It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump is headed for a win, says professor who has predicted 30 years of outcomes correctly

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way. Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you're for, you gotta get out and vote.
Source


The professor quoted above is giving lots of reasons why Trump may lose even though historical indicators say Trump will win. Reading the article above made me think that the professor expects Trump to lose while he's predicting he'll win. I guess that's kind of perfect for the Twilight Zone nature of this election cycle.

What do you think about this? Thirty years of accurate predictions seems awfully significant. It's especially incredible when you realize that the model we're discussing ignores the polls and many other factors that would seem to be relevant.
edit on 23-9-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

His method is interesting...


Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984.


Impressive...most impressive...



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
When the fix is in, all bets are off.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   


When the fix is in, all bets are off.


Yep, a question missing from his system, for this year.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Historical indicators cannot be accurate in a largely unprecedented election. George Wallace notwithstanding, I see no Clinton Landslide nor do I currently see a a Trump win, however, that could still change.

AB

(Your title is a little misleading??)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=21283584]Profusion

What do you think about this? Thirty years of accurate predictions seems awfully significant. It's especially incredible when you realize that the model we're discussing ignores the polls and many other factors that would seem to be relevant.


30 years predictions is only 7 election cycles. going back to what, Bush v. Dukakis? I've only missed once in my predictions since 1968 (48 years) when I thought Ford could take down Carter in 76'.

Regardless of whether you think Trump has the support, Hillary is the undoubted establishment choice, and there's no way the common folks will overcome that decision via popular vote.
edit on 23-9-2016 by ReprobateRaccoon because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2016 by ReprobateRaccoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Normal prediction methods clearly can't be used this election cycle. Didn't we see a number of models that had been correct for X years saying Bernie would beat Hillary?
edit on 9/23/2016 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Normal prediction methods clearly can't be used this election cycle. Didn't we see a number of models that had been correct for X years saying Bernie would beat Hillary?


Bernie was the popular choice, not the establishment choice.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Profusion

Historical indicators cannot be accurate in a largely unprecedented election. George Wallace notwithstanding, I see no Clinton Landslide nor do I currently see a a Trump win, however, that could still change.

AB

(Your title is a little misleading??)


should we also assume that the polls are not accurate as well?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Profusion

Historical indicators cannot be accurate in a largely unprecedented election. George Wallace notwithstanding, I see no Clinton Landslide nor do I currently see a a Trump win, however, that could still change.

AB

(Your title is a little misleading??)


should we also assume that the polls are not accurate as well?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I've been right since Ronald Reagan. That's 35 years. Every single time starting with Ronnie.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I've been right since Lincoln. Back before the war got started I was able to "feel" the change in the air.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Wow rousing endorsement.
He did not say trump headed for a win. He said historically the republicans should be headed for a win. He's right in that.
I saw Ronnie taking it from Jimmy because of Iran. Regime change.
I saw Bush taking it from Gore even though I voted for Gore because one, he was no Bill Clinton and two, it was again time for a regime change.
It should go to the republicans this year and it probably would have if they had worked harder to put in a viable even halfway not brain dead candidate and he probably would have won but Trump is a six foot tall monkey wrench thrown into the works.
So he won't get elected. And that's their own fault. They let this guy hoodwink them and bully them into backing out.
So we're going to have a dem again. Historic too. First woman.
And it would not have mattered....if it had been anyone but Trump.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I don't see a Clinton landslide either but I know she's going to win.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The professor is likley to go *cough* "Missing"
very soon... kilary will see to it.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ReprobateRaccoon

Carter shivers...what a mistake... but the only way clumsy Ford was ever going to take him down would have been if Jimmy was in front of him going down a flight of stairs.
But again especially after Watergate that was an easy prediction. Time for a regime change.

Oh I wish it had been anyone but MrRogers of the Whitehouse anyway I digress. I did want Carter out and I voted for Ronnie. Because nobody need four more years of Carter. Regime change amidst world chaos.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

I use a different way of determining a presidential winner.

I tie an angry ferret to a banjo then turn it loose in my in-laws house.

Then I flip a coin.



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I've been right since Ronald Reagan. That's 35 years. Every single time starting with Ronnie.


So in 2000 you picked Gore to win the popular, only for Dubya to win the electoral by a Florida hanging chad?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion
"The signs point to a Trump victory, but he might lose".
That professor is going to be "right" whatever happens, isn't he?



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join