Talk:The Keys to the White House

"2008" sections
Is section "The Verdict for 2008" really encyclopedic?198.183.6.117 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The two sections are more or less duplicates of each other.

One section seems to more or less be just a copy of http://www.gazette.net/stories/061308/policol182839_32362.shtml or a slightly newer version of that article (one has seven keys against, one has eight)--right down to the odd use of unicode fraction slash in one item.198.183.6.117 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Keys to the White House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126224208/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/07/12/professors-13-keys-predict-obama-will-get-re-elected/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/07/12/professors-13-keys-predict-obama-will-get-re-elected/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Megan McArdle criticism
If we're going to use Megan McArdle's 2011 article as a counter to Lichtman's model being accurate, we probably want someone who understands the scoring system. From McArdle's article (italics in original): "Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection. I'd say FDR was pretty charismatic, so Hoover loses this one, bringing his total to six keys, apparently just enough to secure his re-election."

She is counting the number of true statements, not the number of false statements as described in this Wikipedia entry. The correct comparison should be three false statements (plus one "undecided" from Lichtman) for Obama versus seven false statements for Hoover. The model then correctly predicted Obama's re-election and Hoover's loss to FDR. 64.125.71.178 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Criticism redundant
Assertion by critics that his system cannot predict final vote share is irrelevant. That is not what his system claims to achieve. It's a simple win/lose model. Why include this? In fact that whole section needs to go. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The keys should not be connected to a current election, or in an apart section
The keys should not be connected to current elections, since that is more a political discussion, than objective infomation. For example key number 12: "Incumbent (party) charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. False." But many people, especially his supporters, would call that true. See the many large rallies, where masses aplaud him. Whatever your personal taste, this is clearly not an objective false. So the keys should not be connected to an actual election. Or in a way that tells this is more opinion like, as in the section about the 2020 election. What Lichtman predicts for this election, is also said there. CorCorCor (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. If it was part of a series showing every election or notable ones then it would make sense Slywriter (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Track record
Is there a mistake in the Track record section? Why is Challenger not being charismatic false when Obama challenged Mccain, but also false when Obama ran for reelection as an incumbent? Shouldnt Obama have been considered charismatic as an incumbent if he was charismatic as a challenger? Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Read keys 12 and 13 carefully:


 * Incumbent (party) charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
 * Challenger (party) charisma: The challenging party candidate is NOT charismatic or a national hero.

Kurzon (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . Yes i know the keys, and i myself took a double take. But the anomaly still stands. Compare 1984 to 2008 and 2012.
 * 1984 Incumbent charisma is true and his challenger is also true. This means Reagan is classified as charismatic while his challenger is not.
 * 2008 Incumbent charisma is false and his challenger is false. This means Incumbant party nominee John Mccain is not charismatic while his challenger, Barack Obama is charismatic.
 * 2012 Incumbent charisma is false again and his challenger is true. Meaning the incumbent (Obama) is not charismatic and neither was his opponent.


 * This would make the chart so Obama was charismatic in 2008 but not in 2012. 2008 was the only time the challenging incumbent was false (meaning the challenger was charismatic) but in 2012 the incumbent is false again meaning the incumbent is not charismatic. But the challenger in 2008 was the same person as the incumbent in 2012. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually nevermind, I read reference 6 and Lichtman says Obama was not charismatic in 2012. Which explains the anomaly. Wikiman5676 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Should Al Gore and Donald Trump have notes on the chart that explain Keys were right about Gore winning popular vote and wrong about Trump winning? Slywriter (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that notion actually. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe another row stating the popular vote winner. Or both. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I referred to this paper by Allan Lichtman for the 2012 stats. He writes: "Obama has not regained the magic of his  2008  campaign,  and  falls  short  of  gaining  the  Incumbent  Charisma/Hero Key 12." It turns out that "charisma" in this context does not refer to a natural personality trait, but performance. Kurzon (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Article Subject - Book or Theory?
The article has morphed from being about the book to a theory. As a result, the info box reflects a book article but the prose has zero remaining references to the book beyond the bibliography. Slywriter (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Gore 2000
Originally, this article had the line "In 2000, Lichtman predicted that Al Gore would win the popular vote and therefore become President". I changed it to "In 2000, Lichtman predicted that Al Gore would become President". I read Lichtman's original papers from 1999 and 2000 (links in the Bibliography) and he made no nuance about the popular vote, he simply predicted that Gore would become President. He blamed Gore's loss on improper ballot counting in Florida. That was a variable his model does not account for, and perhaps it cannot for it. His error is understandable but it's still an error. Kurzon (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Failed FAC
I wanted to get back to you about the comment you made in the FAC review for this article.


 * Hi Kurzon, I am very interested in American politics so I am familiar with this theory. After reviewing the article, I do not think it is ready for FAC yet. Some of my concerns are a very short lede, not enough sources to verify the information (as 12/20 of the sources are Lichtman, who is the creator of the theory), and an extremely short criticism section (that can be expanded as "Reception" to include positive reviews of the theory). I suggest that more sources are referenced and more information is added. I also suggest that this article is nominated for good article status before it is brought back to FAC. Good Article criteria is easier to achieve and considered a "step" towards Featured Article status. Please post below or on my talk page if you have any questions.

The primary source for this article was Lichtman's book, Predicting the Next President. I also added a few journal articles by Licthman, so this skews the number too. I don't think this is unreasonable because this theory is all Lichtman's, and few other researchers have expanded upon it. I deleted the Criticism section entirely. It seems having no section is better than having a short one, which I think is not a rational way of judging an article. Kurzon (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I recommend reading WP:PSTS to help understand Wikipedia's policies on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. While Wikipedia does allow the use of primary sources, articles should mostly rely on secondary sources to describe the topic. I highly recommend putting the criticism section back into the article and renaming it "Reception". This section can describe how the theory has been received and accepted by scholars, political theorists, and other important persons. While the section is short right now, it will grow as you discover more sources and critical analysis of the theory.
 * My biggest advice for this article is to do more research. This theory has become popular in the past few years and there are many sources that can expand this article. You can find additional sources using the The Wikipedia Library or searching Google Scholar or Google Books. Feel free to reach out again when more research is completed and the article is expanded. Z1720 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You talk as if I haven't already tried all that. Why don't you pitch in if you are such a wise one? Kurzon (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Bringing an article to FA status can a frustrating process. I have other articles that I am working on and I don't think I have time to contribute to Keys to the White House. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. This article is fine as it is since you haven't pointed out any major problems, just minor quibbles with references. Kurzon (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Counting false statements vs counting true statements
Hi, I edited the bit about counting how many statements are false to a logically equivalent version about counting how many statements are true. IMO, this is substantially easier to understand and apply -- one normally counts true statements, not false statements; counting false statements requires some mental inversion. My edit was reverted without explanation. Is there some reason for this? I think we should use the clearer true statements version. Thanks! Sniffnoy (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's the wording that Allan Lichtman used in his books, so I just rolled with that. Also, you didn't change the table to go with your changes. So your edits weren't wrong, they just felt a little awkward to me. Kurzon (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, the table should also be adjusted in that case, shouldn't it? (Presumably with an additional row rather than replacing the current one; don't want to remove the original formulation, after all.)  Maybe I'll do that later.  Thanks! Sniffnoy (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer you didn't, because like I said, this is the language that Allan Lichtman uses whenever he discusses his Keys, so to prevent the readers from being confused we should use his language. Kurzon (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I did it as an additional thing, so now both formulations are there, for maximal clarity. Sniffnoy (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I know you mean well, but I don't like it. I think it is unnecessary and does not fit with Lichtman's own wording. Do you honestly think my version was unclear? Kurzon (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. Counting false statements, as opposed to true statements, is confusing.  (Can you imagine if, e.g., diagnostic criteria in psychiatry were stated in such a way?)  I do not see how having both versions is at all a detriment.  I made sure to include both a clear version (counting true statements) and a compatible version (counting false statements).  You have given no reason to revert my change other than that you found it to be unnecessary.  Perhaps you find it to be so, but regardless of your judgment, per WP:DONTREVERT, an edit being "unnecessary" is explicitly not a reason to revert it; as it says there, Wikipedia is supposed to have a bias towards change, not stasis.  (You might want to read WP:RV and WP:ROWN more generally regarding both when it is appropriate to revert and how to go about it.)  I will wait a bit if you want to further argue that there is some positive reason that this formulation should be absent -- not merely that its presence is unnecessary, but that it harms the article -- but otherwise I am going to put my change back in. Sniffnoy (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It's going to be a nuisance for me when I decide to expand upon this article because Lichtman talks about his keys in terms of false keys whereas you want to talk about them in terms of true keys. I suppose it's for my convenience as much as anything. And this article is entirely my writing. That's not to say I claim ownership, but since I'm the only guy working on this article, I'd appreciate you not making things awkward for me in the future. Kurzon (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps start with the chart showing it both ways? Slywriter (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That would feel redundant. Kurzon (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, Kurzon, but this is Wikipedia. It is, as you say, not your article.  Whether it makes things awkward for your later edits is simply not a concern you can expect me or anyone else to take into account when editing.  Again, I recommend reading the essays I linked above; a big part of the point of Wikipedia is to let people make these easy drive-by improvements like this.   And if you want to expand the article later... you're not under any obligation to write that expansion in any particular way to maintain consistency!  Other people can come in and fix that later for you!  (Like, this article's now on my watchlist, so, y'know, I can do that.)  Anyway, I'm going to go put my edit back in.  Please don't revert it again.  If you have some issue with the wording, some way you think it could be even clearer, instead appropriately *edit* it to make something everyone can find clear.  (Also, could you please use proper indentation on your replies?  Thank you.) Sniffnoy (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, whatever, I'm not going to start an edit war over this crap. I've been down this rabbit hole before. Kurzon (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here is an excerpt from Allan Lichtman's book Predicting the Next President. This is how he writes it, I just went with that. Kurzon (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"The keys are thirteen diagnostic questions that are stated as propositions favoring reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer of these propositions are false, or turned against the party holding the White House, that party wins another term in office. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins."

Kurzon (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that you removed the true keys language again. (I've been away for a while...)  I'm going to put it back in.  In your edit message you stated "Lichtman argues things in terms of False keys, so this is distracting".  However, the point of the article is to describe Lichtman's work, not to duplicate it; so there is nothing wrong with adding extra clarity.  It's not clear to me how an extra, clearly-labeled row can distract from the existing, clearly-labeled row anyhow.  Sniffnoy (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

All you've done is add an extra redundant line of information that readers are going to have to mentally sort out. Kurzon (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the complaint. Yes, what I've added is redundant.  That's the point; redundancy increases clarity.  Your comment seems to suggest that redundancy increases how much the reader has to think about the text; the opposite is true, it decreases it.  So, there should be no problem with what I've added.  At worst, the change is merely neutral, which is not a reason to remove it. Sniffnoy (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The reader has to choose whether the focus on True Keys or False Keys. You're therefore providing information that he is forced to filter out, and for no added benefit. Kurzon (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That is, based on all of my experience -- with reading, writing, teaching, and learning -- not how understanding texts, or understanding in general, works for most people. But, well... rather than elaborating on that, I feel like at this point I should just ask, do you think it's worth requesting mediation here?  Or I could indeed write that longer elaboration if you'd prefer... Sniffnoy (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , I see you removed the clarifications I added once again, with no new justification. I've added them back in.  So I'll ask once again: Do you want me to make the long form of my argument, or do you want to take this to mediation, or what?  Please don't just go removing this... Sniffnoy (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Take it to arbitration. You've added nothing of worth to this article. Kurzon (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * VladimirKeilis-Borok.jpg

Pre-1980 elections
I see you attempted to list all the retroactive predictions that Allan Lichtman and Keilis-Borok made to develop their prediction model. I deleted it because it was rather messy. If it interests you, I started a similar table in my Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kurzon/sandbox#Keys_to_the_White_House. If you really want to go through with this, I suggest you start with my table as a template since you seem to struggle with making tables.

I will point out that Lichtman didn't really predict the pre-1980 elections, rather he used the data from those elections to develop his prediction model. Once he had a model that retroactively predicted past elections, he used it to predict future ones. Kurzon (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * yeah, sorry. I'm just an amateur editor who's good at visual editing. I did use the primary source from Lichtman's book for the retroactive model, if you were curious, so it was not unfounded. I should've done a better job at creating the table; that's my bad. I suck at coding.... :( Trajan1 (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No need to be so apologetic, you didn't break anything (permanently). I thought of including the retrospective table as part of an in-depth explanation into the mathematics behind the Keys. In the end, I decided it was not really useful. Are you better at maths than you are at coding? Perhaps you can read Lichtman's original paper and make sense of it. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC349231/) Kurzon (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not good at coding, but I thought that for what it's worth, the table was really useful and looked fine. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden Has a Party Mandate in 2024
According to Lichtman's system, Biden has a 2024 Party Mandate. The Democrats had more House seats after 2022 than they did in 2018, and a net gain since 2020. So why does the chart list this key as "false"? WittgensteinsKey (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have seen the error of my ways. I was looking at the chart wrong. WittgensteinsKey (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 prediction is a bit misleading
Allen Lichtman has yet to give a prediction on the 2024 general election outright and has only say that he leans towards Biden at a given point earlier in 2024.

His prediction for the 2024 election should be placed as to be determined rather than for one candidate or another. 2600:1700:4870:C900:6DA0:E707:FD92:5A4D (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The strong short term economy key
Lichtman said the strong short term economy key was likely true, not certainly true. But this article marked this as true anyway. Can someone fix that? 100.16.156.64 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The day before you made this comment, Litchman said that it is certainly true
 * https://www.youtube.com/live/OGjuweWtu9Q?t=971 Botaeditor (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake. He did mark it down as certainly true. While I disagree with his assessment about the likelihood of a recession, what matters for this article is what he says, not my opinion 100.16.156.64 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

2016 Election Confusion
It seems that there is some confusion about the 2016 prediction. Though the keys and Lichtman predicted a Trump/Republican win in 2016, this was about the popular vote, which Trump/Republicans did not win.

There are some changes that should take place:


 * 1) A clearer indication in the page regarding what happened.
 * 2) Some indication within the table/prediction record.
 * 3) Addition to the "Criticism" subsection.

I will look for some sources. Caraturane (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are several sources regarding this discrepancy. Is anyone able to verify according to this source, a Social Education paper in Volume 80? This appears to be the source which is most frequently cited. This is also explained here, and here. A citation to his 2016 novel would also be consistent with this inconsistency, there is a quote in it: “predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states.” Caraturane (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When Lichtman made his prediction for 2016, he simply said Trump would win, he didn't talk about the popular vote. So I mark that as a qualified hit. And to show I am fair, I marked his 2000 prediction as a qualified miss. He did not discuss the popular vote in the journal articles wherein he made his prediction, he simply predicted Gore would win. He also did not and could not predict the miscounting of votes in Florida. Kurzon (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His books from the 1990s do say popular vote only, so I am inclined to count 2000 but not count 2016, consistent with the sources. Are you able to get access to this source? It is from October of 2016 and has been brought up as saying "popular vote" but I cannot get access. I may try emailing him myself to see if he can send it over, it seems like this source specifically would answer a lot of the confusion. Caraturane (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what his books say, but his books don't actually contain predictions, they explain the theory behind the predictions. Even if there is a discrepancy between his theory and his prediction for 2016, he nonetheless made a correct prediction. Kurzon (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The October 2016 paper allegedly does, but I cannot find a copy. Do you have any ideas? Caraturane (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am hoping to read a copy of that as well. In the meanwhile, the "The Postrider" article you linked to does contain a quote from that article:
 * "the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes.” Apprentice57 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ksm9n3qsptqkjd7avr5km/Allan-Lichtman-2016-The-Keys-to-The-White-House-Social-Education-80-5.pdf?rlkey=qdtcni8kxv60qxfz52ewecy1u&st=27o5ep7i&dl=0 Kurzon (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow good find, Kurzon and thank you for your help. We should rely on this citation concerning his 2016 prediction. It is his last and most definitive published word on the subject I was able to find (later than the Washington Post article, which is less clear than the language used here). This part makes it very clear that this was his prediction, when combined with the statement two paragraphs before that this only applies to the popular vote: "Since that time, however, the Keys have shifted and now point very slightly to a Republican victory in 2016... Although the model narrowly predicts victory by a generic Republican candidate, Trump is anything but generic and may vitiate that prediction." The first part of the article also "The model has successfully predicted the results of the popular vote in all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012." Tomcleontis (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A thank you from me for sharing that as well. After reading it I feel that the quote that "The Postrider" selected from it that I mentioned above is fairly smoking-gun and not mollified by context. Curious as per your thoughts Kurzon. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lichtman missed one prediction and it was either 2000 or 2016 depending on how you look at it. Most people know Lichtman's prediction from his TV appearances. Who reads obscure science journals? I bet most academics didn'tread that article in Social Education. Lichtman went on TV and told everyone Trump would win. I am inclined to go with that.
 * Oh, and I am down $20 for the article. No big deal, I would have wasted that money on chocolates otherwise. But that I couldn't find it on Libgen goes to show how obscure the paper is. Kurzon (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU KURZON! That's very helpful. I have a few thoughts:
 * This paper is much clearer than I expected. I did not expect it to explain it was the popular vote several times, that's pretty open and shut.
 * This paper is his last word available on the subject and it is in line with his official predictions each year, this is where he publishes his prediction and its updates, thank you @Tomcleontis for looking at that.
 * Regarding his own words. We should value a published paper by him more definitively than a TV interview, and we should value something from October more than something from September, is that really up for debate?
 * I have looked at this for a while now and this reminds me of the dispute over when he changed his predictions. He said for a while that it was after 2000, but sometimes says something else, he is an inconsistent source on this, and a biased one as well. I want to be clear that this is nothing against him personally but when it comes to materials which review his work, they should be independent rather than by him. For an academic, peer or independent review.
 * Caraturane (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consistent with best faith and independent review, we could just rewrite much of the article to explain that he's believes one thing, but an independent review has shown another thing. We can use his own papers and writings to make this point, and use the Postrider article to tell the complete picture. That is the most honest thing to do, but I think at the end of the day you are right, we should weigh the article, his October 2016 paper, and the word of others more than his own word. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The books do contain his predictions. The only caveat is that for 2016, the book was published in May so a couple of factors were still uncertain at the time of publication. But the fact he's going through the motions at all show that he didn't change the keys between the book's publication and when he would later in media/a paper fill out the uncertain factors.
 * Conveniently for Lichtman, the 2020 book didn't contain the full 2016 prediction without uncertainties owing to an error. Which would've been useful clarification here. The linked "The postrider" article above goes into this a bit more. Apprentice57 (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think of the books as persuasive evidence of his predictions and how they work, but the Social Education paper is his actual predictions. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit to add: the 2016 book raises eyebrows but this paper Kurzon found above (and mentioned in the Postrider article) confirms. The page should cite to all three: book, article, and paper. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey there, author of the reddit post linked to by Caraturane here. I do have access to the (May) 2016 book in question in digital form. I do not think it is freely available, but if it is of help for you/them/others the ISBN is 1442269200.
 * I'd like to quote a few sections from said 2016 book (italics are mine, bolding is theirs). I apologize in advance for the overall length but I want to give as much context as possible. Unfortunately the page numbers are inconsistent with the print book as I am using a digital copy:
 * "The keys to the White House focus on national concerns such as economic performance, policy initiatives, social unrest, presidential scandal, and successes and failures in foreign affairs. Thus, they predict only the national popular vote and not the vote within individual states. Indeed, no system could have predicted the 537 vote margin for George W. Bush in Florida that decided the 2000 election." - Page 11
 * "Each of the thirteen keys (see page 3) asks a question that can be answered yes or no before an upcoming election. To avoid the confusion of double negatives, the keys are stated as threshold conditions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party wins the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party prevails." - Page 14
 * "Because the keys to the White House diagnose the national political environment, they correlate with the popular balloting, not with the votes of individual states." - Page 14
 * "Based on the historical odds since 1860, the chances are better than twelve to one that the popular and electoral college vote will converge in any given election. However, these odds presume continuity over time in the relationship between popular and electoral college votes. Some analysts have suggested, however, that this relationship may have changed given the sharp division in America between Republican “red states” and Democratic “blue states.” - Page 11
 * "Only three times since 1860, however, has the electoral college not ratified the popular vote: the “stolen” election of 1876, when Democrat Samuel J. Tilden outpolled Republican Rutherford B. Hayes 51 to 48 percent but lost a disputed contest for the electoral vote; the election of 1888, when electoral college votes overrode President Grover Cleveland’s narrow popular-vote margin over Benjamin Harrison; and the 2000 election described above." - Page 14
 * "THIRTEEN KEYS TO THE WHITE HOUSE The keys to the White House are stated as conditions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the incumbent party loses." - Pages 15-16
 * My read from these is that 1, 2, and 3 establish that the keys predict the NPV. 4, and 5 make the case that the NPV is very strongly correlated to the EV and thus overall winner. That is why Lichtman then introduces the Keys themselves, he uses the abbreviated language "wins" without literal contradiction with the text.
 * I think that may explain why there's confusion here. If you just look at the snippet that only introduces the keys (page 15-16) then the language implies just EV. But the extra context, in particular quote 2 above, clarifies that Lichtman means popular vote, but believes the two nearly if not totally equivalent.
 * The books also do contain predictions about the upcoming election cycle (the 2016 election is on pages 230 - 235 for instance), but with some uncertainties owing to being published too early in the election season. I don't believe there's a reasonable narrow exception that Lichtman could've changed the system to EV between the May 2016 book publication, and when he finalized the uncertain keys a couple months later.
 * Also see quote 1: ignoring Lichtman's claims and just analyzing the keys in and of themselves, it makes plenty of sense that national factors can only predict a national statistic like the NPV (rather than one that changes based on state specific ones like the EV).
 * I am therefore of the strong opinion that we should mark the keys correct for 2000, but incorrect for 2016. They always have, and always will predict popular vote. Apprentice57 (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * THanks for all that research, Caraturane and Apprentice57. Hopping in to add: the problem here is that to assume he predicted 2016 right, we'd have to believe that he changed the system and what it means to win without telling anyone before the 2016 election (which we cannot, because we should only be putting substantiated facts on the Wikipedia page). I do believe he changed his predictions at least after 2016 though. Therefore, I think we should call 2000 "questionable" (his 2000 prediction wasn't explicit enough for my liking, but I get the argument for including it) and 2016 wrong (the October 2016 paper and the independent reporting pretty much proves this). Tomcleontis (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose a questionable rating for 2000.
 * Going forward after 2016 he is on record about them predicting the EC vote I concur (it doesn't really make sense *why* that's the case given he hasn't changed the wording at all, which is why I say they always will predict the popular vote, but that's at least a methodological issue and can be tackled later). Apprentice57 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. The keys were correct in 2000 and incorrect for 2016. Caraturane (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In 2000, the Keys were correct, Lichtman was not. Kurzon (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * His actual line in the September 2016 interview he relies on is: "Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory." I think it's fair to conflate the Keys prediction with his own. Caraturane (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He is one with the keys!
 * No but seriously this is a good point.
 * Tomcleontis (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I've gone ahead and begun making these changes, relying on the paper, book, article, and Twitter post from Nate Silver. I explained that Lichtman feels he did predict 2016 as well. This probably requires much more work on the table in particular. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I am of the position that if you put a note that his keys were "wrong" in 2016 because they predicted the popular vote, you should also put the note for 2000 saying he was actually right. Let's just be consistent here. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You are right, I added that on the table. @Tomcleontis raised a point that the table could probably use some work generally given this dispcrepancy and the fact that he changed what was being predicted after 2016, so I'm open to some ideas here too. Caraturane (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree for a larger revision of the table. I think it's important that we show using the existing red/blue cell coloring that the prediction matches the outcome in 2000 (both blue for Gore) but didn't match in 2016 (red for Trump popular vote prediction on the left and then blue for a Clinton popular vote victory on the right).
 * I'm not sure how to best show that what was predicted changed starting in 2020. If the table wasn't so wide already I'd suggest adding additional columns.
 * Perhaps we could end the current table at 2016, and also have the last two columns instead say "Predicted Popular Vote Winner" and "Actual Popular vote Winner". Then add a second table below that has entries for just 2020 (and 2024) but with the last two columns saying "Predicted Winner" and "Actual Winner". Still clunky but perhaps better than an even wider single table. Curious as to others' thoughts. Apprentice57 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having columns that mention both. I'm also okay with how the table is now with the actual winners noted and the popular vote winners put in as a note. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the table as it is, and use the paragraphs above to explain the nuances of the 2016 and 2000 elections. Kurzon (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good option, it's not really accurate now as is (or well, is with the note but that's clunky). Apprentice57 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An idea might be to color 2016 and 2000 differently and leave an asterisk, to show that they are different? Also an asterisk at the top of the table in the "Predicted Winner" and "Actual Winner" headers which reads: "Prior to 2020, the Keys predicted the winner of the popular vote." would help clarify. Tomcleontis (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me if I was presumptuous, but I figured that with a little change of language we could efficiently describe the anomalies in Lichtman's record with just a couple of sentences in the lede. Please see my edits and tell me what you think. Kurzon (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * For the time being I think we should lean towards more thoroughness and more sourcing about the discrepancy, as that seems to be the source of all the dispute. I also think saying "explained below in the article" is inappropriate language for a Wikipedia article and I think as it was (with sources provided) was a good compromise. I do think maybe including a section on this in the "Criticism" section may be helpful as well, though I realize that is adding more. Tomcleontis (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The way it was written (before) was a bit confusing, so I cleaned that up too. As he did switch what he was predicting after 2016 anyway, so we should not say "9 out of 10" when referring to the popular vote (as it was 8 out of 9, then 2020). It may still need some cleanup. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Lichtman's Prediction Record
I wanted to ask if it would be possible for me to restore the deleted portions of the article regarding Lichtman's prediction record?

I think that removing almost all the details on his predictions outside of 2000 and 2016 leaves out some pretty important context regarding his prediction history. E.g. That his 1984 prediction was was made two years before the election or that his 1988 prediction was made when Dukakis led Bush by 17%.

As is, it doesn't even list when he made his first prediction.

I just want to see if I can restore the information, possibly in trimmed down form.

I found it very helpful personally, especially the articles cited. DanielXW1 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I support this, would be cool to have a graph or something too on how early some predictions were made as the 1988 one does stand out. Tomcleontis (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, but I'll leave it to a vote. Kurzon (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Saying when he made the prediction is a good/relavent column to put. Wikiman5676 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr's polling aggregate average
The note that says "As of July, Lichtman's polling aggregate average is 8.8%" seems irrelevant, because Lichtman cares more about whether polls are consistently above 10% than about polling averages. 100.16.156.64 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is relevant because it shows how far off they are. Pollwatcher1234 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone applied the keys for pre-1860elections (esp. 1856)?
I notice that the keys were not applied retrospectively to elections before 1860–including the 1856 election, the first featuring Democrats versus Republicans. Is this because the model breaks down pre-1860—say, because of a lack of reliable data? Or has no one actually tried to test it for earlier races? If anyone HAS done the analysis, then we should consider incorporating it. 24.154.117.91 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)