Lichtman's theory of US elections

The remainder of this week's posts will consist of reactions to last week's election. Rather low-key reactions, given the stakes: but you'll judge that for yourself.

First thought: Back to the drawing board for Lichtman?

The political scientist Allan Lichtman has identified 13 "keys to the White House" through which, he has said, the outcome of any particular presidential election can be predicted with a degree of certainty that dominates the pre-vote poll results.

The underlying idea is that the election is always a referendum on the incumbent administration, whether it is an effort at re-election or not. The distinction between an incumbent seeking re-election and an incumbent party seeking to manage a passing of the baton is accounted for in one of the keys. Each key is a binary statement to which one can respond "true" or "false," and the "true" response favors the incumbent party.

If more than five of the keys draw a "false" answer, the challenger will win the White House. If there are too many "true" answers for that, the incumbents will prevail. Here, then, are the keys:

1. House mandate. True or false? Compare the results of the two previous midterm elections (in this instance, 2022 and 2018). If the incumbent administration has more seats in the House after the more recent o these than it had controlled four years before, it has a House Mandate,

2. No significant primary contest on the incumbent side.

3. Incumbent seeking re-election.

4. No significant 3d party or independent campaign.

5. The economy is not in recession at time of election.

6. Real per capita economic growth during the tern equals or exceeds mean growth during the past two terms.

7. There have been major policy changes during the ongoing Presidential term.

8. No sustained social unrest

9. No major scandal.

10. No foreign or military failure

11. Major foreign or military success

12. Incumbent party's candidate is charismatic or a national hero

13. Challenging candidate is neither charismatic nor a national hero.

With regard to the incumbent party, and its candidate, Kamala Harris, five but no more than five of those statements are false: 1, 3, 6, 10, 13. One can argue about these of course. Who measures "charisma" anyway? But my review of the tape gives the same conclusion as does Lichtman's -- he confidently predicted a Harris victory shortly before the election.

Numbers 1 - 5 seem straightforwardly binary.

Number 6 is a little confusing because Harris seems to be getting a negative point because of the performance of the economy during the second Obama term. Notice, the incombents get the "true" vote here only if they beat the average of the two previous terms. Trump only had one, and they did beat that. But they appear not to accomplish this if you count the last four Obama years against them.

There were major policy changes during the Biden term (a renewed support for NATO, and participation with NATO in support for Ukraine which clearly would not have happened without their 2020 victory, is the most obvious example).

There has been no sustained social unrest analogous to that of the final months of the Trump term, after George Floyd's death.

There has been no major scandal.

One may consider the way in which Biden lent himself to manipulation by Bibi Netanyahu to be a foreign policy failure.

I believe the administration accomplished a significant foreign policy success by turning US policy away from the use of military force, boots-on-the-ground force -- and toward diplomacy backed, yes, by implicit awareness on the part of all potential adversaries of the force behind it. The rallying of NATO behind Ukraine, and the ability of the Kyiv government to hold out (with only its own 'boots on the ground') is an important development and satisfies an answer of "True" with regard to key number 11.

Neither Trump nor Harris is a national hero. Each has a personal tug on his/her base that we might describe as charismatic. I have described it as such for both of them, which means one true and one false among the keys.

Eight out of 13 should have given them the presidency, on Lichtman's theory. It is not my assessment alone, it was Lichtman's.

Back to the drawing board. He may have to develop a new epicycle, in ante-Copernican fashion.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog