Do ‘keys to the White House’ go for or against Obama?
Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University, says he has a certain formula for predicting the winner of the presidential race. He has 13 “keys to the White House.” If six of the 13 go against the party currently holding the presidency, that party will lose. Otherwise, it will win.
Since 1984, he says, this formula has never been wrong about the winner of the popular vote (with the caveat that Al Gore of course won the popular vote but not the presidency).
He explained these keys recently to Paul Bedard of U.S. News & World Report:
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.
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge.
5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Of these 13, there are just two that are objectively indisputable and not subject to change: No. 1 goes against President Obama (the Democrats hold fewer House seats now than when he took office) and No. 3 goes for him (he’s an incumbent).
The ones leaning Obama’s way are: No. 2 (despite speculation, I don’t think Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat is going to challenge him); No. 4 (despite some grumbling from labor unions, I think any third-party challenger would be more likely to take votes from a Republican than Obama); and No. 11 (the killing of Osama bin Laden almost certainly fulfills this requirement).
The one leaning against him is No. 6 (given that per capita GDP growth averaged 3.3 percent from 2001 to 2008 and has averaged just 0.4 percent in 2009 and 2010, and given what we know about GDP growth so far in 2011, it would take a true miracle for this one to go Obama’s way).
In my view, that leaves seven of the 13 factors in play. Some of them are less likely to break against Obama than others — for example, while the violent flash mobs in some U.S. inner cities could spark something larger, it’s unlikely that No. 8 (sustained social unrest) will turn against Obama. Here are my thoughts on the others:
- No. 5 (short term economy): We might escape a technical recession between now and next fall, but it’s likely that voters will hold the sh0rt-term economy against Obama.
- No. 7 (policy change): Lichtman describes this one as if any old change necessarily plays in the incumbent party’s favor. But given the unpopularity of Obama’s signature health-care reform — and the distinct possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn all or part of the law before the election — I think there’s a good chance this one goes against the president.
- No. 9 (scandal): So far, there’s nothing that would qualify. But Congress and the media are still digging into the ATF’s “gunwalker” operation, and just yesterday there was a significant personnel shuffle related to it. It still has time to blow up between now and next fall. So, while I think this ends up on Obama’s side of the ledger as of today, that’s subject to change.
- No. 10 (major military/foreign policy failure): Not to date. But with hot wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, as well as continuing drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, there’s too much time for something bad to happen on this front. This one is uncertain.
- No. 12 (incumbent charisma): Three years ago, this would have been a shoo-in for Obama. But he has not had much success lately in personally selling policies to the public. He’s been described even by his own supporters as being distant, cold and too quick to fold in the face of GOP demands. I think this one could go either way by the time we get to November 2012.
- No. 13 (challenger charisma): Well, that depends on the challenger, doesn’t it? I think Mitt Romney at this point would not be described as “charismatic,” but Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann could easily wear that label. Still TBD.
By my count, that’s six in or leaning toward Obama’s favor, and four against him or leaning that way — with three up in the air. Lichtman, on the other hand, scores it 9-3 in Obama’s favor with just one TBD (read the U.S. News piece to see how he gets to that count).
What say you?
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
104 comments Add your comment
Dirty Dawg
September 1st, 2011
9:58 am
Well Kyle, even though you managed to use ‘in my view’ several times, the author’s analysis has determined that Obama has already ‘won’ the required number of ‘keys’ to win next year. What I don’t understand is why these can’t, or won’t, change in the fourteen months between now and then…and, of course, that if the issue of a continued ‘down’ economy and ‘high’ unemployment, can be, appropriately, blamed on an obstructionist Republican Party that would rather see America in a recession, or worse, and win an election than the other way around. I say ‘to he!! with the scumbags and the cretins that carry their water for ‘em’…get it?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
September 1st, 2011
11:02 am
Your claim of Republican obstruction would have a shred of credibility if you could identify some bit of Democrat-proposed legislation that had been obstructed.
Toussaint Carver
September 1st, 2011
12:59 pm
Streetracer @ 5:16. And I have never used “white motherbleep”, but have been called the “n” word way more times that I care to remember.
So again, what’s your point? This is the internet. You can claim to never have used the “n” word, and I can claim to be in the top 1%. Who can verify any of this information?
Billy Yukon
September 2nd, 2011
6:09 am
This bias skewed overreach may be Lichtman’s Waterloo.
2) There is no serious challenger for the incumbent party nomination. XXPoint ObamaXX
Undecided, unless Lichtman in his omniscient greatness has psychically foreseen the upcoming primary process from beginning to end.
4) There is no significant third party challenger. XXPoint ObamaXX
Undecided, again we can say it’s unlikely now, but who, this early, predicted Ross Perot would decide an election?
5) The economy is not in a recession during the election campaign. Push (Lichtman declares this one “undecided.”)
Fair enough, but personally I don’t see how we can avoid a recession with employment stagnant at best and consumer confidence plummeting while we lay off ever increasing numbers of public employees and any action by Obama is cornered by the debt ceiling terms he himself agreed to. Looks like checkmate to me, though others may not agree.
7) The incumbent administration pushes through major national policy changes. XXPoint Obama.XX
Undecided. This is where it falls apart. Define “major national policy initiative”. If this is to have an effect on the outcome of an election, we must assume it is interacting with people on some level. Obama’s anemic health care plan will continue to exist only on paper and only in boastful political adds to the great majority of most Americans, and most of those who even think about it do so because, justified or not, they hate it. This is not something like the new deal which effected everyone in the country very directly and relatively immediately, and of course positively.
OK, but as a note, if the economy gets much worse, even just in certain urban locations, this could change over night.
10) The incumbent administration suffers no major foreign/military affairs failure. XXPoint Obama.XX
Point Republican. Hello, ask anyone if they think of Afghanistan as a success of a failure and guess what answer most will give you? At the very best you’ll hear that it’s been a waste of life and money, the already withered Osama’s execution not withstanding. All polls show support for the war in Afghanistan is plummeting. Every day we are still there is a “foreign/military affairs failure”, and we will still be there by the next election.
11) The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign/military affairs. XXPoint Obama.XX
Undecided. I’m being generous, considering the withdrawal from Iraq, as illusory as it may be, may cancel out the failure of our mission in Afghanistan.
XXFinal score (again, we stress, on Lichtman’s scorecard): 9-3-1, Obama wins.XX
Wow, what an arrogantly lazy assessment. He earns a living with this sh*t??? Anyway, I say a score of 4-4-5 possibly shaking out to a 6-5-2 if we grace Obama with (2) and (4) and the Republican candidate with (5). Either way, this is shaping up to be a bloody battle royal if ever there was one.