Never-fail prediction system shows 2012 win for Obama

[RetiredGySgt]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

Already a thread on this and it shows clearly that this guy is using questionable GUESSES for his list on this one.

 

[oreo]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

Well--I have been 100% correct on my presidential predictions since Nixon. And I predict a wipe-out of Barack Obama and democrat politicians running for reelection that will bring back reflections of Custer's Last Stand.



And they did it too--and plan on doing it again in 2012.--

 

[Conservative]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

welcome to yesterday at 3:31PM, dip shit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/182963-never-fail-prediction-system-shows-2012-win-for-obama.html#post4073019

 

[Conservative]

Allan Lichtman: Never-Wrong Pundit Predicts 2012 Win for Obama

History is on President Obama’s side as the 2012 elections approach.

And by "history" we mean Allan Lichtman, an American University professor who has gone 7-for-7 at predicting presidential elections since he developed his candidate-picking system roughly two decades ago.

Lichtman says that based on the 13 criteria he has used to correctly forecast every presidential election since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984, Team Obama can rest easy. "Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose," Lichtman told US News.

The college professor developed his system back in 1981 and published the rather basic formula in his book, The Keys to the White House. Basically, the "keys" test the recent performance of the party that is currently in the White House; according to US News, if six or more of them go against the party in power, then the opposing party can start picking out the bands they want at the inaugural ball.

Tentatively optimistic.

Already a thread on this and it shows clearly that this guy is using questionable GUESSES for his list on this one.

it seems the author did not even wait for the entire term, or even most of it, to be completed before calling it for Obama...

Election 2012: The

Allan Lichtman called the 2012 election for Obama nearly a year ago, with some caveats about how some keys might change.

The 13 Keys to the Presidency

After the midterm election, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the preceding midterm election. (FALSE)

The incumbent-party nominee gets at least two-thirds of the vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention. (TRUE)
Has the official nominating convention for 2012 already taken place, or is he referring to the last one?

The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. (TRUE)

There is no third-party or independent candidacy that wins at least five percent of the vote. (TRUE)
True, but bogus. There never is.

The economy is not in recession during the campaign. (Probably TRUE)
I call bogus and FALSE. We're certainly not recovered enough to truly call the recession over, regardless of what the administrations lackies said.

Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms. (FALSE)

The administration achieves a major policy change during the term, on the order of the New Deal or the first-term Reagan “revolution.” (TRUE)
Major policy change that the vast majority of the voters are not in favor of at this point. I call bogus again, and FALSE.

There has been no major social unrest during the term, sufficient to cause deep concerns about the unraveling of society. (TRUE)
The recent ATF fiasco, in which the head of the ATF has now been 're-assigned'. I rate this one FALSE

There is no broad recognition of a scandal that directly touches the president. (TRUE)

There has been no military or foreign policy failure during the term, substantial enough that it appears to undermine America’s national interests significantly or threaten its standing in the world. (UNCERTAIN)

There has been a military or foreign policy success during the term substantial enough to advance America’s national interests or improve its standing in the world. (FALSE)

The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. (FALSE)

The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. (TRUE)
How can you rate this when there is no set challenger? I call bogus, and UNCERTAIN.

If six or more of these statements are false, the incumbent party loses.

I have 7 false.

See? Two can play nonsense games like this.

 

[The Rabbi]

So now you want the US to abrogate its treaty obligations?
I wish you lefties would make up your minds.

You can scream WMDs all you want. That was part of the equation, a part everyone in government, Democrat and Republican, as well as all the European intelligence services, agreed on.

Treaties? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about UN resolutions. And yes, if the UN is not willing to enforce it's own resolutions, we should not enforce them unilaterally.

The UN didn't even support us in Iraq. Obviously, they knew something we did not. Perhaps you should stop digging on this issue as you continue to look stupid.

I will scream WMDs. It was more than a part of the resolution. It was the major force behind it. Once again, the American people would have never supported invading Iraq simply to "spread democracy". Their had to be a link to our own security interests.

That link was WMDs. WMDs that didn't exist. As much as you want to downplay it. If you feel for the "bait and switch" where WMDs turned into "spreading democracy" then you are a sucker. I suspect you "didn't fall for it" though. I suspect you are just desperate to defend the indefensible to get your boy, Junior, off the hook.

Which is so much worse.

The US is not part of the UN? The US did not sign agreements with the UN? THe US did not have a coalition involved in the Iraq War from the start?
You are the stupid one here. Your selective memory and partisan hacking of known facts renders you unfit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

6 in a row is nothing to scoff at.

My record is longer. I have been right on every presidential election I predicted since Nixon's second term.

Giving your predictions on the Monday after election day doesn't count.

Immie

Are you sure?

 

[JohnA]

Short of cloning black voters, I don't see any real chance of Obama winning.

Well they could cheat they like want to and give illegals the vote just by them showing a driving license . or not even that

 

[Conservative]

Short of cloning black voters, I don't see any real chance of Obama winning.

Well they could cheat they like want to and give illegals the vote just by them showing a driving license . or not even that

No no no... liberals want the illegals to be able to vote 'without' having to show their ID, remember?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not a scandal. it's not even in poor taste. This:

Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube

Was in poor taste.

10.1% UE when he promised never over 8%.
vs
we found tons of bombs, some uranium, and the machines to makes all sorts of chemical/biological weapons but not specifically wmd's.

you will have to excuse me for not playing along

First of all, NO politician will ever make a promise when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome. That's why Obama didn't make that promise.

Secondly, any manufacturing plant that make window cleaner can theoretically be used to make "chemical" weapons, even if it's only Black Flag bug spray.

Politicians never make promises they cannot keep? Does that mean Obama did not promise to close Guantanamo?

 

[Conservative]

10.1% UE when he promised never over 8%.
vs
we found tons of bombs, some uranium, and the machines to makes all sorts of chemical/biological weapons but not specifically wmd's.

you will have to excuse me for not playing along

First of all, NO politician will ever make a promise when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome. That's why Obama didn't make that promise.

Secondly, any manufacturing plant that make window cleaner can theoretically be used to make "chemical" weapons, even if it's only Black Flag bug spray.

Politicians never make promises they cannot keep? Does that mean Obama did not promise to close Guantanamo?

I'm still waiting for my unicorn that shits rainbows...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all, NO politician will ever make a promise when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome. That's why Obama didn't make that promise.

So why did Barry promise to close GITMO?

He obviously didn't, we must be lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First of all, NO politician will ever make a promise when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome.

You have GOT to be shitting us.

EVERY politician does that... makes promises when they know they have no control over the ultimate outcome. You've never heard of campaign promises? You seriously think politicians have control over the ultimate outcomes of the promises they make in order to get elected?

That statement is so utterly stupid, it goes in my sig for the moment. Thanks!

I'm not talking about campaign promises. I'm talking about promises with numbers attached to them. For example, no politician in office is going to promise that gas is never going to go above X dollars per gallon while they're in office because they know they don't (and can't) control the price of oil. Of course, Bachmann does seem to be an exception in that regard since she recently made some kind of pledge that gas would go to $2.00 per gallon if and when she was elected. But again, that's a campaign promise and not a promise made after being elected.

Nice attempt to backpedal.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8]Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009 - YouTube[/ame]

Sounds like numbers to me, and totally beyond his control.

 

[Care4all]

joking it up about 'shovel ready not being so shovel ready'?

That's not a scandal. it's not even in poor taste. This:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4"]Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

Was in poor taste.

10.1% UE when he promised never over 8%.
vs
we found tons of bombs, some uranium, and the machines to makes all sorts of chemical/biological weapons but not specifically wmd's.


you will have to excuse me for not playing along

got a sound link where HE PROMISED it wouldn't rise over 8%?

I haven't seen one...but i have heard that quoted over and over again....?

care

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not talking about campaign promises. I'm talking about promises with numbers attached to them. For example, no politician in office is going to promise that gas is never going to go above X dollars per gallon while they're in office because they know they don't (and can't) control the price of oil. Of course, Bachmann does seem to be an exception in that regard since she recently made some kind of pledge that gas would go to $2.00 per gallon if and when she was elected. But again, that's a campaign promise and not a promise made after being elected.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term. You want me to post the Youtube video? How is that not a promise with a number attached?

Bachmann is a moron. Anyway, how does her promise differ from Obama's?

Answer: It doesn't

Thanks for playing.

Wasn't that based on his budget passing? And didn't both his administration and the CBO run the numbers that actually showed that the pledge to cut the deficit in half was accurate based on those numbers and projections?

Thanks for playing.

Defending his budget at a news conference on March 24, President Barack Obama repeated his claim that his plan would cut the deficit in half in five years.

"Both under our estimates and under the CBO estimates, both the most conservative estimates out there, we drive down the deficit over the first five years of our budget," Obama said. "The deficit is cut in half. And folks aren't disputing that."

Earlier in the news conference, Obama said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. So we'll look at the picture from four and five years out.

According to projections in the Obama administration's proposed budget , released at the end of February, the yearly deficit would go from $1.75 trillion in 2009 to $533 billion in 2013 and $570 billion in 2014. So obviously, by the administration's estimation, the deficit would be cut well more than half whether you measure it until the end of Obama's first term (four years), or five years out.

The Congressional Budget Office projections — released a month later — were not as optimistic. The CBO, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, projected the 2009 deficit at $1.8 trillion, and forecast it would taper down to $672 billion in 2013, then to $749 billion in 2014. Still, even those numbers support Obama's assertion that he'd halve the deficit.

PolitiFact | Obama promises to cut the deficit in half in four years

Did he, or did he not, make a promise based on something beyond his control? One that actually included hard numbers?

 

[skookerasbil]

More no-fail = no president in the past 45 years under 50% approval has claimed victory.

Lets face it though.......has there ever been a time when there have been more stupid people in the country than now? Too.....the line of people with their hands out has never been longer. Those two things together make a pretty good shit sandwich if youre a person who loves America, unfortunately.

Given that, there is a distinct chance this fraud gets re-elected.

 

[oreo]

More no-fail = no president in the past 45 years under 50% approval has claimed victory.

Lets face it though.......has there ever been a time when there have been more stupid people in the country than now? Too.....the line of people with their hands out has never been longer. Those two things together make a pretty good shit sandwich if youre a person who loves America, unfortunately.

Given that, there is a distinct chance this fraud gets re-elected.

I don't think so--not unless by some MIRACLE we get back to full employment by the time November 2012 comes around. Americans historically vote their wallets--and economists are saying that we are looking at a very long time--before we actually see real private sector job growth in this country--and past 2012.

I believe that there are a lot of democrats who are wearing bags over their heads right now--with the realization that they could have had Hillary Clinton in office today--but instead kicked her to the curb--for this most intellectual--community organizer--Harvard graduate--and now apparent amateur golfer--who is really WAY over his head in dealing with the problems of this economy.

Even prominent democrats are discussing this:

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011...to-being-elected-thanks-for-nothing-dems.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WMDs was one of a number of factors for the liberation of Iraq.

Do we need to repost all the quotes from Democrats from Bill Clinton on down that Saddam had WMD and something needed to be done?

Only if you want a lesson in non sequitur. Here's the difference: Bill Clinton didn't commit to an invasion of Iraq on a supposition that could turn out to be wrong.

But Bill was always smarter than George. It's a damn shame he had moral failings, as I think Gore would have won easily if not for that famous blow job.

The world would likely be a different place. (And I didn't even vote for Gore in 2000).

True.

He committed to joining the UN in bombing Kosovo, which made it easier for Bush to invade Iraq. That makes both of them smarter than you.

 

[Care4all]

i thought for CERTAIN president bush would lose in 2004....!

so, ya never really know...till the fat lady sings!

 

[elvis]

never fail prediction....

sounds like the builders of the Titanic.

 

[oreo]

Do we need to repost all the quotes from Democrats from Bill Clinton on down that Saddam had WMD and something needed to be done?

Only if you want a lesson in non sequitur. Here's the difference: Bill Clinton didn't commit to an invasion of Iraq on a supposition that could turn out to be wrong.

But Bill was always smarter than George. It's a damn shame he had moral failings, as I think Gore would have won easily if not for that famous blow job.

The world would likely be a different place. (And I didn't even vote for Gore in 2000).

True.

He committed to joining the UN in bombing Kosovo, which made it easier for Bush to invade Iraq. That makes both of them smarter than you.

This is how bad it is- for Obama-

The AFL--CIO has announced they are holding back on campaign contributions for democrats and Obama for reelection in 2012--Many of them do not even plan to attend the Democrat national convention.

Angry Unions Sever Ties With Democrats, Obama