Allan Lichtman 13 keys to the Presidency

[Corcaigh]

Allan Lichtman, an AU Professor, has had very good success since 1981 predicting winners of Presidential elections with his 13 keys/statements. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote. More at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House

 

1.   Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

2.   Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

4.   Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

5.   Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6.   Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7.   Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8.   Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

9.   Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

 

We're 10 months out, but I have:

1. FALSE - GoP took a beating in the midterms

2. Unknown at this point but probably TRUE.

3. TRUE

4. Unknown at the point but probably TRUE. Could a NEVER TRUMPER or Libertarian step up and change things?

5. TRUE (who knows when a big crash might happen)

6. TRUE (close enough for public perception anyway in spite of the inequality)

7. FALSE (failure of healthcare reform, tax changes were not impactful to the average person)

8. TRUE (a few nutjobs with guns marching is not moving the needle for most; not a lot of rioting, or marches)

9. FALSE (major scandal is almost daily)

10. FALSE (I think even the GoP loyalists were pissed off with withdrawal in Syria and the fate of the Kurds)

11. TRUE (this is a close call. The Al Baghdadi hit didn't have much resonance but Soleimani's killing may have done it for some)

12. FALSE (charismatic to some but pisses off more than we wins over)

13. TRUE (Dependent on who the Dem candidate is but I wouldn't put Bernie, Amy or Bloomberg in that camp. Joe could pull it off but probably will stick his foot in his mouth too often, Maybe Pete or Liz???)

 

Based on this with only five answers of FALSE, Trump is on the cusp but slightly favored. What a depressing thought. We need that third party candidate to step up and someone in the Dem camp to shine with charisma.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

13 minutes ago, Corcaigh said:

8. TRUE (a few nutjobs with guns marching is not moving the needle for most; not a lot of rioting, or marches)

 

I agree with all of your analysis except this one (i'm on the fence about the military success one).  There was a great deal of sustained social unrest, from liberals and mainly women, for the first 2 years of Trump's presidency, but it abated once Democrats won the House.  20,000 gun nuts marched a few weeks ago.  The women's march had an estimated 3.3 to 4.6 million participants nationwide, making it the largest protest in American history.  They kept going so often that the joke was "protest is the new brunch" (t-shirts available). 

 

Edit:  I still think Trump is the favorite in November.  

[Corcaigh]

12 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I agree with all of your analysis except this one (i'm on the fence about the military success one).  There was a great deal of sustained social unrest, from liberals and mainly women, for the first 2 years of Trump's presidency, but it abated once Democrats won the House.  20,000 gun nuts marched a few weeks ago.  The women's march had an estimated 3.3 to 4.6 million participants nationwide, making it the largest protest in American history.  They kept going so often that the joke was "protest is the new brunch" (t-shirts available). 

 

Edit:  I still think Trump is the favorite in November.  

 

Two years ago I would agree on the women's marches. It was huge. Does it still have the same sting? There were 20,000 gun nuts marching and in Virginia with Charlottesville recent it was a huge deal. But did folks outside of VA care that much?

 

I'm on the fence about military success too but 'murica hates the I-Ranians and we killed their general.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Corcaigh said:

 

Two years ago I would agree on the women's marches. It was huge. Does it still have the same sting? There were 20,000 gun nuts marching and in Virginia with Charlottesville recent it was a huge deal. But did folks outside of VA care that much?

 

I'm on the fence about military success too but 'murica hates the I-Ranians and we killed their general.

 

 

 

Gonna get lawyery on you.  Question is "There is no sustained social unrest during the term."  There was sustained social unrest during the term.  It was sustained for about 2 years of Trump's term.  The question doesn't specify that it has to be ongoing during the election.  

 

I think people cared about the gun thing because of the potential for televised violence, not because it was a significant political event.  

[bearrock]

I tend to agree with the view that by traditional metrics, Trump is probably a pretty clear favorite.  If he loses, it would have be via uncharted territory (kind of like the midwest firewall being breached for the Dems).  That uncharted territory may be that the magnitude of hate towards Trump outweighs magnitude of love for the guy.  I thought the whole mentality of wanting to cast a vote against the incumbent reached its peak for GWB and Obama, but it feels like they pale in comparison to the feelings against Trump.  The interesting contrast is that the staunch feeling of support seems to dwarf those of Bush and Obama too.

[Corcaigh]

With the economic doubts in the short and long term and plenty of social unrest, Trump is now the underdog according to Lichtman’s keys/

[redskinss]

I started reading this thinking it was a new thread.

It's not the first time I've done that but this was definitely one of the most head scratchers until I saw the date.

 

I feel like an idiot but I don't understand question number 3

Wouldn't the answer to that question always be true?

How can the incumbent party candidate not be the sitting president?

 

[tshile]

I’m only finding 3 true at the moment but I realize the foreign and military stuff might be arguable. 
 

I don’t know that his rules were written to accommodate a pandemic though. 

[techboy]

34 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I 

I feel like an idiot but I don't understand question number 3

Wouldn't the answer to that question always be true?

How can the incumbent party candidate not be the sitting president?

 

 

In 2016 Democrats held the White House (incumbent party), but their candidate was not the sitting President because Obama was not eligible to run again. It also happened in 2008 and 2000 (and lots of other times).

[88Comrade2000]

He’s on Smerconish’s SiriusXM radio program at 10am today.

[Spaceman Spiff]

On 2/3/2020 at 5:19 PM, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Gonna get lawyery on you.  Question is "There is no sustained social unrest during the term."  There was sustained social unrest during the term.  It was sustained for about 2 years of Trump's term.  The question doesn't specify that it has to be ongoing during the election.  

 

I think people cared about the gun thing because of the potential for televised violence, not because it was a significant political event.  

 

Looks like you're taking notes from @Larry

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

I’m only finding 3 true at the moment but I realize the foreign and military stuff might be arguable. 
 

I don’t know that his rules were written to accommodate a pandemic though. 

 

Here is his explanation.  You can skip forward to 3:30.

 

 

[TheDoyler23]

 

These three keys are so sticky, though.

 

For 9, Trump is a walking talking scandal but it never seems to matter. 

 

For 10, the Russian bounty story should be the 3rd biggest story of the year behind Corona and Civil action. It's essentially over besides something to hammer to voters with. 

 

And 12 - Trump gets credit in the formula for this, but... how many people are just so done with seeing his face every minute of every day? 

 

Trump breaks every mold and every scenario somehow. 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

And 12 - Trump gets credit in the formula for this, but... how many people are just so done with seeing his face every minute of every day? 

 

If you watch the video, Trump does not get the point for having charisma.  Lichtman says something to the effect of "he's a great showman, but he only appeals to a narrow slice of Americans."

[TheDoyler23]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

If you watch the video, Trump does not get the point for having charisma.  Lichtman says something to the effect of "he's a great showman, but he only appeals to a narrow slice of Americans."

 

Oh that's right. Trump gets the last point because his challenger doesn't have charisma. But in itself - Biden has the element of being "not Trump" 

[techboy]

I just can't take this too seriously anyway. It's so reminiscent of the stock picking geniuses that beat the S&P every year... Until they don't (See Bill Miller). Then they tweak the "rules" until it works again in backtesting. 

 

I'm sure he probably has good reasons for each rule, so it's probably better than the old "which conference wins the Super Bowl" thing, but even going back to 1981 is just too small a sample size.

[Llevron]

27 minutes ago, TheDoyler23 said:

Trump breaks every mold and every scenario somehow. 

 

Its because hes a narcissist. "He cant do that" or "Thats crazy" have no meaning to him because getting and keeping power is all that matters. If he has to literally kill people, and it works. It works. You cant build molds that include that kind of person because literally everything is possible. 

[PleaseBlitz]

25 minutes ago, techboy said:

I just can't take this too seriously anyway. It's so reminiscent of the stock picking geniuses that beat the S&P every year... Until they don't (See Bill Miller). Then they tweak the "rules" until it works again in backtesting. 

 

I'm sure he probably has good reasons for each rule, so it's probably better than the old "which conference wins the Super Bowl" thing, but even going back to 1981 is just too small a sample size.

 

His track record sure is solid, and I feel like his methodology makes some sense, I'm just not sure that any method developed in the 70's works specifically with Trump because he is such an outlier of a President human.  

[tshile]

How does Trump have no foreign/military failures?

 

[Corcaigh]

@techboy has a more robust, and simpler methodology: "Which candidate has a hairstyle that you would you be willing to accept in the VP role?"

 

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

How does Trump have no foreign/military failures?

 

 

The Russian campaign in Syria was highly successful. He gets credit for that with his base.

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

19 hours ago, TheDoyler23 said:

how many people are just so done with seeing his face every minute of every day? 

 

Trump breaks every mold 

 

HIS FACE IS MOLD.

 

(Thanks for the prop.) 👏

[Renegade7]