Allan Lichtman
- Thread starter lchsman
- Start date
BlackandGold
RollSide
You obviously don't pay any honest attention to him. He has always been humble in saying he is not a psychic or all-knowing.
Science isn't perfect, but it'll be interesting to see where in the keys or where he was wrong.
Why would anyone pay any honest attention to what you or Allan Lichtman says?
Stirred not Shaken
Well-known member
LOL if Lichtman had picked trump there would have been trump loons touting Lichtmans record.
BlackandGold
RollSide
He did pick Trump in 2016 when everyone else was calling for Clinton.
BlackandGold
RollSide
Because discussion about history and political science is interesting! It's not perfect.
Then why didn’t I start a Nate Silver thread? Nice try though.
Let the meltdowns begin.
it was on the economy, open borders, crime, and world unrest..... simple as that!!!
TRUMP LOONS.... that talk helped Trump win... you don't get it... you have said over and over, but things are OK for ME... it wasn't about the ME... it was about what has happened to America over the last 4 years... and then the democrats put a person, that REFUSED to answer SIMPLE questions
SayMyName
Well-known member
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
He didn't use science, the fact that you seem to not understand this is concerning.
ironmanz35
Well-known member
Exactly, it is a prediction system based on analysis. NOT SCIENCE!!! By the way the system is flawed
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
lol, no we wouldn't. We don't trust most polls, why would we trust a dude who reads tea leaves to come to his conclusion?
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Costa
Well-known member
If he would have picked Trump, he would have been correct. It's not difficult.
BlackandGold
RollSide
He did pick Trump in 2016.
BlackandGold
RollSide
His prediction model is based on social science.
Costa
Well-known member
And he was right. This is 2024, try to keep up. For the record, I'm 9-1 in predicting presidential winners in the 10 elections I have voted in
BlackandGold
RollSide
You're lying.
Costa
Well-known member
Not at all. I missed 1992. I thought, despite all the bluster, Perot would have no more support than Anderson did in 1980. I was way off on that obviously.
BlackandGold
RollSide
Yes, you're lying.
Hammerdrill
Well-known member
So you don’t understand that social science isn’t really science? They just used the word in an attempt to lend legitimacy to their feelings.
OldSoulon
Well-known member
So it’s subjective, correct.
AllSports12
Moderator
She was told he uses science, therefore he uses science......
That's the left thinking. ( and many times, the right's thinking
)AllSports12
Moderator
Well, there are social science degrees (you know, those degrees that result in all those high paying jobs that leave you not having to rely on the government to survive at age 65) so it must be legitimate science
Costa
Well-known member
Wrong again, Holmes.
ironmanz35
Well-known member
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
Probability of correctly guessing the Presidential election 9 out of 11 times:
1 in 37.24
In our country, that is close to 10 million people getting 9 right.
About 2 million people would have gotten it right 10 times.
Approximately 150,000 would have gotten all 11 right.
Good job by Lichtman. Kind of reminds me of the people who "almost won" their parlay bets on the new betting apps.
1 in 37.24
In our country, that is close to 10 million people getting 9 right.
About 2 million people would have gotten it right 10 times.
Approximately 150,000 would have gotten all 11 right.
Good job by Lichtman. Kind of reminds me of the people who "almost won" their parlay bets on the new betting apps.
Actually this is a great point. It wasn't Lichtman who came on Yappi and bragged about the infallibility of his model. Nor was it Lichtman who came here and told EVERYONE who disagreed with his model to shut the hell up and do some research. It was YOU.
So yea I owe professor Lichtman an apology as all he did wrong was have parameters in his model unable to detect the upcoming Trump win.