US historian blames disinformation for incorrect election prediction

Lichtman, a professor of history at American University, correctly predicted the outcomes of nine out of the previous 10 US elections using a ‘keys’ model – the answers to a set of 13 true-or-false questions – developed in 1981. He predicted that Kamala Harris would win the presidency.

This election has seen an ‘unprecedented degree’ of disinformation, Lichtman told Chris Cuomo on TV news programme NewsNation on Monday night ( 11/11 ).

Lichtman said: “As I said, things could go wrong – there could be unprecedented events that change the pattern of 160 years of history. That’s what happened here: two things. Number one: disinformation. We’ve always had disinformation, but it has exploded to an unprecedented degree. A lot of grievance was driven by disinformation from right-wing media and right- wing podcasts with millions of listeners.”

This election experienced something different, added Lichtman – billionaire Elon Musk “putting his thumb on the scale through the control of X, formerly Twitter”.

Disinformation has spread to every aspect of the election, said Lichtman, on issues including inflation, jobs, unemployment, the stock market and immigrants. He flagged the explosion of racism, misogyny, xenophobia and antisemitism, which had been “agitated to an unprecedented degree”, and added: “I am sounding the alarm, and I don’t think I’m the only one”.

When asked if he needed to adjust his keys model, he said: “That is very possible. I admit that I was wrong. The premise of the keys is that a rational, pragmatic electorate decides whether the White House party is governed well enough to get four more years. But if the views of the White House party are controlled by disinformation, particularly driven by those who are so rich they have more extraordinary influence beyond anyone else, then maybe the premise of the keys needs to be changed. I have four years to figure this out.”

Meanwhile, pollsters have been criticised in the media over the past week for their performance, but Professor John Curtice has said that although the polls underestimated Trump on average, the error was less than in 2020.

In an article published by The Conversation, Curtice said: “The problem for the polls at this election was that even the smallest error in one direction or the other from the anticipated very tight contest was almost bound to create the impression they had got it “wrong”.”

While he said pollsters could not afford to be “complacent” about the industry’s performance, particularly the continued underestimation of Trump’s support, he said: “In a close election – and the polls were entirely correct in anticipating that this was going to be a close election – only the smallest of errors can create the impression that the polls have got it wrong.

“The truth is that the polls are often at least a little bit out – and we should adjust our expectations of them accordingly.”

Curtice told Research Live the day after the election: “Looking at the individual swing states, there is a small underestimation of the Trump support. It’s not enormous, and it was something that anyone and everyone who was seriously commenting on the polls said could happen.”