but the first thing we're going to cover is Alan liman's presidential prediction it came out literally today and it was pretty H pretty iffy it actually ended up being even more left than what we even thought it would have been now my analysis was essentially correct uh in terms of what where the keys could have gone except there is a little bit of a problem he managed to make his final prediction even more blue even more left leaning than what I even thought it would have been which I think is crazy I think that's honestly pretty insane and the issue with this is he's got no primary contest true even yesterday I kind of did the keys you know sort of in the benefit of the doubt I mean there is social unrest the no primary contest key seems a little illegitimate because the delegates were not chosen by any fed voter to vote for Camala Harris and so I feel like it's a little disingenuous to say that there was no primary contest when no voter voted for Cala to be the nominee none of the voters voted for her by over 75% for her to get that many of the delegates the delegates kind of just decided who they wanted to be the nominee and so I think that kind of invalidates that key the economy keys are interesting because there's a certain economic index indicator that was like at 72% disapproval back in 1992 when H Bush was the incumbent he flipped the key from True to false because of how the approval or disapproval of the economy was so high with that metric and now that same metric is at 67% but he won't flip the economy keys for Donald Trump which really doesn't make any sense because if he was doing it before he should probably end up doing it right now I don't understand why he wouldn't be able to do it right now and it doesn't make sense why he decided to do that major policy change that one's a little bit subjective there technically has been but the wrong track of the nation has gone up ever since then and so I don't really think that should politically benefit the incoming party but I digress and so this is the one that's the weirdest to me he has ke1 as major foreign military success as true Joe Biden has not had a success in foreign policy at all and it doesn't make any sense because he's saying that the major foreign slm military success key is now true true because now Camala Harris doesn't have the same burden as Biden though even though this is supposed to measure the incumbent party's performance in the White House Biden is the president not Camala Harris and it doesn't make any sense how key10 could be true with no or key10 could be false with no foreign slm military failure and it's false indicating that there was a failure but then major foreign slm military success was true at the same time like that doesn't make any sense at all so to me this just seems a little flawed I've gone back and looked at his keys he's gotten pretty lucky in some of the presidential elections 2016 he got pretty lucky I mean he had the no third party key he had that one true but arguably the third party candidates were the reason why Donald Trump basically won that election they were able to kind of give you know a little bit of a push to Donald Trump by taking away votes from Clinton and so that really became sort of a weird thing and then of course he flipped his key in the 90s for uh from True to false for H bush when the economy metric wasn't good for public perception but even though the same exact metric is now below like Five Points he still won't flip the key and usually the average of when an incumbent party loses the score is like about 84 and the incumbent party whenever they win the average score is like above 90 and it's nowhere near 90 or even 84 so it's like uh it's a little strange when it comes to the keys but overall Alan lickman did predict Cala Harris it's definitely possible again his system's been right A lot of the time not 100% of the time like they claim but in 2000 the model was a popular vote predictor right and so Al Gord really won the popular vote and so he was able to kind of take credit for that but he didn't predict the Electoral College winner so he said okay now I'm going to predict the Electoral College winner instead of the popular vote winner which doesn't really make sense how he could change it like that is he shouldn't be changing the way he does his keys for that it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense and so the problem with that is is now it's okay it's an electoral college predictor but then in 2016 he said Not only was Trump going to win the electrial college he also said Trump was going to win the popular vote and Trump didn't win the popular vote so really he could have only gotten it wrong in 2000 or gotten it wrong in 2016 depending on whether you view the model as an electoral college predictor or as an as a popular vote predictor and a lot of people don't talk about the fact he predicted Trump winning the popular vote in 16 so it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense for that to be the case and so there's a little bit of an oxymoron there so overall I think this year his analysis has been flawed they trotted him around after the debate when Biden just imploded on himself he's been doing a bunch of media you know he's been doing a whole media Tour on CNN and a bunch of other places he's been live streaming like almost every other day he was not doing this in 20120 and 2016 and he only started popping up a lot once the debate with Biden happened so pretty much right now I'm gonna say that this is flawed maybe it ages well maybe it doesn't but I do think that this is a little bit of a problem to be honest I think that his analysis this year is going to be flawed