Americans spent the summer eagerly awaiting two pivotal political statements.
The first was Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, who ascended to the top of the Democratic ticket after Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign. Swift formally backed the vice president moments after her debate with Donald Trump, calling her a “steady-handed, gifted leader.”
The second statement? It wasn’t from another pop star. Instead, some election-watchers waited on pins and needles for a prediction from Allan Lichtman, a 77-year-old distinguished professor of history at American University who lives in Bethesda, Maryland.
That’s because Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election for decades, except for the race in 2000. He uses a set of 13 “keys” to make his picks, which range from economic indicators to candidates’ charisma.
Here’s how his model works: If six of more of the keys cut against the party in the White House, they’re predicted to lose. Otherwise, Lichtman forecasts the party in power will win again.
Lichtman earlier this month predicted Harris would defeat Trump, sending shockwaves among political observers and picking up wall-to-wall news coverage. He told USA TODAY he’s received a larger response about his 2024 prediction than ever before.
“Maybe because of how high stakes this election is, and how extraordinary this election is: The sitting president stepping down right before the convention, the challenging candidate convicted of 34 felonies,” Lichtman said.
“This has been an avalanche.”
More: Historian who accurately predicted 9 of last 10 presidential elections makes his 2024 pick
Why do Americans love political predictions?
Lichtman’s work isn’t your average academic research, and the professor’s publications have drawn attention for years. But is there such a thing as a buttoned-up history professor who becomes an A-list election celebrity every four years?
If you search Lichtman’s name online, video after video of the professor breaking down his “keys” and weighing in on the latest election in interviews will flood your feed. You can watch him predict that Trump and his MAGA movement would defeat Hillary Clinton. You can read about his forecast that America would elect its first Black president in 2008.
When asked about the response his predictions receive, Lichtman smiles and pauses before simply saying he and his family have been “very bemused.”
“I’ve been amazed, in a sense, why they’re so interested,” Lichtman said. “They’ll find out soon enough who won or lost, why do they need to know in advance?”
But why are American politicos so drawn to all election-year predictions – not just Lichtman’s? The professor said he believes “it has to do with instant gratification.”
“We live in a society of instant gratification. That’s part of it,” he said. “The other part of it is, we live in a society of predictions. It’s not just politics. Look at sports. Sports talk radio is constantly giving you predictions about what’s going to happen in upcoming games. Are coaches going to be fired? Who’s going to be traded and who isn’t?
“It’s entertainment as well. You know, who’s going to win the Oscar? When is this couple going to divorce? You know who’s going to hook up with whom?” he asked. “It’s everywhere.”
After all, Lichtman says the “scandal” key is his favorite of the 13 keys, calling it a much juicer step than weighing economic data or wins and losses in midterm elections.
Still, the professor said a sea of interviews during election years isn’t his favorite part about his work. Neither is keynoting conferences or other academic acclaim.
“The best part of becoming known is when every day people come up to me to say that they admire what I do: security guards at AU, Uber drivers, waiters and waitresses,” Lichtman said.
Yes, he knows about the critics
Lichtman is no stranger to criticism. The responses to his picks aren’t just questions from media or conversations with D.C.-area voters. This year alone, he said he’s received messages accusing him of being a “Democratic tool” or being paid by Harris.
But he’s faced it for years.
Lichtman’s first prediction was in 1982, when he said Ronald Reagan would win reelection. He developed the model with Vladimir Keilis-Borok, a Russian seismologist who worked at understanding not elections, but earthquakes.
The professor explains that the first pushback he received was from fellow forecasters.
“I had committed the cardinal sin of subjectivity. Some of my keys were not just cut and dried statistical indicators like economic growth,” he explained. “And I said, ‘No, it’s not subjectivity. It’s judgment. We’re dealing with human beings. Human beings make judgments all the time.’”
But as his work picked up steam, criticism also came from political operatives, journalists, pollsters and other analysts outside academic communities. These groups have long launched similar critiques, accusing his keys of being based on the opinions of the person deploying the model instead of static markers.
Lichtman’s response? He’d argue that his work does outline specific guidelines for each key. For example, a strong short-term economy doesn’t simply refer to how the person applying the method thinks Americans feel about the economy. Instead, the factor asks whether the economy is in recession during an election campaign.
The professor still regularly responds to negative feedback online. But he says he tries to remember that, over the years, people have leveled accusations as personal as questioning whether his hair is real. “As if my hair had anything to do with my predictions,” he said as he pulled on his brown locks to prove their legitimacy.
“But I have to tell you,” Lichtman noted. “Being attacked is not the worst thing that can happen to you. You know what the worst thing is? Being ignored. And I have not been ignored now for a good 20 years.”
Lichtman calls it for Harris
Virtually every major national poll has found the race within its margin of error and too close to call definitively.
But Lichtman earlier this month said his keys point to a historic victory for Harris this fall. That’s because she didn’t face a significant primary contest before becoming the Democratic nominee, there is no major third-party candidate after Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ended his presidential bid and Lichtman’s definition for his model’s two economic keys fall in her favor.
He also said Democrats haven’t faced “sustained social unrest.” Lichtman argued the pro-Palestinian protests over Gaza that have rocked parts of the country don’t meet his bar for the key, along with other factors.
In 2000, Lichtman said eight of the 13 keys could be good news for Democrats, though Al Gore ultimately lost the race to George W. Bush after a protracted fight that ended up at the Supreme Court.
Lichtman did raise some eyebrows in June after he said Democrats shouldn’t drop Biden, even after the president’s disastrous debate performance, which sparked an uproar and lead to the end of his campaign.
But the professor explained that he thought Democrats were risking losing two keys as questions about Biden’s reelection campaign grew: The power of incumbency and the role that primary contests can play. With Biden dropping out, Democrats sacrificed the immediate name recognition and other advantages that have long come with running for reelection.
But Harris didn’t face the typical primary process for the Democratic nomination and didn’t have to battle other politicians, so the left managed to salvage that component of Lichtman’s model.
And no, in case you were wondering, the recent Harris-Trump debate and the second assassination attempt targeting the former president don’t change anything.
“None of these ephemeral events, not the debate, not the purported attempted assassination, not JD Vance saying he made up a story about immigrants eating cats and dogs,” Lichtman said. “None of that changes the fundamentals of the election. So none of it changes my prediction.”
Political predictions … and a senior Olympics?
Elections aren’t the only races Lichtman knows about.
He’s been a runner for 60 years, beginning when he was 16 and extending to today. He recently notched his own victories at the Maryland Senior Olympics, picking up bronze and gold medals and qualifying for next year’s national competition.
His wife, Karyn Strickler, is a triathlete, and the couple has long enjoyed playing basketball together. Lichtman explained that when the two used to play what was supposed to be a friendly game, their friends would remark “when Allan and Karyn play one-on-one, there’s blood on the floor.”
Still, theirs is a family deeply interested in politics. Strickler is the founder and president of Vote Climate U.S. PAC, which “works to elect candidates to eliminate all human-made, greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” according to its website. Lichtman hosts a regular live show on YouTube talking about politics with his son, Sam.
Lichtman gave USA TODAY one more reason he – and Americans from coast to coast – might be so interested in political predictions.
“It’s fun. It’s interesting. I’ve been doing this for 40 years. I’m 77. I still get butterflies in my stomach every four years because I can be proved wrong,” he said. “Of course, I could be wrong. Anyone could be wrong.”
Contributing: Karissa Waddick, Elizabeth Beyer
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Why do voters love political predictions? Allan Lichtman may know.
