Skip to main content

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. 

Comments

  1. Maybe the 13 keys don't apply when a candidate is racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and demagogic criminal. Such a person may have an appeal that overrides the 13 keys.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...