Exclusive: How Allan Lichtman's 2024 prediction missed the mark and shook his legacy

Professor Allan Lichtman has had an impressive track record when it comes to U.S. Presidential election prediction. He has predicted almost every election correctly by using his 13 keys to the White House. However, this time it seems like Professor Lichtman faltered, his pick for the 2024 white house race was Kamala Harris, which ultimately proved wrong as Donald Trump emerged triumphant.

What exactly went wrong? Why did Professor Lichtman falter? Will he continue predicting the elections? Get the answer to all these questions as India Today Global has an exclusive sitdown with Professor Allan Lichtman.

Question: The man who's had a record when it comes to US elections, always getting it right, but this time around, Professor Allan Lichtman did not get it right. Professor Lichtman, thank you for joining us here on *India Today Global*. What happened this time?

Professor Lichtman: I've said many times, I don't have a crystal ball. I'm not Speaker Mike Johnson, who thinks the Almighty talks to him. My system, the 13 Keys, is based on history. It's based on a lot of history. Developmentally, it goes all the way back to 1860. Predictively, since I predicted Ronald Reagan's re-election in April 1982, when 60% of Americans said he was too old to run again. But patterns of history can be broken, and I see what happened this time to break the pattern of history was the explosion of disinformation. We've always had disinformation, but never close to the degree that we've seen in this election, and it's pervaded every aspect of the election.

It starts with Fox News, goes through other conservative media outlets, goes through conservative podcasters with tens of millions of viewers. And then we have something brand new: a 300-billionaire, Elon Musk, putting his thumb on the scales. Do you know, he is worth more than most of the nations of the world in terms of their annual GDP? And he controls the incredibly important communication outlet X, formerly Twitter. It's been reported, and I believe it, that his disinformation has been viewed by billions, not millions, but billions of viewers.

And so deeply inserted in the electorate is disinformation. They believe that inflation is still going up when it’s gone down by 75%. They think the stock market, growth, and employment have been tanked when they’re all doing robustly. I guarantee you, when Donald Trump takes office, he’ll take credit for all of these things that his disinformation has been trashing.

Look at immigrants. The disinformation is that immigrants are these bloodthirsty killers, particularly undocumented immigrants. The truth is, they are the single most law-abiding segment of society, committing crimes, including violent crimes, at less than half the rate of native-born Americans. And there’s a reason for it—they don’t want to be caught up in the criminal justice system. Contrary to disinformation, they contribute many billions of dollars in tax revenue, and they are the mainstay of the agricultural industry, the construction industry, the hospitality industry, and the personal service industry. Studies show that Trump’s deportation plans could drive the economy into recession.

And crime—you know, people believe that crime is soaring. In fact, crime has gone down last year and this year. Hurricane relief—the lie that hurricane relief is being diverted to migrants—is totally untrue. And meanwhile, the mainstream media is obsessed with meaningless polls, all of them in the margin of error, giving almost no counter to all of this disinformation or spending much time talking about the consequences of the election. Plus, the media is also, the mainstream media, being taken over by billionaires. Look what happened to *The Los Angeles Times* and *The Washington Post*.

Question: Professor Lichtman, of the 10 elections, you got one wrong in the past, but that you consider a stolen election. That was the Al Gore election. And now we have the Trump election, which clearly has a mandate that went to Trump. When it comes to Trump, apart from disinformation, the fact that people were willing to believe what was being given to them as information, as news—is that a worry? Is that a worrying trend that Kamala Harris tried to address with all the statements and remarks coming up from the Trump camp, saying that this is not what America is? Yet, it does seem like America is, in a way, how the Republicans are thinking.

Professor Lichtman: Well, it remains to be seen. I think we’re on a precipice here. Look, really, America has always been kind of suspended between two poles. On the one hand, we are this open, tolerant, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-racial society. We are a melting pot, a nation of immigrants.

On the other hand, there is this dark side that runs through American history of being a society that is xenophobic, deeply distrustful of the other. A society with an incredible history of racism. We were one of the last countries to abolish slavery. We had to fight a war to do it. That was followed by Jim Crow discrimination, which didn’t even begin to be dismantled until the 1960s. We are deeply misogynist. Women did not universally get the right to vote until 1920 and did not get equality in education until the 1970s.

And all of these elements persist. We’re seeing the clash of these two forces, and I’m very worried about the outcome. Plus, I’m a great devotee of the philosopher Hannah Arendt, and as she noted, once you dissolve truth, once disinformation takes hold, democracy dissolves with it. That, of course, was the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson so many years ago, who believed you had to have truth to have democracy.

Question: Will you continue predicting elections in the future as well?

Professor Lichtman: Well, I have four years to make that decision. I’m much more worried, of course, about our democracy than I am about the Keys. I think the fact that the Keys failed is a harbinger of deep problems with our democracy. But yes, I fully intend to examine events over the next several years to reconsider the Keys, and if I’m still strong and healthy, to return in 1981. Unlike a lot of others, I’ve not tried to squirm out of my prediction. I’m willing to say I was wrong, and I am re-evaluating.

Look at some of the other forecasters, like the pollsters. “Oh, we weren’t really wrong because we told you all our polls were within the margin of error.” Well, guess what? That makes all your polls noise and all your polls useless. It is just horrific that the media has spent so much more time on these useless polls than on what’s really at stake in this election.

Question: Is this a personal blow to you, for someone who’s almost always got elections right?

Professor Lichtman: You know, I’ve said many times, of course, I can be wrong. I’m a human being. No human being is perfect, and I’m willing to accept my own imperfections. But what has bothered me is all the hate that has been heaped upon me—scurrilous, vulgar, violent, threatening communications, being swatted and doxxed, and attacked. There’s no place for that.

I’ve been doing this for 42 years and have never come close to experiencing anything like it. Again, that’s the dark side, the violent side of American politics, stoked by Donald Trump, who constantly evokes violent rhetoric. He talks about not minding if they shot through the press to try to get to him. He’s talked about guns firing in the face of Liz Cheney.

So, yes, that’s another thing I’m really worried about—not for me. I have police protection, the FBI has been notified, my house is secured. Anyone who tries anything will be very sorry. But I’m worried about the evocation of violence and the loss of truth for our society and democracy.

As I’ve said, we’re poised between two different versions of America, and I don’t know which version will triumph in the end.

Question: Do you think there was also personal bias—that you wanted to will a Democratic win—and that came in the way of your scientific 13 keys?

Professor Lichtman: I’ve been accused of that, and it’s baseless. I’ve been doing this for 42 years. If I simply predicted according to my political views, I wouldn’t be right 10 out of 10 times. I’d be useless.

I have, in fact, predicted the two most conservative presidents of our time—both against the grain of the polls and pundits. Ronald Reagan in April 1982, when 60% of Americans said he was too old to run again, and his approval ratings were historically low. Donald Trump in 2016, when all the polls were pointing to Hillary Clinton. The eminent Princeton University Consortium gave Hillary Clinton a 99% chance of winning, yet I still predicted Donald Trump.

You can imagine these predictions did not make me very popular in 90% plus Democratic D.C., where I teach at American University. But I did get a note after my 2016 prediction in The Washington Post, where I predicted Trump’s win. It said, “Congrats, Professor, good call,” in big Sharpie letters—Donald J. Trump.

So, the same folks who think I’m biased now loved the fact that I predicted Trump in 2016. I have my own political views, but they have nothing to do with my predictions. That’s why I trained as a historian for a long time—to learn how to search for truth independent of one’s own preferences. And that is the most important thing in being a forecaster—more important than knowing maths, history, or politics.

Question: Two important factors, Professor Lichtman. One is that immigration became a very important and polarising subject, and it seemed like those siding with the Republicans went out and voted. On the other hand, the other polarising issue was abortion and women’s rights, and women did not go out and vote. How do you look at this?

Professor Lichtman: There is no way to predict an election by trying to parse it out and looking at individual issues. There are any number of issues which, as you say, cut both ways.

I’ve listened to a lot of this post-election commentary, and you can take it and do with it what the great British philosopher David Hume said you should do with the works of superstition—consign it to the flames.

It’s Monday morning quarterbacking—sports talk radio without the fun. Half the commentators are saying Harris lost because she was too progressive; the other half, you heard Bernie Sanders, saying Harris lost because she wasn’t progressive enough.

After-the-fact commentary, when you know the answer, is absolutely worthless.

That said, I will critique the Democrats in two ways. One, and I did this at the time—this is not Monday morning quarterbacking—I blasted the Democrats at the time for openly and viciously trashing their elected president and elected nominee right out in public. I’ve never seen that before, and I think that tainted any Democratic nominee.

And now, those same folks—Pelosi and company—are not looking in the mirror, blaming anyone but themselves, including Joe Biden.

The other critique of Democrats, aside from being spineless like that, is they are terrible at messaging. People think Biden did nothing. In fact, he has more domestic accomplishments than any president since the 1960s, but nobody knows it because the Democrats are so abysmal at messaging. This is, again, not Monday morning quarterbacking—I’ve been saying this for decades.

Question: Right. Um, one important fact, if I could ask you, that has to do with discourse. How did that really play out in these elections? Because we do know that a lot of voters who are Democratic voters were not happy with the decision of the government, the Biden-Harris administration, to be so quiet on the Israel-Hamas war and allow civilian deaths. Do you think that played to their disadvantage?

Professor Lichtman: Who knows? Again, you can’t pick out one issue, but already some Arab Americans—and certainly not all of them—who voted for Trump are already having buyer’s remorse, realising he appointed an ambassador to Israel who said the Palestinian people don’t even exist. This is a guy who wanted to ban all Muslims from the US, and you think he’s going to be better for Arab Americans than Biden? Again, just massive disinformation guiding voters.

Question: In your 13 keys now that you spoke of and that you have built over time and have been working on, what are the changes that you’re looking at? Because you have been talking about disinformation—how much of that has been a key patch in all the 13 keys?

Professor Lichtman: Oh, I think it’s affected a lot of the keys. I talked about the economy, for example. I have quantitative indicators on the economy. But I don’t know yet how you adjust for disinformation. That’s something I have four years to work on—I’m not going to make a snap judgement after a week—but I’m studying and pondering. Unlike the Monday morning quarterbacks, I have a basis for reconsideration—a 42-year record.

Question: Right. Um, and I know you’re really short of time, so just a couple of questions. On your analysis of the election and how Trump is going to act politically, as a professor, someone who has been studying and reading the entire political landscape of the United States in terms of policies, what do you think Trump will bring to the table that could be disastrous for America? We’re looking at a lot of appointments that could be questionable. We do not know whether they’ll go through confirmation, but they do have a majority in the Senate and the House now.

Professor Lichtman: You know, one other thing I’ve been screaming about ever since the advent of Trump is I’ve been blasting those foolish people who say, “Oh, he doesn’t really mean what he says. He’s just saying this, it’s hyperbole.” That’s exactly how authoritarianism takes hold—when you don’t believe what an authoritarian is saying.

Trump now, through his appointments, like Matt Gaetz or Pete Hegseth, has made it crystal clear he is going to do exactly what he said: launch a campaign of revenge against his political enemies, eliminate the independence of federal agencies, put his own thumb on everything, and begin the disastrous policy of deportation.

And you know, it’s not like undocumented immigrants live in separate communities with a big sign saying, “Undocumented immigrants live here.” They are integrated into our society. They are married to US citizens; 4.4 million children in America have at least one parent who’s undocumented.

So, you’re going to violate the lives of millions of Americans, and you’ll ensnare US citizens because the data you have is utterly obsolete and unreliable, and you’re going to crush the economy. So, on so many levels—in terms of the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution, the liberties of Americans, the violation of people’s rights, and the torpedoing of the economy—I’m very, very worried. And I think a lot of people fell right into the trap of discounting what Trump had to say.

Question: Did Kamala Harris have anything better to offer? Because we do know you’re saying that the record on the economy under the Biden administration was quite strong. But was it because America is still not ready for a woman president, especially one of colour?

Professor Lichtman: Well, I gave you my broader analysis, which would apply to any Democratic candidate. But I also gave you my analysis of the importance of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia. A woman president who was also a woman of colour, of mixed African and Asian descent, is a particular target of that. Certainly, that was an element.

Question: Just one final question, on foreign policy. He withdrew from the Paris Agreement. He withdrew from the JCPOA. He intends to withdraw from the Russia-Ukraine war, and he intends to really solidify Israel’s position. Where will that put the world and America in terms of the superpower that it was—and I don’t think it any longer is?

Professor Lichtman: You know, since the 1940s, collective security with our allies has kept America safe, and there have been those who tried to torpedo it. Dwight Eisenhower, the great general, ran for president in 1952 to oppose the isolationists within his own party and establish collective security.

Trump threatens to torpedo that collective security that has kept America and the West safe for so many decades. I’m also very worried about his kowtowing to dictators. Look, he appointed Tulsi Gabbard as Director of Intelligence—someone who has very close ties to Vladimir Putin. And Trump seems to be taking Putin’s side in the war in Ukraine.

So, yes, I’m very worried that the long tradition of collective security and opposition to murderous dictators that has served the West so well will be undermined in a Trump administration. Although I’m a bit encouraged—I think the one positive appointment he made, presuming he’s going to stick to it, is Marco Rubio as Secretary of State.