Historian who correctly predicted 9 of last 10 elections makes his 2024 pick

60 days until Election Day and the first batch of absentee ballots are scheduled to be mailed out as early as tomorrow. My next guest, known as the Nostradamus of U.S. elections for correctly predicting nine of the last ten presidential races using his own 13 keys to the white House criteria a candidate must win in order to achieve victory. Well, he now says that he's ready to call the race. American university history professor Alan Lichtman joins me now. Professor. All right. Here it is. Who will win the next president of the United States? According to the keys to the white House, which has been right for 40 years, we are going to have a precedent breaking victory. Kamala Harris will president of the United States. Now, I'm looking at the true keys, the false keys. And you have some TBD on the screen as well. Under your criteria. Harris obtains eight keys, the minimum, by the way, to win, according to you. But can any of these keys potentially slip before election? I mean, you got social unrest if that breaks out. Have you ever changed your prediction? I have never changed my prediction. Once I've made a final call. The notion of an October surprise is a myth. All my predictions have been before the October surprise, and they have all held. Social unrest doesn't suddenly emerge. It takes a long time for it to be enough social unrest to turn the key, which requires massive, sustained social unrest with a maximum of five keys down and likely for Harris, is well short of what's needed to predict terror, defeat and give Donald Trump the White House again. Your method is is unconventional. I mean, you bet you battleground states and those polls show a much tighter race and what you're describing and even the bulwarks Jonathan, last calls your approach. I'm quoting here nothing more than parlor tricks and folkways, the political equivalent of wearing garlic to protect yourself from vampires. So he's not pull any punches. What do you say to that? And how are you so sure? Sour grapes. Whenever you're unconventional. And I go against the pundits and the pollsters, as I did when I called Donald Trump in 2016, you are going to get those sour grapes critics. You cannot predict nine of ten. And I would say ten of ten, because I think I was right about 2000 because based on the intention of voters, al Gore should have won that election going away, as I proved in my report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But you can't with parlor tricks, pick nine out of 10 or 10 out of ten winners. Plus, my system is based on the structure of how American presidential elections really work, not on ephemeral polls or off the top of the head punditry. They work as votes up or down on the strength and performance of the white House party. And that's what the keys gauge. And retrospectively, the keys go all the way back to 1860, the election of Abe Lincoln when we had no automobiles, no planes, no polls. Women didn't vote. no radio, no television. So they have endured through enormous changes in our society or demography or politics or economy. You know, let those critics show what their track record is on prediction. Otherwise, I think they should be quiet. Well, there you have it, Allan Lichtman. I know the Harris Walls campaign must be thrilled. Thank you so much. In a sprint to November, fundraising is going gangbusters. A source telling CNN tonight that Harris more than doubled Trump's $130 million fundraising haul in the month of August. That would be at least $260 million for the Harris Walls campaign. I want to bring a national political correspondent for Politico, Meridith McGraw, former deputy communications director for Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, Brian Lanza and CNN political commentator Karen Finney. Glad to have you all here today. First of all, this fundraising. And of course, you saw the prediction from Professor Lichtman. What did you make of this? It said a Harris victory. I think I know your response, but I want to hear it. Yeah, it's it's yeah, I appreciate him. He he's trying to put science some type of political science behind it. But to me it just feels like the roulette table black or red. You know, when it's the final two candidates, it's how hard is it to really choose. And he's been right. You know, apparently ten times out of ten times or nine out of ten times, I don't know. I don't buy it. You know, we'll see. I mean, polling is pulling human natures, human nature. It's hard to sort of make a prediction two months out. It's been my experience. I mean, there has been a lot of tumult, so we say, and a lot of back part of this summer. What else? I mean, there's something I think is happening, but this fundraising effort, I mean, Harris, more than doubling $130 million in just August alone, it seems when you look at this, I mean, what kind of advantage might that give a campaign in these last 60 days? It's critical. I mean, think about the fact that they were able to announce earlier this week that they were giving money to the campaign committees for down ballot races, governors races, state legislative races, the House, the Senate, all of which are important if you want, if you win the white House and you don't have Congress, it can really obviously stalls your agenda. So the fact that they have enough resources to comfortably give those dollars, we I've heard that there will be more going out also to support some of the outset. You know, the groups that they work in collaboration with to mobilize Latino voters, African American voters. They have a very solid ground game. And in all seriousness, she does not have to use any money towards legal bills. That makes a difference. That means every dollar you are raising, you can be thinking about how much am I putting on into TV? How much am I putting out into digital? How much am I putting that into ground game or mail? All the things that we know you need to do, particularly for her. This is important given the short time frame, to make sure voters are getting the information that they need. You want the voters who need to hear certain messages. Hearing those messages and the channels where they're going to be looking for that information in the way that they are going to be most interested to hear it. And of course, that's the battleground states. And also throughout to get that road to two, seven, eight can't just focus all that effort in 1 or 6 different states. Mary, there were remarks that were made to the Economic Club of New York by Donald Trump. He was talking about tariffs. He wanted to cut capital gains taxes. He wanted to impose tariffs on, I think, imports. But then he was asked about what he would do to make childcare more affordable. Listen to what he said. Childcare. His childcare. Couldn't you know, there's something you have to have it in. But those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just that I just told you about, we're going to be taking in trillions of dollars. And as much as childcare is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers who will be taking it. I've had two children in childcare. It is not just relatively expensive, it is expensive. What did he mean by that? Did you get a sense of how he intends to make childcare more affordable? Well, Donald Trump said that childcare is important, but his answer really gave zero specifics on how exactly he would address it. And a big part of his speech today at the Economic Club was talking about tariffs. You know, Trump has been a big fan of tariffs. His team says that it will spur domestic production. But there's a lot of criticism from economists who say this would actually fall on consumers. And he was trying to say it seems like in this answer that these tariffs, the money that's raised from it could somehow go towards offsetting the cost for child care. But the woman who asked that question said she was disappointed in his answer because it was so meandering and there wasn't a real clear answer to what she wanted. But you got to have that answer, Brian. And I think he needs to work on that answer. I mean, it's not the first time he's heard that question. We've dealt with that question back. Even in 2016. Child care is a major component of the 2016 campaign and part of his administration. He clearly needs to work on that answer. But I would point out, we know he's having this economic speech talking about what he's going to do to improve the economy, talk about what he's going to do to bring inflation down single handedly. The best thing he can do to help with childcare is drive down the cost of everything, whether it's please let me finish, whether it's childcare, which is driven everything. that was used to the interruption by the child every year, everybody erupting. But, you know, it's what he can do is by driving down these costs on everyday products by, you know, by dealing with inflation, that's ultimately could drive down the cost of childcare. I think that's what he was trying to say. And he clearly articulated he needs to work on it. But I think we can all agree if we deal with inflation, that will drive down the cost of childcare. But there's other components he needs to do as he did in 2016 and 2017.