The 2020 Election and the Thirteen Keys to the White House
2020 will be a Presidential election year. As we have seen in recent times, most noticeably in 2016, polling data has not necessarily been a reliable yardstick to predict the outcome of presidential elections. Intense polarization in presidential politics is not a new concept to presidential history, but it has ebbed and flowed over time. Current times appear to have polarization in politics at a higher tide than average. It has gotten to the point where what once were considered to be trusted news sources can no longer adopt that label with certainty, with many of these appearing to be taking sides, or at least being strongly pulled towards one poll or the other.
In 2016, if any of these reliable news sources possessed credible polling data that accurately predicted the outcome of the election, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, they were unwilling to disclose it, for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized or treated contemptuously by those who didn't like the message. If not, then the message was that people are likely to tell pollsters one thing and do another. This is especially the case if they think their decision will be one that conflicts with popular thought in mainstream media.
Throughout what statistician Nate Silver has termed "the signal and the noise" (or more accurately the noise), one prognosticator confidently predicted a victory for President Trump, when the message from most media sources was that such a notion was laughable. He did so using a tried and tested formula that had predicted the outcome of every Presidential election, including the election of 1948, when media were so confident of Harry Truman's defeat to Thomas Dewey that a Chicago newspaper printed the headline claiming Dewey's victory even before the votes were counted.
I've written in previous posts about Professor Alan J. Lichtman and his book called The Keys to the White House in which he suggests that there are 13 "keys" or conditions which serve as predictors of every presidential election. If 5 or fewer of these keys are false, the incumbent party wins the next election, but if 6 or more are false, the incumbent party loses the white house. According to Professor Lichtman, this formula has predicted every Presidential election in the modern era. His critics say that some of these are too subjective to be measurable. While some are debatable, on the whole it's not a bad vehicle for those who like to gaze into the crystal ball and try to predict the future.
Below I've listed the 13 keys. It is not always cut and dried as to how to score them. One has to especially be on guard for personal biases and adopt total objectivity. Easier said than done right? Try them on for size, and see who you think the signs point to winning the 2020 election? For some of them, it's too early to tell without knowing which candidate each party chooses. Remember, for President Trump to win again, 5 or fewer of these must be false. In reviewing each of these keys, I have attempted to avoid straddling the fence, even though there are many of them where this is possible. I have only avoided making a choice where data is incomplete, such as in the case of the economy. Many of the conclusions I have reached will invite disagreement, probably strong disagreement depending on how strong the pull of one poll or the other is on your point of view. I have attempted to look at things through the glasses of an impartial historian rather than a partisan. I repeat: easier said than done.
So here are the keys and my analysis of how they presently might be scored.
1. Incumbent Party Mandate: after the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term elections. FALSE: after the 2014 mid-terms, The Republican party won 247 seats (a net gain of 13 seats) and the Democratic Party, 188 seats. In 2018, Democrats won 235 seats in the House, compared to 199 for Republicans.
2. Nomination Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nominations. So far this appears to be TRUE. There have been no serious challenges to President Trump being the Republican Party's nominee for President.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. TRUE.
4. Third party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. TRUE so far. This could change, especially if a split in the Democratic Party occurred between Bernie Saunders supporters, assuming that he is not the nominee. Thus far, there does not appear to be any significant challenger from the right, similar to a Ross Perot or a Theodore Roosevelt (when he ran for the Progressive Party).
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. TRUE so far, but as we saw in the 2008 election, things can change with the economy very quickly.
6. Long term economy: Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the two previous terms. INCOMPLETE: The GDP continues to show some modest growth, in the range of 2% per year, less than the President has predicted. Once again, a lot can happen to the economy between now and November of 2020. But as things stand now, this will probably end up as a False.
7. Policy change: the incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. FALSE. This one is subjective, and it is one that many people will disagree on. It is difficult to say that the Trump administration has any crowning legislative or policy accomplishment such as LBJ's civil rights legislation or even Barack Obama's health care bills. The wall still hasn't been built, and the results of the trade wars haven't netted any strong economic gains for the middle class.
8. Social unrest: there is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE: Once again, this is an area that many would disagree. In my analysis, I don't equate strong polarization with social unrest. This term seems to be more synonymous with the civil rights protests or the Vietnam war protests. But perhaps the definition of this term has changed in a time of social media, when people stay home and "protest" via tweets and angry Facebook rants. Does this translate into votes? That didn't seem to be the case in 2016.
9. Scandal: the incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. FALSE: President Trump has become the third president in history to be impeached. Does that rise to the level of "scandal"? Perhaps, and while this didn't appear to hurt Bill Clinton in 1999, it may have hurt Al Gore's chances at a third term in the White House for Democrats despite a strong economy. Once again, the significance of impeachment in this modern context and whether it is a true "scandal" or simply political posturing leaves wide room for disagreement as to whether or not this Key is true or false.
10. Foreign or military failure: the incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. TRUE: This one is also open to debate, and it is one I struggled with. Many would argue that the Trump administration's withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, allowing Turkey to attack American-allied Kurds, was a huge military or foreign affairs failure. Certainly the Kurds would see it that way. But is it something that will be on the minds of very many voters in the same way that defeat in Vietnam was or the destabilization of Iraq was? Once again, this is something that reasonable people can disagree on as to whether this Key should be scored True or False.
11. Foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. TRUE: Once again, these are very difficult to score. On the one hand, the de-escalation of tensions with North Korea and the President's historic meeting with Kim Jong-Un might tick this box, while others would argue that he shouldn't get credit for fixing a problem he made worse.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. FALSE: This is another one of those Keys that could go either way. If charisma means that everyone is talking about the candidate, then score this a true. But if charisma involves some sort of universal appeal, then even many in the President's party support him begrudgingly, wishing that he wouldn't tweet so much or be so disparaging of others in what he says about them.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. TRUE: Would you call any of the leading Democratic Party candidates charismatic? To me that term describes someone like Obama in 2008, Robert Kennedy in 1968, Eisenhower in 1952 and perhaps Ronald Reagan in 1980. I don't see those qualities in any current Democratic candidate, but perhaps you do. I'm afraid that social media has probably scared off almost anyone with "charisma" from the political arena for fear that their past will be opposition researched to death. We live in a world where people are vilified in social media for intemperate things they said over a decade ago. Sadly, many good people are put off my the current political climate and prefer to do good in the world through service other than running for political office.
When the score is tallied up, the incumbent scores a false in four categories, with a likelihood in one more. But many of the "Trues" are debatable. You might score them considerably different than I did. Over time, I might reconsider some of these and score them differently myself. Of course it's still too early to tell, but so far the tea leaves read for a very close election in November.
What's your prediction for what will happen a year from today?
In 2016, if any of these reliable news sources possessed credible polling data that accurately predicted the outcome of the election, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, they were unwilling to disclose it, for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized or treated contemptuously by those who didn't like the message. If not, then the message was that people are likely to tell pollsters one thing and do another. This is especially the case if they think their decision will be one that conflicts with popular thought in mainstream media.
Throughout what statistician Nate Silver has termed "the signal and the noise" (or more accurately the noise), one prognosticator confidently predicted a victory for President Trump, when the message from most media sources was that such a notion was laughable. He did so using a tried and tested formula that had predicted the outcome of every Presidential election, including the election of 1948, when media were so confident of Harry Truman's defeat to Thomas Dewey that a Chicago newspaper printed the headline claiming Dewey's victory even before the votes were counted.
I've written in previous posts about Professor Alan J. Lichtman and his book called The Keys to the White House in which he suggests that there are 13 "keys" or conditions which serve as predictors of every presidential election. If 5 or fewer of these keys are false, the incumbent party wins the next election, but if 6 or more are false, the incumbent party loses the white house. According to Professor Lichtman, this formula has predicted every Presidential election in the modern era. His critics say that some of these are too subjective to be measurable. While some are debatable, on the whole it's not a bad vehicle for those who like to gaze into the crystal ball and try to predict the future.
Below I've listed the 13 keys. It is not always cut and dried as to how to score them. One has to especially be on guard for personal biases and adopt total objectivity. Easier said than done right? Try them on for size, and see who you think the signs point to winning the 2020 election? For some of them, it's too early to tell without knowing which candidate each party chooses. Remember, for President Trump to win again, 5 or fewer of these must be false. In reviewing each of these keys, I have attempted to avoid straddling the fence, even though there are many of them where this is possible. I have only avoided making a choice where data is incomplete, such as in the case of the economy. Many of the conclusions I have reached will invite disagreement, probably strong disagreement depending on how strong the pull of one poll or the other is on your point of view. I have attempted to look at things through the glasses of an impartial historian rather than a partisan. I repeat: easier said than done.
So here are the keys and my analysis of how they presently might be scored.
1. Incumbent Party Mandate: after the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term elections. FALSE: after the 2014 mid-terms, The Republican party won 247 seats (a net gain of 13 seats) and the Democratic Party, 188 seats. In 2018, Democrats won 235 seats in the House, compared to 199 for Republicans.
2. Nomination Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nominations. So far this appears to be TRUE. There have been no serious challenges to President Trump being the Republican Party's nominee for President.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. TRUE.
4. Third party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. TRUE so far. This could change, especially if a split in the Democratic Party occurred between Bernie Saunders supporters, assuming that he is not the nominee. Thus far, there does not appear to be any significant challenger from the right, similar to a Ross Perot or a Theodore Roosevelt (when he ran for the Progressive Party).
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. TRUE so far, but as we saw in the 2008 election, things can change with the economy very quickly.
6. Long term economy: Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the two previous terms. INCOMPLETE: The GDP continues to show some modest growth, in the range of 2% per year, less than the President has predicted. Once again, a lot can happen to the economy between now and November of 2020. But as things stand now, this will probably end up as a False.
7. Policy change: the incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. FALSE. This one is subjective, and it is one that many people will disagree on. It is difficult to say that the Trump administration has any crowning legislative or policy accomplishment such as LBJ's civil rights legislation or even Barack Obama's health care bills. The wall still hasn't been built, and the results of the trade wars haven't netted any strong economic gains for the middle class.
8. Social unrest: there is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE: Once again, this is an area that many would disagree. In my analysis, I don't equate strong polarization with social unrest. This term seems to be more synonymous with the civil rights protests or the Vietnam war protests. But perhaps the definition of this term has changed in a time of social media, when people stay home and "protest" via tweets and angry Facebook rants. Does this translate into votes? That didn't seem to be the case in 2016.
9. Scandal: the incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. FALSE: President Trump has become the third president in history to be impeached. Does that rise to the level of "scandal"? Perhaps, and while this didn't appear to hurt Bill Clinton in 1999, it may have hurt Al Gore's chances at a third term in the White House for Democrats despite a strong economy. Once again, the significance of impeachment in this modern context and whether it is a true "scandal" or simply political posturing leaves wide room for disagreement as to whether or not this Key is true or false.
10. Foreign or military failure: the incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. TRUE: This one is also open to debate, and it is one I struggled with. Many would argue that the Trump administration's withdrawal of U.S. troops from northern Syria, allowing Turkey to attack American-allied Kurds, was a huge military or foreign affairs failure. Certainly the Kurds would see it that way. But is it something that will be on the minds of very many voters in the same way that defeat in Vietnam was or the destabilization of Iraq was? Once again, this is something that reasonable people can disagree on as to whether this Key should be scored True or False.
11. Foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. TRUE: Once again, these are very difficult to score. On the one hand, the de-escalation of tensions with North Korea and the President's historic meeting with Kim Jong-Un might tick this box, while others would argue that he shouldn't get credit for fixing a problem he made worse.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. FALSE: This is another one of those Keys that could go either way. If charisma means that everyone is talking about the candidate, then score this a true. But if charisma involves some sort of universal appeal, then even many in the President's party support him begrudgingly, wishing that he wouldn't tweet so much or be so disparaging of others in what he says about them.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. TRUE: Would you call any of the leading Democratic Party candidates charismatic? To me that term describes someone like Obama in 2008, Robert Kennedy in 1968, Eisenhower in 1952 and perhaps Ronald Reagan in 1980. I don't see those qualities in any current Democratic candidate, but perhaps you do. I'm afraid that social media has probably scared off almost anyone with "charisma" from the political arena for fear that their past will be opposition researched to death. We live in a world where people are vilified in social media for intemperate things they said over a decade ago. Sadly, many good people are put off my the current political climate and prefer to do good in the world through service other than running for political office.
When the score is tallied up, the incumbent scores a false in four categories, with a likelihood in one more. But many of the "Trues" are debatable. You might score them considerably different than I did. Over time, I might reconsider some of these and score them differently myself. Of course it's still too early to tell, but so far the tea leaves read for a very close election in November.
What's your prediction for what will happen a year from today?
Who will win the 2020 Presidential election?
Donald Trump
1(33.3%)
The Democratic nominee
2(66.7%)
Who will be the Democratic Party's nominee for President?
Joe Biden
1(33.3%)
Bernie Sanders
0(0.0%)
Elizabeth Warren
2(66.7%)
Pete Buttigieg
0(0.0%)
Michael Bloomberg
0(0.0%)
Someone else
0(0.0%)