Allan Lichtman EXPOSED for HUMILIATING Flip Flop | StateOfDaniel

 All of these pundits and pollsters and  analysts that you see on all the cable   channels and all the networks have no  track record in predicting elections.   And yet they come on and they claim  they know how this debate is going to   affect the outcome of elections. They  have no idea. It's sports talk radio. It may be entertaining, but it has no scientific  basis. So what is the, what is the impact do you   think? Zero. That's why we rely on the  13 keys, which tap into the structure of   how elections really work. And they show  that Democrats really only chance to win,   contrary to everything you've  heard, is with Biden running. So that was immediately after the  June presidential debate, after Donald   Trump just totally swept the floor with Joe  Biden, and the Democrats were freaking out,   and they were thinking about replacing Joe Biden,  and Alan Lichtman was on CNN saying, hey, that is   going to be a bad idea, and his words, not mine,  Joe Biden is the best chance that Democrats have. So, Now all of a sudden he's saying  that Kamala Harris is going to win.   Not only did Lichtman say that by the  way, he also said that Democrats would   lose if they replace Joe Biden. So I  don't get how you go from Democrats   are going to lose if you replace Joe  Biden to Alan Lichtman now saying that. Kamala Harris is going to win  because my 13 keys, you know,   they're a predictive model and they're not like  the polls. And here's the thing, Alan Lichtman,   it wasn't just that CNN interview, I'm  going to go through clip after clip of   Lichtman doubling down on his prediction that  not only should Democrats not replace Joe Biden,   but that Democrats would lose  if Biden out for someone else. But after that interview, he actually  went on X, formerly known as Twitter,   and, uh, wrote this. If Democrats hope  to retain the White House in November,   they need to support Joe Biden. That's what he  said. Now, the reason I'm going through this   is because a few days ago, I made a video. Um,  I'm not going to re litigate the 13 keys here,   but in that video, I went through  each of the Alan Lichtman's. 13 keys. I played, um, his prediction, his  analysis, and then I put my rebuttal. Now,   I never, just to be clear, I never,  uh, said that I wanted to debate him.   I want to interview him. If he's  willing to come on the channel,   I'd love to interview him. But I got a lot of  interesting comments from Alan Lichtman fans. Um, and quite frankly, at this point,  I think they're sort of cult members,   which is ironic because they say all of us are  cult But take a look at some of these comments   that I'm getting. Key number two being false.  Key number two being the incumbency key. Doesn't   mean that Biden would have been better, would  have done better than Harris in the election. It just means that Biden would have gotten  that key, but Harris will not. He even says   only that key. Um, 307, that's not  what Alan said at all. Actually,   yes, it is what Alan said. Uh, he's  not necessarily Biden saying Biden   was the best Democrat. He's just saying that  Democrats would have won the incumbency key. Actually, no, he did say that. Um,  Here's another one. Dr. Lichtman   never said Biden is the best candidate  to beat Trump. Here's another one. No,   I did not need to watch your entire video.  It took me 10 seconds to glance at some of   your other clips to see that you are indeed  shilling for Donald Trump and the Republicans. If Alan Lichtman would have predicted your guy  as Trump as the winner, you'd be praising his   13 keys and saying he's a genius. Um, I'll  get to the 2016 election in a second. But,   it's funny because all of these people  claim to be Alan Lichtman fans, and yet, me,   someone who is criticizing Lichtman, apparently I  have more knowledge about Lichtman than they do. Okay, so, let's revisit that CNN clip, and I've  added more context this time, again, Alan Lichtman   was saying that at this point in time, immediately  after the June presidential debate, he was saying   that Biden was quote, the only chance to win for  Democrats. Take a look at this. And they show that   Democrats really only chance to win contrary to  everything you've heard is with Biden running. Look at the incumbency key. Biden checks that off.  I think that that's actually kind of what I was   trying to get at here is that the problem right  now is that the Democratic Party is considering   replacing Biden mostly because it's unclear  whether or not he actually physically can   carry out the rest of this campaign and,  and put up a fight against his opponent. So that seems like a fundamentally different  thing than some of the items that you have in   your rubric. It's a huge mistake. They're not  doctors. So this is all foolhardy nonsense.   The same pundits and pollsters who led  us down the Primrose Path in 2016 are   giving the Democrats horrible advice. This  proves what I've been saying for years. Republicans have no principles. Democrats  have no spine. Debate performances can be   overcome. And now the first sign of,  of, you know, adversity, the spineless   Democrats want to throw under the bus their  own incumbent president. My goodness. So again,   you see there, not only did he say that Joe  Biden is the Democrats only chance to win,   but he was chastising them for even  considering replacing Joe Biden. So that this wasn't even two full months  ago. And now he's saying that Kamala Harris   is going to beat Donald Trump with his own  13 keys rubric. So this is just proof that   Unpredictable and that the 13 key system,  you know, it really is reliant on the input   of the person filling out the keys. Now, a  lot of people still were just very upset,   um, at my analysis of those 13  keys, but I'm Here's the thing. In this video, all I'm doing is using Allen's  own words against him. I, I, my whole point of   this video, I, you know, again, if you want to  go through the 13 keys, I have a previous video.   You can check that out. In fact, I correctly  predicted the 2016 election. I predicted in   May of 2016 that Trump was going to win Michigan  and win Pennsylvania long before anyone else did. Um, I, that video is titled Why Trump Will Win the  General Election. That was published May of 2016,   before Lichtman even made his official  prediction, by the way. And Lichtman,   just so we're clear, in 2016 predicted that  Trump would win the popular vote. Again,   he stealth edited the paper to say, No, um, I,  I actually predict the winner of the election. In other words, I predict the winner of the  Electoral College. But that even makes less   sense because how would your keys You  would have to rely on polling to predict   the electoral college winner because it,  like, you can lose the popular vote and   win the electoral college. So that  doesn't even make sense on its face. More comments that I got that I would just love to   debunk because these people think they're  so brilliant. State of Daniel. Hey, clown,   he's been predicting the president before  your grandpa came to America. Relax. Your   ignorance will get you killed. First of all,  what are you trying to say? Is that a threat? Um, second of all, it's funny that  anyone who talks about my race. Uh,   my sexuality, uh, my, just anything that is  personal always comes from Democrats. They   always come from people who disagree. It  never comes from the right. I, I, in fact,   I've never once gotten a racist comment  from someone on the right. All of the   racist comments I get are from people who  disagree and people clearly on the left. Um, hi, big mouth, just shut up, uh,  shut the hell up and wait and see,   you dumbass. Can't even, uh, type correctly.  Uh, I'm going to bookmark this video and come   back in November. I bet my paycheck that  Lichtman is right. Cycle after cycle,   I've heard the losing side call him a partisan  act, only to be proven wrong on election day. Okay. Um, from Trumpy's view, everything Biden  did is wrong. The bottom line of this prediction   is to put your own political view aside.  His 13 keys can track the election back to   1860. Okay. It's really easy to predict the  elections in retrospect. And like I said,   in my previous video, how many of the last  10 elections were really hard to predict? Everyone knew Obama was going to win in  2008, 2012. All the polls show, show,   You know, they said that all the  polls said the same thing in 2004,   Bush versus Kerry. Um, so not only  did Liman double down on that mistake,   he then went on CNBC to say again that Joe  Biden was the Democrat's best chance to win. So for all these Democrats in the comments  saying, that's not what Litchman said,   here's Litchman in his own words. Well, I have  a system for predicting elections as you know,   the 13 keys to the White House. That has  been right since 1984, I've got a 40 year   track record. All the polls you show, and I know  you guys have to put on a show every day, but the   truth is, polls a year and a half or more before  an election have zero, zero predictive value. They're fun, but they're like sports talk radio,  they don't mean anything in the end. Having Biden   run gives the Democrats their best chance to  win because he secures two of my 13 keys. The   incumbency key, sitting president running, it  won't be an open seat, which is very bad for   the party in power, as we learned in 2008 for  the Republicans and 2016 for the Democrats. If he didn't run, you lose the incumbency  key. There is no question. That the Democrats   best bet to win is exactly what Biden is doing  right now. A lot of people too in the comments,   they're always like, did you even read  his book? Do you know how to read? Do you   understand anything? Well, there are three  different versions of Alan Lichtman's book. The original version was published in 1990, the  13 Keys to the Presidency. He then released,   um, a different version of the book,  uh, in 2016, the 2016 edition, um,   Predicting the Next President, available  on Amazon, and then he released, uh,   another edition in 2020, um, where Uh,  yes, right there, the 2020 edition. So, he's released three different Additions  of this book. Well, in the 1990 version,   here's what it said on Roman numeral page six.  This is like the preface, the foreword, uh,   before you get into the main meat of the book.  Again, for those of you who have the 1990 version   of this book, feel free to open it to Roman  numeral, uh, six, so you can fact check me. A disciplined examination of the circumstances  surrounding the presidential keys, uh, excuse me,   surrounding presidential elections since  the 1850s discloses a remarkably consistent   set of factors or keys that can forecast the  outcome of the popular vote. In every election,   popular vote. This was his first book, 1990. What did it say? Once it got to page six, when  five or fewer keys are false, the incumbent party   wins the popular vote when six or more keys are  false. The challenging party prevails. Page eight.   Because the keys to the presidency diagnose the  national political environment, they correlate   with the popular balloting, not with the votes  of individual states in the electoral college. Again, if you have the 1990 version of  the book, fact check me. Come at me,   bro. Seriously. And so, here's my point.  He, a lot of people are looking at this   Alan Lichtman like a Nostradamus and they're,  you know, appealing to his authority. Well,   he's gotten so many elections right.  Where's your track record, Daniel? Where's your system? First of all, I don't claim  to have a system for predicting presidents. Okay?   I don't claim to have a model. The onus  is not on me. To prove that I'm right,   it's on him. He's making a claim. Think  of it this way. As I've said before,   my family is all in medicine. I  come from a family of physicians. I come from a family of lawyers. I am the  black sheep in the family because I had   no interest in either of those worlds.  But when a pharmaceutical company comes   out with a new drug, it is on them to  prove that the drug works. That's why   they have clinical trials. The FDA  doesn't prove that the drug works. The, the FDA's purpose is just to, you know, uh,   assure the public that it's safe and that  it won't do any harm. But the onus is on   the pharmaceutical companies to say that our  Um, our, uh, drugs work, our, our solution   works. And so I don't have to prove anything.  He has to prove anything. And that's the thing. He's changed his definition of success. He,  he originally said it was the popular vote.   Then all of a sudden over the years, no, it's  the Electoral College. And like, okay, 2000,   Alan Lichtman got 2000 wrong. He, he predicted  that Al Gore was going to win, of course,   George W. Bush won that. And then he said, well,  I predict the popular vote, so no big deal. 2016, Lichtman predicted that Trump  would win. Well, Trump did win,   but Trump lost the popular vote.  And all of a sudden, Lichtman goes,   I don't predict the popular vote. I predict  the winner of the election. In other words,   I predict the electoral college. BS. Absolute BS.  Here are more comments that I got on my video. Okay, bro, then where's your prediction  model? Okay, I already talked about that. Oh,   really? Another one who believes, uh, is an  expert just because he has a YouTube channel. No,   I don't believe I'm an expert. I'm not claiming  to be an expert. I'm just saying, if you're   going to put a predictive model out there,  at least be consistent in what you're saying. Alan, I don't know. Lichtman said that Democrats  would lose if they swapped out Joe Biden,   that Joe Biden was quote, the only, the only  chance Democrats had to win. Then all of a   sudden now he's claiming Kamala Harris is  going to win. Not my words, those are his.   Uh, he even went on the Wall Street Journal,  said the same, or he, now notice, you know,   earlier he said, uh, on CNN, Joe Biden was  the Democrats quote, only chance to win. Notice now how. Later on, he goes  on the Wall Street Journal and he   changes his language from only chance to  win to best bet for Democrats. Oh, he's,   is that the goalpost I see just like slowly  moving? Yeah, I think the goalpost is changing   here. Take a look. It is still the best bet  for Democrats to have Biden stay in the race. Yeah, the goalpost is like way over  there now. Okay. Um another comment dude,   you're not the first won't be the last dead  wrong youtuber Okay. Your issues don't matter   if the professor has been doing this for 40  years and only missed once. Okay, I already   talked about that. His track record really is not  that impressive, if I so, if I do say so myself. Um, Um, here's one final clip of Alan  Lickman saying that replacing Joe Biden   is a quote recipe for losing the  election. Here you go. You know,   so many Democrats are saying, Oh my God,  Biden's too old. We need someone else.   That's a recipe for losing the election.  Yup. Okay. So three points in this video. Number one. I don't claim to have  a predictive model. I don't have   anything to prove to anyone.  This channel is my commentary,   and it's my analysis on the news. And Alan  Lichtman is going out there claiming that he   has accurately predicted elections. He's putting  himself on the news. He is touting his record. So I have every right on my channel  to provide my analysis, my commentary,   and my critique on his system. Number two,  he can't even keep his system accurate. Is it   the popular vote? Or is it the electoral  college? Which one is it? Number three,   he is on record saying that Joe Biden  was the only chance for Democrats to win. The goalposts shifted to all of a sudden, Joe  Biden is the best chance for Democrats to win.   Then all of a sudden the goalposts shifts  again. Kamala Harris is going to win. Well,   which if it is it, if your 13 keys  are based on so strong of a system,   why is it that these goalposts  can change? You know what? It's really easy to accurately  predict. Presidential elections,   if you don't have a standard, if your, uh, if  your standards aren't, uh, cemented in a, um,   definitive, uh, requirement to fill out  those 13 keys, and the definitive requirement   to, uh, Determine what success looks like. It  appears that his goalposts are all over the place. As always my opinion, my commentary,  my analysis, and I want to know yours   in the comments below. Is there something  that I missed? Do you agree? Disagree? Um,   and what do you think about Alan's predicament?  Uh, Allen's prediction. Uh, predictment. I   kind of like that. Yeah. Um, if you haven't  already, please be sure to give me a thumbs up. Uh, I know it's a simple thing to ask,   but it really does help me and the algorithm  to reach more viewers like you. Be sure to   smash that subscribe button and  to check out one of these videos.