Professor Alan Lichtman (5:14)

It's a very different election to me. Look, I go all the way back to 1960, when I actually saw John F. Kennedy in New York City. And by the way, the reports about his being charismatic are not overstated. He blew us away. Even though I was only 13. But I've never seen an election where we have a candidate openly threatening to use the military against American citizens to jail his political opponents. To say I'll be a dictator on day one. To drill, drill, drill. Well, drilling doesn't complete on day one. It takes months and years. And I have never experienced in 42 years of predicting the kind of hate that's been dumped on me this year. I'm just a predictor. I'm no power. And yet I've had the most scurrilous, vulgar, violent, threatening hate heaped on me. The safety of my family has been compromised. We've had to alert the police and take strong protective measures. So, yes, this election, both personally and for the nation, feels very different to me.

Chris Cuomo (6:24)

So let's unpack some of the variables here. Trump saying this or that. What do you make of the counter that Professor? You know, he's all hype. You know, he's all talk. It's almost like a drunk guy. You don't take the substance of what they're saying. It's fueled by an intoxicant. In his case, the intoxicant is the pursuit of power through division. And he's not going to do any of those things. He didn't do any of them the first time. It's just hype.

Professor Alan Lichtman (6:53)

Well, he did a lot of it the first time, but he was restrained by people like John Kelly. He is not going to be restrained this time. It's crystal clear that he is going to populate the government with sycophants, with people who will do whatever Trump wants them to do. And the other critical point is that it's not just Trump alone. It's the entire Republican Party is now a MAGA party. You know this idea, oh, these mainstream Republicans, they're gone. The mainstream is the maga. And the MAGA has united behind this authoritarian agenda. Look at Project 2025. 140 former associates of Donald Trump worked on that. It's the blueprint for dictatorship for one man control. Look at what other Republicans like J.D. vance have been saying. I wish it was just Donald Trump, but even if Donald Trump blipped out tomorrow, very little would change within the Republican Party. And then I want to make a bigger point. This is exactly how dictatorships take hold. When good people say, oh, they don't really mean it. It's just hype. This guy Hitler, he doesn't mean anything he says about the Jews. He just wants to stop the commies and the socialists. He'll do what we want him to do. And you can repeat that over and over again. That's how dictatorships take hold. When you don't take seriously what aspiring authoritarians promise to do, particularly when there are whole blueprints behind it.

Chris Cuomo (8:35)

What do you believe the strength of turnout will be in this election?

Professor Alan Lichtman (8:41)

Well, so far, based on early voting, it looks very high. We're never going to quite match the pandemic, but early voting has been extremely high in this election. And on Election Day, it looks like it's going to be booming as well. I think the American people realize that this is a very consequential election.

Chris Cuomo (9:01)

Do you believe that the early voting numbers that show more Republican strength in early voting than we've seen in recent cycles are a function of people getting out early to vote because they bought what Trump sold them and his minions sold him about them being rigged, or do you believe that they are new voters?

Professor Alan Lichtman (9:21)

I very much doubt that they are new voters. I do think that they're responsive to Trump's comments. My God, this election is rigged. You better get your vote in the bag. Plus, unlike previous years, Republicans have made a real push for people to vote early, which is really smart. You know, vote in the hand is worth two votes in the bush. You know, on Election Day, people may have work emergencies, family emergencies, they may have bad weather, or they may just decide it's not worth voting. So you want to get those votes in the bag. And the other thing is, yes, Republicans are looking stronger than previously. But two things struck me when you look at the swing states. Number one, Democrats are doing much better in the swing states than when you look at nationwide. And that's the opposite of what pundits are telling us. You know, Democrats need to win big nationwide to win in the swing states. And the early votes have absolutely turned that upside down. The other thing is, this is a gender election. We have never seen the kind of gender gap, double digits on both sides. And the early vote is very heavily tilted towards women in some of the swing states. 55, 45. I suspect in the swing states, women will be somewhere between 53 and 54% of the vote.

Chris Cuomo (10:43)

That's bad news for Trump in all likelihood, because we know about the reproductive rights issue, we know about the increase in single women, and we know the decrease in married women just being a proxy for their partner in terms of how they vote. What about the idea of this being like the 1980 election? HARRIS as Carter, incumbent but weak because of foreign affairs and domestic economic perspective. And it looks close in the polls. And then the disruptor, in that case, Reagan destroys her with like, 400 something electoral votes.

Professor Alan Lichtman (11:22)

Yeah, it was a landslide. And as it's so often the case the pollsters got it wrong and they often get it wrong in one direction or another. But, you know, that is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But let me mention a few qualifications. The economy was way worse under Carter. You had the stagflation. You had the misery index up around 20%. Now it's around 6 or 7%. We have no foreign policy humiliation for America comparable to the Iran hostage crisis. And you remember, so sadly, as I do, that horrible botched rescue attempt that resulted in crashes and deaths. And so the comparison, while it has some merit, also has some big holes in it.

Chris Cuomo (12:14)

How about perception as reality? Making the current seem like the extreme of that time, the Middle east and Ukraine combined, feeling like the level of distress when there was none of that on Trump's watch, economically, being told that the pocketbook economics suck and are so different than they were under Trump. Can those combined have the same net effect as the realities did in the 1980 election?

Professor Alan Lichtman (12:41)

Well, you had worse perceptions, much worse perceptions in the 1980 election. And one thing you know, you gotta be aware of is these polls about voter sentiment and who's better on the economy. They change all the time. You know, at one point, Trump had a huge lead on who was better to deal with the economy. Now it shrunk to within the margin of error. So it's very difficult to make prognostications based upon these constantly shifting poll numbers. Plus, we have no idea how other issues are going to play out against that. You didn't have contrary burning issues for Carter in 1980. Like, you do have some contrary burning issues for Harris this time. You mentioned, obviously reproductive rights is an enormously motivating issue that I think is very much behind the gender gap. And Harris is way ahead on reproductive rights. Democracy that's been rising among voter concerns and Harris is ahead there. So, as always, you've got issues cutting both ways. And there's no way to know, you know, based on polling of the issues, how an election is going to come out.

Chris Cuomo (13:53)

Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from AG1. So holidays, you know what happens. You fall off the grind, you fall off the routine. That's why AG1 has been with me for so many years. Why? Because it's simple. You're one and done. It's just a scoop in some water for me, warm water, but you can put it in anything you want. And just like that, you've absorbed all the nutrition that you need to keep you on track. And AG1 is running a special Black Friday offer for all of November. So this holiday season. Try AG1 and think about giving it to somebody else. The holidays are a great time to get yourself into better shape, to focus on yourself, your family and doing what you can to do your best. And AG1 is part of that, certainly for me. And that's why they've been a partner for so long. And like I said, every week of November, AG1 will be running a special Black Friday offer for a free gift with your first subscription in addition to the welcome kit, vitamin D3K2. So check it out. Drinkag1.com CCP for the Chris Cuomo Project. See what gift you can get this week. That's drinkag1.com CCP support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes From Get Main Lobster.com I gotta tell you, it's the holidays. Nothing ups your game. Nothing shows you care. Like surf and turf. And you can not have surf and turf if you don't have the lobster in play. Now look, I wanted it, they sent it. It was fresh, it was delicious, it was easy, okay? And look, let's be honest, you can get a lot of things a lot of places when you're thinking lobster. Here I am in New York, we have a robust lobster game, but it ain't Maine. Use the promo code Cuomo. C U O M o. You'll get 15% off all orders store wide. That's right, 15% off. To help you create those unforgettable holiday moments with joy and taste. So why wait? Treat yourself. Treat your loved ones. Get that taste of Maine in your mouth. Make new memories. Celebrate the beauty of togetherness. Getmainlobster.com if you go to getmainlobster.com don't forget to use the promo code Cuomo, and you will get 15% off all orders store wide. You lived through the 60s.

Professor Alan Lichtman (16:15)

What was. I sure did.

Chris Cuomo (16:16)

What was the similarity in the difference in terms of the feel of division in the 60s versus today? We didn't have social media, obviously, but.

Professor Alan Lichtman (16:24)

Right. Social media is enormous, Chris, as you know, because it divides us into these bubbles where we just get reinforced for our own beliefs and get shielded from anything contrary. We did not have that in the 60s. I'll tell you a little story that kind of illustrates the 60s. I started, I hate to say this, Brandeis University in 1963. 61 years ago. Started. I was 16 and it was the old regime. It might well have been 1953. You know, we had boys and girls, dorms, weed, you know, marijuana was reefers. That was only in the ghetto. We had three Feet on the floor, indoor rooms. Then I graduated in 1967, and it was an entirely new world. In just four years, everything had changed. You know, drugs were rampant, people were demonstrating in the streets. You know, sex, drugs, rock and roll had taken over. That was, you know, almost non existent previously. And I think, you know, that kind of cultural revolution of the left was what really marked the 1960s. And what marks the current situation is the cultural uprising of the right. You know, I didn't analyze this, but some other scholars did. And they found when Trump won in 2016, it wasn't so much economic issues, it was more cultural issues appealing to people who felt that the America that they loved and cherished was disappearing.

Chris Cuomo (17:59)

The epitome of rich people problems, culture.

Professor Alan Lichtman (18:03)

Culture wars.

Chris Cuomo (18:04)

Culture wars are the epitome of it in terms of political science. When you look around the globe now, you have repressive societies. Absolutely. But you do not see the level of debate about things that are ancillary to existential causes the way you do in this country. And someone I was reading had an interesting take where they said, you know, in the 60s, it was performative. The. I'm not saying fake, I'm saying people were dropping out, they were fighting and going to prison rather than join the military. They were doing drugs, they weren't working, they were dropping out of school. They were doing all these things that we are not seeing in the resistance movement today. These people are still working, they're still in schools. Of course, they're still in their communities, but online they are performative. And this woman was drawing the distinction that in 60s it was in the streets.

Professor Alan Lichtman (19:05)

It was, we were in the streets.

Chris Cuomo (19:06)

And here they're online.

Professor Alan Lichtman (19:08)

Another thing about the 60s, let's not forget this was the heyday of the civil rights movement in the streets, going to Birmingham and getting beaten by Bull Connor, you know, beaming that in everyone's living room. It was in the 60s that we got perhaps the two most important pieces of legislation since World War II, the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights act of 1965. And that was because people were getting in the streets, sacrificing their bodies for a greater good. We also saw the flowering of the woman's movement in the 1960s as well, kind of thing. We're not. We're starting to see again, maybe sparked by the fact that for the first time ever, Supreme Court has taken away a constitutional right, in this case the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion.

Chris Cuomo (19:57)

How do you explain having, I think in your lifetime and Mine. The least popular, least believable political figure with the most potential and reach in Donald Trump. Have you ever seen anybody less popular yet more sticky to a constituency in American presidential politics?

Professor Alan Lichtman (20:26)

Absolutely not. You know, there are some who come close, like George Wallace, but he didn't have anywhere near the appeal of Trump. I hate to say this, but I think Trump has channeled some very dark impulses, but impulses that run deep, unfortunately, in our society. Xenophobia. You know, the first anti immigrant law was 1798, and the big enemy then was the French, then it was the Germans, then it was the Irish, then it were Jews like my grandparents.

Chris Cuomo (20:59)

The Alien Sedition Act.

Professor Alan Lichtman (21:01)

Yes, the Alien Sedition Act. They're very good, and Trump wants to revive them. So, you know, xenophobia runs deep. Racism runs deep. And we saw Trump, you know, recreating some of the worst racist slurs in our history. You know, calling Kamala Harris lazy and dumb and mentally deficient. Those are the arguments that white supremacists made to keep African Americans enslaved to maintain Jim Crow discrimination for nearly 100 years. And of course, you know, misogyny runs deep. We didn't actually have universal women's voting until 1920 in this country. And, you know, antisemitism has always been an important meme. So unfortunately, you know, he brings together a lot of impulses that we don't like to recognize but unfortunately are very much part of our own history.

Chris Cuomo (21:54)

Is the net effect. Please argue contrary to this, even if I accept all of that as a premise, the Democrats have matched the hysteria by going full Nazi with Trump and saying that he's a Hitler figure and that they lose independence as Trump does because of extreme rhetoric, that the critical thinking independents who are not sure which one of these two propositions is more tolerable to them for the next four years, hear them calling Trump a Nazi and it hurts the cause of Harrison Walls.

Professor Alan Lichtman (22:34)

Let me say, first of all, I never call anyone a Nazi. Never call anyone a Hitler. I think that's bad politics. You know, just generally not the kind of thing we should be doing. But as I understand, what the Democrats are saying is a little different, that they are objecting to the fact that Hitler. That Trump has expressed some admiration for Hitler and said he'd like to have generals like Hitler's generals. Let me tell you about Hitler's generals. You know, we think all of us Jews, you know, my family died in the concentration camps. Not true. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were machine gunned by roving Nazi killing squads headed by These Nazi generals, General Oberndorf testified at the Nuremberg trials that he had orders. They asked him, why'd you kill women and children? He said, those are my orders. My orders were to wipe Jews off the face of the earth, and therefore my priority was killing women and children. These are Hitler's generals. I don't think there's a both sides here. In fact, if there's one word I would eliminate from the English language, it's both sides. On the one hand, someone is talking about wanting these generals, saying, I'll be a dictator on day one to drill, drill, drill, when drilling takes months and years. Talking about using the military against his political opponents, jailing them. On the other hand, there's another side maybe going a little too far, but criticizing him, but not posing that same kind of danger. It's not equivalent.

Chris Cuomo (24:09)

When people say to you, I'm sure in your personal life, you have a similar dynamic to me. You just probably have more friends. But where they say, you know, look, Trump is an asshole. I get it, okay? But, okay, now, you know they are not a progressive Democrat, right? Because there's no but for progressive Democrats. Trump sucks is enough. Okay? And then you can fill all the reasons why he's perfidious or, you know, a felon or just immoral or whatever you want to fill in. They say. But. So now I know I'm dealing with somebody who may be a centrist, probably an independent, and they'll say this transgender stuff, and them not speaking out against these people, supporting Hamas and them trying to roll back a lot of stuff about what you're allowed to do with my kids and school. I mean, it's really crazy, Chris. And isn't she kind of controlled by them even more than Biden was? What do you say to that?

Professor Alan Lichtman (25:10)

Yeah, my answer is that's the fringe of the Democratic Party. The fringe that's not Harris and Trump or, you know, Tim Walsh. None of them are talking like that. Whereas this is the mainstream now of the Republican Party. I'm coming out with a new book. It'll be out next year, University of Notre Dame Press, of all places, called the Truth About Conservatives. It's not what you think. And my argument is Trump could blip out tomorrow. And what Trump represents is now the mainstream of the Republican Party, and they're unabashed about it. Just read Project 2025. And there are other Republican organizations that are essentially establishing the same blueprint. And we don't see Republican leaders coming out and, you know, denouncing this and proposing an alternative way of governing.

Chris Cuomo (26:04)

And what would you counter that as? What are the Democrats?

Professor Alan Lichtman (26:09)

I'll tell you exactly what the Democrats are. I have summed up American politics in one, one sentence. Republicans have no principles. Democrats have no spine. You know, Republicans want to grab and seize power for its own sake. Democrats are always playing to lose. They're letting Republicans play hardball and they are playing Wiffle ball. But what you're getting in Harris is what you've gotten, frankly, in both Republican and Democratic presidents since the 1940s. You have a center left Democrat who's going to govern like every other center left Democrat, you know, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy. The republic didn't collapse. We didn't have dictatorship. We didn't have concentration camps. We had our ups and downs, but everything was fine. And then not much different than center right Republicans like Mitt Romney or eight years of Dwight Eisenhower. Yes, he was center right, but not that much different than center left. Trump represents 8 and the new Republican Party, a complete break from that. That's why you have, you know, conservatives like Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, John Kelly, General Milley warning in hair on fire terms about Donald Trump. This is not Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. This is solid conservatives, you know, men who serve their country and who Trump picked to work with.

Chris Cuomo (27:46)

You didn't mention Bill Clinton. And as a point of contrast, they're.

Professor Alan Lichtman (27:50)

All pretty much in the right.

Chris Cuomo (27:52)

But I'm saying Harris was cited as being on the left fringe as a senator and her rhetoric was much more progressive and then some in terms of what she wanted, in terms of big government and what she wanted to fund and what she wanted in terms of what she sees as freedoms than what she's saying. Now, now I know that's not a fair basis of scrutiny because Trump changes his perspective, you know, as often as wind direction. But she's held, she's held to a different standard. He's the head of a grievance movement and she is the status quo. Is she at risk of having centrist voters think she's a radical?

Professor Alan Lichtman (28:35)

That's where Republicans what have you think and you know, we'll see if that argument resonates. But you know, Chris, there's a huge difference between being a senator from California and a candidate for president and being a president of the United States, we have to unite, you know, very diverse constituents. And you know, one thing that really amuses me is, oh, we need more detail on these economic plans. Well, you know as well as I do, you get into the office yeah, whatever plans you have are going to go up in smoke. You've got to deal with the Congress. You may have to deal with the Republican Senate.

Chris Cuomo (29:15)

It's a bullshit.

Professor Alan Lichtman (29:15)

You got to deal with the billionaires, the interest groups. It's basically your orientation. And as I said, she is a pretty down the road center left Democrat and will govern much like Biden and Obama.

Chris Cuomo (29:28)

When you look at the last 10 presidential cycles where you are 10 for 10 with an asterisk because you said Gore won and Bush wound up getting the presidency, obviously, where is your level of confidence on election day of saying according to the keys, Kamala Harris will win?

Professor Alan Lichtman (29:51)

You know, I'm 77. I've been doing this for 42 years. I've gotten every criticism imaginable. Every four years I have butterflies in my stomach because you know, I can be false of. I tell you who's going to win, who's going to lose. Not like Nate Silver who says depending on the time of day you check in, Hillary Clinton's got a 70 to 80% chance of winning. Then she loses. And he says, see, I told you she has a 20% plus chance of losing. So, Chris, you'll know whether I'm right or wrong. And you know, I never change my predictions. I stick with them. But this year is so crazy that I am especially nervous now.

Chris Cuomo (30:29)

One of the things that people say to me about you is they'll be like, wait a minute, where is Lichtman living that he thinks that the economy is something that could ever go for Harris. Remind people if they don't have the rigor to just google 13 keys where all your definitions are there. What does short term and long term economy get defined as within the keys? That is the basis of your judgment.

Professor Alan Lichtman (30:57)

This is very important because every single day I get a slew of emails, people saying we know better how to define the economy or the charisma key. And my answer, Chris, develop your own prediction system. But if you can't use my system, you got to stick to how the keys are defined. And they're based on 160 years of history. They're not just something I conjured up. And the economic keys are very quantitative. The short term economic key doesn't try to break down the economy because, you know, you could pick anything you want. Inflation may be bad, but jobs are good. The stock market, you know, is great, whatever. It's very specific. It says there's no recession in the election year. And the long term economy key is very specific. It says real per capita Growth, which takes inflation into account, is at least equal during the term to the average of the previous two terms. And both of those keys are unquestionably true. And these are the keys that over 160 years, retrospectively and prospectively have worked. And if you want to develop some other key, show me that it's worked over a long period of time. Look, I'm not touting my own horn, but I don't put much credence into any predictions that don't have a track record of advance predictions going back predictable elections. We know the answer doesn't cut it with me.

Chris Cuomo (32:20)

Of course there's subjectivity. I mean, you're not suggesting otherwise.

Professor Alan Lichtman (32:23)

We're human beings, we're not molecules.

Chris Cuomo (32:26)

How do you reconcile the long term economic key with the are you better off than four years ago argument that Trump is making where people say, yeah, I had more money in my pocket before the pandemic under Trump than I do now?

Professor Alan Lichtman (32:42)

Well, again, you know, you can argue that one way or the other and people are going to differ on that. What I've seen, and I don't use this, but people say, yeah, financially I'm pretty well off, but I think the economy is going to hell. So, you know, there is a big gap.

Chris Cuomo (32:59)

Groceries, gas prices, rent, talking points, housing, those are big things for voters.

Professor Alan Lichtman (33:05)

There are big pluses and big minuses, and each side has its talking points. And I don't respond either to the Democratic or Republican talking points, just as I didn't in 2016 when based on the talking points, you would have thought Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

Chris Cuomo (33:23)

Well, I thought that, you know, up until I started covering the rallies, when I realized, oh man, I forgot how big a celebrity Trump is to everybody else. To me, he's Donald Trump. I've known him most of my adult life and he's always been more of a jester than he was ever a night at the roundtable in terms of the players and politics. And I was wrong right early on. And that's why I was one of the earlier adapters to this Trump thing. He's harnessing. He is becoming a symbol of resistance for this group that he does not have a lot of connective tissue with except the grievance. And he says, you're right to be pissed. And I know the system in a way you can't, because I'm a real player and I can break what you want broken. And I got it. And I was like, I think he's going to win because all the momentum Kept going towards him. And of course it was binary, so I could have also been wrong, but I wound up being right. But on election night, I remember sitting with David Gregory of Meet the Press fame and we're watching and we're like, let's just watch for an hour and then we'll go to sleep. Because we were doing the CNN morning show together and 9:00, 10:00, 11:00 and we were gonna start, I think at 4 or 5:00am or something. And I was like, she hasn't, she's not winning anywhere that she needs to win to lock. And we wound up staying up all fucking night watching that thing. And of course we know how it went. I don't see this election being that way because nobody's saying it's a blowout. I'm actually looking at it as the opposite, which is they're saying it's not going to be a blowout, but maybe it will be. Do you think that there's a decent chance that there's a bigger electoral spread than people are assuming?

Professor Alan Lichtman (35:15)

Absolutely. And let me explain about the polls which claim it's going to be so tight, so close. The error margin of the polls, you've heard this, of course, plus and minus 3%. Right about that. That's pure statistical error. That's the error you would get if you had a huge jaw of green and red balls and you pulled out a sample to estimate the percentage of green and red balls in the jar. But human beings are not green and red balls. They don't respond to pollsters. They may lie, they may change their minds. And the pollsters don't know who's ultimately going to vote. These likely voters is a guess that at least doubles the margin of error to plus and minus 6. And the non statistical error is unidirectional. It's not random. It could go either way. So what's going to determine whether there's a blowout or not is A, the size of the error, which could be quite large, and B, whether it's unidirectional or not. So the close poles by no means preclude the possibility of a blowout.

Chris Cuomo (36:16)

I've got a new. What's the right way to put it? I have a new, new kind of toy when it comes to politics that I am very intrigued by. And I'm probably going to partner with one of these companies as a result. I like.

Professor Alan Lichtman (36:34)

I hope you make a lot of money.

Chris Cuomo (36:35)

I like the betting lines because I like first of all how you and I have both grown up watching sports and being amazed at how close they get this spread in these games. And I've always, like, marveled at it. Like, how did they know that the jets were of course going to blow it, but they would just be right outside one point outside the spread. These betting lines about the elections where people are putting money behind their preference are very intriguing to me. And I've been watching them versus the polls, and they have seemed to match what I feel more than I have seen in the polls. What is your take on them?

Professor Alan Lichtman (37:14)

I don't really pay attention to them. They gave Hillary Clinton a 70% chance of winning in 2016. So, you know, I don't. I don't pay attention to the plus. I'm very, very wary of them this year because I wonder. I can't prove this. I'm just guessing. Are billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk using their markets?

Chris Cuomo (37:40)

We know. We know that they are. Poly market came out and said this French guy put $28 million in and skewed the numbers. And I really respected that they came out and said that because that's all you're asking for, is transparency. Other than that, you know, it's playing out like any other betting line. But I thought it was very cool that they did that and it didn't have to be jumped on them. But as long as they tell you when someone juices it, I'm still intrigued by it as a preference market because people are putting money where their mouth is.

Professor Alan Lichtman (38:13)

Right. But we don't know if they're putting money because they're convinced someone's going to win or not, or they're putting money because I want this candidate to win. That's the fallacy of the. Yes, the prediction markets.

Chris Cuomo (38:27)

I know. But here's the thing that I think is what's winning me over right now, Alan, is what's wrong with our system. Our system is that not everybody is equal in terms of their power within the electorate. Sure, it's one man, one vote, but the money. Citizens United has changed the calculus of voice and magnification. And the betting markets echo that because I can put 100 bucks down because that's what I can spare. And my producer Greg only puts down 50 bucks because that's what he can spare. But Lichtman, with all his hit books and the 13 keys, he comes in with 10 grand and he goes the other way. Now, who has more influence on the line? You do, because the money influences the line. But to me, that is A truer reflection of how American politics works right now, which is, yeah, Lichtman's got more money. He is gonna have more reach and influence in the political dynamic than I will or than Greg will in my example. And that's another aspect of them, which is an inequity, which is something that you would be against as what you're trying to do with the purity of the keys. But I feel like it reflects who we are right now in the game.

Professor Alan Lichtman (39:41)

There's a lot of truth to that. And the root of all evil in this is Buckley, the Vallejo from the 1970s. And the Supreme Court said, money speech. So we really can't control money in politics now. The old saying is reversed. He who's got the gold rules.

Chris Cuomo (40:02)

That's exactly right. And Citizens United cemented it. And now it's the legal money that's the problem, not the illegal money.

Professor Alan Lichtman (40:10)

You know, that's right.

Chris Cuomo (40:11)

And, you know, I don't know anything.

Professor Alan Lichtman (40:13)

All over the world. Yeah.

Chris Cuomo (40:14)

What do you hear?

Professor Alan Lichtman (40:16)

I hear people say, oh, your politics compared to, you know, Brazil or Romania, I've been so many countries. India, your politics is so pure. My answer is, you know, in these other countries, it may be illegal money. In America, it's legal money. You don't have to engage in illegal. Illegal activities.

Chris Cuomo (40:40)

What's amazing to me is not just the money, but in how limited the messaging is. I mean, not in terms of amount, but in terms of the spray. Where is fentanyl? You're not hearing about it. You know, where is domestic terrorism? You're not hearing about it. You know, what is all of these different insidious things that affect communities all over the country? You're not hearing about, where is the death of the artisan class? You know, you want to talk about what jobs? You know, I was talking with my son. Our son just started college. I took him to Apex Tech. I did a story about the trades. And, you know, you see these kids, they are not cut out for college, Whether it's being new to the country or their level of education or the level of motivation or the level of aptitude, whatever it is, but they can work with their hands and they're smart. They're just a different kind of intelligence. And they're becoming welders and they're starting businesses, and they're going to be the guys who. I'm seeing the nice fishing boats in about 15, 20 years in my marina. And, boy, do we look down on that. And that's such a great issue that I would be putting money into if I was a messaging guy. And they're all silent. It's so much money, but it's so limited to just the invective that hurts the other side most.

Professor Alan Lichtman (41:58)

Exactly. And that's really sad. And you know, if you believe in the Keys, you could have a different kind of campaigning. Because if it's governing, not traditional campaigning that counts, you can campaign on the big vision, the big ideas, which actually would be beneficial because if you win, you have a mandate which would help you four years down the road. And even if you lose, you at least have made your mark on the country. Do we remember anything beyond the gaffes that conventional campaigners have ever said? Hillary Clinton, mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry, Walter Mondale, George H.W. bush. We don't. In fact, the two candidates who in many ways have made a big mark were big losers. Barry Goldwater in 64. But boy, you know, his straightforward defense of conservative principles still influences the right today. And on the left, the same thing with George McGovern.

Chris Cuomo (42:55)

If you shit the bed on this election, will you reconsider the Keys?

Professor Alan Lichtman (43:00)

You know, everyone asked me that.

Chris Cuomo (43:03)

Not that way.

Professor Alan Lichtman (43:03)

They don't answer that hypothetical.

Chris Cuomo (43:06)

They've never asked you it that way before.

Professor Alan Lichtman (43:10)

I will rethink. And you know, I'm 77. You know, will I be able four years from now to still be the Nostradamus of the Keys? Maybe not. As you know, I have a live show, Chris, every Tuesday and Thursday at 9pm Eastern with my son at Alan Lichtman YouTube. We have 132,000 subscribers. We started with zero. And a group of our very smart audience members have said they will form a consortium to take over the key. So we'll see.

Chris Cuomo (43:44)

How many elections would you have to get wrong to reconsider the model? Or is my analysis off? Because their value is retrograde as well that you've looked into past elections. So what would spur a change? Could it be that social media, could it be that culturally we no longer value what the keys suggest?

Professor Alan Lichtman (44:09)

You know, the keys are based on 160 years of politics retrospectively and going forward. So they're very robust. But can something catastrophic, unprecedented break the pattern of history? Of course. But the problem is you never know in advance. You can only know after the fact. Like a scientific revolution. You can't predict a scientific revolution. It wouldn't be a revolution. You can can't predict unpredictable changes. So certainly one wrong call would not invalidate a pattern that's run for 160 years. But I'd have to rethink why the pattern was broken. But it certainly would not invalidate the key insights of the keys.

Chris Cuomo (44:55)

A couple of the states that matter in the swing category have said, you're not going to know tonight. We're not going to tell you tonight how important is the speed of the results and when do you think we will know who the next president is?

Professor Alan Lichtman (45:15)

I would like it to be speedy because that could, you know, forestall a lot of attempts to muddle the waters like we saw last time, even try to steal back the election. If you're right and you're my favorite pundit, but you're not really a pundit, and it could. Could be a blowout. We might. We might know right away, or it could be sometime, you know, 2020 was not the only election we didn't know immediately. Look at 2000. We didn't know until what, early to mid.

Chris Cuomo (45:49)

Spend way too much time in Jacksonville.

Professor Alan Lichtman (45:52)

Yeah, Exactly. And in 1912, it took a while. You know, people don't realize how close 1912 was. Like three or four thousand votes in California turned the election.

Chris Cuomo (46:04)

People don't realize. People don't know 1960. People don't know who their elected representatives are. You know, the.

Professor Alan Lichtman (46:13)

Exactly.

Chris Cuomo (46:13)

I felt the reduction in critical thinking, and it is matched by a confidence, the confidence to competence imbalance is staggering to me, and it is a uniquely, for now American attribute. When you travel all the time, so do I. When you go to other countries, they are stuffed with information or painfully aware of their ignorance and so hard to tease out an opinion. In America, people have an opinion instantaneously based on almost nothing. And now we have matched that, and we're gonna see it all day today where if you say anything that doesn't meet their expectation of what should be true, you are the opponent. Just like that. I say something that's not glowing about Kamala Harris, which would make me, if I were a Democrat, like 80% of them, six months ago, I've been red pilled. You say something about Trump, you hate America. That is a uniquely American phenomenon where I believe we are living that cycle that the Greeks gave us. Strong men make good times. Good times make weak people. Weak people make hard times. Hard times make strong people. We are in the. Weak people make hard times. We are acting weak. And I think it's gonna be to our detriment.

Professor Alan Lichtman (47:43)

You know, I've spent my whole life trying to combat that, trying to search for truth and teach how to search for truth. You know, as a scholar, you know my books, I've tried to make them not just obscure speaking, you know, to 10 other specialists in the field. I've written about things like the Second Amendment, voting rights, democracy, conservatives versus liberals, religious and racial prejudice. I firmly believe that as scholars we have an obligation to apply our knowledge and our expertise for the greatest good. I live by a saying from Horace Mann. I'm paraphrasing, be ashamed to die unless you've won some small battle for humanity.

Chris Cuomo (48:34)

Well, that's where we are today. And Professor Alan Lichtman, I very much enjoy your counsel, very much. Am a believer in the keys and we will see how the election plays out. Hopefully the election plays out as a dispositive finding on the basis of the votes cast and nothing else. We will live it together and we will process the outcome together as well. Thank you for your help in this election and I look forward to the days ahead.

Professor Alan Lichtman (49:06)

Same here. Take care, Chris.

Chris Cuomo (49:13)

So there you have it. Alan Lichtman says it's going to be Vice President Harris and he explained why. But just as importantly, he pushes aside all of the observations of the current drama that people like me are depending on. So we'll see if he's right or not. Check with me on News Nation. We'll be on all tonight with our special election coverage. You get the substack, you subscribe to it. Just five bucks a month which I'm going to use to help people get treatment for Long Covid. You get the podcast ad free. You get my personal understandings of what's going on in life with longevity. You get my doctor talking about Long Covid or five bucks a month and we will keep the conversation going today. Let's trust the process and may the most votes win. Let's get after it.