Never-Wrong Pundit Picks Obama to Win in 2012
"Never wrong" because he picked his "keys" after most of the elections they supposedly predict had taken place. I don't disagree that elections are largely determined by factors that are totally beyond the control of candidates - but any pundit or academic who thinks that he can use a simplistic formula to infallibly predict the results of elections is not serious. The results of close elections, like the Presidential elections of 2000 or even 2004, may as well be the product of chance. Can you predict that they'll be really close? Sure! But unless you're capable of obscene levels of accuracy, you can't reliably tell who will win in years such as those, especially given the vagaries of the electoral college.
The "keys" only work because they're so subjective that it's difficult to say how many any given candidate has. Retrospectively, it's easy to assign whoever won the right number of keys for the formula to work.
4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.
I'm pretty sure that there won't be an important third-party candidate, but it's not implausible at this point.
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar. Another win for Obama.
I'd give this one to Obama too, but in past election cycles, this hasn't always been so obvious. Definitely requires a judgement call, one that can easily be made post-election so that the system works the way Lichtman wants it too.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.” Obama wins a fifth key here.
Another one that requires a pretty subjective judgement. Lichtman doesn't seem to provide clear definitions for most of the terms he uses, by the way, including "social unrest" or "sustained."
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama wins again.
I would call the general situation in Afghanistan a failure - it's a protracted state of affairs, and not an event, but it's still there. You might disagree with me on this, but I think it's hard to say that this isn't another "key" that requires a lot of judgement. The same applies to #11, foreign/military success.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key.
No one is more charismatic than a winner! And no one is less charismatic than a loser. This point is totally subjective. No idea how I'd call this one... at least, not before an election. Exactly the same objection applies to #13, "challenger charisma."
I think that any credible model for predicting the results of Presidential elections will 1) place more emphasis on the state of the economy and 2) promise much less certainty.
