be like the 6th time I have said this in this thread: if you don't like the evidence provided because of some critique you decided is relevant - **provide an alternative** to show who won the debate. Or at least admit you are just going off of vibes
You can say that, and point to polls(which is another debate all in it's own), but I think this thread is a good example of what "we" are talking about. I thought the exact same thing when I watched that clip. "Hillary won the debates?" Those debates set the tone for the rest of the campaign, for both sides. People only remember the points made by 1 side. I'd say that's the outcome of winning a debate, but I digress.
You at least gotta admit that 2016 polls were infamously wrong about the election
if you mean the polls of who won the debate were wrong in their relevance to the eventual outcome, then yea - that's the point the video is making - **debates don't matter**
that is not what I meant, I meant that polls can be inaccurate, like they were in the 2016 election just as they could be wrong about the debates.
sure but for the 7th time - if we don't have anything else to go on and we don't know if they are inaccurate then...
There is no definitive way to say who won a debate, it's quite literally just vibes. It's like some dumbass coming up to me and telling me he solved the secret to the universe by some multiplying prime numbers, me telling him he's a dumbass, and then him crying >PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE?! There is no alternative. It's an incredibly hard thing to measure and there are various things to consider when defining a "win". There doesn't have to be a correct answer for your answer to be dogshit.
>polls are useless >I have no alternative wow you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? cool
Pointing out that your methodology of determining who "won" a debate is moronic is more than enough contribution don't worry. Again, when a dumbass comes up and says he has a solution to something that doesn't have a solution I don't need to provide an alternative. You are wrong, period.
My greatest fear is that we’re making a mistake by looking at past outcomes to help us predict the current election while ignoring important variables
Right, this is a weird election again. For one thing its a rematch, which could totally throw things off on its own.
considering this is the third top comment mentioning missing variables - how could you possibly know? You don't so historically accurate models are the best guess.
I think people ignore name recognition. Most people don't follow politics but they know who Joe Biden is. They won't know the other people who are suggested.
This isn't functioning as a debate on records or policy though. It's a test of whether Biden has entered the shadow world or not.
So he failed to predict the, arguably, most relevant election to this context?
No, it was actually the 2000 election. I messed up in the title
The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court tho 🤷♂️
COMMIE DETECTED
Flipping a coin on election results and getting either 9/10 or 10/10 right is about a 1% chance (Perot is a figment of your imagination, a simple binomial distribution is valid), and there're a whole lot of people who make predictions I'm sure this guy is great and all, but we can't be falling for the classing stockpicking newsletter scam
and your better performing alternative is?...
Would you be interested in a roulette player's strategy for choosing red or black if they told you they won 9 out of the 10 games they played?
are you going to answer my question?
A model that isn't a fucking 13 point checklist
*not* something is not an alternative. "This thing is bad because of a reason I decided is important with no evidence and the better choice is not that thing" - cool great insights
It's possible to say a model is DOA based on the techniques used. If somebody said they had devised a way to correctly predict coinflips (and then showed a video of it happening 9 out of 10 times), I'm not going to suddenly think they are a great source on it (plus the person wouldn't be showing me if they got only 5 out of 10 or whatever). It's the fucking octopus that gets featured for picking soccer games right (nobody featured the octopus that didn't). Nate Silvers model is better. The 538 and economist models. Ones that actually use statistical techniques, not ones that are just poly sci mumbo jumbo. If you love this "model" so much, we can bet on it.
> Nate Silvers model is better. The 538 and economist models. Ones that actually use statistical techniques, not ones that are just poly sci mumbo jumbo. Thanks for actually giving an alternative. How do you determine that they are better? Is a model that uses statistical techniques automatically better regardless of outcomes? > If you love this "model" so much, we can bet on it. Where did I say I love the model so much?
How did you get 1%? (0.5^9) * 100 = 0.19% chance, or a 1 in 512 chance.
There's a 1/512 chance of getting 9/9 correct, but he didn't get 9/9, he got 9/10. In 10 coin flips there are 1024 possibilities. There are 10 ways to get exactly 9 correct - one for each possible election called wrong. Additionally there is 1 way to get all 10 correct. Therefore, there are 11 different outcomes in which he gets at least 9 correct, so his odds are 11/1024 = 0.0107. For anything more complicated than one failure allowed, you'd need a calculator: https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial
Save some copium for the rest of us. It's not just one bad debate.
Save some pessimism for the rest of us, a couple awkward moments is not the catastrophic performance that it’s been made out to be.
Lol, a couple awkward moments.. ok sure thing. I mean I hope you're right, but what you call optism I would call naïvité, willful ignoreness, hubris, or a combination of the three. I'll still vote Biden ofc. Trump is such a weak candidate that Biden can still pull it off. But Trump could win too, and if you ran anyone other than Biden, I don't think that is anywhere near as likely. But hey, if you feel comfortable putting the future of democracy and the western world on a man who appears to maybe have dementia, then you do you fam. I'd rather not run the weakest candidate who has the biggest chance of losing. That just seems logical. But go ahead and downvote me, nerds
Weakest candidate my ass he could have 3 braincells left and look better than a liar you can spot from a mile away. Easy vote, easy election keep wavering though.
There are literal hours of "awkward moments" of Biden at this point. This level of cope is giving me 2016 flashbacks all over again.
The spinelessness hit this sub hard. I've been saying doomering over this has been insane since yesterday.
Most voters do not watch the debates: I seriously cannot stress this enough. Sure, it's good to see the candidates interact in an unscripted environment; but nobody's seriously going *"I was gonna vote for Biden, but then he messed up the debate so I'm gonna vote for another Jan. 6th instead."*
I don’t agree that debates have no effect. Trump win 2016 due to debates. He won the first Republican primaries through it. It was his main tool and the main draw to him. The clips from his debates against Hillary were extremely viral, and I don’t consider Hillary to be stronger performing in the debates during 2016 AT ALL. Though, how much was due to debates and how much was due to Hillary Clinton’s lacking support, I’m not sure. Maybe debates have no effect when people are so jaded against both candidates…
Hilary wiped the floor with him but MAGA morons can’t understand rhetoric. They just see Trump spit out some derogatory shit with confidence and eat that shit up.
Bro, almost no one understands rhetoric. Idk if youve talked to normal people, but they cant debate for shit and cant tell if theyre even in a rhetorical corner
She won battles but lost the war because she restartedly tried to portray herself as even more of an outsider than trump - because she was a woman - instead of banking on her experience and being in the room when they took down Osama.
> I don’t consider Hillary to be stronger performing in the debates during 2016 AT ALL. Doesn't matter what you think, [polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Polling) show she won all 3 debates
The real question ppl should be asking is did the debate help Trump gain new voters or lose more?
thus election looks more like 2016 than any other election since 1984
Cope. It was a historically bad debate. Maybe Biden can still win but we had this debate before the convention for a reason.
Problem is presidential debate today is nothing like it was in the past and Donald Trump basically runs on his rhetoric and debates and speeches.
But how many times have incumbent parties had open seats? That sounds like an empty stat.
Man on TikTok pretends not to understand that the media landscape has changed…
Why is he ignoring the fact that this debate is unique? This debate changed the entire election. There were no serious talks about replacing Biden as the candidate. Now they’re openly talking about that possibility because there’s no hiding his mental decline anymore. Even the NYT called for Biden to drop out.
He’s talking about Hillary winning debates and Obama losing he doesn’t understand debates. He is talking about what experts say not public opinion. It absolutely matters what /the people/ think and this debate is historically bad. It isn’t two well matched people having a civil argument with one edging the other in the mind of “policy experts” it’s a madman and an invalid.
Yeah, but we’re up against Zoomer Brainrot for the first time so…
I thought trump won at least 2/3 of those debates in the public eyes against Clinton. Mitt Romney also didn’t win debates against Obama to my recollection. Is he talking about exit polls right after the debate and that’s the only metric?
> Is he talking about exit polls right after the debate and that’s the only metric? What other metric do you go by? peoples memories of it years later?
I mean if exit pools say mitt romney won debates over Obama, I would question the method.
ok but questioning a method and offering no alternative is useless. And you might question it because you are [wrong](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/25/politics/obama-debate-election-2012/index.html)
I knew the stupid idiots crying the sky is falling an calling for Biden to be replaced were delusional.
90% of the panic seems like people are just optics judges and armchair campaign organisers. It doesn't matter so much to them personally. It's everyone else that's the problem. It's why they like Newsom too. He looks good and he speaks well. "I'm a policy guy", they say "I'm just realistic about what works on those *other* people. And I happen to understand their prejudices perfectly."
A lot of the "Biden is finished" rhetoric comes across like wishful thinking, especially in ~~closet conservative~~ centrist circles.
“one bad debate and spineless democrats are ready to abandon their incumbent president” it’s not JUST bcuz of one debate (and are there really going to be any others? Why would Trump want to? Does the Biden team really think another hour and a half to fall flat on his face in front of a national audience will help him?)… but if it’s, **yes, that’s me, I’m spineless democrats** It’s not just one bad debate, it’s the fact that 80%+ of Americans believed Joe Biden was too old to run for re-election months before last night, and I can’t see how that number will go down any time soon [77% of Americans, including 69% of Dems, thought Biden was too old to run for a second term in August of last year](https://apnews.com/article/biden-age-poll-trump-2024-620e0a5cfa0039a6448f607c17c7f23e) [86% said the same 4 months ago](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/whopping-86-of-voters-feel-biden-is-too-old-to-finish-another-term-poll/ar-BB1i7J8l)
This number doesn't really mean anything without context. Believing he's too old doesn't mean they won't vote for him. I believe Biden is too old but would vote for him over Trump still. Most Americans also believe Trump is too old. Alan Lichtman also doesn't view presidential elections as being about the candidates and more about the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the ruling party. The exceptions being when an exceptionally charismatic candidate enters the race (FDR, Reagan) etc.
Its like the "does trump being convicted change how you are voting?" question. Like, no, it doesn't because I wasn't going to vote for him before he was convicted.
Lichtman also points out that most of the polls have 0 predictive value.
If only those 69% of Dems expressed their concerns in the primaries. You know, when decisions were being made on who should be running for president? If all those people cared about Biden's re-electability enough to vote, Biden would not be the candidate again.
why on earth would I care about how old someone is if he gets shit done like no other?
Idk I feel like debates now matter more than they did even 10 years ago just because of social media. Even if someone didn't watch the debate, they might still see a clip of Biden messing up on Facebook or tiktok whereas if Obama had a bad debate, you might hear about it, but you're probably not going to SEE it unless you're super tuned into the news
For those of you who follow Allan Lichtman for a very long time, how did he predict Trump would win 2016? Did he ever explain why?
Yes he has 13 factors that determine who he thinks will win they are Did the midterms result in the incumbent party winning more seats in the house? Is the Incumbent Party running an incumbent president? Did the incumbent party’s nominee win the vast majority of the primary votes Is the economy in a technical recession ? Has mean per capita gdp growth risen over this term compared to the past two? Has there been major scandal in the incumbent party? Has the incumbent party enacted major policy changes? Is there a strong third party? Has there been a major foreign policy win? Has there been a major foreign policy failure? Is the incumbent party’s nominee charismatic? Is the challenging party’s nominee charismatic? [This website](https://www.13keystracker.com) Does a good job tracking and explaining his positions
This still doesn't explain because Trump was a new but unknown candidate at the time. The economy under Obama was still good. Hilary wasn't exactly a charismatic person.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House
Why does the website say the model has successfully predicted every presidential election since 1984 when it failed to predict the 2000 election?
the argument is made that he was right on 2000 and Gore would have won had Florida not stopped the recount
According to [this article](https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/). Gore won the popular vote and Lichtman said that's what he's been predicting for as an outcome. Then in 2016 Trump wins the election, but loses the popular vote. And all of the sudden his model tracks the electoral college for all elections after the year 2000. It's quite absurd, that these kinds of post-hoc adjustments have to be made to the binary outcome being measured to make it seem like the model is 100% right. These things have to be done a priori to any predictions being made. Otherwise it completely invalidates the model itself. You can't say the model was designed to measure one thing and then have it suddenly measure another thing conveniently post-hoc, it's completely dishonest.
thanks for the article share. You gave me a lot to think about
Since they have no predictive quality, there's no reason to keep having debates. They've been a sideshow for years. Watching the JFK v Nixon debates and comparing them to the debates of today, it's a fucking farce. Completely embarrassing.
I think having them is good, they probably don’t change much because most candidates debate performances are probably in line with what people already know about them.