Historian Allan Lichtman: Dems Might Do Better With An "Off-The-Wall" 2020 Candidate

[BeckyDem]

Historian Allan Lichtman: Democrats Might Do Better With An "Off-The-Wall" 2020 Candidate Rather Than Safe Establishment Pick

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date June 7, 2019

Alan Lichtman, an American University professor who has correctly predicted the outcome of the past nine presidential elections and author of The Case For Impeachment," told HILL.TV this week that based on his predictive system Donald Trump might be on course to win in 2020 unless the economy falters or he is impeached.

He also had some suggestions for Democrats about who to nominate to defeat Trump, saying "the conventional wisdom is all wrong."

"The conventional wisdom you hear from Nancy Pelosi and others is we need to go down the center line and nominate an establishment, experienced, proven candidate, and they’ve done that many times," he said, listing: "Mike Dukakis in 1988, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton."

"And what do they all have in common? They all lost," he said. "It’s the off-the-wall candidates -- the Carters, the [Bill] Clintons, the Obamas -- who no one expected who have won."

JAMAL SIMMONS, THE HILL: Can I ask you about your "Keys to Re-Election"? You are predicting that Donald Trump at this point would be re-elected?

ALAN LICHTMAN: Not really, that's not a formal prediction... There aren't enough to count him out.

SAAGAR ENJETI, THE HILL: Tell us the methodology?

ALAN LICHTMAN: The methodology [for predicting presidential elections], and I developed this in 1981 examining every election from 1860 to 1980, so from the horse and buggy days to the modern era, and the basic thesis is that presidential elections have little or nothing to do with campaigns, ads, speeches, issues, or ideology, but are a referendum up or down of the strength and performance of the party holding the White House, and almost all the keys gauge that in a simple yes/no true/false questions, like: Is the economy in recession during the election year? Has the party in power lost seats in the midterms?

And if six or more of these go against the party in power, they lose. Right now Donald Trump only has three! A lot is going to happen in the next year and a half, but the scandal key is so critical because it would diminish his cushion, and is one of those keys that has been a trigger key for other keys.

JAMAL SIMMONS: It sounds like what you're doing right now is like a mid-semester progress report.

ALAN LICHTMAN: I would agree with that.

SAAGAR ENJTI: Who are you looking at in the Democratic field? Say those keys could be turned, how is somebody in the Democratic field who could be able to turn the keys to take President Trump out?

ALAN LICHTMAN: Great question, and again, the conventional wisdom is all wrong. The conventional wisdom you hear from Nancy Pelosi and others is we need to go down the center line and nominate an establishment, experienced, proven candidate, and they’ve done that many times.

Mike Dukakis in 1988, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and what do they all have in common? They all lost.

It’s the off-the-wall candidates -- the Carters, the Clintons, the Obamas -- who no one expected who have won.

What I've been saying is, if there is one word I would strike out of the political lexicon it is "electability."

History does change, but the "Keys" system is very robust. As I said, I looked at elections all the way back to 1860s. We still had slavery, my ancestors from Eastern Europe weren't here yet, women didn't vote, we were in the horse and buggy era. So the system has really survived a lot of historical changes. Is it infallible forever? Who knows?

But I've been told many times, it can't work in 2008 because we have an African American candidate, it can't work in 2016 because we have a woman candidate and that changes everything, and I remain steadfast. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to say this system works.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/07/historian_allan_lichtman_democrats_might_do_better_with_an_off_the_wall_2020_candidate_rather_than_safe_pick.html

[Dennis Donovan]

1. So, he's pulling for Gravelle?

[BeckyDem]

2. That wasn't my take at all.

Obama, at the time, was considered an off the wall bet to win the WH.

[Dennis Donovan]

6. I was joking.

[BeckyDem]

9. Oh, sorry. lol

[qazplm135]

13. Not really

He was second solidly all the way back in Nov of that primary season.

He was the underdog but off the wall? No

[BeckyDem]

14. Off the wall meaning non conventional is what he is referring to.

That is my take on his opinion for 2020.

[qazplm135]

35. I mean

if you more or less start off in second place and hold it for almost a year before voting starts...that feels not very non conventional.

His policies weren't radical at all. His approach wasn't even radical.

The only thing unconventional about him was his skin tone and his name.

I just think it's a stretch being used to give further evidence to his personal theory, which, yes, thus far has been accurate as far as these things go.

[BeckyDem]

37. Point taken. He does use a criteria which is interesting.

He also believes Trump can be impeached. We live in unsettled times, and he brings interesting points of view, so I posted the interview.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/23/election_forecasting_guru_allan_lichtman_predicts_donald_trump_will_win_2016_election.html

[Kahuna7]

73. LOL! Maybe Kucinich will run again. nt

[DownriverDem]

3. Disagree

Voters want normalcy after experiencing trump. Biden represents normalcy. I have no problem with Biden changing his mind on past issues either. Don't forget it was Biden who changed Obama's mind on gay marriage.

[BeckyDem]

5. Maybe but this guy has a perfect track record of measuring who can get to the WH.

I posted his opinion because it is considerable.

[extvbroadcaster]

10. He's right

Trump was a blank slate to most voters. He's a world class con man, and his "only I can fix it" and "I don't need the money, I'm already rich" BS were bought hook, line and sinker. Democrats need a ticket that is young and transformational. Then voters have a simple choice, and they might say "hey, give the young ticket a shot".

[Ninga]

4. Not one person should under estimate the "fight" anchored in Elizabeth Warren's DNA.

Should she rise to be the nominee, we will see from her a campaign from her like no other.
She will tell the truth, and not dress it up like a pig.
She will win freely laugh at him, shrug it off, and give insight to how she will deal with the rest of the world.
I believe it, because I have seen it.

[BeckyDem]

7. Well, I have a bias. For me she is the one.

She also fits the non traditional Dem with her policies.

[marylandblue]

15. I like Warren too, she is my second choice, and I find her very charismatic.

Lichtman's theory includes charisma as one of the keys. She's being portrayed as a policy wonk, but when she speaks, people listen. She's not charismatic in the usual politician way, but in that teacherly way that can change you for a lifetime.

[OhZone]

8. A safe, middle left, experienced, calm cadidate -

seems very "off the wall" right now compared to the incompetent, crazy, unstable, lying, racist, sexist, homophobic, traitorous ego-maniac that currently occupies the Whitehouse.

[marylandblue]

11. I agree with him, but the term "off the wall," is not part of his theory.

One of the keys is charisma, which Obama had. We are better off with an exciting candidate like O'Rourke or Buttigieg than an "experienced" candidate like Biden.

[qazplm135]

38. O'Rourke is exciting how?

He barely is in the top ten right now. Obama started off more or less second/third and quickly solidified second a year out from voting.

Neither of your listed candidates did that or are doing that.

[marylandblue]

44. Lichtman does not look at polls. He looks at how well candidates fit his model..

He also doesn't predict primary winners. He recommend who he thinks would be the strongest primary candidate, and according to the model, it would be a war hero or someone percieved as highly charismatic. "Percieved" because charisma is a subjective judgement. O'Rourke and Buttigieg both have this perception, but they also have deficiencies that Obama didn't have, so may not win the primary.

In my view, Warren is charismatic, but that's not how the media talks about her. Still, I see possibilities for her as the public sees more of her.

In this year, debates will play a larger than usual role. Someone who stands out on the crowded stage will get a big boost. Except it's more complicated for Biden. The frontrunner always has more downside in debates. If he doesn't stand out enough or he gaffes, people may turn away and look for someone else.

[qazplm135]

51. they have that perception

among their supporters, not a whole lot of other people think so, I mean, because if it were otherwise, they'd be higher in the polls.

Buttigieg certainly seems quite frankly more intelligent and substantive than O'Rourke so to me that explains why he's doing a bit better in the polls, but neither of them have the charisma to make it to the end game IMO. Buttigieg is too young ultimately and probably too centrist, and O'Rourke doesn't really tick off anything other than being a young, good looking white guy.

People are too focused and worried about the media, or the mythical white centrist IMO.

Biden will win or lose by how much damage he takes (or doesn't) in the debates.
Warren and Sanders will both lose unless one of them either falls off a cliff, or gets out and endorses the other.
Harris only wins if Biden takes damage and she rises as the replacement "not far left" candidate.

After that, I just don't see a path forward for any of the other candidates either because they don't fill a niche to stand out, or they have a particular flaw or negative thing that holds them back. I suppose if Biden falls apart, AND Warren/Sanders stay in til the end, AND Harris doesn't scoop up any Biden fall out, then in that very narrow scenario, Buttigieg has a chance to be the Biden replacement candidate.

[JI7]

77. Obama is a once in a lifetime type .

[marylandblue]

88. There's no such thing as a "once in a life time type."

Great candidates come when they come and the times make them as much as they make the times. Some people saw Obama coming and they turned out to be right, but they don't have a crystal ball. This time, others see greatness in certain candidates and others don't. I favor Buttigieg myself, but I can foresee greatness from many of our candidates, not just because they so great, but because the times demand it. Greatness will be thrust upon them, as Churchill said.

[qazplm135]

90. he's talking about the charisma and the ability

to bridge the entire party in a way that temporarily quieted the left-center left divide that reignited in 2015...and is looking to continue for this election.

We have not seen that very often.

[marylandblue]

91. Yes, I understand that, but before Obama was Obama the Great, he was just another rising star.

Today we have several rising stars. If one of them goes on to win, then that one will be the "once in a lifetime candidate" that subsequent candidates will be compared to. If they don't win, Obama will still set the standard.

[c-rational]

12. Speaking of scandals, has anyone heard what happened to the release of the Dumpster's

New York State tax returns? I have to believe that a forensic accountant or good tax attorney would find criminal wrongdoing there, just as Nixon was found to have cheated on his taxes. This issue seems to have dropped off the planet.

[marylandblue]

17. Congress did not request his returns per the recent New York State law.

They'd rather work their way through the courts, I don't know why. New York AG is still investigating Trump, but no word on when they will have anything to show.

[c-rational]

34. Thank you for your reply. I also do not know why they would wait. When offered the sought

information through a legitimate legal avenue I believe it should be taken. With no rationale given I find this disheartening.

[MBS]

16. I'm usually pragmatic ("mainstream") in my presidential choices,

and I am also skeptical about Lichtman's alleged Super Powers in political predictions.
Nevertheless, I'm 100% with Lichtman on this. I'm even surprising myself how strongly I feel about the need for someone new.

[BeckyDem]

19. He has predicted each win for president successfully.

He is open about his criteria, which is interesting. I posted this not to upset anyone, but to consider what he seems to understand about the election process.

[qazplm135]

40. except he hasn't

As someone noted below...he predicted Gore then said, well my system only applies to the popular vote.
Then he predicted Trump (who lost the popular vote) and he said, see, I nailed it again!

[BeckyDem]

41. Do you really believe that disqualifies him?

He has done exceedingly well, overall.

Those two election cycles produced wild events. I think we can learn something from his criteria.

[marylandblue]

46. I am the one who criticized him, but I agree his model is still useful.

I just think it's dishonest to portray his track record as better than it actually is.

[BeckyDem]

47. ok, fair enough.

[qazplm135]

52. I don't think that "disqualifies him"

but I also understand the concept of sample size and bias.

First, he's called 9 elections. He was right in 8 of them (if as he says it's about predicting the popular vote winner, then he was wrong once with Trump, if he says it was picking the person elected, he was wrong once with Gore).

So, he's 7/8 either way. That's great and all, but 8 is a really small sample size.

Second, there haven't exactly been a lot of surprises in those 9 elections for the general election.
Obama twice wasn't a surprise.
Clinton once wasn't a surprise.
Reagan twice wasn't a surprise.
Bush once wasn't a surprise.
Clinton's first win was, and I would say Hillary and Gore were certainly nail-biters that could have gone either way (and not surprisingly, the two his model was iffy on were the two that were the closest).

Third, his keys are, for the most part, rather obvious indicators.
1. One party won the last election in the House (i.e increased seats)
2. if a President isn't facing a primary opponent, they probably have pretty strong support in their party
3. Incumbency matters
4. Short term economy doesn't suck
5. long term economy doesn't suck
6. Did the incoming President do something everyone is pissed off about?

I could go on and on. The bottom line is, his system works fine in relatively "normal" elections. Because all of the duh/obvious things hold true. I mean his system is based on very reasonable, obvious but valid and logical things.

It's the abnormal elections were his system is about the same as a coin flip. I would propose to you that 16 and 20 are not going to be normal elections because Trump and the current environment are both not normal.

So, I would argue that opposite. It's during the "wild times" that his criteria are the least useful. It's during the normal times that his very rational and reasonable criteria are less useful.

[JI7]

55. and one of the biggest indicators is the economy

[qazplm135]

59. sure

in normal times.

In normal times, Trump would be at 55-60 percent with this economy.

It's not normal times.

[JI7]

61. i meant 1992 and 2008

McCain knew he was going to lose which was one reason he ended up picking Palin .

[BeckyDem]

65. Duh obvious?

I don't agree with you on the veracity of his key criteria. A thoughtful intelligent historian wants to see Trump gone too, I believe that much and more is true.

[marylandblue]

21. He Deifnitely has no super powers and is a bit intellectually dishonest.

In 2000, he predicted Gore would win. After the fact, he said the model predicts the popular vote only. In 2016, he predicted Trump would win, and ignored his 2000 excuse.

I still like his theory though, as a guide what sort of issues people look at when voting, and having charisma is definitely a factor. I suppose it can be said just off-the-wall has it's advantages too, when people are looking for big changes, as they are now.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

18. I find myself agreeing with this line of thinking

What is a safe candidate?

The most experienced therefore the most recognisable. That tends to be the response and understandably - these candidates have been in the public eye for years therefore vetted more than most.

But against someone as bombastic as Trump I think the safe candidate could be the one who is relatively new to the national stage. Someone who has a record of achievements but not too long whereby the quandary of looking at things said and done 20 years ago is conflicted by the standards of today.

Carter and Clinton were both Governors so they had experience at running an executive branch. But they were relatively young and "new" therefore that comes with a little bit of ambiguity which in politics translates to many voters as something worth a shot. What have you got to lose?

[BeckyDem]

20. Yea. Be bold, that is perhaps the best way out of this mess.

[Freddie]

22. What do 2 out of 3 of them have in common?

Carter and Clinton. Both little known (nationally) Governors. That’s why I think Jay Inslee could win.

[BeckyDem]

24. Once the debates begin, I truly beleive anything is possible.

He will have the national stage and ya never know.

[Peacetrain]

23. And who could have seen Donald Trump... lI am still mortified that we elected

such an unqualified person.. and that is why I think.. people are actually going to look for someone with experience but you cannot argue with is results..

[BeckyDem]

25. Yes, I agree and why I posted the interview.

[JI7]

26. it wasn't hard to see Trump if one paid attention to the tea baggers

and just overall reaction to Obama. and the southern strategy.

[marylandblue]

36. It makes perfect sense that people would look for experience

Yet, since Carter, the person with less overall experience has usually won. If you compare Washington insiders vs. outsiders, the outsider who said they would fix Washington usually beat someone had been in Washington much longer.

Some people say Biden is "safe" because he is so experienced and people want that. But if you go by how people have actually been voting for the last 40 years, an outsider candidate was the better betx even if they started very low in the polls.

[sop]

27. How about Bill Maher?

Bill's always on the road doing stand-up in red states like Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma, he'd be a natural out on the stump. And most importantly, he's got Trump's number.

Maher's riffs about Trump's tenuous grasp on reality, like his phony inauguration crowds, would kill on the campaign trail. “That was the most people he ever saw in one place, so it must be the most people who ever gathered anywhere! That’s why he thinks he has a big dick. It’s the biggest one he has.”

"Although honestly, doesn’t everything about this man scream microdick? The bragging, and the buildings with my name on it! And the debates. He was talking about his dick at the debates! That guy is president. Remember that?"

"I think there’s a problem. I think there’s a very big problem. I think this is a man who has never once brought a woman to orgasm, if he even believes such a thing exists. It’s rigged! It’s rigged! The vagina has been very unfair to me! Very unfair!”

Maher's stand-up routine already resembles a Trump Bund rally. "There’s yelling. Wild gesticulation. Mocking nicknames. Chanting 'whiny little bitch!'. Punchlines. Obsessing over perceived slights. Culture-war griping. And, for those in the crowd, an unwavering allegiance to the man with the mic, even when he’s, say, lobbing cheap redneck-incest jokes, in Tulsa."

All kidding aside, we need Bill Maher on a debate stage with Trump.

[BeckyDem]

28. I'm not a Bill Maher fan but I would watch a debate with him and Trump.

That would be hilarious.

[shanny]

29. I think he's right.

This is no time for same ol' same ol.'

[Hoyt]

30. Sounds like a woman fits his model.

[Indygram]

31. Sounds like the guy who never gets it wrong is saying Democrats should nominate someone who might

ride a skateboard in a parking lot
stand on a table here or there
have been in a punk rock band
who communicates with his arms and hands
would rather talk to voters and listen to their concerns than suck up to national news wannabe kingmakers

Factor in the charisma, ability to inspire and motivate and being able to turn out a 500% increase in young voters and common sense should say...

Beto is the one. His army of dedicated supporters and volunteers in Texas can possibly turn Texas blue...and if he doesn't...because Republicans KNOW how close he got last time they will have to put MILLIONS and MILLIONS of money there to try to defend it. That leaves many other states Beto can win over vulnerable. There is not anyone who will work harder than Beto.

[BeckyDem]

32. ha ha well done.

Nice advocacy!

[Indygram]

50. Thanks!

On a more serious note, though...I am a somewhat moderate Independent. I live in a very red county in Florida. I don't volunteer, don't donate and don't always vote in midterms. I've listened to and watched pretty much all of the candidates. I am a news and political junkie in that I pay very close attention and have for a very long time (I'm in my 50's) I donate to Beto. If he is the nominee my old ass WILL get out and volunteer for him. (And one final edit...I will even change my party registration to Democrat just so I can vote for him in Florida's primary!)

Beto inspires and motivates me. None of the others do. I don't dislike them at all, but Beto has got me feeling some kinda way. If he can do that to me I am telling you...he WILL win this thing. He will win it BIG. I seriously recommend anyone who has doubts about him or who has not done so yet...watch Running With Beto on HBO. The man is political magic. He is a once in a lifetime candidate and if Democrats sleep on this guy it will perhaps be the biggest loss of opportunity for positive change in our lifetimes. I honestly and truly believe this. Beto IS the one.

[marylandblue]

39. Yes, O'Rourke could win, but Buttigieg and Warren fit the profile too.

So we can't say who is "the one," yet.

[emmaverybo]

57. He does not communicate well with his arms and hands. He communicates nervous energy.

His repetitive pumping arm gesture distracts from, rather than conveys, message. It is exhausting to watch. Since the pumping does nothing to disperse or focus this energy, his voice tightens and you see that physically manifest in his neck.
He needs a good speech coach to help him relax his body and voice, use the fist and pumping arm gesture more sparingly, vary body language with fluid and open gestures. I want to say breathe Beto, breathe when he’s speaking.
The Alexander method would greatly help. In about six sessions he’d free up physically— posture, voice, body— so he would appear taller, true, but that’s a good thing. Now Beto, you can use your diaphragm to produce the sound, take the load off your vocal chords.
He’s projecting enthusiasm and excitement, but he’s wearing himself down, and will wear on audiences with more exposure.
Maybe needs to do yoga instead of skateboarding.

[Indygram]

60. Again...Beto is the ONLY one who gets my money or who

I believe in enough to go volunteer for. After the Hyde Amendment debacle I simply don't trust Biden anymore. He is just telling people what he believes they want to hear and although I am a moderate for the most part I think Biden's time has come and gone and I don't see where he is willing to put in the level of work I think this race is going to require. Sorry, but he should have known how people felt about the Hyde Amendment but he isn't out there talking to enough people to have a clue as to what people want. That just doesn't fly with me.

[JI7]

66. Beto refused to support a Democrat over will hurd last year

this time around he is supporting the Democrat. so what he did is similar to Biden.

i prefer Beto over Biden but what you say about others can be said about him also.

in the end it's about supporting whoever is the nominee.

[Indygram]

74. To me it's not the same at all

Keep in mind that I have been a registered Independent my entire adult life. I'm in my 50's. I have voted for Republicans in the past. It hasn't been for a very long time because the Democratic candidates have been more moderate since that God awful Sarah Palin showed up. I am, however, a mother of daughters and a grandmother. Their reproductive rights rank FAR higher on my list than a political office in Texas that was unlikely to be won either way.

I also didn't say that I won't vote for Biden IF he is the nominee. My heart will not be in it, though, and I don't normally donate or volunteer. Beto inspires me to do more because I believe in him. I won't do that for anyone I don't believe in. I'm not going to lie. In all likelihood, if Beto is not the nominee I am very likely to just disengage after 2020.

[JI7]

75. that district was won by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat lost by very small amount

and if you value reproductive rights why did you vote for republicans ?

[Indygram]

80. Not all Republicans are opposed to choice

I never voted for any who were. As I said...I stopped voting for Republicans when they stopped being more moderate. I have voted exclusively for Democrats for 10-15 years.

[emmaverybo]

79. I am not criticizing his message or his prospects. But someone should tell him that he

diminishes his chances with an unnecessarily detracting speech habit, easily corrected, which it seems some do not realize in this day of television, undermines him. What is natural, especially when borne of obvious unease, is not always what is effective. I really like him in the fray, but he
has to work on his public speaking presence as it enlarges beyond his base.
.

[left-of-center2012]

33. Making the case for Mayor Pete

[BeckyDem]

45. As I said to another poster, once the debates are televised, on the national stage,

you never can tell what will happen.

[Indygram]

53. The debates will work to Beto's advantage, I believe

He never uses a teleprompter and he REALLY knows the details on issues and policies. I've watched him at so many town halls to see how he responds to even the most difficult of questions with such comfort and ease. The fact that he doesn't poll test anything helps too, because he doesn't have to think back to what he said to which group before answering. Ted Cruz's staff person who helped prepare Cruz for debates said that Beto was the hardest opponent he ever had to prepare against for that reason. On top of that did you see that photo going around of him and Mayor Pete in the airport? My God Beto is gigantic! That's not going to hurt him on a stage full of other candidates, or Trump for that matter, if the orange one even agrees to debates.

[marylandblue]

76. Beto's problem is the competition.

He'll be sharing the stage with other smart, well-spoken, no-need-for-a-teleprompter people. I have my own favorite, but it's really hard to say who will sound best when they are all side by side. Beto does have that height advantage and I would love to see him tower over Trump.

[Indygram]

81. His advantage is in part that people have severely underestimated him

There is a lot more to debates than just being smart and well spoken, though. It's going to be a lot of fun to watch!

[IluvPitties]

42. Off the wall candidates I like? Yang and Williamson.

[BeckyDem]

43. I believe what he is trying to get across is, not conventional:

The conventional wisdom you hear from Nancy Pelosi and others is we need to go down the center line and nominate an establishment, experienced, proven candidate, and they’ve done that many times.

Mike Dukakis in 1988, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and what do they all have in common? They all lost.

[LibFarmer]

48. That convinced me

Tulsi Gabbard for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Honeycombe8]

49. Once again, it's not identity or even political stance. It's the PERSON.

Give me a Democratic candidate who's charismatic, articulate, has a good sense of humor, is brilliant, is good at speaking on the fly, is good at picking expert assistants, has some savvy political instincts, and has the physical traits that a President needs (height, reasonably attractive, etc.)....I'll show you a winner. It doesn't matter if he's far left, middle left, or conservative left.

Obama didn't win because he was biracial. Obama didn't win in spite of it, either. The thing about Obama was that he was OBAMA. He transcended such things as ideology, identity, and race. He was an exceptional individual.

Picking someone who is moderate and bland, or off the wall, doesn't matter. What matters is the PERSON, whatever he or she may be.

Unfortunately, none of the 23 candidates fits that bill. Pete comes closest, but America doesn't typically elect short men; Pete is short compared to the other candidates. Could he be elected anyway? Maybe. He is attractive. For those who'll criticize what they think is me being superficial: it's not me. It's voters and who they see as being a President.

[Butterflylady]

54. Please guys and gals

Take what this guy says with a grain of salt. He sites Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and Clinton.
First Dukakis, he lost because poppy Bush had Lee Atwater as campaign manager and he ran the Willie Horton adds. Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who Dukakis pardoned that once was out of prison murdered again. So Atwater had everyone thinking Dukakis was gonna pardon all these killers so your mother, wife, sisters and whoever were not safe with him as president. As I remember it, that scared the s**t out of everyone. Also poppy Bush was Regans VP so he was portrayed as the one who was better to carry on Regans legacy.

Second, Gore actually would have won, had the recount continued. Unfortunately the Supreme Court gave it to Bush. They did do the recount after Bush was put in office. They found that gore had won Florida, but didnt make a big deal about because 9-11 happened and they didn't want to have him seen as illegitimate.

Third, Kerry was cast as elite and Bush was cast as the kinda guy you can have a beer with.

Last, was Clinton and we all know what happened there. She was doing fine until Comey srewed it up. She would have won had Comey not happened.

Last of all you can't compare the the orange anal to any other repug candidate because well he is not like any other candidate in history and probably never will be again. He is to say the least, is not only not normal, but is also mentally deranged. So Mr Licthman, I wouldn't take what you have say as actual knowledge.

[OhZone]

56. Exactly this! nt

[Hortensis]

58. Yes. Political forums all the minor commentators

their 15 minutes over and over and over again for 2 years, then over and over again the next 2 years, etc.

They all have livings to earn, and we have our mental health and at least baseline judgement to protect.

[Indygram]

62. I remember all of these races

Dukakis was God awful boring and was considered "safe."
Gore, again...dull. He was lauded as being so smart and intellectual but was in no way strong at inspiring people to get out and vote. For that reason it was close enough for the outcome we all ended up with.

Kerry...again deemed to be the "safe" choice...another intellectual who played classical guitar and was a veteran would for sure be more strong than firebrand Howard Dean. And all the energy and excitement that Dean tapped into fizzled in disappointment.

Clinton...great candidate on paper, smart policy wonk who, if not for Russian help, probably would have eked out a win. I don't really include her in with the previous 3.

So yeah...Democrats are focused on a losing playbook right now with this "pick the safe one" focus. If they want to win they will pick the one with the most charisma who has proven they can bring in NEW voters and get young people to the polls....Beto.

[DesertRat]

82. Charisma is subjective and isn't the most important quality

In your opinion, Beto has "the most charisma", but MANY of our Dem. candidates exude charisma. It’s impossible to quantify how charismatic a candidate is.

Charisma does play a critical role, but after 3 years of insults and personal attacks from the current WH resident, imo qualifications for president should include a combination intelligence, diligence, honesty and experience.

For example, take the new Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers. You can google him, but he's not very charismatic and suffice it to say he's no George Clooney. His low-key campaign was all about bringing competence to the office. And he beat 2 term incumbent Gov. Scott Walker who was considered to be a Republican rising star.

[Indygram]

83. You are confusing charisma with charm and they are not the same thing.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/charisma

Charismatic people are able to charm people but they are also able to attract and influence them.

There are plenty of charming people who do NOT have the innate ability to influence people or attract them in large numbers.

Charisma is not subjective. Whether or not you personally find someone charming IS subjective, but again, charm and charisma are not one and the same.

[DesertRat]

84. Saying that Beto is "the most charismatic candidate" is subjective

In MY opinion, Warren, Harris, O'Rourke, Biden and Booker are the most charismatic candidates, not necessarily in that order. If you started a poll here on DU you'd find a variety of opinions.

We all have our favorites. But in the end, we all support the eventual nominee and fight like hell to get out the vote.

[Indygram]

85. That's not how charisma works

You can't base it on who you personally find the most appealing. It is entirely about the ability to attract, inspire, motivate and influence people into action who would otherwise NOT get involved. Beto was able to do what he did in Texas...increasing youth turnout by 500% and build that grassroots army because he has an incredible and powerful charisma that is very, very rare. It's the same kind of charisma that Bobby Kennedy had. It's a GOOD, PURE, selfless charisma.

[marylandblue]

89. That's not what the link you provided says.

It says "Such factors include, but are not limited to: confidence, exuberance, optimism, a ready smile, expressive body language, and a friendly, passionate voice."

Several candidates fit that description.

Furthermore, it says that not everyone will respond to a charismatic person the same way. O'Rourke blew over the people of Texas. He may not have the same effect on the rest of the country.

[BeckyDem]

63. The grain of salt? Like the polls that all said Hillary would win?

I find his approach to the history of winning elections interesting, and could help us, possibly.

[JI7]

64. that was before Comey

and polls did get closer after Comey.

she got millions more votes also and he says his predictions are only about the popular vote so that means he would have been wrong.

Gore also won the popular vote.

[BeckyDem]

67. He uses a 6 point criteria, that is explained in more detail in other interviews.

Hillary was considered the inevitable winner, he did not see it that way.

[JI7]

68. and we know why her numbers went the way it did. it's bs to dismiss Russian attacks

and Comey.

[BeckyDem]

69. They were there, but what else were contributors?

It is important to look at everything.

[JI7]

70. of course, but often the real issues are things like voter suppression

and other things republicans and now foriegn govts pull .

this was the case in georgia governor's election. and we are finding similar happened in Texas.

also, for those who paid attention throughout what ends up happening us not usually a surprise.

[BeckyDem]

71. I don't know, I was shocked.

I tried to process it for months. It made no sense to me, but you are right, when you look at it more objectively, perhaps we should not have been surprised.

[JI7]

72. after Comey there was a change

Trump also stopped tweeting and media was giving him credit for being presidential.

[Tiggeroshii]

78. Biden is kind of "off the wall," actually

And I think there is appeal for him because of that

[Drunken Irishman]

86. Lichtman can't account for one thing - we've never had a president like Trump.

Ever.

Never.

Notta.

Okay - maybe one of the crazies like that wack-job Jackson...but nothing remotely close to Trump in the modern era.

His off the wall craziness - the tweets, the ridiculous statements and all the lying - is a big reason he's vulnerable right now. Make no mistake about it: had Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio won the nomination, and the presidency, in 2016, they would be well above 50% nationally and almost universally seen as the front-runner to the election next year.

Trump is in a position where, globally, the US is far more stable, both in terms of military and economics, than it's been at any election since 2000.

And yet, Trump's average approval is in the low 40s. Nowhere near reelection levels.

IF the economy again starts to slide, which it looks like it might, Trump will drop even more.

What I think 2020 will be is a referendum on sanity. The thing is, the last thing Democrats want is a race between the uncertainty and unknown of a lesser exposed candidate and Donald Trump because, unless the economy does dive into a recession, some voters may just be inclined to support Trump over the unknown because they can reason that, well, as bad as he's been in some arenas, economically, it's not been that bad. These are the type of voters I think Biden can get support from. They know what to expect with Joe Biden. I'm not so sure they know what to expect from a Bernie Sanders or Mayor Peter or Elizabeth Warren.

This isn't 1992, where Americans decided supporting an unknown over an economically saddled president like H.W. Bush was the better option.

Now if the economy continues to go south? Then I think the Democrats have a pretty solid chance of winning regardless of who they nominate. But right now? Americans might just be longing for a time of less turbulence and craziness and overall lack of experience. That plays into Biden's steady hand.

It's not right to compare 2020 to any past election because the incumbent president is bat-shit insane and that level of insanity might only be corrected, or countered, by sanity - someone who offers a calming voice and a jolt of 'remember how it was just a few years ago?'.

[BeckyDem]

92. Thoughtful response, thanks.

We all have a different take and his is considerable, imo. Doesn't mean he has a lock on the future but his experience and criteria is something I prefer not to ignore.

[WyLoochka]

87. Yang is going to wow y'all

in the debates.

Do yourself a favor - go over to the Yang group and watch, read, listen to Andrew Yang in Sherman A1's posts. Thank you Sherm, helped me come to the point last night where I felt I just had to make the choice to support Yang.

Yang is brilliant, does not miss a beat, or an opportunity to turn a dumb question into an opportunity to answer with an illuminating, thoughtful solution.

In addition to being brilliant, he's pleasant and engaging.

[BeckyDem]

93. I will, and thanks.

I don't know much about him at all. I agree the debates will be a great opportunity for each candidate to shine.