«Nostradamus» of US elections predicts a Harris win

Allan Lichtman has many talents and plenty of stamina. In his youth, he was a steeplechase champion. A former steeplechase champion, he later gained notoriety in the U.S. as a quiz show sensation, winning over $100,000 on «Tic-Tac-Dough.». Now 77, Lichtman still jogs daily, preparing to compete in the Senior Olympics, all while continuing his teaching career as a professor at Washington, D.C.’s American University, where he has been a fixture since 1973.

Lichtman’s true claim to fame, however, is his 13 «Keys to the White House.» These are factors that he says can make the difference between victory and defeat in presidential elections. His model considers factors like candidates’ charisma, the economy’s health, White House scandals, and the incumbent party’s legislative successes. Using this system, Lichtman has correctly predicted the winner in nine out of the last 10 presidential elections. Thanks to this track record, Lichtman has earned the moniker of a «Nostradamus» or «prophet» of the race to the White House. Recently, he shared his prediction for this year’s contest.

Mr. Lichtman, you are convinced that Kamala Harris will win the presidential election. However, current polling suggests a more uncertain outcome. With nearly two months to go before the election, what makes you so confident in your prediction?

My prediction ignores the polls. Polls are just snapshots in time, not reliable indicators of future outcomes. I focus on how American presidential elections actually work. The 13 keys measure the strength and track record of the party in the White House. There’s a clear-cut rule: if six or more keys turn against the incumbent party, it loses; if fewer do, it wins. This model has an unmatched track record, predicting every election since Ronald Reagan’s reelection in 1985. In fact, I made my prediction three years before that race, during one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression, when Reagan’s approval ratings were at rock bottom.

Critics say you wrongly predicted a victory for Al Gore against George W. Bush in 2000. But you maintain your forecast was accurate. Why do you believe that?

Bill Maher once asked me on his show why I got the 2000 election wrong. But I didn’t get it wrong – Florida did. My prediction was about the will of the voters, and by that measure, Gore should have won. In Florida, they discarded roughly every ninth or tenth vote cast by African Americans, while among white voters, only one in 50 votes was rejected. Had African American ballots been discarded at the same rate as white voters’, Gore would have won by tens of thousands of votes. Most of the discarded ballots were what’s called «overvotes.» These were African American voters who punched Gore’s name and then, to be extra sure, wrote it in as well. Florida threw out those ballots. An independent study confirmed this. So when I say I was right, that’s what I mean. But we could go back and forth on 2000 forever.

You’ve based your 13 Keys system on an analysis of every presidential election since 1860. But this year, the landscape is anything but typical. A president who was voted out of office is running again, and the Democrats have nominated the vice president instead of the incumbent. Doesn’t that make this election uniquely challenging?

Every four years, many people say to me: Oh, this election is different, you have to change your keys. But the keys are the North Star of the election forecast. They remain constant despite all the other changes. Changing them on the fly would be fatal. As you mentioned, the system goes back to 1860. Women had no voting rights back then. African Americans were enslaved. There were no cars and no airplanes, no radio and no television. We had an agricultural economy. The fact that the keys have proved to be so reliable gives me confidence – regardless of the always unique circumstances of any given election.

You developed the 13 Keys nearly 40 years ago in partnership with Soviet seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok. How did an American historian come to collaborate with a Soviet earthquake expert?

In 1981, we were both visiting scientists at the California Institute of Technology and hit it off right away. Keilis-Borok, the world’s foremost expert on earthquake prediction, actually proposed the collaboration. He told me he’d always wanted to apply his seismic prediction techniques to elections. «I live in the Soviet Union,» he said. «We don’t have elections. But you’re an expert on the most consequential elections in the world, the American presidential elections.» And so we became this odd couple of political analysis.

And what, exactly, do earthquakes have in common with U.S. elections?

We made two critical breakthroughs. First, we didn’t treat presidential elections as Carter versus Reagan or the Democrats versus the Republicans. We framed it as either a period of stability or an earthquake. Stability means the party in power stays in the White House; an earthquake means it’s thrown out. Second, we consciously avoided focusing on voter demographics or polling data. Instead, we applied Keilis-Borok’s method to every presidential election from Abraham Lincoln in 1860 to Ronald Reagan in 1980. That’s how we found the 13 keys and the critical six-keys-and-you’re-out rule.

So if an incumbent is reelected, this means stability. If they are voted out, is it an earthquake?

A political earthquake. If the incumbent loses more than six keys, he is out.

Can you also predict whether there will be a clear or narrow electoral victory?

There is a slight correlation between the keys and a clear or narrow election result. But that’s not what I’m predicting. I focus on the most important outcome: who wins and who loses. Every four years, I go out on a limb, because I’m either right or wrong. And let me tell you, even at 77, I still get nervous. Every election cycle, half the country ends up mad at me. And after 40 years, the whole country is angry with me. But my predictions have nothing to do with my political views. I’ve predicted wins for the two most conservative presidents of our time – Reagan and Trump – just as I have for progressive leaders like Obama and now Harris.

Let’s take a closer look at this year’s keys. Which keys were most relevant for you in 2024?

The decisive factor here is Biden stepping aside. I was very critical of the Democrats for openly undermining their sitting president. I thought they were heading for disaster, that they would lose the incumbency key and risk a major party fight. An open contested primary would have cost them another key – the «contest key.» But then the Democrats got their act together and rallied behind Harris. That’s why they only lost the incumbency key.

And which other keys were critical?

Harris’ nomination had a positive effect on two other keys. With her in the race, voters aren’t faced with a choice between two old white men – something that also contributed to the collapse of Robert F. Kennedy’s campaign. This helped the Democrats secure the «third party key» (the key associated with independent candidates). Harris also had a positive influence on the key for social unrest. Biden was the architect of the government’s policy, but with him stepping back, social protests – particularly against the war in Gaza – have lost momentum. To flip this key, the protests would have to be massive and sustained, seriously threatening social stability.

And which keys were more difficult for you to forecast?

The keys with the most uncertainty are those dealing foreign policy successes and failures. With two wars ongoing, the outcome is still unclear, and no one knows how things will unfold. But it wouldn’t matter. Even if both of these keys were to turn against the Democrats, it wouldn’t change the overall prediction – there still wouldn’t be six negative keys, and Harris would remain favored.

You also see Harris as having an advantage in terms of economic trends. Yet, surveys show voters view inflation as their biggest concern. How does that fit?

Surveys on the economy depend heavily on how the questions are formulated. In addition, the margin of error is much higher than the 3% that is often quoted. Then there are the people who don’t respond, who lie or have no opinion. And in the end, nobody knows who will actually turn out to vote. Our system, by contrast, is more reliable. The keys don’t change. There’s no recession on the horizon, and over the long term, real per capita growth in this presidential term has matched or exceeded the previous two. Both economic keys – short-term and long-term – are in Harris’ favor.

The second big issue on Americans’ minds is the record number of migrants who crossed the southern border illegally under Biden. You can’t ignore that, can you?

Don’t tell me I’m ignoring things! Nothing changes unless it affects a key. You can’t predict an election by cherry-picking individual issues or campaign details. If that worked, Hillary Clinton would’ve won by a landslide. She won every debate, raised more money in donations, advertised more, was better organized and was more experienced. Yet, while experts and pollsters were wrong, our keys correctly predicted victory for Trump.

Many experts have drawn parallels between this year’s race and 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson opted not to seek reelection and the Democrats suffered defeat. Couldn’t history repeat itself?

That’s a superficial view. Today’s situation cannot be compared with 1968. Back then, a disastrous war was underway in Vietnam. The incumbent’s party lost both foreign policy keys – successes and failures. There was also major social unrest. Cities were in flames, and millions of people were protesting in the streets. And we had a bitter and tragic power struggle within the Democratic Party over the presidential nomination.

You have never revised your forecasts retrospectively. And I believe you typically make your predictions around two months before the election, right after Labor Day in early September.

No, that’s not true. There’s no set timetable in which the values of the keys become apparent. Sometimes it’s late, like in the last few elections – August or September. But it can also happen earlier. Many experts were wrong about Obama’s reelection in 2012. I predicted the election back in 2010 because I could already see how the keys were lining up.

There is a tradition of so-called October surprises in U.S. presidential elections. Take Trump’s «Access Hollywood» tape, for example, in which he boasted about sexually assaulting women. Could a similar scandal still upend your forecast?

The idea of an «October Surprise» is one of the great myths in American political analysis. What happens in October has never changed my forecast. My predictions paint the big picture. My keys are based on history and are very reliable. I’m not talking to the Almighty or staring into a crystal ball.

You’re 77 and have been at this for 40 years. How much longer do you plan to continue? And have someone in mind to succeed you as the «Nostradamus» of predicting the outcome of U.S. presidential elections?

That’s a great question. I’m 77, but I just won two medals on the track at the Maryland Senior Olympics, and I’ve qualified for the national Senior Games in the 800 and 1,500 meters. I am in very good health. My advice to your readers is: The key to a healthy old age is regular endurance training. But, of course, I can’t go on forever. That’s why I’m working with my son to make him the new Nostradamus.

Is he also a historian?

No, he isn’t. He’s a communications expert and is very reluctant to take this on. So we will see.

Latest articles

Global reporting. Swiss-quality journalism.

In today’s increasingly polarized media market, the Switzerland-based NZZ offers a critical and fact-based outside view. We are not in the breaking-news business. We offer thoughtful, well-researched stories and analyses that go behind the headlines to explain relevant events in the U.S., in Europe and worldwide. To produce this work, the NZZ maintains an industry-leading network of expert reporters around the globe who work closely with our main newsroom in Zurich.

Sign up for our free newsletter or follow us on Twitter, Facebook or WhatsApp.