So, I always see this Allen Lichtman guy's theory of "the keys to the white house" trotted out as the end all be all authority of who is going to win the election. He essentially tries to predict elections like people predict earthquakes, looking at thirteen key indicators and believing that if 7 or more of them lean in one direction, that that determines who wins the white house.
I've been a skeptic for a long time on this theory. While the "keys" track very well with elections, and are essentially indicators of whether the incumbent president's party is popular, I think that these keys are merely correlated with the outcome, rather than being reliable indicators.
I also do think that there are questions as to whether some elections like 2000 or 2016 actually correlated with the indicators. In 2000, Gore was projected to win, but Bush won. Now, Lichtman will say things like he predicted the popular vote, not the electoral college or something, but then in 2016, he predicted trump would win, despite him losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral college. yeah, it gets tricky and muddy.
After watching him on Nerds for Humanity, I'm also really questioning how reliable the indicators are. He tends to interpret them in certain academic ways, and even going into July, he still doesn't have a full prediction.
Of course, no one does. All of these different models predict different things. my own is based on polling and it looks BAD for Biden right now. But honestly, i do question how well the keys hold up in 2024. Well, let's go over them and get a better idea of what we're talking about here.
Apparently according to the above podcast you need to read his book to actually interpret them, that sounds a bit shady, but he did provide summaries on the podcast, and I will go by the wiki description of the keys.
Key 1: Party mandate
Key 1 (party mandate) turns true if the incumbent party has achieved a net gain of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the term's midterm elections compared to the previous midterm elections. For example, Lichtman refers to the 1982 U.S. House elections in the middle of Ronald Reagan's first term when the Republicans lost 27 seats: as the Republicans had gained 35 seats in 1980, this left them with a net gain of eight seats, turning the key true.
Lichtman says that midterm elections reflect the performance of
the incumbent party and are an indicator of nationwide electoral trends.
Additionally, if the incumbent party performs poorly, a large loss of
House seats can also affect the president's ability to enact policy,
which can result in other keys turning false.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election
on 11 of the 14 occasions when it achieved a net gain of seats in the
U.S. House of Representatives compared to the previous midterm elections
(the exceptions were in 1860, 1952 and 2000)
In 2020, the democrats lost 13 seats and the republicans gained 13 seats. In 2022, the democrats lost 9 more seats and the republicans gained 9 more seats.
In other words, this is a FALSE.
Key 2: No primary contest
Key
2 (no primary contest) turns true if the incumbent party nominee wins
at least two-thirds of the total delegate vote on the first ballot at
the nominating convention, and there are no deep and vocal party
divisions. Lichtman says the incumbent party's ability to unite behind a
consensus nominee is reflective of successful governance, whereas a
contested nomination is indicative of internal party strife caused by
weak governance.
Notable primary contests that turned the key false include the 1860 Democrat split over slavery (two conventions and 59 ballots were required to nominate Stephen A. Douglas), the 1896 dispute between the Bourbon and populist wings of the Democrats (the convention required five ballots to nominate William Jennings Bryan), the 1912 Republican split between conservatives led by President William Howard Taft and progressives led by former President Theodore Roosevelt, and the deep and vocal opposition from the anti-Vietnam War wing of the Democrats to the nomination of Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party was re-elected on 21
of the 28 occasions when the key was true (the exceptions were in
1888, 1932, 1960, 1992, 2000, 2008 and 2020), while 11 of the 13
occasions when the key was false (the exceptions were in 1876 and 1880)
saw the incumbent party defeated. Of the 13 keys, Lichtman has said
that this key is the single best predictor of an election outcome.
Conversely, a serious contest for the challenging party's
nomination does not harm its nominee's election prospects, as a weak
incumbent party often results in a crowded challenging party primary in
anticipation of a winnable general election. [14][15]
For example, in 1920, the challenging Republicans required ten ballots to nominate Warren G. Harding: in the general election, Harding defeated the nominee of the incumbent Democrats, James M. Cox, by 26.17 points, the largest popular vote margin in history.[16][17]
Another example was in 1932, when the challenging Democrats required four ballots to nominate Franklin D. Roosevelt:
this contest ultimately helped the Democrats' election prospects, as
the nomination of Roosevelt turned key 13 false for the incumbent
Republicans. In the general election, Roosevelt defeated President Herbert Hoover by 17.76 points in a landslide.
We are not at the convention yet, but this one is weird. In the primaries in the votes, there was not a serious challenger. Dean phillips and Marianne Williamson were essentially considered fringe candidates. However, at the same time, Biden remains very unpopular, and after his poor debate performance, there are questions dogging him about whether he can serve another term. He remains insistent that he can and refuses to step aside, but they are polling people for alternatives fishing for the idea that maybe replacing Biden is a good idea.
Idk, it seems like the establishment is thinking about it.
Still, at the same time, Biden currently has 99% of the pledged delegates, and it is unlikely the party will replace him. While this key can turn the other way in the next month or so, as of writing this, the key is functionally TRUE.
Key 3: Incumbent seeking re-election
Lichtman
says an incumbent president seeking re-election has several advantages,
such as the ability to set the national agenda, and often attracts far
more media attention than a non-incumbent. The president can also
benefit from the rally 'round the flag effect in times of crisis.
Lichtman also says that presidents running for re-election rarely
face the strongest candidates from the challenging party, who typically
refrain from running unless the president is seen as very vulnerable.
As of the 2020 election, when there was an incumbent president
running for re-election and key 3 was true, the president was re-elected
on 17 of 25 occasions. Of the 16 open seat elections (when key 3 was
false), the incumbent party was defeated on ten occasions (the
exceptions were in 1868, 1876, 1880, 1908, 1928 and 1988).
The incumbency key also correlates with key 2 (no primary
contest), as it usually guarantees there will be no serious contest for
the incumbent party's nomination. As of the 2020 election, when the
president was running for re-election and faced no serious contest for
their party's nomination, thus turning key 2 true, the president won
re-election on 17 of 21 occasions (the exceptions were in 1888, 1932,
1992 and 2020).
If there is a serious primary contest to the president, it
signifies major discontent within their own party and thus the broader
electorate: on all four occasions when the president was running for
re-election and key 2 was false (in 1892, 1912, 1976 and 1980), the
president was defeated.[13]
I mean, Donald Trump isnt really the strongest candidate polling wise, but he is the most popular that the right has to offer, and he was a former president. Their side also faced little challenge in the primary vote at least.
Still, Biden is the incumbent, and as long as key #2 remains true, #3 likely will be as well, so this is a TRUE.
Key 4: No third party
Key 4 (no third party) turns false when there is a major candidate other than the nominees of the Democratic Party and Republican Party. Most American presidential elections since 1860 have been de facto binary contests between Democrats and Republicans, as no third party candidate has come close to winning.[18]
Lichtman says if a third party candidate is unusually popular, it
signals major discontent with the performance of the incumbent party and
counts against them. Lichtman defines third parties as either
"perennial", having small and loyal constituencies, or "insurgent",
rising in response to particular circumstances.[18]
Retrospectively, the key was turned false when a single third
party candidate won more than 5% of the national popular vote or there
was a significant split in the incumbent party. For example, in 1948, Henry A. Wallace and Strom Thurmond
both split from the Democratic Party and ran notable insurgent
campaigns, with Thurmond carrying four states: this turned the key false
for President Harry S. Truman despite no third party candidate winning 5% of the popular vote.
For upcoming elections, key 4 turns false when a single third
party candidate consistently polls above 10%, indicating they are likely
to receive 5% or more of the national popular vote: third party
candidates typically underperform their polling by around half (Lichtman
says they tend to fade in the voting booth as voters focus on the major
party candidates).[19] Key 4 is the only key that concerns any polling of candidates.[20]
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has been defeated on
six of the nine occasions when there has been a significant third party
candidate (the exceptions were in 1924, 1948 and 1996).
For polling we would need 10% of the vote for the key to turn false. As of now, RFK Jr is at 7.6% of the vote, although he has polled above 10% in the past. This one is going to fluctuate, although RFK's polling seems to be on a downward trend over time. I'm going to tentatively rate this one as TRUE.
Keys 5 and 6: Strong long-term and short-term economy
Key
5 (strong short-term economy) is turned false when the economy is, or
is widely perceived to be, in recession during the election campaign.
Lichtman cites the early 1990s recession
as an example: the recession had ended in March 1991, but a Gallup poll
in September 1992 found that 79% of respondents believed the economy
was still in recession, which turned the key false for George H. W. Bush.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election
on 22 of the 31 occasions when key 5 was true (the exceptions were in
1860, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1952, 1968, 1976, 2000 and 2016), while the
incumbent party has been defeated on nine of the ten occasions when key 5
was false (the only exception being in 1876).
Key 6 (strong long-term economy) is turned true when the real per
capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds the mean
growth during the previous two terms: Lichtman states that slow economic
growth is indicative of an administration's lack of strength.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election
on 14 of the 22 occasions when key 6 was true (the exceptions were in
1860, 1888, 1892, 1912, 1968, 1980, 2000 and 2016).
The incumbent party has won re-election on 14 of the 21 occasions
when both economic keys were true (the exceptions being in 1860, 1888,
1892, 1912, 1968, 2000 and 2016); on eight of the nine occasions when
both keys were false, the incumbent party was defeated (the exception
being in 1876).
This is where things get funky. We're not in a recession, but we've been dealing with high inflation that has been driving economic confidence down. people are unhappy with the economy, even if the economic indicators are actually strong.
For #5, it's technically TRUE that the economy is strong, given the focus is on RECESSION, but there is still widespread dissatisfaction as if there were one.
I'm going to tentatively rate #5 as FALSE, on the basis that most Americans seem unhappy with the economy.
Far as #6 goes, it's basically true because prior to COVID we were experiencing relatively low growth since the great recession, and then COVID cratered it further, while Biden got insane bonkers growth afterwards. if anything, that's why people are unhappy, because that rubber banding caused inflation.
I'm going to rate #6 as TRUE. The economy is PERCEIVED as bad as #5, but it's actually good as of #6.
Key 7: Major policy change
Key
7 (major policy change) is turned true if the incumbent administration
redirects the course of government or enacts a major policy change that
has broad effects on the country's commerce, welfare or outlook: it does
not matter whether the change is popular with the public, nor does it
matter what ideological mold it was cast from. Abraham Lincoln abolishing slavery, Franklin D. Roosevelt enacting the New Deal, and Barack Obama enacting the Affordable Care Act were policy changes that turned the key true.[12]
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election
on 15 of the 19 occasions that key 7 was true (the exceptions were in
1892, 1920, 1968 and 2020), while the incumbent party has been defeated
on 14 of the 22 occasions that key 7 was false (the exceptions were in
1872, 1876, 1928, 1956, 1972, 1988, 1996 and 2004).
This key often correlates with other keys. A president who fails
to take vigorous action during a time of national crisis might prolong
an economic recession, which in turn could lead to widespread social
unrest, his party having a large loss of House seats in the midterm
elections, and the nomination of a charismatic challenger: one case in
point is Herbert Hoover and his handling of the Great Depression.[21]
Based on the description above, I would say this is TRUE. Biden had some major bills passed early on his term to help us recover from COVID. And while the country is unhappy now, we still have enough to claim that he had a major policy change as of the above model.
Key 8: No social unrest
Key
8 (no social unrest) is turned false when there is widespread violent
unrest that is either sustained or leaves critical issues unresolved by
the time of the election campaign, which makes the voters worry that the
fabric of the nation is coming apart.
The American Civil War, the racial and anti-Vietnam War riots of 1968, and the protests of 2020 triggered by the murder of George Floyd were incidents of unrest that were sufficiently serious and widespread to turn the key false. By contrast, the 1980 Miami race riots and the 1992 Los Angeles riots were too localized to turn the key false.[21]
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has been defeated on
eight of the 11 occasions that there was sustained social unrest during
the term (the exceptions were in 1864, 1868 and 1872).
This is unclear, because as we speak, there is a lot of gaza protests. Still, the key here is violent and widespread. The gaza people are mostly peaceful, if not disruptive and annoying. They also arent widepsread. They're an insular minority that sees themselves as more important than they actually are.
I'm going to rate this one as TRUE.
Key 9: No scandal
Key
9 (no scandal) is turned false when there is bipartisan recognition of
serious impropriety that is linked to the president, such as widespread
corruption in the Cabinet and/or officials of an incumbent
administration or presidential misconduct resulting in a bipartisan
impeachment.
For example, the Watergate scandal began during Republican President Richard Nixon's
first term, but it did not affect his re-election bid in 1972; at the
time, the voting public believed this was political point-scoring by the
Democrats.
After Nixon's re-election, new information about his involvement in the
scandal emerged that also raised concerns among Republicans, turning
the key false: the resulting full-blown scandal also contributed to the
Republicans' defeat in 1976.[22]
By contrast, the voting public ignores allegations of wrongdoing
that appear to be the product of partisan politicking or are not linked
to the president. For example, Andrew Johnson's impeachment in 1868 and the Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan's second term did not turn the key false.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has been defeated on
four of the six occasions that the incumbent administration was tainted
by major scandal (the exceptions being in 1876 and 1924).
Not only does Biden have no major scandal of his own, his opponent who is an ex president faces numerous. So this is TRUE.
Keys 10 and 11: Foreign/military failure and success
Key
10 (no major foreign/military failure) is turned false when a failure
occurs that is perceived to undermine the standing of the United States
and/or erode trust in the president's leadership. Lichtman cites the
botched Bay of Pigs invasion, North Vietnamese victory in the Vietnam War, and the 1979-1980 Iran hostage crisis as failures that turned the key false. By contrast, failed diplomatic initiatives, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower's failure to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, will not turn the key false.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has been defeated on
seven of the 11 occasions that the incumbent administration suffered a
major failure in foreign or military affairs (the exceptions were in
1944, 1948, 1964 and 2004).
Key 11 (major foreign/military success) is turned true when an
achievement is seen as improving the prestige and interests of the
United States. Lichtman cites the formation of NATO under Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower negotiating an armistice to the Korean War, and John F. Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis as successes that turned the key true.[13]
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election
on 17 of the 21 occasions when it achieved a foreign or military success
(the exceptions were in 1920, 1952, 1980 and 1992), while the incumbent
party has been defeated on 14 of the 20 occasions when the key was
false (the exceptions were in 1876, 1880, 1936, 1940, 1984 and 1996).
The incumbent party has won re-election on 13 of the 14 occasions
when keys 10 and 11 were both true (the exception was in 1992); on all
four occasions when both keys were false (in 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2008),
the incumbent party was defeated.
So on Key 10, I'm just gonna throw out Afghanistan. I mean, I liked that he pulled out of it, but it has been viewed as a failure. So I'm gonna put this as FALSE.
On key 11, idk, I mean, I wouldnt consider gaza to be a victory, if anything its kind of a failure among some of the population, but I dont think it matters. On Ukraine, I dont think he truly succeeded there either. He's been doing a good job battening down the hatches, but I don't think we can say that he's had a true foreign policy SUCCESS. So I'll rate this as FALSE as well.
Keys 12 and 13: Candidate charisma
Key
12 (charismatic incumbent) is turned true if the incumbent party
candidate is charismatic or a national hero, while key 13 (uncharismatic
challenger) is turned false if the challenging party candidate is
charismatic or a national hero. Key 13 is the only key that pertains to
the challenging party.
Lichtman defines a charismatic candidate as one with an
extraordinarily persuasive or dynamic personality that gives him or her
very broad appeal that extends to voters outside their party's base. Having studied the political careers of all historical presidential candidates, Lichtman found that James G. Blaine, William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama
had charisma that was exceptional enough to make a measurable
difference in their political fortunes. By contrast, Lichtman found that
while Donald Trump had an intense appeal, it was with only a narrow slice of the electorate, unlike the broad appeal Ronald Reagan had with traditionally Democratic voters.[23]
It is also possible for candidates to lose their charismatic
status: Lichtman said that William Jennings Bryan was seen as
charismatic and inspirational in 1896 and 1900 but had become the
subject of frequent press ridicule by 1908, Bill Clinton would have been viewed as charismatic in 1992 had he not been tainted by accusations of womanizing and extramarital affairs,[24] and Barack Obama exuded charisma in 2008 but failed to have the same success in connecting with the public in 2012.
Lichtman defines a candidate as a national hero if they are seen
by the public as having played a critical role in the success of a
national endeavour. He found that Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower were seen as national heroes, as both were wartime leaders instrumental to major American victories.[25] By contrast, he said that while many Americans admired John McCain for his military service, he was not seen as a national hero because he had not led the country to a major wartime victory.[26]
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election
on eight of the ten occasions when its candidate was charismatic or a
national hero and key 12 was turned true (the exceptions being in 1884
and 1896), while the incumbent party has been defeated on five of the
six occasions when the challenging party candidate was charismatic or a
national hero and key 13 was turned false (the exception being in 1900).
Bro, Biden is NOT charismatic. That's why we're looking at potentially replacing him. He just bombed that debate. he can barely keep his eyes open on stage at the time. He looked like warmed over death the other night on the debate stage. Like the grim reaper is right behind him ready to strike at any moment. So FALSE.
I'm not sure if I agree with his take on Trump though. Generally speaking, most of the figures he cited as charismatic are realigning figures. Like Lincoln (1860 realignment), WJ Bryan (1896 realingment), FDR (1932 realignment), Ronald Reagan (1980 realignment), and I actually would say Donald Trump, at this point, may be "the guy." I mean, the GOP was dying until Trump came along. He breathed new life into it. I know people were saying Obama was realigning and in a sense, he almost was, but his realignment was crushed both by GOP scheming, and by dem incompetence. Keep in mind I consider myself an Obama democrat in a sense, and consider my progressivism, and the left that came after with Bernie and Yang to be building into that brand. Still, for me, Obama was never "the guy", he was just the guy who started the ball rolling, similar to Nixon. BERNIE would have been a realigning figure and I think it's a cardinal sin that we never got him as president. I think he absolutely would've been a realigning figure.
Trump? He's kinda filling that role. He's the guy who we're stuck with, and I do think that he is very popular among his base. I admit, he doesn't have the WIDESPREAD appeal. He's a very divisive figure. People either love him or hate him, and it seems like most normies still despise him. If they vote for him its as a lesser evil, not because he's widely beloved.
So this is unclear. Based on the widely beloved expectation, I'm going to say TRUE though.
Conclusion
So how does this analysis stack up? My own interpretation gives us 8 TRUE and 5 FALSE.
However, this analysis is unclear.Biden still could face a significant primary challenge, and he's NOT just coasting to victory. There's been widespread dissatisfaction of him from within the party, and with the debate, it's hitting the mainstream. CNN and MSNBC are calling to replace Biden. So we could still see the convention try to replace Biden.
We could still see RFK get above 10% again, the third party one is also unclear. I rated it as true, but it could turn false.
If we replace Biden, the incumbency key also goes bye bye.
The economic key is debatable, I did bend the rules on key 5, were not in a RECESSION, but I still think that given we experienced inflation and people are unhappy as if it were a recession, that this key is false. Still, it's technically true. Do the gaza protests count as unrest? Does afghanistan account for a major military defeat? Totally subjective. Candidate charisma. We KNOW Biden aint charismatic, but does Trump count as charismatic? Is he a realigning figure? HE COULD BE. I kinda ruled the key true on technicality, but I think it could be false.
I mean, these keys are all over the place. And Lichtman is a history guy. He's normally looking at history. And he even finds that each key is just correlated with victory or defeat, they never tell the whole picture. It requires all 13 to tell a picture. And even if his model is largely correct, he has the luxury of applying it mainly in hindsight. And in a lot of ways, we're seeing the difficulties of trying to apply this to 2024. Does this count? Does that count? What counts? He doesnt even know. We're not even gonna know, until election day how this model pans out. ANd in a lot of retrospectives i bet a lot of these ambiguous keys will be judged with hindsight to fit the model, rather than the model predicting anything at all.
And honestly? How many of these keys are directly relevant? no third party challenge and and incumbency are all well and good, but when there's widespead dissatisfaction around the nominee, and the fact that he isnt more widely challenged is in part due to the establishment having their finger on the scale, well, that's really questionable. I mean, normally if you see a challenge, it's because there's dissatisfaction. If you see a third party, there's dissatisfaction. And there IS dissatisfaction around Biden as the nominee regardless of what the keys say.
There's dissatisfaction around the economy despite it not being in recession, regardless of what the keys say.
I dont think afghanistan really matters in the grand scheme of things as a failure, but the keys say failure is bad, so failure is bad. There's little overt widespread social unrest, but there IS unrest.
There's major policy changes, but those are WAY in the hind mirror right now, and people seem to forget that the country has moved on. The fact is stuff that Biden did in 2021 is no longer relevant to 2024. So his policy changes dont really register.
I get where lichtman is going with this model. And maybe it gets it right MOST of the time. BUT...I think 2024 is gonna break this model.
Right now, we're on a collision course with a second Trump presidency. Biden is down in the polls. I currently have him at a 24% chance of reelection, which is about the same odds I gave Romney on election day. It can happen, but 3:1 says that it doesn't.
Biden has low approval ratings.
Despite winning his primary outright, there's widespread discontent with him as a nominee, he faces a rock bottom low approval rating of 37%, and no one actually wants the guy.
We're in a weird realigning period where no one really wants EITHER of these candidates, but due to the system suppressing third parties and strong undercurrents of voting for a party regardless of whether you like them, a lot of that dissatisfaction is under the rug.
And that's generally the problem with this election, and every election since 2016. We are in a position as a country where despite everything looking right on the outside, we are very unhappy on the inside. We dont like our leaders. We dont like our parties, we dont like our politicians. We cant agree on what metrics mean or whether they matter any more. And often times the dems like to just go over this stuff like a checklist and when voters say what they actually think, the dems are like THE METRICS SAY ITS GOOD, AND THAT MEANS YOURE WRONG. So people get pissed off and vote for Trump. It happened in 2016, it's happening in 2024.
At least in 2016, the keys did predict trump. But still, that was another oddball election where despite "the metrics" being all right people were unhappy.
I think we gotta come to terms with the fact that what we traditionally think makes our society good and strong no longer is indicative of that, and that kind of undermines the validity of this model. Like, I'm basically advocating for moving away from GDP as the end all be all of the economy.I think GDP growth no longer really makes us happy, and we need to change what a good economy is, which would mean the metrics shift.
I think we gotta come to terms with the fact that despite the fact that keys 2-4 are technically true, there is wide dissatisfaction of Biden as nominee.
I think that in some ways, the keys model is a bit of texas sharpshooter fallacy. We tend to draw the targets around where the shots are, rather than letting the data speak for itself. We tend to focus too hard on ticking off boxes, even if we're hiding widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo, when all actual electoral metrics like polling, approval rating, etc, tell me Biden is gonna get destroyed.
So yeah. Again, I think that this model is good for what it is, but we tend to live in strange times, where the model no longer has the predictive power it should. I think that 2024 is a year that could break it. It's a year in which the metrics look good on paper, but there's very widespread dissatisfaction under the surface that the model just...ignores.
And that's my view of it. I think the dems are in trouble, regardless of what this model says.
