So....here's the core problem with Allen Lichtman's keys. They're things often associated with winning elections, but not necessarily as good as polls, which actually measure feelings. As such, it is possible for keys to be technically correct, but that they should not turn. I pointed out a few examples, like the economy key, the primary contest key, etc. So, let's go through the keys AGAIN and this time apply them as I see fit, his guidance be damned (because let's face it, he was wrong).
1) Party mandate - FALSE
The democratic party lost seats in 2022, despite a strong overperformance that blunted the damage. They lost the house.
2) No primary contest - FALSE (suppressed)
The democrats intentionally suppressed a primary contest due to their top down party machine nature. Discontent was there all along, it just didnt precipitate into a serious contest due to the strict enforcement of party unity and discouragement stopping primary contestants from getting off the ground. The key turned true, but only superficially
3) Incumbent seeking reelection - FALSE
Because their incumbent was unpopular, they eventually forced him out and nominated Harris instead.
4) No third party - FALSE
RFK ran and had pretty significant support early on, although he dropped out to support Trump
5) Strong short term economy - FALSE
Lichtman's interpretation of this involves the actual economy. But his interpretation of this key ignores inflation and ignores how people FEEL. People didn't FEEL confident in the economy.
6) Strong long term economy - TRUE
I'll give him this one.
7) Major policy change - FALSE
Biden's accomplishment were milquetoast and didn't do much to positively change peoples' lives. He didn't do anything that resonated. He was obstructed for most of his presidency.
8) No social unrest- FALSE
While i believe these guys were electorally irrelevant, the free palestine protests took up significant news cycles and remained a constant thorn in Biden/Harris's side that may have helped depress turnout among progressives
9) No Scandal- FALSE
Do we wanna ignore the fact that we just covered up this guy's mental decline for so long that he had to drop out?
10) No foreign or military failure - FALSE
Afghanistan's withdrawal was considered kind of a mess, and Trump did use it to attack him. Dont think it was electorally significant but it was seen as a failure.
11) Major foreign policy success - FALSE
Biden/Harris did a lot of positive things but nothing that really resonated given the relatively isolationist nature of the country.
12) Charismatic incumbent - FALSE
By this he means "realigning figure". Biden isn't that guy. He's actually very uncharismatic. harris was okay but not charismatic.
13) Uncharismatic challenger- FALSE
Trump IS a possible realigning figure, and I think the results seal that, Lichtman got this wrong
So...I know I'm being SUPER uncharitable here. But let's face it. If we really wanted to, we could say the democrats were wrong on virtually all of the keys. it really is subjective. yes, a scholarly interpretation will say no there was no primary challenge, RFK, dropped out blah blah blah. STFU, you got it wrong.
The fact is, the dems suppressed a primary contest, biden's sheer unpopularity and cognitive decline forced him out, flipping multiple keys to false, RFK was a significant third party challenger until harris took over and trump basically pushed him out. People weren't confident in the economy. There was social unrest surrounding biden's policies among the progressive left. The fact that he had to drop out was in fact a scandal. Biden didnt have anything to really report as a resounding success on the foreign policy front, and Trump IS functionally the modern realigning figure, and i think the left is starting to realize that.
Not all of these factors could be predicted before this loss. BUT...looking at it now, yeah. The 2024 campaign had serious structural problems, and just because the keys when applied in an academic context seemed to give the democrats a green light, doesnt mean they're true.
Because what matters is HOW PEOPLE VOTE and HOW THEY FEEL. And the above things are indicators of that. And that's why they normally work. But in the context of 2024, they didnt line up with that. The dems just ticked the boxes without reflecting on what those keys actually represent to the american people and things looked a lot more rosy than they were.
Looking at it in retrospect, lichtman's model might apply differently. Maybe he would acknowledge that the signs of a loss were there all along, that biden was unpopular, that dissent within the democratic partty was suppressed, that biden's advanced age and mental decline was a scandal, that replacing him did turn several keys false (not that it would've mattered if they didnt drop him, what matters is the discontent that led to the decision, not the decision itself), that people didn't feel confident about the economy and the economic keys ignored peoples' feelings and the whole inflationary side of the phillips curve, and maybe, history will be the ultimate judge, that trump WAS A CHARISMATIC REALIGNING FIGURE!
Look, the keys model aint bad. But again, the model was applied in a way that led to them ticking boxes, not recognizing that what matters is why the keys turn, not THAT they do or not. The fact was, there was serious discontent that the keys missed because what mattered was whether the box was ticked, not what the keys represented in the psyches of the american people.
If you really wanted to, you could make virtually every key false in some form, or at least acknowledge that the key failed to actually connect with the scenario at hand.
Either way, polling is how you measure peoples' opinions. The keys model is associated with things that are often associated with peoples' opinions. And if we apply the keys more liberally, yeah, Biden was cooked. Harris was cooked, the dems were cooked.
NOW, what does this say about the model? That at the same time, it's subjective. While the academic objective definitions of the keys are set in stone, they're wrong. But if the model is applied more subjectively like i just did, well, then the model is subjective and also not a reliable indicator.
If anything, i think the keys are a flawed model that are often used retroactively by historians, and not good at predicting elections. Lichtman's model holds back to 1860 since he can be captain hindsight and apply them in retrospect. it does not project future elections, especially in a hot mess of a year like 2024 where we are clearly heading toward a realignment, if we have not already realigned. 2016 was the true realigning year IMO. But the real question is, was 2016 like a 1968 year or a 1980 year? And if 2016 is 1968, was 2024 1980? I dont have answers to this. We are clearly realigning though, and trump is that realigning figure. I think lichtman missed that one too. He kept insisting trump wasnt, but people are saying now in the autopsy that yeah...he was....that the real time to stop this was 2016, and the dems basically screwed themselves.
CALLED IT ALL ALONG, GUYS, CALLED IT ALL ALONG!
No comments:
Post a Comment