About "experts" who've correctly predicted many presidential races

[Silent3]

Let's say you've been making election predictions for forty years, so, for ten different elections.

Let's say you merely use a coin toss to predict winners.

Your odds of a perfect record are 1 in 1024 doing it that way. Your odds of getting it right all but one time out of 10 are 1 in 102.4.

There are thousands of people out there in the world predicting presidential races. It's never going to be that hard to find several "experts" with perfect or near-perfect track records.

Take into account that you don't have to be that smart or have an impressive "system" for predicting elections to do better than a mere coin flip, and the potential for the illusion of expertise goes up dramatically.

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. You misunderstand odds and Lichtman.

Lichtman does much more than flip a coin, he considers several factors.

That he has been consistently right in his predictions is notable, but not a reason to use him as the sole source for strategic decision making.

Your post never seems to get to its point…Lichtman says Biden is favored to win using his criteria, you say, we should ignore these kinds of so-called experts, because…?

So, if we ignore Lichtman saying Biden is likely to win, then what are you suggesting?

There are thousands of people out there in the world predicting presidential races. It's never going to be that hard to find several "experts" with perfect or near-perfect track records.

OK, I’ll wait here while you go find them; surely there must thousands of coin flippers with great prediction records (if there are, I’m sure they would be bragging on the internet) - feel free to post them here, or if you can’t find anyone else with a record as impressive as Lichtman’s, feel free to acknowledge you were wrong.

[elleng]

2. thanks

[Silent3]

4. I'm not misunderstanding Lichtman, nor *necessarily* saying his system is flawed

I also already addressed the "much more than flip a coin" issue.

My point is that there can't help but be people with track records as good as his, and, since that's true, you really have to take anything such experts say with a giant grain of salt.

There are certain to be, right now, other experts with track records as good as Lichtman's making the same prediction as he does for this November, AND other experts with track records as good as Lichtman's making the opposite prediction.

As every election passes, a bunch of "experts" will have their reputations harmed by a bad prediction, a bunch of maybe-not-previously-regarded-as-experts will add one more win to their record, and join the ranks of so-called experts the next time around.

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. And I challenged you to find Lichtman's peers with equal records

It’s that evidence that is required to support your point.

You can’t just say “there must other experts with track records as good as Lichtman’s” and expect us to accept your assertion without evidence to support it.

If there are others with predictive track records as good as Lichtman, they should be easy for you to find, and it is essential for you to find them if you want to be taken seriously.

[Silent3]

11. I just found one example when responding to another poster

An elementary school, of all things, which at the time this article was written, had correctly predicted US elections for 48 years — 12 for 12, a longer and more accurate than Lichtman's current 9-out-of-10 record.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/these-things-have-all-correctly-predicted-the-presidential-election-results-for-decades/

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. But those aren't the same students every year, just the same school.

And they were wrong in 2016, and no record of their prediction for 2020.

[Silent3]

13. Yes, but it demonstrates you don't need to have a "system" or expertise...

...to have a good track record. If reporters were to bother to search hard for such things, there are probably other schools that have by chance done just as well (as there are tens of thousands of schools in this country), guys sitting in bars like Cliff on Cheers, etc.

[Silent3]

10. As far "surely there must thousands of coin flippers with great prediction records"... wow, way to misunderstand...

...an analogy for illustrative purposes.

Of course actual coin flipping isn't going to be used by anyone (well, perhaps a few cranks) for making predictions. But there really will be a lot of people who think they've got mathematical models or a predictive formulas that actually aren't much better than a coin toss for accuracy. These are effectively mere coin tosses with fancy window dressing, or a bit better than coin tosses, but perhaps not by much.

I can't point to long lists of such people because the people who fail a lot naturally fall into obscurity. Only people who succeed quite a bit gain attention... but, unfortunately, it's practically impossible to know how many reach prominence by simply lucking out a lot.

At the time the following article was written, an elementary school had a 48-year-long record for correct election prediction, an even better record than Lichtman's, back in 2016 (I have no idea if they've extended that record since).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/these-things-have-all-correctly-predicted-the-presidential-election-results-for-decades/

[Metaphorical]

3. It's not quite that simple

The Electoral College complicates things considerably, as it turns one plebiscite with around 160,000,000 people into an "election" by around 540 people with a distinct bias towards the right (the overall population tends to lean liberal by about 7%, but the electoral college leans conservative by about 5%), and because most of the states have a a winner take all system that reduces this 540 to basically 51 electors of varying strengths, with four states California, New York, Texas and Florida, making up about a third of the total.

This is what I think most Democrats either don't realize or acknowledge - we have turned the election for President into a decision that is conducted by a group of people that would fit comfortably in a high school cafeteria.

[Silent3]

5. Everything you've said is true...

...but also, unfortunately, very unrelated to my point about the prediction game.

[texasfiddler]

6. We questioned our 2016 Candidate.

Not sure that changing the 2016 candidate would have mattered. Bottom line, when the party doesn’t fully support and accept its candidate, the party loses. Those that want to abandon Biden are promoting this catastrophe. Hillary walks through the woods of New York just fine right now, however, she tripped and stumbled looking sick in 2016. I’m so tired of this. We are our worst enemy

[Silent3]

7. What does that have to do with how prediction "expertise" can be illusionary?

Not a thing, as far as I can tell.

[texasfiddler]

8. I was going to discuss Lichtman

I figured this might be more from my own perspective. Sorry. I don’t think my own perspective is too “illusionary”