[William McKinley]

I notice that Professor Lichtman wrote "In an article published in the November/December 1999 issue of Social Education I used the keys to forecast the results of the presidential election of 2000." Strangely, he did not find a reason to write a similar look at these keys in November/December of 2003.

Perhaps he was embarrassed by the fact that the system got 2000 wrong. Of course, just because a system is not always right does not mean that it is not usually right. So I thought I would save Lichtman the effort and take a look at the keys for him for the upcoming election. (I am not saying I think the system is worth a damn, mind you, but I figure if he was going to propose it he shouldn't let a single setback ruin his efforts).

With that in mind, here are how the 13 keys work out now.

KEY 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. (TRUE- we had 226 seats after the 1998 elections and now we have 228).

KEY 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. (TRUE- Bush has the nomination uncontested)

KEY 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president. (TRUE- Bush is President)

KEY 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. (TRUE- unless one considers Nader significant. Significant is considered 5%, and he didn't get that last time, he won't get it this time, and besides he's on the left flank and would hurt Kerry)

KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (TRUE- the economy is in recovery)

KEY 6 (Long-term economy): Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (FALSE- thanks to the recession which started in Clinton's last year, and 9/11)

KEY 7 (Policy change): The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (TRUE- prescription drug coverage and the tax cuts qualify)

KEY 8 (Social unrest): There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (TRUE- despite the Democrats' best efforts)

KEY 9 (Scandal): The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (TRUE- again despite the Democrats' best efforts. Or, if we want to be generous to the Democrats and say that no WMD is a 'crisis', we can give them this key.)

KEY 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (TRUE- again, unless we call no WMD a major foreign affairs failure.)

KEY 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (TRUE- Taliban, Saddam, and Charles Taylor all gone. Qaddafi deciding to give up his WMD programs.)

KEY 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (TRUE- people like Bush even if they don't like his programs)

KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (FALSE- Kerry is not charismatic, but most people concede he served with honor in Vietnam-- even if he tried really hard to dishonor himself after returning home. Most voters will consider him to be a bit of a hero.)

The scorecard:

TRUE: 11 keys. FALSE: 2 keys.

Or, if we count WMD twice as failures,

TRUE: 9 keys. FALSE: 4 keys.

According to Lichtman's system, there is nothing Kerry can do to win. I wonder why he has not written an article explaining this, like he did in late 1999?

I also think I would be remiss if I didn't posit why, if his system had worked in every election from 1860 to 1996, it failed in 2000. I see two answers.

First, there was this key:

KEY 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (TRUE)

We now know that while it was not common knowledge, during the latter part of the campaign the economy actually was in recession.

Second, is this key:

KEY 13 (Challenger charisma): The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (TRUE)

Obviously, charisma is subjective, but it should have been clear to Lichtman that Bush is a likeable guy. He is no Reagan, but except for rabid partisans (who hate him with a passion), most people react positively to Bush. That is the definition of charisma. So while Lichtman had scored it as 8 true keys and 5 false (with 6 keys indicating a loss by the incumbent party), the real score was 6 true keys and 7 false. His system, in retrospect, got it right, even if Lichtman got it wrong.

[Always Right]

It is always easy to go back and look at circumstances and try to see what correlates. You can always find things that correlate that have absolutely no real connection to the outcome. Elections are like the stock market, past results do not guarantee future returns.

[TonyInOhio]

Great post, and an enjoyable read.

Lichtman got it wrong, of course, because he was a Clintoon/Gore toady.

[js1138]

The problem is there are no objective criteria for evaluating the keys. Nader was obviously significant in 2000, even though he received less that 5%. Gore had negative charisma, and Bush has charisma among his base.

The charisma factor is a wash this year. Kerry will obviously be able to turn out dem voters. The economy could hurt Bush if the job picture isn't accellerating by September.

[BlackRazor]

"Strangely, he did not find a reason to write a similar look at these keys in November/December of 2003."

Perhaps that's because he addressed it in a newspaper article in April, 2003:

http://www.gazette.net/200317/weekend/issues_ideas/155679-1.html

He states that "the incumbent Republicans are currently well positioned to regain the White House in 2004", with 8 keys in Bush's favor and only four against. He says that for Bush to lose, the short-term economy key must turn against him and even then, "To predict the Republican's defeat, an economic collapse would have to reverse the verdict on another key, creating perhaps a notable challenge to Bush's nomination or a significant third-party movement."

Lichtman's final verdict was that the Democrats "have scant hope to regain the White House by practicing conventional politics", and that "[E]ven unconventional politics creates only a long shot at breaking the verdict of history."

[JohnnyZ]

Perhaps he was embarrassed by the fact that the system got 2000 wrong.

Did it? Or did the Third Party/Nader key switch on him? And Gore won the popular vote as well.

[Buell_X1-1200]

Al Gore ... is who again?

Oh yeah, that fat beardy guy ... :-)

[Teacher317]

Now, now. It's no fair using a Liberal's own words, history, or actions against them. ROFL.

[longtermmemmory]

Bump to get out the vote and make 2004 a MANDATE.

sweep sweep sweep sweep!