32 years is 8 elections, which means 1 in 256 people guessing by flipping coins would be right every time; more if you assume someone doesn't guess on blowout elections where it's not even close.
There's an old story, I don't know if it's based in reality or an urban legend, but there's a guy who wants to run a financial scam. He picks a bunch of different stocks and faxes out faxes saying that the stocks will rise, thousands of faxes for each stock. Then, whichever stocks rise, he sends new faxes to those people with different random stock picks. After a few rounds of this, there are only a few people left who got all the right faxes with the right stock tips. Then, he faxes them a sales pitch for his stock advice. If even one person buys in, which they will--because how could one guy get all this right?!--he makes a mint on the scam.
Making matters worse, this appears to be a qualitative system he's come up with, and almost all of his variables are impossible to measure and rely on "gut checks".
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
What is a serious contest?
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
What is a significant third party? He counts Johnson as one because if you take polls and arbitrarily cut them in half but no further that's a number that's arbitrarily high so it counts.
Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Ridiculously specific; fragile and vulnerable to alternative specifications; also multicollinear with short-term economy and unlikely to be cleanly identified in a regression setting
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
errr (this is apparently a failure for the Democrats because the ACA doesn't count because it was too long ago)
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
errr
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
errrr
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
errr
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
errr (note: the professor codes this as a "failure" for the Democrats because Iran, Cuba, and winding down Afghanistan and Iraq don't count)
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Give me a break. Edit: Turns out that Genius Mr. Professor plays loosy goosey with who he considers charismatic
And the guy, in the end, hedges on his prediction. Not "I am uncertain because there is uncertainty in polling or information", but rather "the system is always right but what if we didn't interpret it right then we could be right but still be wrong, right?"
My prediction is based off a scientific system.
No it's not. What is scientific about this?