The Allan Lichtman Test: Obama will win re-election

[Tender Branson]

Never-Wrong Pundit Picks Obama to Win in 2012

By Paul Bedard , Lauren Fox
Posted: August 30, 2011

Allan Lichtman, the American University professor whose election formula has correctly called every president since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election, has a belated birthday present for Barack Obama: Rest easy, your re-election is in the bag.

“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.

Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election. [Check out political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]

Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration.Undermining his re-election is a lack of charisma and leadership on key issues, says Lichtman, even including healthcare, Obama’s crowning achievement.

Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

Lichtman’s earned quite the reputation. In 1992, it seemed likely former President George H.W. Bush would be re-elected, having reached historic highs in popularity after he launched a war that pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. But Lichtman thought otherwise and that factored into former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s decision to challenge Bush.“I got a call from this woman with a thick southern drawl. It was Clinton’s special assistant. She wanted to know if it was true that a Democrat could win. I assured her it was and I sent Clinton a copy of my book and a memo and the rest is history.” [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

In 2005, Lichtman also hit a home run when he said that the political stage was looking so bad for Republicans that Democrats could pick a name out of the phone book and win in 2008, the year a little known first-term senator became the first African-American to win the presidency.

Now Lichtman’s predicting a repeat performance by Obama.

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama.

   1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, “Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss.” Obama loses this key.

   2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama wins this key.

   3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. Easy win here for Obama.

   4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point.

   5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

   6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Says Lichtman, “I discounted long term economy against Obama. Clearly we are in a recession.” Obama loses this key. [Read: Seven Ways Obama Can Gain Credibility on Jobs.]

   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.

   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.

   9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.

  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.

  11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

  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. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012

[Landslide Lyndon]

I read that article last night and was thinking to post it.
What Lichtman says in other words is that Domestic Achievements+Military/Foreign Policy Achievements+Terrible GOP Field=Obama Reelected. 

It's also pretty amazing the fact that Obama loses the charisma key, but not entirely unexpected.

[Guderian]

He's not a "never-wrong pundit", he picked Gore in 2000, although he later claimed that the test predicts only the popular vote winner. Also, in 2004 Bush was in line for a landslide victory under Lichtman keys. I would say that the test breaks down when faced with modern hyperpartisan climate, but Lichtman's entire method is too arbitrary from the start - "charisma", "scandal", "policy change" and even "foreign military success/failure" are all subjective.

[Gustaf]

I never liked the policy change key. It's far from obvious that Obama's enactment of healthcare is working in his favour as far as reelection goes.

[J. J.]

Point 13 is unknown at this point, and I would not rely on the economy being good, short or long term.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

it's a decent test, but several of those items listed as wins by Obama could easily flip between now and Nov 2012.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but Lichtman's entire method is too arbitrary from the start - "charisma", "scandal", "policy change" and even "foreign military success/failure" are all subjective.

Isn't that the whole point?

[Nichlemn]

One big problem is that it gives all keys equal weighting. Even if you think all these factors are on average of similar value, surely if say Obama was charged with murder shortly before the election you couldn't say "he's only lost one key, he's still the favourite".

[pbrower2a]

I never liked the policy change key. It's far from obvious that Obama's enactment of healthcare is working in his favour as far as reelection goes.

Inability to effect policy change implies failure to establish a reason for re-election. Jimmy Carter was a prime example; it's hard to connect him to any memorable piece of legislation. It isn't enough to campaign on "The other guy is terrible!", as the election of Ronald Reagan shows.

President Obama has offended special interests that have chosen to lavish money on any politician who opposes him. That can bite him back severely, as in 2010. He will be defending his record in 2012 as he didn't in 2010...

Lichtmann does not determine whether the policy changes are "good" or "bad". All policy changes have their detractors, and this is as true for Barack Obama as was true for Ronald Reagan.  So far one must recognize President Obama as "effective if he has a cooperative Congress" even if one dislikes the results.

The public likes the individual pieces of the Health Care Reform Act.   

[Politico]

The Lichtman Test is virtually useless in these economic conditions, especially if another recession happens.

[SteveRogers]

Nate Silver offers a pretty good criticism of Lichtman's model http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/despite-keys-obama-is-no-lock/#more-15379

[Bacon King]

It goes without saying that the "13 Keys" test is entirely arbitrary, overly simplistic, and inaccurate. However, even his analysis here leaves much to be desired-

Policy change: the stimulus and healthcare? That's enough to give that key to Obama? The 2009 stimulus bill was hardly Obama's; most Americans lump it together with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act passed in 2008, and regardless Congress had been working on the 2009 bill for weeks before Obama took office. As for the healthcare bill, I don't think you can call it a policy "change" if it won't take effect until 2017 and might even possibly be ruled unconstitutional before the 2012 election.

Foreign Policy Failures: Most Americans are starting to view Afghanistan this way.

Challenger Charisma: What determines this is how the eventual GOP nominee manages to brand his/herself to the electorate at large, not the opinion of a single academic. Charisma is subjective.

[Mr.Phips]

No incumbent President has won reelection in a bad economy in the last 100 years.  You cant count 1936 as GDP growth was 13% that year and unemployment had dropped from 25% in 1933 to 16% in 1936. 

[pbrower2a]

The Lichtman Test is virtually useless in these economic conditions, especially if another recession happens.

Americans may find a 'new normal' much as they did in the 1930s, the closest parallel.

People are being cast out of the workplace for reasons unrelated to the overall level of consumer demand and economic productivity -- technologies that allow the production of objects that function better with smaller input of materials. Contrast the console TVs of the 1970s with the flat-screen TVs of our time. Weight is generally a good surrogate for material costs in consumer products unless one is discussing exotic technologies.

A hint: you can't buy a new console TV, and you can't now get a new portable CRT TV without great effort. The last one that I saw at Wal-Mart for sale (as opposed as those used as monitors for security purposes) disappeared from the shelf a couple years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*This is a technology (organic light-emitting diodes) not generally available for mass-production of televisions -- yet.
   

Over time, weight becomes a good surrogate for manufacturing cost, and it has always been a good surrogate for shipping cost... and a 32" flat-screen LCD TV is now available for about $300 at one mass retailer. But lesser material implies lesser input of labor in the materials -- and fewer people involved in getting the raw materials -- as in miners and loggers, steelworkers, and even those who work in the manufacturing of glass and plastic. We are getting no analogous improvements in such low-tech objects as air conditioners, refrigerators, or automobiles, let alone furniture. 

We don't need to work so many hours to get the package of electronic goodies that we used to. If we don't need to work as many hours to meet basic needs, then we will get mass unemployment until we shorten the workweek.  Such was a consequence of the technological improvements in manufacturing in the 1920s with the electrification of factories; the 50-hour workweek was no longer a necessity. Such was a consequence of analogous improvements in manufacturing in the 1960s; overtime disappeared, and millions of semi-skilled workers were cast onto the "industrial scrap heap" of the time -- basically, people of low education capable of hard work who got middle-income pay.

What is the alternative? More consumerism that further depletes raw materials and causes environmental destruction and exhaustion of energy?

Our economic distress results in part from incompetent and corrupt behavior in the recent past  -- but also, paradoxically, from our successes in technology. Bigger consumption of material resources is a non-solution. 

In the 1930s, America effectively turned unemployment into leisure. We may be obliged to do much the same today. Sure, it was a trick -- but it worked.   

[GLPman]

It seems a little too early to evaluate Obama under some of these key points - we're still over a year away from the election. Not a bad process, though.

[J. J.]

One thing might be the third party challenge.  Suppose that a good libertarian-type runs and grabs some of the Tea Party vote.  That could hurt the R nominee.

[zorkpolitics]

Basically this analysis says:
Candidates don't matter
Primaries don't matter
Conventions don't matter
Campaigns don't matter

So why do we bother?

[Averroës Nix]

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.

[pbrower2a]

Basically this analysis says:
Candidates don't matter
Primaries don't matter
Conventions don't matter
Campaigns don't matter

So why do we bother?

Candidates matter greatly. If either has an advantage on charisma, then that is a big matter. A candidate who can get his point across effectively can convince people. Competence of the party in power natters greatly, and that gives an advantage. Shouldn't that be obvious? Any scandal hurts an incumbent. People don't want to vote for politicians in public life only for themselves. Likewise they don't want to stick with Presidents who initiate or worsen military or diplomatic debacles. 

Primaries matter greatly -- because any challenge to the incumbent indicates a weakness of the opponent as a leader. If President Obama faces a significant challenge in a primary -- and I don't mean a joke like Lyn LaRouche or David Duke -- then he has shown a significant erosion of support within his own Party. Most likely his electoral apparatus is in disarray afterwards.

Conventions matter little except as places in which Presidential nominees seek to get their point across to those who don't live for politics, mend rifts within the Party (if they can -- it is easier if the rifts are small or trivial and the nominee is charismatic) and introduce a VP.

It is easier to campaign effectively if one can already be defined as one wishes. It is obviously easier to sell an inexpensive and good product than a bad or overpriced one.

Primaries, campaigns, and conventions are the stage. A great stage is not enough to transform a bad actor into a good one.

[King]

Basically this analysis says:
Candidates don't matter
Primaries don't matter
Conventions don't matter
Campaigns don't matter

So why do we bother?

Well, if all that matters, then it definitely wouldn't change the current prediction.

[muon2]

Nate has part of statistical analysis wrong on the keys. He bases his statistics by saying that the keys have predicted 38 out of 38 elections. In fact the keys were inferred from 31 of those elections - from 1860 to 1980. The model has since been applied to only seven elections so its track record is not as statistically anomalous as Silver thinks. You can't count as successful predictions the input data to the model.

A second error is that the model as presented in the book makes clear that it does not attempt to predict the margin of victory. Since the variance was as large as Silver shows, the model showed no promise to make that prediction. Since the authors don't claim it, why attack it?

A third complaint (but so much from Silver) is the subjective nature of the keys. The book is far more specific with how they should be judged based on the 31 election cycles used to construct the model. For instance, the short term economy key will be set by the direction of the economy after the first quarter of 2012. Social unrest would require unrest such as in 1968, or other earlier equivalent outbursts. A third party challenge much produce a candidate that can garner 5% of the popular vote. Etc. Yes, they are subjective, but not as much as one might think just reading the bullet points.

[Wonkish1]

This is an absolute retarded post by someone that is clearly itching to find some form of good news.

No offense.

[Landslide Lyndon]

This is an absolute retarded post by someone that is clearly itching to find some form of good news.

No offense.

How old are you kid?

[NHI]

I put no stock in this Lictman Test. He is basically saying it does not matter, don't vote.

[Wonkish1]

Hey Landslide Lyndon, go bankrupt another country.

Probably older than you are.

Time to hit ignore like some even with red avatars have already done to you.