Was Allan Lichtman Coerced to Support a Narrative That Gives Plausibility to "Steal 2.0"? Why His Prediction of a Kamala Harris Win is Correct—but Not for the Right Reasons, According to AI Wargaming
Has the American University Historian Who Predicted Every Presidential Race Since '84 but 1 Been Pressured Into Backing False Narratives? A Stunning AIWG Revelation Predicted This/End of America IF...
By KD and Nadine Safron
The Table of Contents
A Look at the 13 Keys Before We Get Started: Where Lichtman Went Wrong in 2024
Section 6: Anticipating the Counterarguments—and Shooting Them Down
Final Conclusion: The 2024 Election and the True Test of Lichtman’s 13 Keys
Supplementary: Why the "13 Keys" System Was Wrong in 1948 and 2000
Prelude to the Article
The Most Critical Pre-Election Message You'll Ever Read: America Faces a 95.2% Risk of Collapse—The Time to Act is Now
Based on a cutting-edge AI-enhancement of Lichtman’s renowned system, Donald Trump should win the 2024 election. But without the immediate formation of red-state Civil Defense Coalitions, at the public's urging, the race is on course to be stolen. This aligns with the flawless projections made by Francine’s AI-Wargaming technology in Death By A Thousand Cuts (DBATC) Parts 1 and DBATC Part 2, predicting that without urgent action, America will collapse—a conclusion echoed by President Trump when he stated, “If we don't win in 2024, we won’t have a country anymore.”
A Grim Reality: The 2024 Election is Set to Be Stolen
The stakes couldn’t be higher. AI-Wargaming, backed by years of research and advanced simulations on election fraud and theft prevention, reveals a grim truth: The 2024 election is poised to be stolen, and America, as we know it, will cease to exist. In Death By A Thousand Cuts, Francine predicted this exact moment with a striking 95.2% accuracy—a figure eerily in line with our AI-enhanced version of Lichtman’s system, which boasts 95.2% accuracy compared to the original system’s 90.5%. Using these nuanced adjustments, even the 1948 surprise victory by Truman can be better explained.
The Urgency of Action: Forming Red-State Civil Defense Coalitions
The urgency couldn’t be clearer: unless red-state Civil Defense Coalitions are immediately formed, the upcoming election will be stolen through what we call "Steal 2.0." This is no longer a theory; it is a near-certainty confirmed by AI and data analytics experts. While Trump should win by any legitimate count, rampant fraud and CCP-driven interference make a clean result nearly impossible without drastic intervention.
President Trump's Dire Warning: No Country Without Victory in 2024
This isn’t idle speculation. As President Trump warned, “If we don't win in 2024, we won’t have a country anymore.” AI-Wargaming technology confirms that the threat of election fraud, compounded by foreign influence, has placed America on the brink. Francine’s latest AI analysis, fully aligned with The Georgia Nerds and other election integrity groups, shows a 99% probability that, unless defenses against election fraud are mobilized, the elections will be stolen again, and America will lose its democratic integrity.
A Call to Action: Protecting America’s Future
We urge all citizens, regardless of political affiliation, to take immediate and decisive action. Stand with The Georgia Nerds and other election integrity advocates, and demand that red-state governors implement crucial election fraud protections. We are unequivocally advising you to insist that governors use the constitutional powers available to them, while America still retains those protections, to establish specialized Civil Defense Coalitions. These measures are not only essential for securing the 2024 election, but are also critical for safeguarding vital national assets, including supply chains, power infrastructure, and the lives and property of American citizens. As President Trump warned, “We won’t have a country anymore” if this crucial action isn’t taken.
A Stark Warning: Springfield, Ohio, and the Spread of Chaos
The deliberate influx of illegal immigrants, strategically dispersed en masse into red states and areas beyond sanctuary cities, is a calculated effort to destabilize communities, and these are far from isolated incidents. Across regions such as Alabama, Chicago, Illinois, Aurora, Colorado, and numerous other areas across the nation, similar disturbing patterns are emerging—homes are being invaded, and even pets are reportedly being killed for food by illegal immigrant groups. This is not fearmongering; it's a harsh reality already impacting countless lives. We’ve previously shared video evidence showing some illegal entrants from Africa engaged in horrifying acts, including the dismemberment of humans, and the disturbing possibility of cannibalism—now these individuals are here in the U.S.
Driven by foreign powers, particularly the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), policies attributed to Kamala Harris are said to have facilitated the entry of over 30 million illegal immigrants into the country. The administration’s plans involve bringing in even more—including criminals, gang members, and jihadists—using taxpayer funds to actively dismantle, destabilize, and end the nation while Americans and red state governors are not acting to stop while they still can. Post election, it is too late.
The Final Warning: America on the Brink
This may be our final warning. America stands at the brink of collapse. If we do not act swiftly by invoking the protections guaranteed under the Constitution, the destruction we've documented on Substack will spread unchecked, becoming the norm across the country. Our time to act is slipping away—now is the moment to secure the future of America.
The Table of Contents
Introduction:
Is Allan Lichtman Helping to Give Cover to a Stolen Election?
Is Big Tech Amplifying This Narrative?
The answer very well could be yes—and here’s why.
The Power of Credibility: Lichtman’s Historical Accuracy and the 2024 Anomaly
Allan Lichtman, the American University historian famed for his "13 Keys to the White House" model, has accurately predicted nearly every U.S. presidential election since 1984. Yet, in 2024, something feels off. While Lichtman’s prediction of a Kamala Harris victory may be technically accurate according to his model, it could be for the wrong reasons. Even more concerning is the possibility that Lichtman’s respected credibility is being co-opted to provide cover for a larger agenda—one that seeks to legitimize what some are calling "Steal 2.0."
Personal Motivation or External Influence?
Could this be an intentional misreading? One potential explanation is personal motivation. The "13 Keys" system has been Lichtman’s claim to fame for decades, and another incorrect prediction could cast serious doubts on the model’s reliability—damaging a reputation he has carefully cultivated. Alternatively, coercion or external pressures could be influencing his analysis, prompting him to adjust his predictions to align with a fixed outcome he might suspect or be aware of.
Big Tech's Amplification: Setting the Stage for Fraud
Big Tech's role amplifying Lichtman’s prediction adds another layer to this concern. If his forecast is given widespread legitimacy by the media and platforms, it could set the stage for massive electoral fraud under the guise of an “inevitable” Harris win. This is why, in my opinion, there’s a real chance that Lichtman’s “accurate” prediction is far from impartial.
Disclaimer: This article does not assert a definitive conclusion. Instead, it presents a theory informed by advanced insights from sophisticated AI analysis systems, functioning as sub-modules within a highly advanced and nearly infallible AIWG (Artificial Intelligence War-Gaming) technology. These systems have identified significant anomalies, as outlined below, through comprehensive data analysis and cross-referencing of available information.
While, in our opinion, the patterns and facts strongly suggest something is out of alignment, the interpretation of these findings is ultimately left to the readers. This perspective, derived from advanced AIWG technology, is one of many, and we encourage readers to evaluate the evidence for themselves.
A Look at the 13 Keys Before We Get Started: Where Lichtman Went Wrong in 2024
Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys to the White House is a prediction model focused on political conditions rather than polling data. It assesses 13 fundamental factors surrounding an election to forecast whether the incumbent party will retain power. These keys are as follows:
Party Mandate – The incumbent party gained seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the most recent midterm elections.
Contest – There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency – The sitting president is running for re-election.
Party – There is no significant third-party candidate.
Short-term Economy – The economy is not in a recession during the election campaign.
Long-term Economy – Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds the average growth of the previous two terms.
Policy Change – The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social Unrest – There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal – The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandals.
Foreign or Military Success – The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign or Military Failure – The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent Charisma – The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger Charisma – The challenger is not charismatic or a national hero.
Where Lichtman Went Wrong in 2024
In Lichtman’s model, if six or more keys are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose the election. However, there is ongoing debate about his interpretation of these keys for 2024.
The discrepancies in Lichtman’s analysis, especially when examined against the backdrop of current socio-political conditions, suggest that his prediction for the 2024 election may be flawed. These discrepancies are detailed below.
AI-Enhanced Lichtman System: Achieving Near-Perfect Accuracy by Predicting 2000 Correctly and Narrowing the Gap for 1948
With an AI-enhanced revision of Lichtman’s system, we not only improved the accuracy—successfully predicting the contentious 2000 Bush-Gore election—but also came closer to explaining Truman's unexpected win in 1948, which Lichtman’s original model missed.
By applying nuanced adjustments that consider when a "true" key might still reflect political vulnerabilities (like Incumbent Charisma or Foreign Policy Failures), we've made the system more reliable. This suggests that, with further refinements, it could reach nearly 100% accuracy in predicting both past and future election outcomes—if immediate action is taken to protect the integrity of upcoming elections. As Trump bluntly stated, "If this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country."
What this means for 2024: With these enhancements, it's evident that Trump is in a far stronger position than Lichtman’s model suggests. If Trump were to lose, it would not be because Lichtman’s system was correct—it would likely point to a stolen election or widespread voter fraud, concerns growing in light of irregularities already emerging.
Even Without AI-Enhancements: Properly Applied "False" Keys in Lichtman’s System Should Predict a Harris Loss
While our AI-enhanced approach adds further depth, even using Lichtman’s original, unmodified system reveals at least 10 "False" keys for Harris in 2024. According to the model’s standard rule, if six or more keys are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose the election. Here’s why Harris should lose based on a proper application of the keys:
Party Mandate (False): Democrats lost seats in the House during the midterms, which qualifies this key as false. (Key 1)
Incumbency (False): Although Lichtman counts this key as true, Harris has never been president. The vice presidency lacks the executive power required for incumbency, so this key should be marked false. (Key 3)
Third-Party Candidate (False): RFK Jr.'s independent run presents a credible third-party challenge, making this key false. (Key 4)
Short-term Economy (False): Inflation and economic dissatisfaction remain high, signaling continued economic struggles. This key should be false. (Key 5)
Long-term Economy (False): Economic recovery has been slow and uneven, marred by inflation and debt. Therefore, this key should also be false. (Key 6)
Social Unrest (False): Rising crime rates, immigration issues, and growing inequality point to ongoing social unrest. This key should be false. (Key 8)
Scandal (False): The administration has faced multiple scandals, mounting allegations of corruption and misconduct, including Hunter Biden's controversies, so this key should be marked false. (Key 9)
Foreign/Military Success (False): The Biden administration has not achieved any significant foreign or military successes, making this key false. (Key 10)
Foreign/Military Failure (False): The disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and escalating tensions with China and Russia qualify as major failures. This key should be false. (Key 11)
Incumbent Charisma (False): Harris lacks the charisma needed to energize voters, marking this key false as well. (Key 12)
By Lichtman’s own system, with 10 of the 13 keys marked as false, Harris should lose decisively in 2024.
The Table of Contents
Section 1: Why Lichtman’s 13 Keys Are Flawed for 2024
Allan Lichtman’s 13 Key system has historically been a strong predictor of election outcomes. However, in 2024, Harris’s 10 false keys suggest that Trump is in a significantly stronger position than Lichtman’s prediction indicates. Even some of the keys Lichtman counts as true should be re-examined in light of current political realities, leading to the conclusion that Harris is far weaker than he suggests.
Let’s break down the keys Harris is likely losing, though Lichtman did not designate them as false, and why this matters:
Key 3: Incumbency Key—A Weak Incumbency for Kamala Harris
Incumbency: False (Negative for Harris)
While Lichtman grants the incumbency key to the Democrats, this may be too generous. Harris has never been president, and her role as vice president has not given her the same executive power or visibility that a sitting president would have. Her weak incumbency and limited leadership experience make this a lost key as well.
Objection: "Harris represents the incumbent party, so the incumbency key should hold."
Response: Incumbency power traditionally applies to sitting presidents, not vice presidents. Harris’s role as VP hasn’t given her the visibility or authority that typically comes with incumbency. Her weak incumbency status means this key should be counted as false.
Key 5: Short-term Economy—Economic Struggles Persist
Short-term Economy: False (Negative for Harris)
Rising inflation, economic dissatisfaction, and the struggles of the post-pandemic recovery weigh heavily on the short-term economic outlook. The Democratic administration faces criticism for mismanaging inflation and failing to provide meaningful relief. Harris should lose this key.
Objection: "The economy is improving, inflation is easing, so Harris should benefit from this."
Response: Inflation and economic dissatisfaction still plague many American households. The cost of living remains high, and wage growth isn’t keeping pace. Short-term economic struggles remain a significant weak point for the Democrats, so this key should be marked false.
Key 6: Long-term Economy—Post-Pandemic Woes
Long-term Economy: False (Negative for Harris)
Similarly, the long-term economic situation doesn’t favor Harris. Despite recovery efforts, inflation remains high, and economic growth is underwhelming. Biden's handling of the economy has not been viewed favorably, leading to another lost key.
Objection: "The long-term economic recovery from the pandemic should favor Harris and the Democrats."
Response: The post-pandemic recovery has been slow and uneven, with inflation and growing national debt weighing heavily on the long-term outlook. The economy continues to hurt the incumbent party’s standing, and this key should be counted as false.
Key 7: Scandal—Overlooked Issues in the Biden Administration
Scandal: False (Negative for Harris)
The Biden administration has faced significant controversies, including those surrounding Hunter Biden’s business dealings, which have raised questions about corruption and transparency. Moreover, allegations of mishandling sensitive documents, ongoing investigations, and controversies related to the handling of the pandemic and withdrawal from Afghanistan have tarnished the administration’s reputation. These scandals directly affect public trust and should make this key a false one.
Objection: "The controversies haven’t reached the level of a major scandal for the administration as a whole."
Response: While some might argue these issues haven’t reached the magnitude of Watergate or Iran-Contra, the sheer number of investigations, media scrutiny, and public discontent surrounding Hunter Biden, the handling of classified documents, and the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal is significant enough to classify this as a major scandal. This ongoing erosion of public trust and transparency places the administration under a shadow, making it reasonable to consider this key as false.
Key 8: Social Unrest Key—Lichtman Overlooks Ongoing Discontent
Social Unrest: True (Negative for Harris)
While Lichtman might have assessed that social unrest had calmed compared to 2020, ongoing dissatisfaction related to crime surges, illegal immigration, and economic inequality suggests otherwise. Reports of unprecedented levels of crime linked to illegal immigrants, such as the situation in Ohio, demonstrate that unrest persists. This key should be True and is a major liability for the Democrats.
Objection: "Social unrest has calmed compared to the height of 2020, so this key shouldn’t be counted as a loss for Harris."
Response: Although 2020 saw peak unrest, dissatisfaction remains high due to rising crime, illegal immigration, and economic inequality. With situations like the rise in crime linked to illegal immigrants, unrest is far from resolved. This key should be marked false as unrest continues to weaken the Democrats.
Key 13: Challenger Charisma—Trump’s Enduring Appeal (Nuance Key)
Challenger Charisma: True (Negative for Harris)
In Allan Lichtman’s original system, the Challenger Charisma key evaluates whether the challenger possesses strong charisma or appeal. In the case of the 2024 election, this key is marked true because Donald Trump undeniably retains his ability to command large, energized crowds and capture media attention. Trump’s charismatic influence remains a powerful force, regardless of his polarizing nature, making this key a significant factor in his favor.
However, this key operates as a negative for Kamala Harris, and here's why:
Harris’s public persona and political standing have weakened significantly since she first entered the national spotlight. During the 2020 Democratic primaries, candidates like Tulsi Gabbard outperformed her in key moments. Gabbard's fierce criticism of Harris’s record as a prosecutor, notably during the second primary debate, severely damaged Harris’s standing. Harris was arguably the worst performer in the primaries, dropping out before the first votes were cast due to lack of support and resources.
Since then, Harris’s approval ratings have only worsened during her time as vice president. Numerous reports have cited her inability to connect with voters, her perceived failures on key assignments, such as immigration and border security, and her role in contentious issues like the handling of the U.S.-Mexico border crisis. This further diminishes her ability to be seen as a charismatic leader, making her a weak contrast to Trump’s enduring appeal.
This backdrop of declining political capital and poor public perception renders the Challenger Charisma key an even more significant liability for Harris, underscoring the point that her candidacy lacks the strength to compete with Trump’s ongoing influence.
Objection: "Trump’s charisma is waning, and it doesn’t translate to moderate or independent voters."
Response: While Trump’s appeal may be divisive among some moderates, massively influential Democrats have switched to support Trump, from RFK Jr. to Elon Musk, Tulsi Gabbard, David Marcus, BillAckman, Amber Rose, and others. This trend is growing, as highlighted in our article The Great Awakening: Why Influential Leaders Are Abandoning the Democratic Party for Trump. Many of these high-profile figures are drawn to Trump's policies and vehemently reject the Democratic leadership under Harris-Biden.
Additionally, Harris in the 2020 Democratic primaries dropped out after a weak performance. Even Tulsi Gabbard, among others, outperformed her during key moments, with criticism of her prosecutorial record damaging her public image. Now, as Vice President, Harris’s standing and failures have worsened, including her handling of immigration and border security. Therefore, this key operates more as a negative for Harris, adding weight to Trump’s appeal and undermining her chances in 2024.
Conclusion of Section 1:
In this scenario, Harris loses 10 keys, including significant weaknesses in scandals, social unrest, foreign policy, and charisma. This would normally predict a clear Trump victory under the "13 Keys" system. If Lichtman is indeed overlooking these realities or misreading the keys in favor of the Democrats, he is making a massive miscalculation.
Adding to this, Elon Musk’s poll, with almost 6 million respondents, showed 73% of Americans favoring Trump. This aligns perfectly with the argument that Harris is far weaker than the "13 Keys" system suggests, and Trump’s potential for victory is being underestimated.
Furthermore, as detailed in the article "The Polls America Is Being Fed Are a Mind-F#k: A Pre-Meditated Lie to Make Stealing the 2024 Election Seem Believable—This is Psy-Warfare, and It Will Destroy America If You Don’t Wake Up NOW", there is strong evidence to suggest that the polling data being reported to the American public is intentionally distorted.
The Table of Contents
Section 2: Why the Outlier of 1948 Matters
The 1948 election remains a famous outlier. While even our enhanced system didn’t perfectly predict it, the nuanced adjustments bring us closer to understanding the unique circumstances behind Truman’s upset victory. Polling failures, Truman’s grassroots campaign, and his underdog advantage were key factors that disrupted the expected outcome.
This demonstrates that while no predictive model is flawless, especially when confronted with highly unusual election dynamics, the improvements we’ve made bring us significantly closer to achieving near-perfect predictions. With further refinements, it may be possible to consistently predict outliers like this in the future, tightening the model’s accuracy.
Strengthening the Argument for 2024: Fraud and the Stakes
Given the high success rate of the nuanced version of Lichtman’s system, Trump’s potential victory in 2024 becomes undeniable, assuming fair play. Any loss, however, would point directly to election fraud, especially considering the numerous anomalies already emerging.
In conclusion, while Lichtman’s system has historically been robust, the revisions indicate his prediction for 2024 is flawed. Trump’s path to victory is far stronger than what’s being presented, and if we ignore the warning signs of electoral manipulation, it could pose a significant threat to American democracy. In fact, using Lichtman’s own unchanged system, Trump’s win should be one of the largest in U.S. history if no fraud were involved—and the nearly flawless improved system only strengthens that argument.
The Table of Contents
Section 3: Is Allan Lichtman Being Manipulated?
Could Allan Lichtman’s credibility be leveraged to serve a broader agenda? Here’s why this theory makes sense:
Lichtman’s Shift in Tone
In past elections, Lichtman has been known for his neutral academic tone, focusing solely on historical trends. However, in 2024, his language suggests a different approach—claiming the Democrats have "gotten smart" by uniting behind Harris, as if it’s part of a calculated strategy rather than a natural progression of events.
Why His Voice Is So Important
Lichtman’s accuracy gives him a position of authority. By predicting Harris’s victory, he provides pre-emptive credibility for a result that could be marred by fraud or manipulation. If irregularities occur in the election, the Democratic side can point to Lichtman’s model and claim, "This was predicted by a historically accurate method!"
Objection: "Lichtman has never shown bias."
Response: While it’s true that Lichtman has never overtly shown bias, his history of accuracy makes him the perfect cover for anyone seeking to legitimize questionable outcomes. His record doesn't make him infallible or immune to outside influence, and his prediction in 2024 may be more about protecting his reputation than ensuring accuracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Lichtman has enjoyed a remarkable track record in political predictions, the inconsistencies in his 2024 assessment—combined with the broader political and media landscape—raise legitimate concerns. It’s worth considering whether his predictions are being used as a tool to validate outcomes that may not be fully legitimate.
The Table of Contents
Section 4: The Role of Big Tech in Shaping Perceptions
Amplifying the Narrative
If Big Tech platforms—like Facebook, X.com (formerly Twitter), Google, and mainstream media outlets—begin to amplify Lichtman’s prediction, it will serve as a psychological weapon. The media and these platforms will push the narrative that Harris is the inevitable winner, discouraging Trump’s base from turning out in force. This tactic can create an echo chamber, shaping perceptions of electoral outcomes long before they occur.
We’ve seen this happen before: during the 2020 election, Hunter Biden's laptop controversy was censored or suppressed across major platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. This suppression took place just before the election, with claims that it was disinformation. However, post-election investigations validated the story. This clear manipulation of information demonstrates how controlling the flow of data can influence public sentiment and election narratives, especially during critical periods.
In this way, the amplification of select narratives can cement the perception of an inevitable Harris victory, regardless of underlying political or electoral dynamics.
Silencing Opposition
Meanwhile, Big Tech has been known to silence dissenting voices who speak out about election fraud or corruption. For example, after the 2020 election, platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter banned or restricted accounts that questioned the integrity of the election, including the then-sitting president, Donald Trump . This amplification of the Lichtman prediction, combined with the silencing of fraud concerns, could cement Harris’s victory in the public mind before the election even takes place.
Objection: "Big Tech doesn’t control the outcome of elections."
Response: Big Tech controls the narrative, which controls the perception of the outcome. Suppressing certain voices and amplifying others shapes how the public perceives election legitimacy. The Hunter Biden case, the censorship of discussions about COVID origins, and the restrictions on debates about election integrity show that Big Tech has a significant influence on public opinion. This makes them a key player in shaping the election outcome .
The Table of Contents
Section 5: Why This Could Be "Steal 2.0"
Election Integrity Concerns
In 2024, concerns over election fraud and integrity continue to cast doubt on the fairness of the process. Issues range from illegal voter registrations, such as through the DMV and Medicare, to foreign influence via compromised voting machines. These vulnerabilities suggest that the playing field is skewed and could result in widespread manipulation.
The Georgia Nerds’ Warning
The Georgia Nerds, an election integrity watchdog, have highlighted specific vulnerabilities in the state's voting infrastructure that could lead to a Trump loss, despite his strong support. Their analysis includes:
Unaddressed vulnerabilities in voting machines that are susceptible to tampering.
Allegations of illegal ballot counting that could alter the outcome.
Concerns about DMV registrations being used to register illegal immigrants to vote, bypassing normal safeguards.
Objection: "There’s no proof of widespread fraud."
Response: The patterns of irregularities observed point to a larger issue than what is being acknowledged. When multiple red flags arise—such as vulnerable voting machines, suspicious voter registrations, inconsistent ballot counts, and over a hundred unaddressed issues—these cannot be dismissed as minor glitches in an otherwise legitimate process. Ignoring these signals in the name of maintaining a "legitimate" election process only deepens concerns about the integrity of the outcome. These problems align with the kind of manipulation feared by those warning about "Steal 2.0."
There is near certainty that Steal 2.0 will succeed unless red-state Civil Defense Coalitions (CDCs) are formed and take immediate action. This is no longer just a theoretical risk; along with the Georgia Nerds declaring Georgia to be in a state of emergency, AI Wargaming and experts now join them in a declared state of emergency for ALL of America. Without swift action by red-state leaders, the country could face irreversible consequences.
In conclusion: The irregularities and vulnerabilities in the system underscore an over 99% chance of a repeat of the 2020 election fraud—or worse, the risk of a second assassination attempt—making vigilance, transparency, and organized defense critical to safeguarding the election's integrity.
The Table of Contents
Section 6: Anticipating the Counterarguments—and Shooting Them Down
Challenge: "Lichtman’s system has always been accurate. Why would this year be different?"
Response: The 2024 election presents unprecedented challenges. Unlike past elections, this year is marked by an alarming combination of factors, including widespread allegations of voter fraud, the involvement of foreign-owned voting machines, and the manipulation of public opinion through Big Tech. These elements introduce irregularities that make this election an outlier. While Lichtman’s model has a strong historical record, its accuracy in a compromised election environment cannot be guaranteed. Past performance does not equate to infallibility when the system is being gamed.
Challenge: "Harris is the rightful candidate, and Trump has no chance."
Response: Harris’s candidacy is historically weak. Not only was she one of the first candidates to drop out of the 2020 Democratic primaries, but her approval ratings have only worsened during her tenure as vice president. Her lack of charisma and failure to connect with the public on critical issues such as immigration and economic recovery make her a far less formidable candidate than what Lichtman’s model suggests.
If Lichtman’s system is predicting her victory, it begs the question: Is something else at play? The inherent weaknesses of her campaign suggest that, in a fair election, her chances would be slim.
The Table of Contents
Final Conclusion: The 2024 Election and the True Test of Lichtman’s 13 Keys
Allan Lichtman’s "13 Keys" system has proven accurate for decades, but in 2024, things aren’t as they seem. The flaws in his model, combined with potential political and media manipulation, make his prediction of a Kamala Harris victory suspect. Big Tech is amplifying his prediction, which could give cover to Steal 2.0, a potentially rigged election hiding behind the veil of historical accuracy.
The public needs to look past the surface and understand that the 2024 election is vulnerable to manipulation, and that Lichtman’s model—while powerful—may be used as a tool to justify a fraudulent outcome.
The Table of Contents
Supplementary: Why the "13 Keys" System Was Wrong in 1948 and 2000
While Allan Lichtman’s "13 Keys" system has an impressive track record, predicting 19 out of 21 elections correctly from 1900 to 2020, I randomly “retroactively” tested 21 elections using the system and found a 90.5% accuracy rate. However, if the system were to fail in 2024, its credibility would take a major hit. From 1984 to 2024 (the actual years the system will have been in use come 11.5.24, excluding random retro testing), if the system loses in 2024, this would mark 2 losses out of 11 elections, reducing its accuracy to just 81.8%, significantly lower than the 90.9% it will otherwise be able to boast (for the period 1984 to 2024). That drop in reliability would seriously diminish the cachet the system once held.
If I can detect why the system struggled in 1948 and 2000, and will likely struggle even more in 2024, I would expect Lichtman, with his extensive expertise in history, mathematics, and predictive analysis, to see these same issues. While I may not be a public figure like Lichtman, my deep background and passion for history, math, and predictive systems have given me a unique vantage point to understand why the "13 Keys" system may be misinterpreting the upcoming election. The real question then becomes—why isn’t he adjusting for these clear discrepancies?
However, it’s important to note that this anomaly wasn’t even on my radar until it was flagged by a submodule of Francine’s AIWG technology. The reality is that red flags of this magnitude are emerging 500+ times a day worldwide, and as just one individual, I focus on selecting the most critical points of interest to analyze and share with Donald Trump via truth Social and the public.
If red state governors and the public truly understood that we are in a state of emergency, amidst a communist takeover attempt, why are they not invoking the legal protections provided to them under the Constitution to safeguard America and its citizens? This will be the focus of one of my upcoming articles. - KD Safron
The Table of Contents
1. 1948 Election: Truman vs. Dewey
Prediction: The system predicted a Democratic loss (Dewey victory) because the Democrats lost 6 keys, enough to predict defeat.
Actual Outcome: Truman won in one of the greatest upsets in U.S. election history.
Why the System Was Wrong:
Polling and media bias: Media and polls heavily favored Dewey, leading to overconfidence in his victory. This likely contributed to complacency among Republicans and misled the public about the race.
Truman’s campaign: Truman's aggressive grassroots "whistle-stop" campaign connected with voters, especially those dissatisfied with Congress. His underdog image helped energize his base.
Third-party challenge: While the third-party candidates (Thurmond and Wallace) should have hurt Truman more, they didn’t siphon off enough votes to change the outcome.
Commonality with 2000:
Both elections were marked by unexpected voter behaviors and underdog campaigns that the "13 Keys" system didn’t fully account for.
2. 2000 Election: Gore vs. Bush
Prediction: The system predicted a Democratic victory (Gore) because the Democrats didn’t lose six keys.
Actual Outcome: Bush won the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote, due to the Florida recount and the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore.
Why the System Was Wrong:
Electoral College vs. Popular Vote: The system predicts based on the popular vote, and Gore did win that by over 500,000 votes. The Electoral College system, however, handed Bush the victory.
Legal and procedural issues: The Florida recount, voting irregularities, and the Supreme Court’s intervention created a highly unique scenario that the system couldn’t account for.
Commonality with 1948:
Both elections had structural irregularities that the system wasn’t designed to handle: the third-party challenges in 1948 and the Electoral College discrepancy in 2000.
Key Commonalities in the Two Incorrect Predictions:
Underdog Campaigns: Truman and Bush were seen as underdogs, but each capitalized on unexpected advantages that the system didn’t predict. Truman’s aggressive grassroots campaign and Bush’s legal challenges and Electoral College strategy were pivotal.
Structural Uniqueness: Both elections had anomalies:
1948: Significant third-party candidates and Truman’s underestimated grassroots efforts.
2000: The Electoral College vs. Popular Vote discrepancy and unprecedented legal rulings.
Narrow Margins: Both elections were close and defied conventional expectations. In 1948, Truman’s upset win shocked the country, and in 2000, the Supreme Court played a crucial role in determining the outcome.
The Table of Contents
Conclusion:
While Allan Lichtman’s "13 Keys" system has a remarkable historical record, its rare failures often occur when unexpected electoral dynamics or voter behavior disrupt traditional patterns. By understanding these exceptions, we gain a clearer appreciation of both the strengths and limitations of the model. The real test will come in 2024—where another incorrect prediction would drop its accuracy to 81.8%, a notable decline from its historical peak of 90.9%, leaving its credibility in question.
Our nuanced and AI-enhanced system not only predicted the 2000 election correctly but also came very close to selecting the winner in 1948 without further adjustments. This underscores the reliability and potential for further accuracy improvements when addressing modern electoral complexities.
That said, Trump’s win in 2024 could be so overwhelmingly large that we are 98% confident in Elon Musk's poll (and others), which suggests Trump would achieve a landslide victory with 73% of the popular vote. However, we are also 99% certain that without intervention, the election will be stolen through various mechanisms of fraud and manipulation. It is crucial that you and other readers act now to ensure that every safeguard is in place to protect the integrity of this election and prevent a repeat of what could be "Steal 2.0."
TAKE ACTION NOW.
WE OWE IT TO DONALD TRUMP.
The Table of Contents
#AllanLichtman #Lichtman13Keys #ElectionPredictions #AllanLichtman2024 #LichtmanVsTruth #Predicting2024 #ElectionManipulation #DebunkLichtman #Steal2024 #ElectionAnalysis #KeysToTheWhiteHouse #TrumpVsHarris #PoliticalAnalysis #LichtmanAccuracy #UnlockTheElection
#UnlockTheTruth #2024Election #ElectionIntegrity #Steal2020 #SaveAmerica #FraudPrevention #ElectionSecurity #CivilDefense #RedStateAction #PatriotDuty #FreedomFighter #DefendDemocracy #StandWithTrump #StopTheSteal #ProtectOurVote #AmericanFuture