How Did This Elections Expert Know It Would Be Trump All Along?

When he called the election in September for Donald Trump, the pundits trashed American University professor Allan Lichtman. After the Republican president-elect’s upset over Hillary Clinton, he wants the country to heed a message — do not trust polls.

“Everybody told me I was absolutely wrong this time because all of the polls were telling otherwise,” the political science expert told National Public Radio on Wednesday. “Polls are not predictions, and they are abused and misused as though they were predictions ‘cause they’re easy to cover.”

Back in the early ‘80’s, Lichtman developed a system for predicting the outcome of presidential races along with Russian mathematician Vladimir Keilis-Borok. Eschewing polls, his model relies on developing true or false answers to a set of 13 questions about the state of the county’s politics, economy and foreign relations in the run-up to the election. If five or more of the questions, or “keys,” are false, then the challenger party will capture the presidency.

He has called presidential contests right ever since 1984, when then-President Ronald Reagan crushed Walter Mondale in a landslide.

According to Lichtman, the race was slanted against the Democrats in this cycle due to their heavy losses in the midterm elections two years ago, the fact that President Barack Obama was leaving after two terms and that the party had not managed any major accomplishments over that second term.

He told NPR that the outcome of elections are determined by factors like this, rather than ‘October surprise’ scandals.

“And his had nothing to do with the campaign, had nothing to do with a dozen women claiming that Donald Trump had harassed or assaulted them, had nothing to do with the Comey letter,” he said on the radio. “Because I issued my first prediction before all of that and then doubled down on that prediction just a couple of weeks ago.”

The political scientist repeated his caution about polls toward the end of his NPR interview.

“My prediction system is based on a huge amount of data, you know,” he said. “But I do object to poll-and-pundit-driven analysis, which is not meaningful because it’s not based on any kind of systematic assessment of how elections work.”

Contact Daniel J. Solomon at solomon@forward.com or on Twitter @DanielJSolomon

Author

Daniel J. Solomon

Daniel J. Solomon is the Assistant to the Editor/News Writer at the Forward. Originally from Queens, he attended Harvard as an undergraduate, where he wrote his senior thesis on French-Jewish intellectual history. He is excited to have returned to New York after his time in Massachusetts. Daniel’s passions include folk music, cycling, and pointed argument.

Your Comments

The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. All readers can browse the comments, and all Forward subscribers can add to the conversation. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not and will be deleted. Egregious commenters or repeat offenders will be banned from commenting. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.

Recommend this article

How Did This Elections Expert Know It Would Be Trump All Along?

Thank you!

This article has been sent!

Close