been seen as key factors in a candidate’s success in a presidential race. On the other hand, fundamental analysis considers these very elements, and more. Kelly’s bombshell, and Trump’s response, could be seen as a fundamental shift in the race. But Miller’s model, based solely on technical analysis, shows only a modest improvement for Harris. Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University who’s correctly forecast the popular vote winner in every presidential election since 1984, also places greater weight on fundamentals. In his system, a candidate needs to meet at least five of 13 “keys” to the White House to win. These include factors like party mandate, incumbent charisma, and the state of the economy. For Lichtman, Trump’s actions would likely cost him another key, putting him further away from victory. Miller agrees that the fundamentals suggest trouble for Trump. But his numbers show the opposite. “The technicals are pointing to a clear Trump win,” he says. “The market is betting on it. But the fundamentals are telling a different story.” The question now is which approach will prove more accurate in forecasting the election’s outcome. With just twelve days to go, the race remains volatile and unpredictable. The only certainty is that November 5 will bring a result that will reshape the country for years to come.\”
