Do Standard Prediction Models Work With an Out-of-the-box Candidate Like Trump?

November 01, 2016

Writer

Allan J. Lichtman, distinguished professor of history at American University, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday to discuss his prediction for the 2016 presidential election. Professor Lichtman, author of Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016, has used a set of 13 true or false "keys" to successfully predict the outcome of presidential elections since 1984.

"They're based on the proposition that the elections primarily turn on the strength and performance of the party holding the White House," Lichtman explained.

Despite the volatile and unprecedented nature of this year's election, Lichtman is sticking by his prediction that Donald Trump will win.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these unpredictable questions:

• How many keys must be false for the incumbent party to lose?

• What makes key number twelve overwhelmingly false?

• What did Alexander Hamilton call the Trojan Horse of our democracy?

• Why did George Washington expel the French ambassador?

• Which past presidential candidate was vilified as a murderer?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Glad you're here. We have a distinguished professor of history, Allan Lichtman. He's from American University. He has a new book, Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House in 2016. He has looked at every presidential election from 1860 to 1980, to create a system that has now correctly predicted every election from '84 to 2012. He says there are 13 keys. He's here to tell us about them.

Hello, Allan, how are you?

ALLAN: Good morning. Doing great, Glenn. And you?

GLENN: Very good. Can you tell me, what are the 13 keys here?

ALLAN: Absolutely.

And as you say, these are historically based, and they're based on the proposition that the elections primarily turn on the strength and performance of the party holding the White House. That's what the key is focused on.

First is midterm elections. Second is internal party contests. Third is sitting president. Fourth is third party. Fifth is, is the economy in an election year recession?

GLENN: So hang on. Instead of just listing them. Let's go through each of them. Start at the beginning.

ALLAN: Yes.

GLENN: Because they're yes-or-no questions, correct?

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: So tell us why these are important, what they mean and how you answered them. Go ahead. Start at the beginning.

ALLAN: Yes. All right.

And, remember, the way the system works, if six or more go against the party in power, six or more are false, they're predicted losers. So number one is mid-term elections. Obviously the Democrats got pasted in 2014. So that one is false.

Key number two is a real puzzler. It's the internal party contest. And, certainly, Sanders gave Clinton a contest, but it was never really in doubt. And he didn't take it to the convention, unlike say Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980. So I don't rate that one right now as false. Key three, sitting president. Obviously Barack Obama isn't running again. You have an open seat. That's false.

Key four, third party. So far, Gary Johnson has been running way ahead of what any Libertarian has ever done. So at the moment, that's what is false. It's looking a little shaky. He may be fading away.

Key five, whatever you may think of the economy, it's obviously not in recession. That's true. So without three, possibly.

Next key is long-term economy, and that looks at this term compared to the previous two terms. And previous two terms fanned the Great Recession. So that one is true. Then we have the -- the more judgmental keys, the policy change key.

Well, Obama won that last term with the Affordable Care Act, but with gridlock in Washington, no big policy change. That's four now. And this is my favorite key, the scandal key, but it only pertains to the sitting president, not to the two candidates. You can probably paste scandals on both of them.

Then the social unrest key. And we're talking about cities being in flames in the 1960s. You got some sporadic protests, but nothing like that. So that is true.

So we're still down four. Then we have the foreign policy failure key. The Bay of Pigs. Pearl Harbor. 9/11.

GLENN: ISIS.

ALLAN: Again, whatever you may think of the foreign policy, it's not anything like that. But the next key is foreign policy success. And they haven't nailed that yet. So that's five down. We're almost done.

Key number 12 asks whether the sitting party's candidate, the party in power's candidate, Hillary Clinton, is a once-in-a-generational inspirational candidate like a Kennedy or a Reagan. So that one is false.

So we're now down six. And the final key asks whether -- because they always favor the party in power, whether the challenging party candidate is not charismatic. Well, Donald Trump is charismatic to a certain base. But you've got to be broadly charismatic to win that key. So I rate that one true, so that's exactly -- a very shaky six keys down because of that third party that could fade away.

PAT: So if that were to fade before the election, would you change your prediction?

ALLAN: I could. I could. You know, the polls are all over the place on Gary Johnson. You know, I don't have a crystal ball to see how it will come out on election.

PAT: Yeah.

ALLAN: Plus, as you know, Glenn, this is an unprecedented election. We've never seen an election like this. Quite frankly, a generic Republican, a John Kasich, a Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush, the prediction would be a lot more solid than an out-of-the-box candidate like Donald Trump who could snatch --

GLENN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Say that again, please.

(laughter)

ALLAN: I will say it again. Based on the study of history, Glenn, and that's what I do, this should be a change election. A generic Republican like a John Kasich, a Marco Rubio, or a Jeb Bush would be a clear predicted winner. But you don't have that. You have Donald Trump who is a candidate breaking all historical boundaries. And could take what should be a very good year for Republicans and turn it into defeat.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, how would that happen? According to -- I like the fact that you're hard and fast on your rules.

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: But you do recognize that this is -- for instance, third party -- you know, that question, I know yours applies to the sitting president and the sitting party of power.

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: But, you know, I believe you can make a case you have -- you have more than one third party. And the biggest third party is the one inside of the Republican Party. Because --

ALLAN: Well --

GLENN: You split the party.

ALLAN: You know, you analyze it on your terms, as you say.

I've got to stick to my system. And I've never hedged this. You know, I've been doing this for more than 30 years. And I've never hedged a prediction, even after the disastrous first debate for Barack Obama in 2012, I stuck to my guns. But this election is so out of the box.

Look, you know, I don't look in a crystal ball. I don't have a pipeline to the Almighty like Ben Carson. I can only face it on history, and Trump could be a history breaker. Let's face it.

(chuckling)

PAT: It's been right every time, right?

ALLAN: Every time, yeah.

PAT: Have you --

ALLAN: And in the face of a lot of criticism. For example --

PAT: Have you also applied it to past elections, like, you know, before you were born? How far back does it go?

ALLAN: Well, there were no elections before I was born, but I'll tell it to you anyway.

(laughter)

ALLAN: The system was developed based on -- it was developed in '81, based on elections from 1860 to 1980.

PAT: Okay. Yeah, that's what I thought.

ALLAN: But unlike some other, you know, fairly sloppy forecasters, I'm very careful to distinguish between the base years when I went back retrospectively to develop the system and fall with looking predictions.

I actually got into a big fight with Nate Silver over that in 2011.

(chuckling)

STU: There's the greatest civil war happening among -- between polling geeks right now, there's an unseen civil war. It's actually more interesting than the Republican Party's civil war, I think.

ALLAN: It's fascinating. Got to run.

(chuckling)

STU: All right. Quick question for you, because really the determining factor on your prediction is this third party factor.

ALLAN: Yeah.

STU: About six weeks ago, Gary Johnson was at 9.2 percent on average and has now dropped to 4.6 percent on average.

ALLAN: Yeah, he's dropping below the threshold.

STU: Is it 5 percent?

ALLAN: I might change my prediction.

STU: Hmm. Is it 5 percent? Is that the threshold?

ALLAN: Five percent. And he's right at, around, as you say, around at 5 percent.

STU: That's incredible.

ALLAN: Intense. He's been intense.

GLENN: Allan, do you have five more minutes for us, or not?

ALLAN: I've got two more minutes. I've got to go to Fox.

GLENN: Okay. Bigger name on the other line.

STU: Yeah, no kidding.

GLENN: So, Allan, help me out on this. The -- you're a history professor.

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: Can you look at what is happening in our country and now project past the presidential election and tell me what time period we look to be approaching?

ALLAN: That's such a good question, I'll take a couple of minutes to answer it.

First, one of the things that we don't know, is this a permanent shift in our politics, or is this an aberration? Is this an anomaly?

Not only in terms of the candidates, but also in terms of foreign interference in our elections.

You know, Alexander Hamilton, way back when, called foreign intrigue in American politics, the Trojan horse of our democracy. In his farewell address, George Washington warned against foreign intrigue and corruption. He expelled the ambassador from France who was messing around in our politics. Never seen this before.

And is this going to become the norm? Is every foreign power with an axe to grind now going to intervene in our politics, in their interests, not in ours? So far, there seems to be no consequences whatsoever to all of this cracking.

PAT: Right.

ALLAN: Yeah. So that's a huge question before us, Glenn.

The other big question is, you know, are we going to see a permanent turn in our politics, or are we going to return to more normal politics? History teaches us that even when the system bends -- even when it broke in the Civil War, we eventually do return to normal politics. But sometimes it can take a long time.

A similar election might be 1828. Andrew Jackson against John Quincy Adams, the sitting president. Quincy Adams had his own problems because he was elected in the so-called corrupt bargain in the House. Because no one got a majority in the electoral college when he gave Henry Clay the Secretary of State.

And Andrew Jackson was vilified as a murderer. They passed around something called a coffin handbook. Pretty bitter, but eventually the system returned to a great -- history doesn't always repeat itself. So, you know, it's hard to say.

GLENN: Allan, I'd love to talk to you again. You're fascinating.

ALLAN: Absolutely.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Author of the new book, Predicting the Next President. Allan Lichtman from -- where was he? American University.

Featured Image: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump addresses a campaign rally at the Deltaplex Arena October 31, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. With just eight days until the election, polls show a slight tightening in the race. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Do Standard Prediction Models Work With an Out-of-the-box Candidate Like Trump?

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

A revolutionary wedge

Negotiating with radicals

What we really celebrated