Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Do Standard Prediction Models Work With an Out-of-the-box Candidate Like Trump?

November 01, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Allan J. Lichtman, distinguished professor of history at American University, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday to discuss his prediction for the 2016 presidential election. Professor Lichtman, author of Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016, has used a set of 13 true or false "keys" to successfully predict the outcome of presidential elections since 1984.

RELATED: John Ziegler’s Crazy Prediction Comes True (Sort Of): Bush 41 Will Vote for Clinton

"They're based on the proposition that the elections primarily turn on the strength and performance of the party holding the White House," Lichtman explained.

Despite the volatile and unprecedented nature of this year's election, Lichtman is sticking by his prediction that Donald Trump will win.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these unpredictable questions:

• How many keys must be false for the incumbent party to lose?

• What makes key number twelve overwhelmingly false?

• What did Alexander Hamilton call the Trojan Horse of our democracy?

• Why did George Washington expel the French ambassador?

• Which past presidential candidate was vilified as a murderer?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Glad you're here. We have a distinguished professor of history, Allan Lichtman. He's from American University. He has a new book, Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House in 2016. He has looked at every presidential election from 1860 to 1980, to create a system that has now correctly predicted every election from '84 to 2012. He says there are 13 keys. He's here to tell us about them.

Hello, Allan, how are you?

ALLAN: Good morning. Doing great, Glenn. And you?

GLENN: Very good. Can you tell me, what are the 13 keys here?

ALLAN: Absolutely.

And as you say, these are historically based, and they're based on the proposition that the elections primarily turn on the strength and performance of the party holding the White House. That's what the key is focused on.

First is midterm elections. Second is internal party contests. Third is sitting president. Fourth is third party. Fifth is, is the economy in an election year recession?

GLENN: So hang on. Instead of just listing them. Let's go through each of them. Start at the beginning.

ALLAN: Yes.

GLENN: Because they're yes-or-no questions, correct?

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: So tell us why these are important, what they mean and how you answered them. Go ahead. Start at the beginning.

ALLAN: Yes. All right.

And, remember, the way the system works, if six or more go against the party in power, six or more are false, they're predicted losers. So number one is mid-term elections. Obviously the Democrats got pasted in 2014. So that one is false.

Key number two is a real puzzler. It's the internal party contest. And, certainly, Sanders gave Clinton a contest, but it was never really in doubt. And he didn't take it to the convention, unlike say Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980. So I don't rate that one right now as false. Key three, sitting president. Obviously Barack Obama isn't running again. You have an open seat. That's false.

Key four, third party. So far, Gary Johnson has been running way ahead of what any Libertarian has ever done. So at the moment, that's what is false. It's looking a little shaky. He may be fading away.

Key five, whatever you may think of the economy, it's obviously not in recession. That's true. So without three, possibly.

Next key is long-term economy, and that looks at this term compared to the previous two terms. And previous two terms fanned the Great Recession. So that one is true. Then we have the -- the more judgmental keys, the policy change key.

Well, Obama won that last term with the Affordable Care Act, but with gridlock in Washington, no big policy change. That's four now. And this is my favorite key, the scandal key, but it only pertains to the sitting president, not to the two candidates. You can probably paste scandals on both of them.

Then the social unrest key. And we're talking about cities being in flames in the 1960s. You got some sporadic protests, but nothing like that. So that is true.

So we're still down four. Then we have the foreign policy failure key. The Bay of Pigs. Pearl Harbor. 9/11.

GLENN: ISIS.

ALLAN: Again, whatever you may think of the foreign policy, it's not anything like that. But the next key is foreign policy success. And they haven't nailed that yet. So that's five down. We're almost done.

Key number 12 asks whether the sitting party's candidate, the party in power's candidate, Hillary Clinton, is a once-in-a-generational inspirational candidate like a Kennedy or a Reagan. So that one is false.

So we're now down six. And the final key asks whether -- because they always favor the party in power, whether the challenging party candidate is not charismatic. Well, Donald Trump is charismatic to a certain base. But you've got to be broadly charismatic to win that key. So I rate that one true, so that's exactly -- a very shaky six keys down because of that third party that could fade away.

PAT: So if that were to fade before the election, would you change your prediction?

ALLAN: I could. I could. You know, the polls are all over the place on Gary Johnson. You know, I don't have a crystal ball to see how it will come out on election.

PAT: Yeah.

ALLAN: Plus, as you know, Glenn, this is an unprecedented election. We've never seen an election like this. Quite frankly, a generic Republican, a John Kasich, a Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush, the prediction would be a lot more solid than an out-of-the-box candidate like Donald Trump who could snatch --

GLENN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Say that again, please.

(laughter)

ALLAN: I will say it again. Based on the study of history, Glenn, and that's what I do, this should be a change election. A generic Republican like a John Kasich, a Marco Rubio, or a Jeb Bush would be a clear predicted winner. But you don't have that. You have Donald Trump who is a candidate breaking all historical boundaries. And could take what should be a very good year for Republicans and turn it into defeat.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Now, how would that happen? According to -- I like the fact that you're hard and fast on your rules.

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: But you do recognize that this is -- for instance, third party -- you know, that question, I know yours applies to the sitting president and the sitting party of power.

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: But, you know, I believe you can make a case you have -- you have more than one third party. And the biggest third party is the one inside of the Republican Party. Because --

ALLAN: Well --

GLENN: You split the party.

ALLAN: You know, you analyze it on your terms, as you say.

I've got to stick to my system. And I've never hedged this. You know, I've been doing this for more than 30 years. And I've never hedged a prediction, even after the disastrous first debate for Barack Obama in 2012, I stuck to my guns. But this election is so out of the box.

Look, you know, I don't look in a crystal ball. I don't have a pipeline to the Almighty like Ben Carson. I can only face it on history, and Trump could be a history breaker. Let's face it.

(chuckling)

PAT: It's been right every time, right?

ALLAN: Every time, yeah.

PAT: Have you --

ALLAN: And in the face of a lot of criticism. For example --

PAT: Have you also applied it to past elections, like, you know, before you were born? How far back does it go?

ALLAN: Well, there were no elections before I was born, but I'll tell it to you anyway.

(laughter)

ALLAN: The system was developed based on -- it was developed in '81, based on elections from 1860 to 1980.

PAT: Okay. Yeah, that's what I thought.

ALLAN: But unlike some other, you know, fairly sloppy forecasters, I'm very careful to distinguish between the base years when I went back retrospectively to develop the system and fall with looking predictions.

I actually got into a big fight with Nate Silver over that in 2011.

(chuckling)

STU: There's the greatest civil war happening among -- between polling geeks right now, there's an unseen civil war. It's actually more interesting than the Republican Party's civil war, I think.

ALLAN: It's fascinating. Got to run.

(chuckling)

STU: All right. Quick question for you, because really the determining factor on your prediction is this third party factor.

ALLAN: Yeah.

STU: About six weeks ago, Gary Johnson was at 9.2 percent on average and has now dropped to 4.6 percent on average.

ALLAN: Yeah, he's dropping below the threshold.

STU: Is it 5 percent?

ALLAN: I might change my prediction.

STU: Hmm. Is it 5 percent? Is that the threshold?

ALLAN: Five percent. And he's right at, around, as you say, around at 5 percent.

STU: That's incredible.

ALLAN: Intense. He's been intense.

GLENN: Allan, do you have five more minutes for us, or not?

ALLAN: I've got two more minutes. I've got to go to Fox.

GLENN: Okay. Bigger name on the other line.

STU: Yeah, no kidding.

GLENN: So, Allan, help me out on this. The -- you're a history professor.

ALLAN: Correct.

GLENN: Can you look at what is happening in our country and now project past the presidential election and tell me what time period we look to be approaching?

ALLAN: That's such a good question, I'll take a couple of minutes to answer it.

First, one of the things that we don't know, is this a permanent shift in our politics, or is this an aberration? Is this an anomaly?

Not only in terms of the candidates, but also in terms of foreign interference in our elections.

You know, Alexander Hamilton, way back when, called foreign intrigue in American politics, the Trojan horse of our democracy. In his farewell address, George Washington warned against foreign intrigue and corruption. He expelled the ambassador from France who was messing around in our politics. Never seen this before.

And is this going to become the norm? Is every foreign power with an axe to grind now going to intervene in our politics, in their interests, not in ours? So far, there seems to be no consequences whatsoever to all of this cracking.

PAT: Right.

ALLAN: Yeah. So that's a huge question before us, Glenn.

The other big question is, you know, are we going to see a permanent turn in our politics, or are we going to return to more normal politics? History teaches us that even when the system bends -- even when it broke in the Civil War, we eventually do return to normal politics. But sometimes it can take a long time.

A similar election might be 1828. Andrew Jackson against John Quincy Adams, the sitting president. Quincy Adams had his own problems because he was elected in the so-called corrupt bargain in the House. Because no one got a majority in the electoral college when he gave Henry Clay the Secretary of State.

And Andrew Jackson was vilified as a murderer. They passed around something called a coffin handbook. Pretty bitter, but eventually the system returned to a great -- history doesn't always repeat itself. So, you know, it's hard to say.

GLENN: Allan, I'd love to talk to you again. You're fascinating.

ALLAN: Absolutely.

GLENN: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Author of the new book, Predicting the Next President. Allan Lichtman from -- where was he? American University.

Featured Image: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump addresses a campaign rally at the Deltaplex Arena October 31, 2016 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. With just eight days until the election, polls show a slight tightening in the race. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.