I saw an article on Huffington Post about Allan Lichtman, presidential predictor extraordinaire.
Lichtman’s predictions have been based on a formula he developed with a geophysicist, and according to the article by James Zogby, Lichtman has correctly predicted the 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000. 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. 100% is a pretty good track record.
Of course, someone must argue against this prediction, and Russell Halley is one of those people. In an article on Business Insider back in September (with the godawful title “Obama Can’t Lose? Lichtman is Never Wrong, Except This Time”), Halley attempts to use Lichtman’s own formula to nullify Lichtman’s prediction.
The formula consists of 13 keys for the incumbent party’s presidential candidate to win the election; if the incumbent party’s candidate holds 8 or more of these keys, they win the election; 7 or fewer keys ends in defeat.
Lichtman says that President Obama holds between 8 to 10 of these keys and predicts that Obama will win the election. Halley says Obama has only one key so far and that “the challenger” already has 7, claiming that Lichtman’s formula has merit but that Lichtman’s analysis of the data is incorrect.
Halley reinterprets the keys of the formula to fit his arguments, rather than actually bringing up any strong points. He also shows his lack of knowledge on Lichtman’s formula by referring to the “6 points the system needs to pick a winner.” There are 8 points.
Halley makes a prediction of his own: Obama won’t even run for a second term.
Further reading: Lichtman’s response to Nate Silver’s critique of the “13 Keys to the White House” system, both posted on Silver’s blog on the New York Times website.
