razz
4-18-17, 11:39am
First of all, I had not heard of this prof before; secondly, I didn't have any strong opinion on the US election as it was none of my business; thirdly, I didn't really understand all the differences between conservative and progressive view of things but I am learning more each month; fourthly, it is easier for me to post this than if it is done in a partisan approach, I think anyway.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/allan-lichtman-prediction-prof-trump-impeachment-1.4073261
Quotes:
Political forecaster Allan Lichtman got a surprise in the mail from the desk of Donald Trump shortly after the U.S. election — a personal note, handwritten directly on a Washington Post article about his work.
The story detailed how the American University history professor broke from the pundits and pollsters to conclude that Trump would take the presidency.
"Professor — congrats — good call," Trump had written in black marker, weeks before he was to be sworn into the Oval Office.
"I thought it was a wonderful gesture," said Lichtman, who has been dubbed the "prediction prof" by Politico. ..
Unlike his 13 "keys to the White House" algorithm for picking future presidents, Lichtman's new book, The Case For Impeachment, lays out eight "grounds for impeachment" that are not based on a mathematical system but what Lichtman describes as a "deep study of the history" of impeachments and Trump's own history.
'Trump will be president': Meet the prof with 30-year record of predicting winners
His new deduction has made a splash by virtue of who Lichtman is. When political statisticians came to a near-universal conclusion in the lead-up to last year's election that Clinton would handily defeat Trump, Lichtman was a conspicuous holdout.
"It was flying in the face of every pundit and pollster and statistician in America," he said. "I got a huge amount of flack for my prediction. I kept telling people: 'That's not an endorsement.'"...
Predicting an impeachment, though? That's a different beast than forecasting an election, say constitutional experts.
"It's just not that simple," says Susan Low Bloch, one of the 19 constitutional scholars who testified before the 1998 House judiciary committee on the impeachment of president Bill Clinton. The impeachment process was "supposed to be really hard" by design, she says, because the very act of impeachment seems so undemocratic.
"You are undoing a national election, and I can't think of anything more serious politically than undoing an election," Bloch said. "Whether you like Trump or not, he's now the president until he's done something impeachable — which he hasn't, so far as we know."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/allan-lichtman-prediction-prof-trump-impeachment-1.4073261
Quotes:
Political forecaster Allan Lichtman got a surprise in the mail from the desk of Donald Trump shortly after the U.S. election — a personal note, handwritten directly on a Washington Post article about his work.
The story detailed how the American University history professor broke from the pundits and pollsters to conclude that Trump would take the presidency.
"Professor — congrats — good call," Trump had written in black marker, weeks before he was to be sworn into the Oval Office.
"I thought it was a wonderful gesture," said Lichtman, who has been dubbed the "prediction prof" by Politico. ..
Unlike his 13 "keys to the White House" algorithm for picking future presidents, Lichtman's new book, The Case For Impeachment, lays out eight "grounds for impeachment" that are not based on a mathematical system but what Lichtman describes as a "deep study of the history" of impeachments and Trump's own history.
'Trump will be president': Meet the prof with 30-year record of predicting winners
His new deduction has made a splash by virtue of who Lichtman is. When political statisticians came to a near-universal conclusion in the lead-up to last year's election that Clinton would handily defeat Trump, Lichtman was a conspicuous holdout.
"It was flying in the face of every pundit and pollster and statistician in America," he said. "I got a huge amount of flack for my prediction. I kept telling people: 'That's not an endorsement.'"...
Predicting an impeachment, though? That's a different beast than forecasting an election, say constitutional experts.
"It's just not that simple," says Susan Low Bloch, one of the 19 constitutional scholars who testified before the 1998 House judiciary committee on the impeachment of president Bill Clinton. The impeachment process was "supposed to be really hard" by design, she says, because the very act of impeachment seems so undemocratic.
"You are undoing a national election, and I can't think of anything more serious politically than undoing an election," Bloch said. "Whether you like Trump or not, he's now the president until he's done something impeachable — which he hasn't, so far as we know."