So the Lichtman Test so far

[bobloblaw]

Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
Clearly FALSE
Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Lichtmann defined "serious contest" as the nominee winning less than 2/3 of the delegates. So far unknown, but I'm willing to bet Sanders doesn't get a 1/3 of delegates, so lean TRUE.
Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.
FALSE
Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.
Licthmann defines "significant" as earning 5%. Webb isn't going to do that and it's probably too late for Trump to go indy, so FALSE.
Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
LEAN TRUE. Could change.
Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.
TRUE
Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
In this case, FALSE
Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term.
TRUE. The test requires that it be long and sustained, Ferguson doesn't qualify.
Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
TRUE. Before anyone screams "Benghazi!" I'll note that Lichtman didn't even count Iran-Contra as a "major" scandal.
Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.
Barring any major development, TRUE
Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term.
TRUE. The opening of Cuba relations and Iran deal would definitely qualify.
Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.
FALSE. Not true for Hillary, and actually even if Sanders manages to pull it off he wouldn't qualify either.
Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
UNKNOWN. I'd say this is TRUE for any candidate except Trump. Trump would have to qualify as charismatic to get as far as he has.

so 5 TRUE
2 lean TRUE
5 FALSE
and one that we just need to see how the Republican contest turns out.

Based on this though, I'm willing to call it a lean D election.

It is a lean D and you dont need any test.

The GOP is in the same position as the Dems in 1988, though not quite as bad (2012 wasnt 1984 and 2014 was way worse than 1986).

You dont preside over foreign and domestic debacles like 1979-80 and 2008 and win again anytime soon.

The GOP will win again when the Dem is inaugurated with 5% unemployment and close to a balanced budget with low inflation and then going into re-election faces higher unemployment, larger deficits and faster inflation....ie 1988 v 1992. It will happen and when it does the so called "Blue Wall" will come crumbling down and the GOP will get 55% and 350 EVs

[bobloblaw]

I wouldnt count the Iran Deal, which a majority oppose, or Cuba, which no one cares about or is even aware of, as major foreign policy victories.

[bobloblaw]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Which one failed the test?  I'm thinking 1960 or 1948?

The election that failed was 2000.

1932 analysis

Prove you aren't a hack by doing a Republican one. Use 1988, that was the shock at the time. Or 1980 if you want similarities.

1980 probably looks much like 1932 in view of the scale of the Reagan victory. I could as easily have used 1980.

1. Republicans gained 15 seats in 1978, so FALSE.

2. Ted Kennedy made a serious challenge to Jimmy Carter, so FALSE.

3. Jimmy Carter was the incumbent President, so TRUE.

4. John Anderson did rather well as an independent, so FALSE.

5. The economy was in stagflation, and not recession, so TRUE. 

6. Carter promised what he could not deliver, so FALSE.

7. Major policy changes? Slight at most. FALSE.

8. No major social unrest. OK. TRUE.

9. Carter was squeaky clean. Ergo, TRUE.

10. No major foreign-policy failures. Hostages in Iran, thus FALSE.

11. He did start the peace process in the Middle East, so that is a legitimate achievement. TRUE.

12. The nominee of the incumbent Party is charismatic. Not Carter. FALSE.

13. Opposition nominee charismatic. Reagan is as charismatic as anyone other than Kennedy since FDR. FALSE.

8 false and 5 true. The 1932 and 1980 elections have obvious parallels.

While in Nov 1980 the economy was not in recession. The 1Q and 2Q were negative before a rebound in 3Q


1988 was a shock??

[bobloblaw]

2000

1. True

2. True-Bradley isnt serious

3. False.

4. False. Nader did well enough

5. TRUE.

6. True.

7. FALSE.

8. TRUE.

9. TRUE (maybe a False) Monica Lewinsky definitely hurt in Southern States Clinton won in 96

10. TRUE.

11. FALSE. Oslo and Y-River. No one gives a crap.

12. FALSE.

13. TRUE


2000 8 True 5 False

[bobloblaw]

Here's Lichtman's own analysis from last month.

1. MAN: false (Pubs hold more seats than after the 2010 midterms)
2. CON: undecided (becomes true if Clinton wraps up the race early)
3. INC: false (Obama isn't running)
4. 3RD: undecided (no forecast until next year)
5. STE: true (the economy is not headed for recession in 2016)
6. LTE: true (real per capita growth in 2013-2016 exceeds the average of the two previous terms)
7. POL: false (Obama has no policy change like Obamacare this term)
8. UNR: true (there is no sustained social unrest)
9. SCA: true (there is no scandal that touches the presidency)
10. FMF: true (Obama has avoided any notable foreign or military failure)
11. FMS: undecided (Obama has no major foreign success to date)
12. ICH: false (Clinton is not charismatic nor a military hero)
13. CCH: true (none of the Pubs are charismatic or a military heroes)

That makes 4 false and 3 undecided. Unless two more keys go false the Dems should win.

He doesn't conceder The Iran Deal or Cuba FMS?

The Iran deal is unpopular and Cuba is irrelevant.