If you’re familiar with Allan Lichtman, you likely understand the weight his presidential forecasts carry. For those who aren’t aware, the 77-year-old Lichtman has accurately predicted nine out of the last ten presidential elections since 1984.

This election, Lichtman forecasts that Kamala Harris will emerge victorious in the race for the White House, as reported in a video by The New York Times.

If a 90% accuracy rate isn’t convincing enough, his impressive qualifications might be:

• He holds a Ph.D. in modern American history with a focus on quantitative methods from Harvard.
• He is a distinguished professor at American University in Washington, D.C.
• He has authored 13 books and penned numerous scholarly articles.
• He has lectured extensively in the U.S. and internationally.
• He has worked as an expert witness in civil and voting rights cases.

What are Allan Lichtman’s 13 keys for selecting a winner, and why does he favor Kamala Harris over Donald Trump?

Lichtman created his prediction model in collaboration with seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981. This system relies on 13 historical indicators, or “keys,” to assess presidential contests: four are political indicators, seven relate to performance, and two focus on the candidates’ personalities. Essentially, it’s a true/false questionnaire seen from the perspective of the incumbent party. A true answer earns a point for the incumbent party, while a false response scores a point for the challenger.

If six or more keys weigh against the current party, it is expected to lose. Otherwise, Lichtman believes the incumbent party will secure another term.

You can find a video explaining Lichtman’s reasoning here.

How reliable has Allan Lichtman’s presidential election prediction track record been?

Lichtman has successfully forecasted nearly all presidential elections over the past 50 years except for the outcome in 2000, where Republican George W. Bush won against Democrat Al Gore.

Lichtman asserts he accurately predicted the 2000 election

Lichtman asserts he was right that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election against George W. Bush.

In a recent YouTube video, Lichtman referenced his 2001 study that found 180,000 ballots in Florida were erroneously marked as invalid. He claims those rejected ballots revealed racial bias, as African Americans faced a rejection rate of 1 in every 9 or 10 ballots, while 95% of African American voters supported Gore. In contrast, ballots from white voters favoring Bush were rejected at a 1 in 50 rate. Lichtman contends that if rejection rates were equal, Gore would have triumphed.

Following the election, numerous recounts were conducted that uncovered discrepancies, including instances where individuals voted for multiple candidates, referred to as overcounts, and ballots that were not counted. The design of the ballots was problematic, as butterfly ballots confused voters who intended to vote for Gore but accidentally voted for independent candidate Pat Buchanan. Issues like “hanging chads,” where a ballot punch hangs on the edge, or dimpled chads, where ballots were not fully punched, further complicated the situation.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that varying recounting methods violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause, leading to Bush winning Florida by a mere 537 votes — and ultimately the presidency.