The Thirteen Keys
Two years ago today (November 6, 2012) it was election day and Barack Obama was elected to a second term as President. No doubt that was a happier November 6th for him than this one. Looking back, on that day unlike Nate Silver, I wasn't sure what would happen and was even concerned enough about the possibility of another election being decided by the Supreme Court that I penned this poem. By the end of the day, the outcome was not in doubt.
I've written in the journal before 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. You will see from reading them that 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. I know, easier said than done right? Try them on for size, and see who you think the signs point to winning the 2012 election? For some of them, it's too early to tell without knowing which candidate each party chooses. Remember, for the Democrats to win again, 5 or fewer of these must be false.
1. Incumbent Party Mandate: after the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term elections. FALSE: after the 2010 mid-terms, the GOP held 242 seats compared to 192 for the Democrats. While the 2014 mid-term results aren't completely in yet, the GOP will better their numbers from 2010.
2. Nomination Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nominations. I'm not sure whether or not Hillary Clinton will have an easy road to the nomination (which would make this a TRUE) or if there will be a lot of mud slung in her direction and a serious challenger will emerge (which would make this one FALSE). INCONCLUSIVE.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. FALSE. Barack Obama will be ineligible to run for a third consecutive term.
4. Third party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. TRUE so far. But this could change in the next two years, especially if the Tea Party breaks from the GOP and runs as a separate entity.
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. TRUE so far, but that can change in two years.
6. Long term economy: Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the two previous terms. INCOMPLETE: I'm unsure about this one. Does term mean presidential term, a quarter, a year? The GDP continues to show some modest growth, but who knows what the next two years have in store? INCOMPLETE
7. Policy change: the incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. TRUE: President Obama's health care legislation would probably qualify here. But since many Democrats are trying to distance themselves from "Obamacare" is this an asset for the incumbent party?
8. Social unrest: there is no sustained social unrest during the term. INCOMPLETE: Once again, a lot can happen in the next two years. Stay tuned on this one.
9. Scandal: the incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. TRUE: President Obama has not been subject of any major scandals, certainly nothing on par with Teapot Dome or the Whiskey Ring. But his critics would argue that Bengazi, Fast and Furious and some others should turn this one into a false. Objectivity is called for in pegging this one.
10. Foreign or military failure: the incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. INCOMPLETE: Is there anything the Obama administration has done so far that can be described as a major foreign or military failure? Will the ultimate outcome of how ISIS is dealt with decide which way this key turns?
11. Foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. INCOMPLETE: See the answer to number 10.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. FALSE: Who will the Democratic candidate be? If it is Hillary Clinton, would you describe her as charismatic? I think it's hard to answer this as a yes when she was unable to win the nomination in 2008, but you may think differently.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. TRUE: Would you call any of the GOP's leading candidates (e.g. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee) 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 GOP candidate, but perhaps you do.
When the score is tallied up, the Democrats score a false in three categories, with possibilities five more. Six "false" scores points for an election victory for the GOP in 2016. Of course it's still too early to tell, but so far the tea leaves read for a very close election in two years time.
What's your prediction for what will happen a year from today?
I've written in the journal before 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. You will see from reading them that 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. I know, easier said than done right? Try them on for size, and see who you think the signs point to winning the 2012 election? For some of them, it's too early to tell without knowing which candidate each party chooses. Remember, for the Democrats to win again, 5 or fewer of these must be false.
1. Incumbent Party Mandate: after the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than it did after the previous mid-term elections. FALSE: after the 2010 mid-terms, the GOP held 242 seats compared to 192 for the Democrats. While the 2014 mid-term results aren't completely in yet, the GOP will better their numbers from 2010.
2. Nomination Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nominations. I'm not sure whether or not Hillary Clinton will have an easy road to the nomination (which would make this a TRUE) or if there will be a lot of mud slung in her direction and a serious challenger will emerge (which would make this one FALSE). INCONCLUSIVE.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. FALSE. Barack Obama will be ineligible to run for a third consecutive term.
4. Third party: There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. TRUE so far. But this could change in the next two years, especially if the Tea Party breaks from the GOP and runs as a separate entity.
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. TRUE so far, but that can change in two years.
6. Long term economy: Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the two previous terms. INCOMPLETE: I'm unsure about this one. Does term mean presidential term, a quarter, a year? The GDP continues to show some modest growth, but who knows what the next two years have in store? INCOMPLETE
7. Policy change: the incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. TRUE: President Obama's health care legislation would probably qualify here. But since many Democrats are trying to distance themselves from "Obamacare" is this an asset for the incumbent party?
8. Social unrest: there is no sustained social unrest during the term. INCOMPLETE: Once again, a lot can happen in the next two years. Stay tuned on this one.
9. Scandal: the incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. TRUE: President Obama has not been subject of any major scandals, certainly nothing on par with Teapot Dome or the Whiskey Ring. But his critics would argue that Bengazi, Fast and Furious and some others should turn this one into a false. Objectivity is called for in pegging this one.
10. Foreign or military failure: the incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. INCOMPLETE: Is there anything the Obama administration has done so far that can be described as a major foreign or military failure? Will the ultimate outcome of how ISIS is dealt with decide which way this key turns?
11. Foreign or military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. INCOMPLETE: See the answer to number 10.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. FALSE: Who will the Democratic candidate be? If it is Hillary Clinton, would you describe her as charismatic? I think it's hard to answer this as a yes when she was unable to win the nomination in 2008, but you may think differently.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. TRUE: Would you call any of the GOP's leading candidates (e.g. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or Mike Huckabee) 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 GOP candidate, but perhaps you do.
When the score is tallied up, the Democrats score a false in three categories, with possibilities five more. Six "false" scores points for an election victory for the GOP in 2016. Of course it's still too early to tell, but so far the tea leaves read for a very close election in two years time.
What's your prediction for what will happen a year from today?
If I had to bet today, I would bet on
a Democratic Party President in 2017
3(42.9%)
a Republican Party President in 2017
4(57.1%)