Lichtman's 13 Keys to the WH

[dayman]

So Lichtman rejects polls all together and also finds the common thinking of "economy is everything" to be an overstatement. He claims to have 13 keys that don't miss and haven't since he started in the early '80s. Taken from wikipedia his keys are as follows:

• Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. Romney
   
  
• Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Obama
   
  
• Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Obama
   
  
• Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Obama
   
  
• Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Undecided
   
  
• Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Romney
   
  
• Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Obama
   
  
• Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Obama
   
  
• Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Obama
   
  
• Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Obama
   
  
• Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Obama
   
  
• Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Romney
   
  
• Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Obama
  

The bold portion is as predicted by him (not me) quite a while ago. I heard an interview w/ him on Sirius in the car earlier today (prompting this thread) and he says it's solid, hasn't changed and he still predicts Obama to win.

 

http://www.usnews.co...-to-win-in-2012

 

What does PPP think about his methodology and prediction?

Edited August 7, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Gugny]

I just pray to God his prediction is correct.

[meazza]

I just pray to God his prediction is correct.

 

Or Lord knows you'll have 8+% unemployment and huge deficits.

 

 

Oh wait.

[Gugny]

And Mitt Romney is going to fix that, how, exactly? It's not like Obama had 8 years of inept "leadership" before he took over to try to fix.

 

Oh .. wait ..

[WorldTraveller]

Or Lord knows you'll have 8+% unemployment and huge deficits.

 

 

Oh wait.

 

You do realize that you are responding to someone with the IQ of a turnip?

[meazza]

And Mitt Romney is going to fix that, how, exactly? It's not like Obama had 8 years of inept "leadership" before he took over to try to fix.

 

Oh .. wait ..

 

Well you said, "i pray to god he's right". If Romney wins, what happens exactly?

 

You do realize that you are responding to someone with the IQ of a turnip?

 

That's most of PPP

Edited August 7, 2012 by meazza

[DC Tom]

So Lichtman rejects polls all together and also finds the common thinking of "economy is everything" to be an overstatement. He claims to have 13 keys that don't miss and haven't since he started in the early '80s. Taken from wikipedia his keys are as follows:

• Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. Romney
   
  
• Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Obama
   
  
• Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Obama
   
  
• Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Obama
   
  
• Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Undecided
   
  
• Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Romney
   
  
• Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Obama
   
  
• Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Obama
   
  
• Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Obama
   
  
• Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Obama
   
  
• Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Obama
   
  
• Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Romney
   
  
• Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Obama
  

The bold portion is as predicted by him (not me) quite a while ago. I heard an interview w/ him on Sirius in the car earlier today (prompting this thread) and he says it's solid, hasn't changed and he still predicts Obama to win.

 

http://www.usnews.co...-to-win-in-2012

 

What does PPP think about his methodology and prediction?

 

I think his methodology suffers from a serious flaw that too many of his points are subjective (How do you measure charisma objectively? Is OWS "major social unrest" or not? Regardless of whether or not you support it, are the ACA and stimulus really "major" overhauls?) and equally weighted (I have a hard time believe that "the nation is in a recession" is independent of the magnitude of the recession).

 

I also disagree with some of his answers - "major scandal" is in the eye of the beholder, for one (in that, for example, Obama gets treated with kid-gloves in comparison to the **** Bush got), and "undecided" is just weasely for "short term economy" - the economy is NOT in recession; the answer to that is "Obama" right now, plain and simple.

 

And Mitt Romney is going to fix that, how, exactly? It's not like Obama had 8 years of inept "leadership" before he took over to try to fix.

 

Oh .. wait ..

 

Romney's got experience with money. I'd trust him to reduce the budget deficits before someone who's entire life has been predicated on "other people's money" will...

[dayman]

I think his methodology suffers from a serious flaw that too many of his points are subjective (How do you measure charisma objectively? Is OWS "major social unrest" or not? Regardless of whether or not you support it, are the ACA and stimulus really "major" overhauls?) and equally weighted (I have a hard time believe that "the nation is in a recession" is independent of the magnitude of the recession).

 

I also disagree with some of his answers - "major scandal" is in the eye of the beholder, for one (in that, for example, Obama gets treated with kid-gloves in comparison to the **** Bush got), and "undecided" is just weasely for "short term economy" - the economy is NOT in recession; the answer to that is "Obama" right now, plain and simple.

 

 

 

Romney's got experience with money. I'd trust him to reduce the budget deficits before someone who's entire life has been predicated on "other people's money" will...

 

A few things based on the interview b/c some of the questions you raised are similar to what the host of the show asked.

 

The most obvious is the last part on the short term economy...the results I posted are from 2011 so he didn't know at the time. He didn't specifically go through the keys again in the interview but said the result hasn't changed and he thinks Obama will still win.

 

Major social unrest he did comment on and said it means what it says..."major" and it usually is not going to go against the incumbent.

 

Major scandal he said must be directly tied to the president. For example he said he gave that to the right in both '04 and '08.

 

And then as for the subjective nature of it he said "buy my book" (lol) and there are some more details about how he analyzes them ... but he acknowledged they are still somewhat subjective b/c they aren't hard data but he thinks the hard data (and specifically polls) people use are absolute garbage.

Edited August 7, 2012 by TheNewBills

[DC Tom]

And then as for the subjective nature of it he said "buy my book" (lol) and there are some more details about how I analyze them ... but he acknowledged they are still somewhat subjective b/c they aren't hard data but he thinks the hard data (and specifically polls) people use are absolute garbage.

 

Well, I wouldn't argue against that. The only hard data that matters is the electoral college - everything else is masturbation.

[ieatcrayonz]

Three guesses without looking.....Lichtman is either a:

 

Bearded commie

Uber Dork

or young dude with weird lookiing glasses.....possibly all 3 or 2 of three.

 

Now I'll look.

[Gugny]

Didn't the last silver spoon rich white boy destroy this country enough? We really need another one to come in and dig us into a deeper hole?

[meazza]

Didn't the last silver spoon rich white boy destroy this country enough? We really need another one to come in and dig us into a deeper hole?

 

So these are your official group of opening posts on PPP. Good to see the lemmings always out in full force

[dayman]

Three guesses without looking.....Lichtman is either a:

 

Bearded commie

Uber Dork

or young dude with weird lookiing glasses.....possibly all 3 or 2 of three.

 

Now I'll look.

 

LOL I just looked. Pretty normal looking guy actually.

[ieatcrayonz]

Three guesses without looking.....Lichtman is either a:

 

Bearded commie

Uber Dork

or young dude with weird lookiing glasses.....possibly all 3 or 2 of three.

 

Now I'll look.

 

I looked and will give myself 1.5 out of 3. Score:

 

Bearded commie: 0% although he is listed as "historian" which these days usually means commie. Still I will go with 0% because no beard.

Uber Dork: 100%

young dude with weird glasses: 50%; not young but you can tell he had lasik and used to wear weird glasses just by looking at him.

[Gugny]

You do realize that you are responding to someone with the IQ of a turnip?

 

What, exactly, are you basing your opinion on? I'm really curious to know why someone who can't spell traveler is opining that I have a low IQ. The stage is yours, Einstein.

[dayman]

I looked and will give myself 1.5 out of 3. Score:

 

Bearded commie: 0% although he is listed as "historian" which these days usually means commie. Still I will go with 0% because no beard.

Uber Dork: 100%

young dude with weird glasses: 50%; not young but you can tell he had lasik and used to wear weird glasses just by looking at him.

 

Psshh...you get 0. He's middle aged, no glasses or beard, and not an outwardly dorky looking guy.

Edited August 7, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Gugny]

So these are your official group of opening posts on PPP. Good to see the lemmings always out in full force

 

Official what? There's nothing official about posting my thoughts on a forum frequented by bigoted dickheads, Meazza. And yes, the lemmings are out in full force. Climb into your shiny metal box with the rest of them.

[Rob's House]

And Mitt Romney is going to fix that, how, exactly?

Ending the war on business would be a good start.

[ieatcrayonz]

I looked and will give myself 1.5 out of 3. Score:

 

Bearded commie: 0% although he is listed as "historian" which these days usually means commie. Still I will go with 0% because no beard.

Uber Dork: 100%

young dude with weird glasses: 50%; not young but you can tell he had lasik and used to wear weird glasses just by looking at him.

 

Update: I am now scoring 99% on bearded commie. If you Google him you find a 30 minute interview about gettng off of fossil fuels. He ran for Senate where he ran on a platform of getting off fossil fuels. No beard so I can't give myself 100%. The only two reasons I can think of for no beard are:

 

inability to actually grow one

 

or

 

still loves the uber dork haircut so much and a beard would detract from it.

[Rob's House]

Didn't the last silver spoon rich white boy destroy this country enough? We really need another one to come in and dig us into a deeper hole?

Oh yeah, he's rich & white. Must be trouble.

 

You just can't argue with that logic.

[DrDawkinstein]

Romney's got experience with money. I'd trust him to reduce the budget deficits before someone who's entire life has been predicated on "other people's money" will...

 

I believe your point is incomplete.

 

Romney has experience with money... HIS money. More accurately, his Daddy's money, which he just kept the ball rolling. Id rather take financial advice from someone who came from nothing, than someone who has never had to earn it.

 

He also has experience sheltering his money so it does not go to helping the US.

He also has experience moving jobs out of the US and into China. That was great for the economy.

 

But hey, since he's so good at screwing over the USA he'll definitely make a good president, since he knows all the tricks. Right?

 

Ending the war on business would be a good start.

 

No such thing.

 

If you want to fix the economy, end the war on the middle class.

[dayman]

Update: I am now scoring 99% on bearded commie. If you Google him you find a 30 minute interview about gettng off of fossil fuels. He ran for Senate where he ran on a platform of getting off fossil fuels. No beard so I can't give myself 100%. The only two reasons I can think of for no beard are:

 

inability to actually grow one

 

or

 

still loves the uber dork haircut so much and a beard would detract from it.

 

lol wanting to move away from fossil fuels and not having a beard makes him 99% bearded commie. I actually love you as a poster.

[Gugny]

I just love how there are so many morons that turn a blind eye to the fact that little Bush lied to the world in order to start a war in which thousands of young American men and women died, all while destroying our economy and undoing any truly diplomatic measures that had been taken by so many presidents before him. And, God forbid, someone support the knuckle-dragging black boy. Then all of the right wing sheep get assembled and suddenly they're like a bunch of crows, which is ironic to me.

 

Just think ... the white supremacist scumbags are just like those dirty black birds. Silent when they're alone, but loud as hell (and annoying as they are worthless) when the get a bunch of their friends around.

 

Ha!

[WorldTraveller]

I believe your point is incomplete.

 

Romney has experience with money... HIS money. More accurately, his Daddy's money, which he just kept the ball rolling. Id rather take financial advice from someone who came from nothing, than someone who has never had to earn it.

 

He also has experience sheltering his money so it does not go to helping the US.

He also has experience moving jobs out of the US and into China. That was great for the economy.

 

But hey, since he's so good at screwing over the USA he'll definitely make a good president, since he knows all the tricks. Right?

 

 

 

No such thing.

 

If you want to fix the economy, end the war on the middle class.

 

His daddy's money?oh boy, we got another lemming in the house.Try researching before you make an ass out of yourself....again

[meazza]

I believe your point is incomplete.

 

Romney has experience with money... HIS money. More accurately, his Daddy's money, which he just kept the ball rolling. Id rather take financial advice from someone who came from nothing, than someone who has never had to earn it.

 

He also has experience sheltering his money so it does not go to helping the US.

He also has experience moving jobs out of the US and into China. That was great for the economy.

 

But hey, since he's so good at screwing over the USA he'll definitely make a good president, since he knows all the tricks. Right?

 

 

 

No such thing.

 

If you want to fix the economy, end the war on the middle class.

 

And then you wonder why we call you a moron.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I believe your point is incomplete.

 

Romney has experience with money... HIS money. More accurately, his Daddy's money, which he just kept the ball rolling. Id rather take financial advice from someone who came from nothing, than someone who has never had to earn it.

 

He also has experience sheltering his money so it does not go to helping the US.

He also has experience moving jobs out of the US and into China. That was great for the economy.

 

But hey, since he's so good at screwing over the USA he'll definitely make a good president, since he knows all the tricks. Right?

 

 

 

No such thing.

 

If you want to fix the economy, end the war on the middle class.

Obama hardly built himself up from nothing & has never earned a dime in the private sector. He has no first-hand knowledge of how business works.

 

And honestly, dude, war on the middle class is just silly. What policies are you referring to?

[ieatcrayonz]

lol wanting to move away from fossil fuels and not having a beard makes him 99% bearded commie. I actually love you as a poster.

 

He might have tried to grow a beard. It does not look plausible for him. I guess I could split the difference and say 75% on bearded commie.

[WorldTraveller]

Wow, Dr Dareustein offers up nothing but DNC talking points, and the other bozo is dim witted race baiter.

 

Welcome to the club ladies, you guys fit right in.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

His daddy's money?oh boy, we got another lemming in the house.Try researching before you make an ass out of yourself....again

 

Yeah, Im sure when he graduated from Harvard and went right into his first job, he didnt have a penny to his name... Not one cent from his Millionare father, ever. Right.

 

And there is nothing wrong with having that background, but I dont trust him with the countries money. He is good with money, but only to his own end. His entire education/career is about stroking the systems to his own benefit.

[DC Tom]

I believe your point is incomplete.

 

Romney has experience with money... HIS money. More accurately, his Daddy's money, which he just kept the ball rolling. Id rather take financial advice from someone who came from nothing, than someone who has never had to earn it.

 

He also has experience sheltering his money so it does not go to helping the US.

He also has experience moving jobs out of the US and into China. That was great for the economy.

 

But hey, since he's so good at screwing over the USA he'll definitely make a good president, since he knows all the tricks. Right?

 

 

 

No such thing.

 

If you want to fix the economy, end the war on the middle class.

 

Christ, the first time I responded to this, I thought I was responding to gugny, it was so empty-headed. You know better than that.

 

Moron.

[dayman]

Obama hardly built himself up from nothing & has never earned a dime in the private sector. He has no first-hand knowledge of how business works.

 

And honestly, dude, war on the middle class is just silly. What policies are you referring to?

 

I'm just wondering what natural predictors for future Presidents did Obama have when he was born? I'm not sitting here trying to claim Obama did it all by himself. B/c as we all know, if you become President...you didn't win that. But I'm just saying....Obama didn't build himself up?

[Rob's House]

I just love how there are so many morons that turn a blind eye to the fact that little Bush lied to the world in order to start a war in which thousands of young American men and women died, all while destroying our economy and undoing any truly diplomatic measures that had been taken by so many presidents before him. And, God forbid, someone support the knuckle-dragging black boy. Then all of the right wing sheep get assembled and suddenly they're like a bunch of crows, which is ironic to me.

 

Just think ... the white supremacist scumbags are just like those dirty black birds. Silent when they're alone, but loud as hell (and annoying as they are worthless) when the get a bunch of their friends around.

 

Ha!

Uh, No it's Romney that's running. Bush is no longer eligible.

 

And do you have any kind of remotely meaningful policy analysis or is this childish tirade of name-calling and stereotyping all you have to offer.

[DrDawkinstein]

Wow, Dr Dareustein offers up nothing but DNC talking points, and the other bozo is dim witted race baiter.

 

Welcome to the club ladies, you guys fit right in.

 

 

Yes, more posts like this, just proving my point about you sad, little men.

[meazza]

Christ, the first time I responded to this, I thought I was responding to gugny, it was so empty-headed. You know better than that.

 

Moron.

 

DrD may seem level headed but when one has nothing to say...

 

Yes, more posts like this, just proving my point about you sad, little men.

 

What point did you make exactly? You just threw out blind statements with no reality behind it.

Edited August 7, 2012 by meazza

[DC Tom]

And there is nothing wrong with having that background, but I dont trust him with the countries money. He is good with money, but only to his own end. His entire education/career is about stroking the systems to his own benefit.

 

Managing a hedge fund, managing the Olympics, and being governor of Massachusetts means he was answering to OTHER people for handling THEIR money to THEIR end.

[WorldTraveller]

Yes, more posts like this, just proving my point about you sad, little men.

 

Says the DNC walking talking point parrot

[DC Tom]

I'm just wondering what natural predictors for future Presidents did Obama have when he was born? I'm not sitting here trying to claim Obama did it all by himself. B/c as we all know, if you become President...you didn't win that. But I'm just saying....Obama didn't build himself up?

 

I don't know that anyone sane would think he didn't...but qualitatively, the manner in which Obama and Romney made their successes were different. Right down to the definitions of "success" - basically, social vs. economic, respectively.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I'm just wondering what natural predictors for future Presidents did Obama have when he was born? I'm not sitting here trying to claim Obama did it all by himself. B/c as we all know, if you become President...you didn't win that. But I'm just saying....Obama didn't build himself up?

Certainly Obama wrangled his way through academia and up the political ladder, you can't deny he has a particular skill set that is very effective for self-promotion. My point is, Dr. D gave the impression that Obama is a rags-to-riches rising against all odds which isn't the case. He & his wife both come from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds. It's not like he had to try too hard pry the door to opportunity open.

 

While securing himself power he's destroyed a great deal of wealth but created or facilitated the creation of little to none.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

I don't know that anyone sane would think he didn't...but qualitatively, the manner in which Obama and Romney made their successes were different. Right down to the definitions of "success" - basically, social vs. economic, respectively.

 

I mean are we implying that any definition of success that doesn't directly flow from managing a hedge fund is lesser?

[DC Tom]

I mean are we implying that any definition of success that doesn't directly flow from managing a hedge fund is lesser?

 

No, not at all.

 

But I am stating - directly - that the guy who's got executive and fiscal experience and success has a greater probability of being better suited to a job that requires executive and fiscal abilities.