The Keys to the White House

The Keys to the White House is a prediction system for determining the outcome of presidential elections in the United States. The system, inspired by earthquake research, was developed in 1981 by American historian Allan Lichtman and Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok. Allan Lichtman has used this system to correctly predict the outcomes of all the American presidential elections from 1984 to 2020, with the exception of 2000.

The 13 Keys

The Keys to the White House is a checklist of thirteen true/false statements that pertain to the circumstances surrounding a US presidential election:[1]

  1. Midterm gains: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
  2. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
  3. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
  4. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
  5. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
  6. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
  7. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
  8. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
  9. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
  10. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
  11. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
  12. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
  13. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

When five or fewer of the above statements about an upcoming election are false, the incumbent party candidate is predicted to win the election. When six or more are false, the incumbent party candidate is predicted to lose the election.

By "incumbent party", Lichtman means the party to which the incumbent President belongs. In the 2016 election, the Democratic Party was the incumbent party as then-President Barack Obama was a Democrat. Obama was in his second term and thus was ineligible for re-election, so Hillary Clinton ran as the candidate for the Democratic Party, i.e. she was the incumbent party candidate. Donald Trump was the candidate for the Republican Party, i.e. he was the challenging party candidate.

Some of these keys can be judged using objective metrics, such as economic growth, and some of these keys are of rather subjective nature, such as candidate charisma. In the latter case, a forecaster must evaluate the circumstances of all past elections together so that his judgments are at least consistent if not objective, and then observe how his judgments retroactively predict historical election outcomes so that he can refine his subjective standards into something reliably predictive for future elections.[2]

Key 2 (no primary contest) is true if the incumbent party nominee wins at least two-thirds of the total delegate vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention. Of the 13 Keys, this Key is the single best predictor of an election outcome. Conversely, if there is competition for the challenging party nomination, it does not hurt the challenging party's election chances - if anything, strong competition for the challenger nominee's title seems to help the challenging party a little.[3]

With respect to Key 4, a "third party" is a political party other than the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. All American presidential elections since 1860 (Lichtman's data set) have effectively been binary contests between the Democratic and Republican parties, as no third party has come close to winning. That said, if a third party is unusually popular, it signals major discontent with the performance of the incumbent party, and therefore counts against the incumbent's re-election odds. Key 4 is turned false when a third party is likely to win 5% or more of the popular vote.[4]

Key 7 (major policy change) is true if the incumbent President redirects the course of government or enacts a major policy change that has broad effects on the country's commerce, welfare, or outlook. It does not matter whether the change is popular with the public, nor does it matter what ideological mold it was cast from. Examples include Abraham Lincoln abolishing slavery and Franklin D. Roosevelt enacting the New Deal.[5] This Key often correlates with other Keys: a President who fails to take vigorous action during a time of national crisis might prolong an economic recession, which in turn could lead to social unrest and his party losing seats in the House of Representatives. One case in point is Herbert Hoover and his handling of the Great Depression.[6]

Key 8 (no social unrest) is turned false when there is widespread violent unrest that is either sustained or leaves critical issues unresolved by the time of the election campaign, which makes the voters worry that the fabric of the nation is coming apart. The American Civil War of 1861-1865, the anti-war riots of 1968, and the protests of 2020 triggered by George Floyd's murder were all severe enough to turn this Key false. The 1992 Los Angeles riots sparked by Rodney King's assault were too localized to turn the Key false.[7]

Key 9 (no major scandal) is turned false when there is bipartisan recognition of serious impropriety, as the voting public ignores allegations of wrongdoing that appear to be the product of partisan politicking. While the Watergate scandal began during Richard Nixon's first term, it did not affect his re-election bid in 1972 because at the time, the voting public thought the fuss was just a partisan ploy by the Democrats (Nixon was a Republican). After Nixon's re-election, new information about the incident emerged that raised bipartisan concerns, and the Watergate affair then turned into a full-blown scandal that contributed to the Republicans' loss to the Democrats in the 1976 election (Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter).[8]

A charismatic candidate, as it pertains to Keys 12 and 13, is a candidate with an extraordinarily persuasive or dynamic personality that gives him very broad appeal. Lichtman considers James G. Blaine, William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama to have been charismatic candidates. Having studied the political careers of all historical presidential candidates, Lichtman found that these seven men had charisma that was exceptional enough to make a measurable difference in their political fortunes. He likewise considers Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower to have been national heroes.[9]

Lichtman's prediction record

Using his 13 Keys, Lichtman has successfully predicted the winner of every American presidential election since 1984 with the exception of the election of 2000.

In 2000, Lichtman predicted that Al Gore would become President.[10] As it turned out, Gore won the national popular vote but lost the Electoral College and therefore did not become President. Usually, but not necessarily, the winner of the popular vote also wins the vote of the Electoral College, the voting body which actually selects the next President. Prior to 2000, the last time that a candidate had won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College was in 1888. In his defence, Lichtman argues that Gore was the rightful winner of the 2000 election, and lost because of improper ballot counting in Florida. Gore should have won the popular vote in Florida, which would have given him the additional Electoral College votes he needed to win the election.[11] Lichtman further argues that his track record is nonetheless perfect because with regards to the 2000 election, he specifically predicted the outcome of the popular vote.[12]

In 2016, Donald Trump won the election as Lichtman predicted, but lost the popular vote. Lichtman argues that after the 2000 election, he stopped predicting the outcome of the popular vote and simply predicted the final outcome of the election.

Predictions of US election outcomes by Allan Lichtman[13][14][15][16]
1984198819921996200020042008201220162020
Incumbent (party) Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush George H. W. Bush Bill Clinton Al Gore George W. Bush John McCain Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Donald Trump
Challenger (party) Walter Mondale Michael Dukakis Bill Clinton Bob Dole George W. Bush John Kerry Barack Obama Mitt Romney Donald Trump Joe Biden
Midterm gainsTTFFTTFFFF
No primary contestTTTTTTTTF[lower-alpha 1]T
Incumbent seeking re-electionTFTTFTFTFT
No third partyTTF[lower-alpha 2]F[lower-alpha 3]TTTTF[lower-alpha 4]T
Strong short-term economyTTFTTTFTTF
Strong long-term economyFTFTTFFFTF
Major policy changeT[lower-alpha 5]FFFFFFT[lower-alpha 6]FT[lower-alpha 7]
No social unrestTTTTTTTTTF[lower-alpha 8]
No scandalTTTTF[lower-alpha 9]TTTTF[lower-alpha 10]
No foreign/military failureTTTTTF[lower-alpha 11]F[lower-alpha 12]TTT
Major foreign/military successFT[lower-alpha 13]T[lower-alpha 14]FFT[lower-alpha 15]FT[lower-alpha 16]FF
Charismatic incumbentTFFFFFFF[lower-alpha 17]FF
Uncharismatic challengerTTTTTTFTTT
False keys2365549377
Predicted winner Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush Bill Clinton Bill Clinton Al Gore George W. Bush Barack Obama Barack Obama Donald Trump Joe Biden
Actual winner Ronald Reagan George H. W. Bush Bill Clinton Bill Clinton George W. Bush George W. Bush Barack Obama Barack Obama Donald Trump Joe Biden

Background
Vladimir Keilis-Borok
Allan Lichtman

While attending a dinner party at Caltech in 1981, Allan Lichtman met Vladimir Keilis-Borok, a leading Russian geophysicist. Both men were Fairchild Scholars at Caltech.[17] Keilis-Borok asked Lichtman for help in applying his techniques for earthquake prediction to US presidential elections. Keilis-Borok developed a pattern-recognition algorithm which they applied to data collated from every presidential election from 1860 to 1980 to isolate variables that correlated with the likelihood of an incumbent President achieving re-election. They published their prediction model in 1981. The model at this stage had just 12 keys.[18] They later expanded it to 13. In 1982 Lichtman made his prediction for the 1984 election.[19]

Lichtman has been nicknamed "the Prediction Professor" for his near-perfect track record of predictions.

Theoretical implications

Lichtman concludes from the content of his 13 Keys that it is governance, not campaigning, that determines who will win a presidential election. If voters feel that the country has been governed well for the preceding four years, then they will re-elect the incumbent President (or elect the candidate from the incumbent's party), otherwise they will elect the challenger.

Given this insight, Lichtman says that candidates should invest less money and effort in their election campaigns since these actually have little effect on the outcome. Likewise, voters should ignore analysts, poll watchers, and media strategists whose careers revolve around the campaign and marketing; Lichtman refers to such people as "hucksters". Candidates and sitting Presidents should not be afraid in proposing and implementing new policy ideas, because the Keys show that voters don't care about specific policies, only the broad results.

As shown by Key 2, the incumbent party should also avoid squabbles over the nominee and instead unite early and clearly behind a consensus nominee; conversely, it is not necessary for the challenging party to do this.[20]

References
  1. Allan Lichtman made his prediction for 2016 before the Democratic National Convention had nominated Hillary Clinton, and thus listed this Key as "undetermined". By that point, six of the other 12 Keys on the list were false, meaning Lichtman could predict a Clinton loss in any case. As it transpired, Clinton won 59.67% of the vote at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, well below the two-thirds threshold required to turn this Key true.
  2. Ross Perot managed to poll more than 10% in many pollings and was able to gain a spot in the 1992 Presidential debates.
  3. Ross Perot was still a factor and polled more than 10% in some pollings.
  4. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, the Libertarian and Green candidates, were both polling more than 10% in some polls.
  5. Reagan enacted major cuts in taxes and social spending.
  6. The Affordable Care Act.
  7. Major tax reforms.
  8. Numerous incidents of unrest, including the 2017 protests in Charlottesville and the 2020 nationwide protests sparked by George Floyd's death.
  9. Bill Clinton was impeached.
  10. Trump was impeached, among other scandals.
  11. The 9/11 attacks and mounting US casualties in Iraq.
  12. The unresolved military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  13. Detente with the Soviet Union, and a bilateral nuclear disarmament treaty.
  14. Victory in the Gulf War.
  15. The defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
  16. The killing of Osama bin Laden.
  17. Obama failed to connect with the public the same way he had in 2008.
  1. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2
  2. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 14
  3. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 26
  4. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 31
  5. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2
  6. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 38
  7. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 38
  8. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 41
  9. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 2, p. 46
  10. Lichtman (2000): "Thus, on balance, barring a most improbable turn of events, the American people will ratify the record of the current Democratic administration this year and elect Al Gore president of the United States."
  11. Allan J. Lichtman (2001). "Supplemental Report on the Racial Impact of the Rejection of Ballots Cast in Florida’s 2000 Presidential Election and in Response to the Statement of the Dissenting Commissioners and Report by Dr. John Lott Submitted to the United States Senate Committee on Rules in July 2001" in Voting Irregularities in Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election (US Commission of Civil Rights, 2001)
  12. Joseph Jaffe, Allan Lichtman (November 18, 2020). The Keys to the White House - Distinguished Professor, Allan Lichtman (YouTube streaming video). Event occurs at 32m03s.
  13. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President
  14. He Predicted a Trump Win in 2016. What's His Forecast For 2020? (streaming video). New York Times. August 5, 2020.
  15. Lichtman (2012)
  16. "Historian's Prediction: Donald J. Trump to Win 2016 Election". American University.
  17. Moscato & De Vries (2019), p. 53
  18. A. J. Lichtman; V. I. Keilis-Borok (November 1981). "Pattern recognition applied to presidential elections in the United States, 1860-1980: Role of integral social, economic, and political traits". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 78 (11): 7230–7234. doi:10.1073/pnas.78.11.7230. PMC 349231. PMID 16593125.
  19. Allan J. Lichtman (April 1982). "How to Bet in '84". Washingtonian.
  20. Lichtman (2020), Predicting the Next President, chpt. 13

Bibliography
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.