YouGov and NBC polls have Johnson at 5%. Does that turn back Lichtman's 3rd Party key?

[RBInMaine]

Under Lichtman's model, you cut Johnson's current national polling in half. If he's below 5%, he is no 3rd party factor.

Two national polls now have Johnson at 5%. I bet on election night he get's less than 5%, and Jill Stein will be a blip on the screen.

If that happens, Lichtman's prediction goes down, and Hillary wins.

[vadermike]

1. yes

technically it would .. it seems like the 3rd party vote is shrinking by election day... Lichtman himself said he could be worng this year cause of the wacky election this year.. so yes.. the headline was clickbait... PolyVote which hasnt been wrong since i think 1992 has Clinton winning .. not that means anythhing .. but she is in the drivers seat.. just need to show up and vote .. etc etc .. Lichtman even gave this caveat .. which means he is hedging his bets.. he was wrong in 2000

[RBInMaine]

3. He claims he was correct in 2000. By "wrong" do you mean Gore winning the popular vote?

We need a STRONG, VIBRANT, and EXCITING campaign post-debate.

FIRE UP THE TROOPS and GO! A strong message and an energy-filled campaign now to election day to take down Don The Con.

[unblock]

4. it's hard to say any predictive model was "wrong" in 2000.

from a predictive model point of view, it was a tie. you can't really have a reliable voting model in a country of 300 million people predict accurately down to 500 votes in florida, numerous recounts and court cases, and a meddlesome supreme court.

anyway, i think lichtman technically claims his model predicts the popular vote winner, not the electoral vote winner.

though the cases where hillary wins the popular vote but trump wins the electoral vote are extremely small.

[RBInMaine]

10. I have heard Lichtman outright claim he correctly predicted 2000. Are you saying that if FL had

gone to Gore, as it probably should have, then he would have had to admit that his model was wrong in 2000?

I agree that it was wrong even though he is saying it was right. Gore won the popular vote by 400,000.

[unblock]

14. I'm just saying that any predictive model came down to luck in 2000

No model can be that precise

[RBInMaine]

18. Lichtman claims either you win enough keys, or you don't. He said his model correctly predicted

Bush as the winner in 2000, but the fact is that was a fluke with GOP giving FL to Gore, and Gore got 400,000 more popular votes.

According to Lichtman, his model in fact IS precise. And if his model is based on winning the popular vote, then he was wrong in 2000 even though he likes to claim he was correct since FL was thrown to Bush.

[unblock]

2. the third-party candidate has to get 5% of the vote in november.

polling now is technically irrelevant, except to the extent that it predicts his november results.

third-party candidates typically lose one-half to two-thirds of their peak polling numbers by election day, so if he's polling under 10% now, we should be safe -- no third-party key.

i.e., the lichtman model calls for a hillary win.


i'm a big fan of lichtman's model and am very disappointed that he really chickened-out this cycle. by pretending that johnson would get 5% of the vote (quite unlikely, imho), it allowed him to "officially" predict a trump win while hedging big time by saying that trump is so unusual that he might break the model and lose even though he "should" have a win.

i think he knows johnson is unlikely to get 5% but he really struggled with this election and found this as the easiest cop-out.

[RBInMaine]

5. With a "normal" R candidate his model would have been more solid, so he wanted to stay objective and

true to the historical trends supported by his model objectively. So yes, he added a YUGE caveat that this "unusual" R candidate could uphend the historical trend.

[unblock]

13. But he's always said none of that matters

He's always said the strength of the model is that it focuses on fundamentals -- that the election is really a referendum on the current administration, and that polling, candidates, issues, debate performances, zingers, ads, ground game, etc., none of that matters.

Or rather, the model predicts the winning and losing party, and the party that's destined to win is likely to attract a strong candidate, a well funded ground game and ad strategy, etc., while the losing party will only attract a weak candidate, etc.

And is trump any more unusual shrub was? Or Reagan? Or Goldwater? So he lies more, how is that a model-breaker?

[RBInMaine]

16. Because Lichtman has now said it can be a model breaker. He NOW says that his model is based on

a typical candidate and not one SO "unusual" as Trump.

[radius777]

20. Trump is far more unusual than any

nominee of either major party, IMO, in that he's perhaps the most unqualified and unstable person to ever run for office, whose views are fundamentally at odds with that of his party or of any mainstream American ideology.

Those other names you mentioned don't fit this category. While Goldwater and Reagan were from the conservative wing of a then moderate GOP, their beliefs were still consistent with the fundamental DNA of the party.

Trump is a more in the mold of European ethno-nationalists, than anything else.

[unblock]

22. But the model has survived many policy shifts

And much of trumps positions are squarely republican. He's mostly just more obvious in his appeal to bigotry.

But guess what, he wants lower taxes for the rich, more money for the military, law and order, yada yada yada.

He's *not* really that different.

[RBInMaine]

24. Trump's extreme lack of qualifications and outlandish behavior make him unusual. Why are you

contradicting Lichtman himself who has said that his model may very well fail because this particular candidate is so unusual?

[unblock]

25. Because he's contradicting himself from previous elections

[vadermike]

6. agree

I think thats what i was trying to say.. but you said it better than i did,,,, he hedged.. He knows Hillary will probably win... I think what he meant was , and lets be realistic.. if it were Rubio or Kasich or more generic R.. we would have lost most likely..

[RBInMaine]

8. And so by doing this, he supports his model rhetorically but gives himself an "out" due to the Trump

effect and the 3rd party key.

[bettyellen]

7. Yes 2- 21/2 is more like it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Stein will get .45% tops, Johnson maybe 2.3%

[vadermike]

11. i still

Think Johnson will probably get around 4 percent maybe 5 tops.... Stein will get almost zilch.. i personally know alot of GOPer voting Johnosn and my other Goper friend is voting Hillary! Only one GOP friend i know is voting for Dump

[still_one]

12. I think, and hope, a some progressives who said they won't vote for Hillary, will come back

home and vote for her as the election gets closer

[pnwmom]

15. Also, Lichtman's keys are based on a historical record that included ZERO women.

Hillary Clinton isn't a generic Democrat, and there are more women in the electorate than men.

And Trump is anything but a generic Republican.

[RBInMaine]

17. I have wondered how his model has accounted for shifting demographics. The country is also becoming

less and less white. Many of the Republican old guard are dying off. A new electorate is emerging.

[Foggyhill]

19. He doesn't have a "model"

There is no science, no stats, no well, nothing.

This is fitting a curve through 2 points 1992 and 2000 and calling it a "model".
Every other year was predictable.

[radius777]

23. Hillary is the quintessential Clinton Democrat,

i.e. the generic/standard Democrat of this era, like Gore, Kerry, Obama, Biden, etc and the polling numbers and electoral map projections reflect this. She's doing maybe slightly better with women, but everything else is similar.

Trump is the wildcard that throws all of the prediction models off, as he's really a third party candidate running under a major party label.

[LenaBaby61]

21. I've friends who have friends...

Who were going to vote for Johnson because they loathe tRump, but didn't want to vote for Hillary because my friend said many felt that the primaries were rigged against Bernie by the Democratic party Long story short, my friend said that as they've gotten a chance to really HEAT Johnson speak, she said they're telling her that they won't be voting for Johnson because they feel he's as dumb as a bag of hammers, back to smoking pot, and that he's too big of a risk (In fact, she said a lot of Bernie or Busters as she calls them are getting cold feet now about Johnson).

My friends said they tell her without hesitation that they'll be voting for....

Hillary, even though they're still NOWHERE near in love with her, but they tell her considering the alternatives

And while some live in blue states MOST she says live in swing states. EVERY vote counts for Hillary that she can GET