The Chris Cuomo Project - Why Allan Lichtman Stands by His 2024 Prediction and the 13 Keys

Episode Date: November 5, 2024

Allan Lichtman (Distinguished Professor of History, American University, and author, “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House, 2024”) joins Chris Cuomo on Election Day to discuss his renowned ‘13 Keys’ prediction model, which has accurately called the last 10 presidential elections. Lichtman explains why he stands by his forecast of a Harris victory, despite shifting political dynamics and public skepticism, and delves into how today’s political climate reflects deeper trends in American society. He also explores Trump’s appeal, the influence of money in politics, and the power of social media in shaping voter perception. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Support our sponsors: Everyday Dose Go to everyday D-O-S-E dot com slash chris for 25% off plus 5 free gifts with your first order. Factor Head to FACTOR MEALS dot com slash cuomo50 and use code cuomo50 to get 50% off your first box and 20% off your next month GetMaine Lobster Use promo code CUOMO to get 15% off all orders storewide! That’s right—15% off to help you create those unforgettable moments filled with joy and flavor. Oracle See if your company qualifies for this special offer at Oracle dot com slash CCP. That’s oracle dot com slash CCP. Shopify Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at SHOPIFY DOT COM SLASH “chrisc”, ALL LOWERCASE. Go to SHOPIFY DOT COM SLASH “chrisc” to upgrade your selling today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from AG1. Look, it's the holidays. It's a great time to get into a better routine. For me, that has to mean drinking AG1. I've been doing it for years, okay? It's so easy for me. I'm one and done. Cup of warm water in the morning.

I'll tell you the whole routine. So I drink 16 ounces of warm water. Then I take a cup of warm water, maybe five, six ounces, I put in my scoop of AG1. The real question is why don't I put the AG1 into the 16 ounces of warm water that I drink in the morning? And that I can't answer. I'm stupid.

But I put in the scoop, I drink it, and that's it. This holiday season, try AG1 for yourself or give it to somebody else. It's the perfect time to focus on supporting your body, starting a healthy routine with such a quick drink. That's why I've been partnering with AG1 for so long. I wish they would do more with me, to be honest. Every week of November,

AG1's gonna be running a special Black Friday offer for a free gift with your first subscription in addition to the welcome kit with vitamin D3K2. So go to drinkag1.com slash CCP for the Chris Cuomo project. See what the gift is that you can get this week. That's drinkag1.com slash CCP. Start your holiday season with a healthier note

while supplies last. Today is the day, election day. All we wanna know is who's gonna win, but why matters just as much. And I have the man behind the 13 keys who tells us what today should become. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. Professor Alan Lichtman, the creator of the 13 keys. This guy has gone 10 for 10 in the last 10 presidential cycles in predicting who would win.

He has vetted the keys back into the 1800s and honing these 13 different factors and why they're defined as they are and how they determine who's going to win. If you get seven keys against you, you lose. Why does he believe that Kamala Harris wins? What he believes about this election? How it's gonna go and why and what it means for us going forward? Today is the day to drill down and we have the man.

["The Man"] ["The Man"] ["The Man"] ["The Man"] ["The Man"] ["The Man"] ["The Man"] ["The Man"] Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from AG1.

Listen, if you know me and you know the podcast, you know how I feel about AG1. But I got a limited time offer for you. All right? $67 value. As you know, AG1 is the real deal. For me, just one real deal for me. Just one scoop and for me some warm water, but you can put it in whatever you want. And that's it.

And that's my morning routine. All right? Literally. What can it take you? A minute? You get the vitamins, the minerals, the pre and probiotics, the adaptogens for you big brains, and more, all in a scientifically blended to make sure that it gets absorbed formula that is AG1, which I've been taking for years.

AG1 is daily self-care for me and it should be for you. I know that I'm doing something right when I start the day with AG1. So start with AG1, notice a difference for yourself. It's a great first step. it's an investment in your health and I think that matters. Try it today and you will get their special offer of 10, yes, 10 free travel packs. Oh yeah, they upped it.

And a bottle of Vitamin D3K2 with your first purchase at drinkag1.com slash CCP. That is the $67 value I was telling you about. You get it for free if you go to drinkag1.com slash CCP today. Check it out. Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from radioactive media. Business owners, CMOs, gotta grow, right?

How, how is the question? People plateau pretty easily on social media? I'm one of them online efforts sometimes they start right, but also they go wrong Why not tap into podcasts? Why not tap into radio? What do we know in the US audio reaches more than? 270 million people every week that's more than social media and digital combined. My friends at Radioactive Media, they know the recipe to launch, optimize,

and scale performance by building compelling audio campaigns and those campaigns can work. They got a personal approach, they know the medium in a way that few others can match. For advertisers who wanna reach the right audience with the right hosts and programs, you've got to speak with radioactive media. Learn how you can experience the power of audio marketing by utilizing the strength of text messaging as well as audio message integration.

And as a result of combining, you generate a return on investment as high as seven to one. Now I'll give you a little bit of a deal. Text my name Chris to 511-511. Heck, you can even buy spots on my show. All right, if you're a mid-sized company or a well-funded startup with a monthly budget as low as five figures, Radioactive Media can help. They believe in the power of radio so much they even use it themselves. Right here, right

now, right? That's what's happening here, is I'm promoting them for helping me. Text my first name, Chris, C-H-R-I-S, to 511-511. Chris to 511-511. Or you can do it on the Chris to 511-511. Or you can do it on the web. Go to RadioactiveMedia.com. Text rates, sure, it's worth it. Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from Shopify. Now, here's why we all need this. I'm trying to sell my free agent gear, right?

But how? How do I get it out to people? How do I make sure that it is an efficient and accelerated process to manage my inventory, the transactions, and just where I'm putting them and how I'm getting them? That's Shopify. ShopPay is their product, and it boosts conversions, meaning the rate of people seeing my offer to buy versus actually transacting They can boost it up to 50% meaning way less carts going abandoned So upgrade your business and get the same checkout Untuck it uses sign up for your $1 a month trial period at Shopify.com slash Chris see all lowercase

Chris see go to Shopify.com slash Chris C. All lowercase, Chris C. Go to shopify.com slash Chris C. Upgrade your selling today. Where? Shopify.com slash Chris C. So here we are on election day. Let's start with the atmospherics and the state of play. Does this election feel familiar or foreign to you

as a dynamic at this point? It's a very different election to me. Look, I go all the way back to 1960 when I actually saw John F. Kennedy in New York City. And by the way, the reports about his being charismatic are not overstated. He blew us away even though I was only 13. But I've never seen an election where we have

a candidate openly threatening to use the military against American citizens, to jail his political opponents, to say I'll be a dictator on day one, to drill, drill, drill. Well, drilling doesn't complete on day one. It takes months and years. And I have never experienced in 42 years of predicting the kind of hate that's been dumped on me this year. I'm just a predictor. I have no power. And yet I've had the most scurrilous, vulgar, violent, threatening hate heaped on me.

The safety of my family's been compromised. We've had to alert the police and take strong protective measures. So yes, this election, both personally and for the nation, feels very different to me. So let's unpack some of the variables here. Trump saying this or that, what do you make of the counter that,

Professor, you know he's all hype, you know he's all talk, it's almost like a drunk guy, you don't take the substance of what they're saying, it's fueled by an intoxicant. In his case, the intoxicant is the pursuit of power through division, and he's not going to do any of those things. He didn't do any of them the first time.

It's just hype. Well, he did a lot of it the first time, but he was restrained by people like John Kelly. He is not going to be restrained this time. It's still clear that he is going to populate the government with sycophants, with people who'll do whatever Trump wants them to do. And the other critical point is that it's not just Trump alone.

It's the entire Republican Party is now a MAGA party. You know, this idea, oh, these mainstream Republicans, they're gone. The mainstream is the MAGA, and the MAGA has united behind this authoritarian agenda. Look at Project 2025, 140 former associates of Donald Trump worked on that. It's the blueprint for dictatorship, for one-man control.

Look at what other Republicans like JD Vance have been saying. I wish it was just Donald Trump. Look at what other Republicans like J.D. Vance have been saying. I wish it was just Donald Trump. But even if Donald Trump blipped out tomorrow, very little would change within the Republican Party. And then I want to make a bigger point. This is exactly how dictatorships take hold. When good people say, oh, they don't really mean it, it's just hype. You know, this guy

Hitler, he doesn't mean anything he says about the Jews. He just wants to stop the commies and the socialists. You know, he'll do what we want him to do. And you can repeat that over and over again. That's how dictatorships take hold when you don't take seriously what aspiring authoritarians promise to do, particularly when there are whole blueprints behind it. What do you believe the strength of turnout will be in this election? Well, so far, based on early voting, it looks very high.

We're never gonna quite match the pandemic, but early voting has been extremely high in this election. And on election day, it looks like it's gonna be booming as well. I think the American people realize that this is a very consequential election. Do you believe that the early voting numbers that show more Republican strength in early voting

than we've seen in recent cycles are a function of people getting out early to vote because they bought what Trump sold them and his minions sold them about them being rigged? Or do you believe that they are new voters? I very much doubt that they are new voters. I do think that they're responsive to Trump's comments, my God, this election is rigged, you better get your vote in the bag.

Plus, unlike previous years, Republicans have made a real push for people to vote early, which is really smart. You know, vote in the hand is worth two votes in the bush. You know, on election day, people may have work emergencies, family emergencies. They may have bad weather, or they may just decide, ah, it's not worth, family emergencies, they may have bad weather,

or they may just decide, it's not worth voting. You want to get those votes in the bag. The other thing is, yes, Republicans are looking stronger than previously, but two things struck me when you look at the swing states. Number one, Democrats are doing much better in the swing states than when you look at

nationwide. And that's the opposite of what pundits are telling us. Democrats need to win big nationwide to win the swing states. And the early votes have absolutely turned that upside down. The other thing is this is a gender election. We have never seen the kind of gender gap, double digits on both sides. And the early vote is very heavily tilted towards women. In some of the swing states, 55-45. I suspect in the swing states, women will be somewhere between 53 and 54 percent of the vote.

That's bad news for Trump in all likelihood because we know about the reproductive rights issue, we know about the increase in single women, and we know the decrease in married women just being a proxy for their partner in terms of how they vote. What about the idea of this being like the 1980 election, Harris as Carter, incumbent but weak because of foreign affairs and domestic economic perspective. And it looks close in the polls. And then the disruptor, in that case, Reagan, destroys her with like 400 something electoral votes. Yeah, it was a landslide.

And it's so often the case the pollsters got it wrong and they often get it wrong in one direction or another, but you know, that is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But let me mention a few qualifications. The economy was way worse under Carter. You had the stagflation. You know, you had the misery index up around 20%. Now it's around six or 7%.

We have no foreign policy humiliation for America comparable to the Iran hostage crisis. And you remember so sadly as I do, that horrible botched rescue attempt that resulted in crashes and deaths. And so the comparison, while it has some merit, also has some big holes in it. How about perception as reality, making the current seem like the extreme of that time? The Middle East and Ukraine combined feeling like the level of distress when there was none of that on Trump's watch,

economically being told that the pocketbook economics suck and are so different than they were under Trump? Can those combined have the same net effect as the realities did in the 1980 election? Well, you had worse perceptions, much worse perceptions in the 1980 election. And one thing you've got to be aware of is these polls about voter sentiment

and who's better on the economy, they change all the time. At one point, Trump had a huge lead on who was better to deal with the economy. Now it's shrunk to within the margin of error. So it's very difficult to make prognostications based upon these constantly shifting poll numbers. Plus we have no idea how other issues are gonna play out against that.

You didn't have contrary burning issues for Carter in 1980, like you do have some contrary burning issues for Harris this time. You mentioned obviously reproductive rights is an enormously motivating issue that I think is very much behind the gender gap. And Harris is way ahead on reproductive rights. Democracy, that's been rising among voter concerns

and Harris is ahead there. So as always, you've got issues cutting both ways and there's no way to know, you know, based on polling of the issues, how an election is gonna come out. Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from 120 Life. I've already told you, I believe in this because we have high blood pressure in my family

and we've gotten it under control and part of the reason is 120 Life. 120 Life helps you manage blood pressure. And by the way, it's not just for high blood pressure. It's also beneficial for those with diabetes. It's a very valuable tool for overall health. It's endorsed by hundreds of doctors, trusted by healthcare professionals, hundreds of doctors recommending it.

It provides visible, measurable changes in blood pressure. How do you know? You just use a simple monitor. You can buy one at the drug store, and you track it yourself. For a limited time, if you try 120 Life, you will save 20% off. Use the code CHRIS20 at checkout at 120life.com.

120 Life offers a risk-free trial with a full refund if you don't see lower numbers in just two weeks. Two weeks, you get your money back. How do you lose? And it tastes good, so it's not like you're going to not enjoy the process. Go to 120LIFE.com and use the code CHRIS20 and you get 20% off. There's nothing to lose except your high blood pressure numbers. Go to 120life.com and use the code CHRIS20. You get 20% off and free shipping today.

Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from ground news. Information overload. Look man, we're getting shit from all directions all the time on social media. You don't know what's true. You don't know what's exaggerated. You don't know what's exaggerated. You don't know what's consistent. You don't know the source. You need ground news. Ground news is a website and an app that helps you make sense of the news by aggregating, curating, okay,

organizing related articles from around the world in one place so you can compare Coverage you compare how outlets from left center and right cover the same story so you get factuality Also, you can spot bias and sensationalism with the help of the app go to groundnews.com Chris you get 40% off the ground news vantage plan. What does that do? It unlocks access to all of their features You live through the 60s. What was the similarity in the difference in terms of the feel of division in the 60s versus today?

Didn't have social media, obviously, but. Right. Social media is enormous, Chris, as you know, because it divides us into these bubbles where we just get reinforced for our own beliefs and get shielded from anything contrary. We did not have that in the 60s. I'll tell you a little story that illustrates the 60s. I started, I hate to say this, Grand Ice University in 1963,

61 years ago, thought I was 16. It was the old regime. It might well have been 1953. We had boys and girls dorms, weed, marijuana was reefers, that was only in the ghetto. We had three feet on the floor in door rooms. Then I graduated in 1967,

and it was an entirely new world. In just four years, everything had changed. Drugs were rampant. People were demonstrating in the streets. Sex, drugs, rock and roll had taken over that was almost nonexistent previously. And I think that kind of cultural revolution of the left was what really marked the 1960s and what marks the current situation is the

cultural uprising of the right. You know, I didn't analyze this, but some other scholars did and they found when Trump won in 2016, it wasn't so much economic issues, it was more cultural issues appealing to people who felt that the America that they loved and cherished was disappearing. The epitome of rich people problems, culture wars, are the epitome of it in terms of political science. When you look around the globe, now you have repressive societies, absolutely, but you Absolutely. But you do not see the level of debate about things that are ancillary to

existential causes the way you do in this country. Someone I was reading had an interesting take where they said, in the 60s, it was performative. I'm not saying fake. I'm saying people were dropping out. They were fighting and going to prison rather than join the military. They were doing drugs, they weren't working, they were dropping out of school.

They were doing all these things that we are not seeing in the resistance movement today. These people are still working, they're still in schools, they're still in their communities, but online they are performative. And this woman was drawing the distinction that in the 60s it was in the streets. It was-

We were in the streets. And here they're online. Another thing about the 60s, let's not forget, this was the heyday of the civil rights movement. In the streets, going to Birmingham and getting beaten by Bull Connor, beaming that in everyone's living room. It was in the 60s that we got perhaps the two most

important pieces of legislation since World War II, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That was because people were getting in the streets, sacrificing their bodies for a greater good. We also saw the flowering of the women's movement in the 1960s as well, kind of thing. We're starting to see again maybe sparked by the fact that for the first time ever, Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right, in this case, the constitutional right

to safe and legal abortion. How do you explain having, I think, in your lifetime and mine, the least popular, least believable political figure with the most potential and reach in Donald Trump? Have you ever seen anybody less popular, with the most potential and reach in Donald Trump. Have you ever seen anybody less popular, yet more sticky to a constituency in American presidential politics? Absolutely not.

You know, there are some who come close, like George Wallace, but he didn't have anywhere near the appeal to Trump. I hate to say this, but I think Trump has channeled some very dark impulses, but impulses that run deep, unfortunately, in our society. Xenophobia, you know, the first anti-immigrant law was 1798, and the big enemy then was the French. Then it was the Germans, then it was the Irish, then it was Jews like my grandparents.

The Alien and Sedition Act. Yes, the Alien and Sedition Act. They're very good. And Trump wants to revive them. So xenophobia runs deep, racism runs deep. And we saw Trump recreating some of the worst racist slurs in our history, calling Kamala Harris lazy and dumb and mentally deficient.

Those are the arguments that white supremacists made to keep African-Americans enslaved to maintain Jim Crow discrimination for nearly a 100 years. Of course, misogyny runs deep. We didn't actually have universal women's voting until 1920 in this country. And, you know, anti-Semitism has always been an important means.

So unfortunately, you know, he brings together a lot of impulses that we don't like to recognize, but unfortunately are very much part of our own history. Is the net effect, please, argue contrary to this? Even if I accept all of that as a premise, the Democrats have matched the hysteria by going full Nazi with Trump and saying that he's a Hitler figure

and that they lose independence as Trump does because of extreme rhetoric, that the critical thinking independents who are not sure which one of these two propositions is more tolerable to them for the next four years hear them calling Trump a Nazi and it hurts the cause of Harrison Walls. Let me say, first of all, I never call anyone a Nazi, never call anyone Hitler. I think that's bad politics, you know, just

generally not the kind of thing we should be doing. But as I understand what the Democrats are saying is a little different, that they're objecting to the fact that Hitler, that Trump has expressed some admiration for Hitler and said he'd like to have generals like Hitler's generals. Let me tell you about Hitler's generals. We think all of us Jews, my family died in the concentration camps.

Not true. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were machine gunned by roving Nazi killing squads headed by these Nazi generals. General Obendorf testified at the Nuremberg trials that he had orders. They asked him, why'd you kill women and children? He said, those are my orders. My orders were to wipe Jews off the face of the earth.

And therefore my priority was killing women and children. These are Hitler's generals. I don't think there's a both sides here. In fact, if there's one word I would eliminate from the English language, it's both sides. On the one hand, someone is talking about one of these generals saying I'll be a dictator on day one to drill,

drill, drill when drilling takes months and years, talking about using the military against its political opponents, jailing them. On the other hand, there's another side, maybe going a little too far, but criticizing him, but not posing that same kind of danger. It's not equivalent. When people say to you, I'm sure in your personal life, you have a similar dynamic to me, you just probably have more friends, but where they say, you know, look, Trump is an asshole.

I get it. Okay. But, okay, now, now you know, they are not a progressive Democrat, right? Because there's no but for progressive Democrats. Trump sucks is enough. Okay. And then you can fill all the reasons why he's perfidious or a felon or just immoral or whatever you wanna fill in. They say, but, so now I know I'm dealing with somebody

who may be a centrist, probably an independent, and they'll say, this transgender stuff, and them not speaking out against these people supporting Hamas, and them trying to roll back a lot of stuff about what you're allowed to do with my kids in school. I mean, it's really crazy, Chris. Isn't she controlled by them even more than Biden was? What do you say to that?

Yeah. My answer is that's the fringe of the Democratic Party, the fringe that's not Harris and Trump or you know, Tim Walz. None of them are talking like that. Whereas this is the mainstream now of the Republican Party. I'm coming out with a new book. It'll be out next year, University of Notre Dame Press of all places called The Truth About Conservatives.

It's not what you think. And my argument is Trump could blip out tomorrow and what Trump represents is now the mainstream of the Republican party. And they're unabashed about it. Just read project 2025 and there are other, you know, Republican organizations that are essentially establishing the same blueprint. And we don't see Republican leaders coming out and, you know,

denouncing this and proposing an alternative way of governing. And what would you counter that as? What are the Democrats? I'll tell you exactly what the Democrats are. I have summed up American politics in one sentence. Republicans have no principles. Democrats have no spine. Republicans want to grab and seize power for its own sake. Democrats are always playing to lose. They're letting Republicans play hardball, and they are playing wiffle ball. But what you're getting in Harris is what you've gotten, frankly, in both Republican and Democratic presidents

since the 1940s. You have a center-left Democrat who's going to govern like every other center-left Democrat, you know, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy. You know, the Republic didn't collapse. We didn't have dictatorship. We didn't have concentration camps. You know, we had our ups and downs, but everything was fine. And then not much different than center-right Republicans

like Mitt Romney or eight years of Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, he was center-right, but not that much different than center-left. Trump represents a, and the new Republican Party, a complete break from that. That's why you have, you know, conservatives like Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, John Kelly, General Milley warning in hair-on-fire terms about Donald Trump. This is not Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. This is solid conservatives, you know,

men who serve their country and who Trump picked to work with. You didn't mention Bill Clinton. And as a point of contrast- They're all pretty much in the same role. Right, but I'm saying Harris was cited as being on the left fringe as a senator, and her rhetoric was much more progressive and then some in terms of what she wanted in terms of big government

and what she wanted to fund and what she wanted in terms of what she sees as freedoms than what she's saying now. Now I know that's not a fair basis of scrutiny because Trump changes his perspective as often as wind direction, but she's held to a different standard. He's the head of a grievance movement and she is the status quo.

Is she at risk of having centrist voters think she's a radical? That's what Republicans would have you think. And we'll see if that argument resonates. But you know, Chris, there's a huge difference between being a Senator from California and a candidate for president and being a president of the United States.

We have to unite very diverse know, very diverse constituents. And you know, one thing that really amuses me is, oh, we need more detail on these economic plans. Well, you know as well as I do. You get into the office, whatever plans you have are gonna go up and smoke. You've gotta deal with the Congress. You may have to deal with the Republican Senate.

You've gotta deal with the billionaires, the interest groups. It's basically your orientation. And as I said, she is a pretty down the road center left Democrat and will govern much like Biden and Obama. When you look at the last 10 presidential cycles, where you are 10 for 10 with an asterisk,

because you said Gore won and Bush wound up getting the presidency, obviously. Where is your level of confidence on election day of saying, according to the keys, Kamala Harris will win? You know, I'm 77. I've been doing this for 42 years. I've gotten every criticism imaginable. Every four years I have butterflies in my stomach.

Chris, you know I can be falsified. I tell you who's gonna win and who's gonna lose. Not like Nate Silver who says, depending on the time of day you check in, Hillary Clinton's got a 70 to 80% chance of winning, then she loses and he says, see, I told you, she has a 20% plus chance of losing. So Chris, you'll know whether I'm right or wrong,

and you know, I never change my predictions, I stick with them, but this year is so crazy that I am especially nervous. Now, one of the things that people say to me about you is they'll be like, wait a minute, where is Lichtman living that he thinks that the economy is something that could ever go for Harris? is they'll be like, wait a minute, where is Lichtman living that he thinks that the economy is something

that could ever go for Harris? Remind people if they don't have the rigor to just Google 13 keys where all your definitions are there. What does short-term and long-term economy get defined as within the keys that is the basis of your judgment? This is very important because every single day I get a slew of emails, people saying,

we know better how to define the economy or the charisma key. And my answer, Chris, develop your own prediction system. But if you're going to use my system, you got to stick to how the keys are defined. And they're based on 160 years of history. They're not just something I conjured up. And the economic keys are very quantitative.

The short-term economic key doesn't try to break down the economy because you could pick anything you want. Inflation may be bad, but jobs are good. The stock market is great. Whatever. It's very specific. It says there's no recession in the election year.

And the long-term economy key is very specific. It says there's no recession in the election year. And the long-term economy key is very specific. It says real per capita growth, which takes inflation into account, is at least equal during the term to the average of the previous two terms. And both of those keys are unquestionably true. And these are the keys that over 160 years retrospectively and prospectively have worked. And if you want to develop some other key, show me that it's worked over a long period of time. Look, I'm not touting my own horn, but I don't put much credence into any predictions that

don't have a track record of advanced predictions. Going back and predicting the elections, we know the answer doesn't cut it with me. Of course there's subjectivity. I mean, you know, you're not suggesting otherwise. But- We're human beings, we're not molecules. How do you reconcile the long-term economic key

with the, are you better off than four years ago, argument that Trump is making where people say, yeah, I had more money in my pocket before the pandemic under Trump than I do now. Well, again, you can argue that one way or the other and people are gonna differ on that. What I've seen, and I don't use this, but people say, yeah, financially I'm pretty well off

but I think the economy is going to hell. So there is a big gap there. The groceries, gas prices, rent, housing. Those are big things for voters. There are big pluses and big minuses, and each side has its talking points. And I don't respond either to the Democratic or Republican talking points, just as I didn't in 2016,

when based on the talking points, you would have thought Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide. Well, I thought that, you know, up until I started covering the rallies, when I realized, oh man, I forgot how big a celebrity Trump is to everybody else. To me, he's Donald Trump.

I've known him most of my adult life, and he's always been more of a jester than he was ever, a knight at the round table in terms of the players and politics. I was wrong early on. That's why I was one of the earlier adapters to this Trump thing, he's harnessing, he is becoming a symbol of resistance for this group that he does not have a lot of connective tissue with except the grievance.

And he says, you're right to be pissed, and I know the system in a way you can't because I'm a real player, and I can break what you want broken. I got it and I was like, I think he's going to win because all the momentum kept going towards him and of course, it was binary so I could have also been wrong,

but I wanted to be in right. But on election night, I remember sitting with David Gregory of Meet the Press fame, and we're watching and we're like, let's just watch for an hour and then we'll go to sleep, because we were doing the CNN morning show together. And nine o'clock, 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock. And we were going to start, I think,

at four or five a.m. or something. And I was like, she's not winning anywhere that she needs to win to lock this up. And we wound up staying up all fucking night watching that thing. And of course, we know how it went. I don't see this election being that way because nobody's saying it's a blowout.

I'm actually looking at it as the opposite, which is they're saying it's not gonna be a blowout, but maybe it will be. Do you think that there's a decent chance that there's a bigger electoral spread than people are assuming? Absolutely. And let me explain about the polls,

which claim it's going to be so tight, so close. The error margin of the polls, you've heard this, of course, plus and minus 3%, right, about that. That's pure statistical error. That's the error you would get if you had a huge jaw of green and red balls and you pulled out a sample to estimate the percentage of green and red balls in the jar, but human beings are not green and red balls. They don't respond to pollsters.

They may lie, they may change their minds and the pollsters don't know who's ultimately gonna vote. These likely voters is a guess. That at least doubles the margin of error to plus and minus six. And the non-statistical error is unidirectional. It's not random. It could go either way. So what's going to determine whether there's a blowout or not is A, the size of the

error, which could be quite large, and B, whether it's unidirectional or not. So the close polls by no means preclude the possibility of a blowout. I've got a new, what's the right way to put it? I have a new kind of toy when it comes to politics that I am very intrigued by, and I'm probably going to partner with one of these companies as a result. I like the betting lines because I like first of all, you and I have both grown up watching sports and being amazed at how close they get to spread in these games. And

I've always like marveled at it. Like, how did they know that the Jets were of course going to blow it? But they would just be right outside one point outside the spread. These betting lines about the elections where people are putting money behind their preference are very intriguing to me. And I've been watching them versus the polls and they have seemed to match what I feel more than I have seen in the polls.

What is your take on them? I don't really pay attention to them. They gave Hillary Clinton a 70% chance of winning in 2016, so you know, I don't pay attention to the plus. I'm very, very wary of them this year because I wonder, I can't prove this, I'm just guessing, are billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk using their financial power to rig these markets? We know that they are.

Polymarket came out and said this French guy put $28 million in and skewed the numbers. I saw that, yeah. And I really respected that they came out and said that because that's all you're asking for is transparency. Other than that, you know, it's playing out like any other betting line, but I thought it was very cool that they did that

and it didn't have to be jumped on them. But as long as they tell you when someone juices it, I'm still intrigued by it as a preference market because people are putting money where their mouth is. Right, but we don't know if they're putting money because they're convinced someone's going to win or not, or they're putting money because I want this candidate to win. That's the fallacy of the prediction markets.

I know. But here's the thing that I think is what's winning me over right now, Alan, is what's wrong with our system? Our system is that not everybody is equal in terms of their power within the electorate. Sure, it's one man, one vote. But the money, Citizens United has changed the calculus of voice and magnification. And the betting markets echo that because I can put 100 bucks down because that's what I can spare. And my producer, Greg, only puts down 50 bucks because that's what he can spare. But Lickman, with all his hit books and the 13 keys, he comes in with 10 grand and he goes the other way. Now, who has more influence on the line?

You do, because the money influences the line. But to me, that is a truer reflection of how American politics works right now, which is, yeah, Lichtman's got more money. He is going to have more reach and influence in the political dynamic than I will or than Greg will in my example. And that's another aspect of them, which is an inequity, which is something that you would be against

as what you're trying to do with the purity of the keys. But I feel like it reflects who we are right now in the game. There's a lot of truth to that. And you know, the root of all evil in this is Buckley v. Valeo from the 1970s and the Supreme Court said, money's speech. So we really can't control money in politics.

You know, now the old saying is reversed. He who's got the gold rules. That's exactly right. And Citizens United cemented it. And now it's the legal money that's the problem, not the illegal money. Oh, that's right. And I don't know any fix.

I've looked at it all over the world. What do you hear? I hear people say, oh, your politics compared to Brazil or Romania, I've been in so many countries, India, your politics is so pure. My answer is, in these other countries, it may be illegal money. In America, it's legal money.

You don't have to engage in illegal activities. What's amazing to me is not just the money, but in how limited the messaging is. I mean, not in terms of amount, but in terms of the spray. Where is fentanyl? You're not hearing about it. Where is domestic terrorism? You're not hearing about it. Where is domestic terrorism?

You're not hearing about it. What is all of these different insidious things that affect communities all over the country? You're not hearing about it. Where is the death of the artisan class? You want to talk about what jobs? I was talking with my son. Our son just started college.

I took him to Apex Tech. I did a story about the trades. And you see these kids, they are not cut out for college, whether it's being new to the country or their level of education or the level of motivation or the level of aptitude, whatever it is. But they can work with their hands and they're smart. They're just a different kind of intelligence

and they're becoming welders and they're starting businesses. And they're gonna be the, and they're starting businesses, and they're going to be the guys who I'm seeing the nice fishing boats in about 15, 20 years in my marina. And boy, do we look down on that. And that's such a great issue that I would be putting money into if I was a messaging guy, and they're all silent.

It's so much money, but it's so limited to just the invective that hurts the other side most. Exactly. And that's really sad. And, you know, if you believe in the keys, you could have a different kind of campaigning because if it's governing, not traditional campaigning that counts, you can campaign on the big vision, the big ideas, which actually would be beneficial because if you win, you have a mandate, which would help you four years down the road. And even if you lose, you at least have made your mark on the country. Do we remember anything beyond the gaffes that conventional campaigners have ever said?

Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry, Walter Mondale, George HW, which we don't. In fact, the two candidates who in many ways have made a big mark were big losers. Barry Goldwater in 64. But boy, you know, his straightforward defense of conservative principles still influences the right today, and on the left, the same thing with George McGovern. Mm.

If you shit the bed on this election, will you reconsider the keys? You know, everyone asks me that. Not that way they don't. And I can't answer that hypothetical. They've never asked you it that way before. I know. You've never heard it that way.

Of course I will rethink. And you know, I'm 77. You know, will I be able four years from now to still be the Nostradamus of the Keys? Maybe not. As you know, I have a live show, Chris, every Tuesday and Thursday at 9 p.m. Eastern with my son, Alan Lichtman YouTube.

We have 132,000 subscribers. We started with zero. And a group of our very smart audience members have said they will form a consortium to take over the keys, so we'll see. How many elections would you have to get wrong to reconsider the model? Or is my analysis off because their value

is retrograde as well, that you've looked into past elections. So what would spur a change? Could it be that social media? Could it be that culturally, we no longer value what the keys suggest? You know, the keys are based on 160 years of politics, retrospectively and going forward.

So they're very robust, but can something catastrophic, unprecedented break the pattern of history? Of course, but the problem is you never know in advance. You can only know after the fact, like a scientific revolution. You can't predict a scientific revolution. It wouldn't be a revolution.

You can't predict a scientific revolution. It wouldn't be a revolution. You can't predict unpredictable changes. So certainly one wrong call would not invalidate a pattern that's run for 160 years, but I'd have to rethink why the pattern was broken, but it certainly would not invalidate the key insights of the keys. A couple of the states that matter in the swing category have said, you're not gonna know tonight. We're not gonna tell you tonight. How important is the speed of the results and when do you think we will know who the next president is?

I would like it to be speedy because that could, you know, forestall a lot of attempts to muddle the waters like we saw last time, even try to steal back the election. If you're right, and you're my favorite pundit, but you're not really a pundit, and it could be a blowout. We might know right away. Or it could be some time. You know, 2020 was not the only election where we didn't know immediately. Look, 2000, we didn't know until what?

Early to mid December. Tell on me, spent way too much time in Jacksonville. Yeah, exactly. And in 1912, it took a while, you know. People don't realize how close 1912 was, like three or four thousand votes in California turned the election. People don't realize. People don't know who they're elected representatives are. You know, the reduction in critical thinking

and it is matched by a confidence, the confidence to competence imbalance is staggering to me. And it is uniquely for now, American attribute. When you travel all the time, so do I. When you go to other countries, they are stuffed with information or painfully aware of their ignorance and so hard to tease out an opinion. In America, people have an opinion instantaneously based on almost nothing. And now we have matched that and we're going to see it all day today, where if you say anything that doesn't meet their expectation

of what should be true, you are the opponent. Just like that. I say something that's not glowing about Kamala Harris, which would make me, if I were a Democrat, like 80% of them six months ago, I've been red-pilled. You say something about Trump, you hate America. That is a uniquely American phenomenon where I believe we are living that cycle

that the Greeks gave us. Strong men make good times, good times make weak people, weak people make hard times, hard times make strong people. We are in the weak people make hard times. We are acting weak, and I think it's gonna be to our detriment. You know, I've spent my whole life trying to combat that, trying to search for truth

and teach how to search for truth. You know, as a scholar, you know, my books, I've tried to make them not just obscure, speaking, you know, to 10 other specialists in the field. I've written about things like the Second Amendment, voting rights, democracy, conservatives versus liberals, religious and racial prejudice.

I firmly believe that as scholars, we have an obligation to apply our knowledge and our expertise for the greatest good. I live by a saying from Harris Mann, I'm paraphrasing, be ashamed to die unless you've won some small battle for humanity. Well, that's where we are today. And Professor Alan Lichtman, I very much enjoy your counsel, very much am a believer in the keys.

And we will see how the election plays out. Hopefully the election plays out as a dispositive finding on the basis of the votes cast and nothing else. We will live it together and we will process the outcome together as well. Thank you for your help in this election and I look forward to the days ahead.

Same here, take care Chris. So there you have it. Alan Lichtman says it's going to be Vice President Harris, and he explained why, but just as importantly, he pushes aside all of the observations of the current drama that people like me are depending on. So we'll see if he's right or not. Check with me on NewsNation. We'll be on all tonight with our special election coverage.

You get the sub stack. You subscribe to it, just five bucks a month, which I'm going to use to help people get treatment for long COVID. You get the podcast ad free, you get my personal understandings of what's going on in life with longevity. You get my doctor talking about long COVID, all for five bucks a month. And we will keep the conversation going. Today, let's trust the process and may the most votes win. Let's get after it.