Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as I can tell, there's no reason to see this prediction as static. Or permanent, for that matter.
I know from your earlier post that you read the piece, but for those who didn't, he's got these 13 "keys", or indicators.
Incumbency. Social unrest. Scandal. That sort of thing.
He calls each one for or against Obama, and if there are more "wins" than "losses", Obama wins. So each one can be revisited pretty easily, it seems, and if we had a major change, like a really charismatic challenger or an increase in social unrest, Lichtman's prediction could change.
So we'll see what happens. Still lots of ground to cover before November 2012.
red state summed it up better than i could:
This is (where) Lichtman puts on his cheerleader outfit. Yes, President Obama got his policy change. However it precipitated the historic creation of the TEA party movement. Whats more, the vast majority of people still want Obamacare repealed and the budget balanced. These are two things President Obama refuses to do. So yes, there was a change in national policy – but it was a net negagive. Obama loses.
“Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.” “Obama wins a fifth key here.”
Is this guy blind? Did Lichtman miss the townhall debates over the past two years and the absolute shellacking recieved by Democrats in November of 2011 in addition to the creation of the TEA party movement? There is no way Obama wins this key. He loses it by a mile.
“Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.” “Another Obama win.”
At this point Lichtman is shaking his pom-poms fast and furiously. Pun intended. There have been several “scandals” the Obama administration is going through including Operation Fast and Furious and the Black Pather voter intimidation cases. That says nothing about the czar appointments or throttling of Chrysler share holders during the auto bail outs. Operation Fast and Furious is the more damning of all the scandals. While Lichtman isnt aware of the scandal, most people I talk to are. Obama loses.
“Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.” “Obama wins again.”
So I am guessing people see Libya as successful? You know the military action which President Obama failed to get Congressional approval before taking. While a new poll suggests 54 percent of Americans support the action, up from 35 percent last month, President Obama failed to recieve any sort of bounce. No, we havent had a C-130 crash in the dessert trying to rescue Americans held hostage – but you cannot say Obama is seen as strong and decisive.
i might even dispute the part that says most americans support the libyan action.
what's that saying again?-
the one thing worse than a moron with an opinion is lots of them.
I think the "never-wrong" pundit has a lot of subjective "keys"... I do think Obama is going to win re-election but I think it has less to do with the "keys" that the pundit is insinuating... anyone can say anything and who determines "significant"... basically its all wishy-washy according to "whoever" interprets "whatever"... I think the pundit is putting more bias in his decision to who "he" wants to win rather than some objective criteria...
I think the "never-wrong" pundit has a lot of subjective "keys"... I do think Obama is going to win re-election but I think it has less to do with the "keys" that the pundit is insinuating... anyone can say anything and who determines "significant"... basically its all wishy-washy according to "whoever" interprets "whatever"... I think the pundit is putting more bias in his decision to who "he" wants to win rather than some objective criteria...
Hmm..Lichtman has picked every presidential election correctly since he developed his keys in time for Reagan's reelection in '84.
That means, besides Reagan, he's picked Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. Close elections and ones that weren't so close...involving both Republican and Democratic winners.
Does anyone remember where Obama stood this far out from the election? Honestly, I don't remember.
no, but I do know, at this stage everyone thought Hillary would be the candidate (or certainly not eveyone, but the majority) He came on strong early in 2008 when he seemed to be a new voice with ideas that attracted young people, the youth saw another Kennedy, even though they only knew what they visualized about Kennedy and hillary started losing her cool from time to time.
Under normal circumstances, any incumbent President would probably lose in this economy. It should mean that the Republicans would be virtually guaranteed success if they put forth any truly viable candidate.
It's their election to lose, and they seem keen on trying to lose it by simply being unable to field a viable candidate that appeals to both moderates and independents as well as the right wing loonies that seem to have inordinate influence over the party these days.
That past 7 elections were a lot more predictable than this election is going to be.
Really? I think this will be as easy as 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
