Time.news – Donald Trump’s clear victory in the presidential elections has not only put the Democrats on the grill, but pollsters and forecasting gurus. The first two names targeted are those of the historian Allan Lichtman, considered the “Nostradamus” of predictions for having guessed all the results of the presidential elections in the last forty years, except that of 2000, decided at the last vote, between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and the forecasting ‘guru’, the political scientist Nate Silver. Both had predicted Kamala Harris’ victory. Lichtman publicly admitted that he was wrong, but calling his rival into question: “Unlike Nate Silver – declared the professor – who will try to avoid having to explain why he didn’t understand what was happening, I admit that I was wrong”. Silver, at the helm of America’s most followed polling site, FiveThirtyEight, had said for weeks that the challenge between Harris and Trump would be like “flipping a coin”, given the great uncertainty, but on the eve of the vote he had indicated the vice president as the probable winner.
In reality, not only did Harris not win, but there wasn’t even a head-to-head, as Trump won all seven key states and also took more votes than his opponent in the global count. Even the pollsters have collapsed: for months the various institutes have stunned millions of Americans with data on state-by-state challenges and on the popular vote, portraying a country that was actually going the other way.
Even the analyzes published in the media appeared a bit messy, like the one, published on October 8, by the analyst Nate Cohn who in the New York Times had done a long analysis on the vote, but got the calculations wrong, starting from the differences between two percentages of voters: for him between 55 and 41 there were 13 points. A more attentive person would have indicated 14 as the correct difference. But the confusion and sloppiness of the analysis seemed like the tip of the iceberg of the polling business: in every election, millions of Americans looked at the numbers and relied on them. Each new survey attracted clicks, but ended up distancing the “readers” from the real perception of the “voters”.
What also made the fiasco of the polls more sensational was the fact that this is not the first time that the institutes have made predictions wrong: in 2016 the New York Times announced, on the eve of the vote, that Hillary Clinton had a 91 percent chance of win against Trump’s 9 percent, who then won with a landslide like this year. The tycoon’s electorate has always been underestimated.
Even four years ago, Joe Biden was given a lead of 9 points over Trump by the FiveThirtyEight site, which tracked the average of the polls, and then won with about half the expected gap. Furthermore, the Democratic candidate was clearly ahead in Arizona and Georgia, where he won by a few thousand votes, and ahead in North Carolina and Florida, where he then lost. This time, precisely because of the size of the result and the resounding flop, Americans may begin to no longer take the polls as scientific documents. Analysts like Silver will be viewed with less confidence. And perhaps the Nostradamus of elections, Professor Licthman, will not be asked to point to a winner based on his prediction model. Or if it happens, Americans are warned: don’t trust it too much, because the so-called American experts probably know as much as you do.
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Historian Allan Lichtman
Time.news Editor: Welcome, Allan. It’s a pleasure to have you with us today. Your reputation as a “Nostradamus” of political predictions precedes you, but your recent prediction regarding Kamala Harris’ victory certainly took many by surprise, including yourself. Can you tell us about that moment of realization?
Allan Lichtman: Thank you for having me. Yes, it was a surprising outcome indeed. As a historian, I base my predictions on historical trends and patterns. However, this election showcased anomalies that broke the mold. I misread the dynamics at play and underestimated Trump’s appeal in key battleground states.
Editor: You mentioned historical dynamics. What particular trends or indicators did you think would favor Harris that turned out to be wrong?
Lichtman: Historically, incumbents or those closely associated with them tend to win in times of relative stability. The expectation was that people would lean towards continuity during trying times, like the pandemic. What I missed was the undercurrent of dissatisfaction among voters that surged towards Trump instead.
Editor: Nate Silver, another well-regarded forecaster, famously compared the Harris-Trump race to “flipping a coin.” What’s your take on this approach, especially considering how the polling predictions ultimately failed?
Lichtman: Nate’s model relies heavily on statistical probabilities, which is a valid approach. However, it can fail to capture the emotional and psychological factors that drive voter behavior. The electorate doesn’t always adhere to statistical predictions, especially when sociopolitical sentiments are in flux. I tried to highlight the importance of looking beyond the numbers.
Editor: Speaking of the numbers, numerous polling firms seemed to have gotten it wrong this time. How do you view the current state of polling and forecasting in American politics?
Lichtman: It’s certainly a watershed moment for pollsters. Many of them have become overly reliant on data without understanding the underlying narratives. The error margin was much greater this election, showing that the methodologies need reevaluation. The polling industry cannot afford to present misleading data that shapes public perception.
Editor: It appears that even seasoned analysts from reputable outlets like the New York Times fell into miscalculating basic percentages. How can the fallout from this election improve future analyses?
Lichtman: The key takeaway here is accountability. Analysts and pollsters need to commit to transparency when errors occur. Perhaps we need a cultural shift in how predictions are seen—not as absolute but as narratives that can shift with the public’s mood and sentiments. Continuous learning is crucial.
Editor: Reflecting on your prediction techniques, what would you suggest future pollsters or political analysts consider to enhance their methodologies?
Lichtman: They should look at a broader range of variables—socioeconomic, cultural, and even psychological factors that drive behavior. Engaging with voters to understand their concerns and perspectives is crucial. Data without context can lead to significant misinterpretations.
Editor: Lastly, where do you see American politics heading in the wake of such surprising election outcomes?
Lichtman: I think we’re at a crossroads. The division and polarization are stark, and Trump’s victory may encourage a more aggressive discourse in future elections. However, it also opens opportunities for new voices and leaders that can potentially bridge these gaps. It’s an unpredictable landscape.
Editor: Thank you, Allan, for your insights and candid reflection on this election cycle. It’s clear there’s much for us to learn as we move forward in anticipating the unpredictability of American politics.
Lichtman: Thank you for having me. It’s an ongoing conversation, and I’m looking forward to the developments in the next elections!