2024: It’s Biden’s to lose.

“A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose.”

It’s Election Year!

You know what that means.

It happens every 2 years.

Civic-minded citizens will be exercising their right to vote, and will be setting a host of political wanna’bees in office… or, turning them out — depending upon how well-satisfied constituents are with the politician’s performance in office, and turning them out if they’re not. NOTE: “Wanna’bees” are differentiated from honey bees. Ed.

And the BIG KAHUNA of them all, is the Presidency.

Naturally, most all of us want to know if there’s a way, a method, a tool, a process, that could accurately and correctly forecast who the next President will be.

Fortunately, there is.

Dr. Allan Lichtman, PhD, American University’s Distinguished Professor of History published a book he authored — The Keys to the White House — with Ken DeCell in 1991 in which he explained a simple YES/NO tool which could be used to ACCURATELY and CORRECTLY forecast the next President.

It’s not hocus-pocus, it’s not soothsaying, it neither involves crystal balls, nor tea leaves, and has been subjected to peer review. And that’s because Dr. Lichtman collaborated with renowned mathematician Dr. Vladimir Keilis-Borok, PhD (1921-2013), a now-late Russian mathematical geophysicist and seismologist with an interest in developing an earthquake predicting tool, and published their findings in a scientific journal in order to be scrutinized.

“I first developed the Keys to the White House in 1981,
in collaboration with mathematician Vladimir Keilis-Borok.
Retrospectively, we found that
the Keys correctly accounted for the results of
American presidential elections from 1860 to 1980,
ranging from the horse and buggy days of American politics to
the era of jet planes, polls, and television.”
— Dr. Alan Lichtman, 2012, in “The Keys to the White House,” in Social Education 76(5), pp 233–235

Dr. Lichtman developed the 13-key forecasting system initially in 1981, and later subjected the work to independent testing — which is the heart and soul of the peer-review scientific process. The primary skeptics — prognosticators, election analysts, and journalists — remained, albeit only shortly, and when they put it to the test, were amazed at the comparative tool’s accuracy.

“When I first developed my system and made my predictions, the professional forecasters blasted me because I had committed the ultimate sin of prediction: The sin of subjectivity. Some of my keys were not just cut and dried, and I kept telling them, ‛it’s not subjectivity, it’s judgment. We’re dealing with human systems and historians make judgments all the time, and they’re not random judgments.’ I define each key very carefully in my book, and I have a record. It took 15 to 20 years, and the professional forecasting community totally turned around. They realized their big mathematical models didn’t work, and the best models combined judgment with more cut-and-dried indicators. And suddenly, the keys were the hottest thing in forecasting.”

The 13 keys were developed based on analyses of trends in presidential campaigns since 1860 — Abraham Lincoln’s first term — a VERY long-term overview. The groundbreaking research is entitled “Pattern recognition applied to presidential elections in the United States, 1860-1980: Role of integral social, economic, and political traits,” and was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington (Vol. 78, pg. 7230).

Professor Dr. Allan Lichtman, PhD

The tool consists of 13 conditions — primarily social and economic conditions, plus military/foreign affairs performance, and one or two others — that are each given a YEA/NAY, and that when totaled, have correctly predicted the upcoming office holder of the Presidency since 1984, Ronald Reagan’s 2nd term. That’s 10 terms of office, including POTUS Joe Biden — 40 years.

You read that right — CORRECTLY forecasted the next President… and has, since 1984 — including the 2000 election, Bush v Gore, about which Dr. Lichtman says this:

“It was a stolen election. Based on the actual votes, Al Gore should have won going away, except for the discarding of ballots cast by Black voters who were 95% for Gore. I proved this in my report to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. One out of every 9 to 10 ballots cast by a Black voter was thrown out, as opposed to 1 out of 50 cast by a white voter.

“Most of those were not so-called hanging chads. They were over-votes because Black people were told punch in Gore and then write in Gore, just to be sure, and those ballots were all discarded. Political scientists have since looked at the election and proved I was right. Al Gore, based on the intent of the voters, should have won by tens of thousands of votes.”

“I contend I was right about 2000, or at a minimum, there was no right prediction. You could argue either way. I contend – and a lot of people agree with me – that I’m 10 out of 10. But even if you say I’m 9 out of 10, that’s not bad.”

And, as hindsight and history have shown us from that year’s election, had the Supreme Court not halted the counting, Al Gore would have been declared the winner.

Now, as we go barreling head-long, straight into Groundhog Day v.2024, with the 2024 General Election being a redux of the 2020 General Election, i.e., Biden v. Trump, it should be worth noting that the American public and the world at large, our nation’s enemies and allies, are all paying very close attention. And quite possibly, once again, our enemies may very likely have a hand in interfering with the election like they did in 2016.

It’s an unpleasant thought to think, but one’s enemies will resort to any tactic to get their desired results, and our nation’s Intelligence Services, National Defense, and Law Enforcement Agencies have all independently studied the matter, and each have independently concluded that election interference happened. And to be certain, the type of interference we’re talking about is NOT the more blatant voter-type frauds (which are difficult to conduct), nor is it of ballot theft, or any of the more visible, physical types of fraud, but rather, is the psychological tactic of spreading falsehoods, malicious rumors, negative reports, slanderous memes, etc., all designed with one purpose in mind: To help one candidate win.

Here’s what Dr. Lichtman wrote in 2012:

“The historical record of presidential elections shows that a pragmatic electorate chooses a president, not according to events on the campaign trail, but according to the performance of the party holding the White House as measured by the consequential events and episodes of a term – economic boom and bust, foreign policy successes and failures, social unrest, scandal, and policy innovation. This new vision of American politics is based on The Keys to the White House, a prediction system based on the study of every presidential election from 1860 to 2008. I first developed the Keys system in 1981, in collaboration with Vladimir Keilis-Borok, founder of the International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics. Retrospectively, the keys model accounts for the popular vote winner of every American presidential election since 1860, much longer than any other prediction system. Prospectively, the Keys to the White House has correctly forecast the popular vote winner of all seven presidential elections from 1984 to 2008, usually months or even years prior to Election Day. For example, the keys called Vice President George H. W. Bush’s victory in the spring of 1988 when he trailed Mike Dukakis by double-digits in the polls and was being written off by the pollsters and the pundits (Lichtman, 1988, May). The Keys forecast George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election in April 2003, nearly a year before any other academic model (Jones, 2007). In February 2006, more than two and a half years ahead of time, the Keys predicted that the Democrats would recapture the White House in the 2008 election (Lichtman, 2006, 5).

“Each of the thirteen keys is stated as a threshold condition that always favors the re-election of the party holding the White House”

excerpted from: The Keys to the White House: A Preliminary Forecast for 2012
Allan J. Lichtman
Source Title: Societal Impacts on Information Systems Development and Applications
Copyright: © 2012 |Pages: 12
ISBN13: 9781466609273|ISBN10: 1466609273|EISBN13: 9781466609280
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-0927-3.ch014
https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/65012

Dr. Lichtman emphasizes that the Keys are a tool, and just as certain tools are needed at certain times, i.e., not all tools are used continuously on a project from beginning to end, so too must the Keys be used at their proper time, and he stresses that, polls are essentially worthless as a reliably accurate predictive tool. And when it comes to the 2024 General Election, he had some choice words for journalists and pollsters alike.

“They’re mesmerized by the wrong things, which is the polls. First of all, polls six, seven months before an election have zero predictive value. They would have predicted President Michael Dukakis. They would have predicted President Jimmy Carter would have defeated Ronald Reagan, who won in a landslide; Carter was way ahead in some of the early polls. Not only are polls a snapshot but they are not predictors. They don’t predict anything and there’s no such thing as, ‘if the election were held today’. That’s a meaningless statement.”

There is at least one thing that sets Dr. Lichtman’s work apart from all others, and it is this: He also correctly predicted that the 45th POTUS would be impeached.

And he was.

Twice.

The former, 45th President — the most unlikely of candidates, who never held public office, no office of public trust, nor military service — served but one term, which victory Dr. Lichtman correctly predicted.

In mentioning the last 3 General Elections, he also mentioned the 2016 winner, who sent to him a congratulatory note for correctly predicting the winner: ‘Professor — Congrats — good call.’

“The critical sixth key was the contest key: Bernie Sanders’s contest against Clinton. It was an open seat so you lost the incumbency key. The Democrats had done poorly in 2014 so you lost that key. There was no big domestic accomplishment following the Affordable Care Act in the previous term, and no big foreign policy splashy success following the killing of Bin Laden in the first term, so there were just enough keys. It was not an easy call.”

“The pandemic is what did him in. He congratulated me for predicting him but he didn’t understand the keys. The message of the keys is it’s governance not campaigning that counts and instead of dealing substantively with the pandemic, as we know, he thought he could talk his way out of it and that sank him.”

“The message of the keys is it’s governance not campaigning that counts and instead of dealing substantively with the pandemic, as we know, he thought he could talk his way out of it and that sank him.”

“Keys are based on history. They’re very robust because they go all the way back retrospectively to 1860 and prospectively to 1984, so they cover enormous changes in our economy, our society, our demography, our politics.

“But it’s always possible there could be a cataclysmic enough event outside the scope of the keys that could affect the election and here we do have, for the first time, not just a former president but a major party candidate sitting in a trial and who knows if he’s convicted – and there’s a good chance he will be – how that might scramble things.”

It will likely be around early August when Professor Dr. Lichtman will make his proclamation on the Groundhog Day v.2024 Presidential Election. He observed that POTUS BIDEN has the incumbency key in his favor and, not even having had token challengers in the Democratic primary, he has the contest key too.

“That’s two keys off the top. That means six more keys would have to fall to predict his defeat. A lot would have to go wrong for Biden to lose.”

The 13 Keys to the White House

Each of the thirteen keys is stated as a threshold condition that always favors the re-election of the party holding the White House. If 6 or more keys went against the White House party, it would lose. If fewer than 6 went against it, it would win.

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.