« Menendez Relents- Highlights Senate Holds and Blue Slipping
Did Kansas GOP Leader House Speaker Send Email Prayer Calling for Death of Barack Obama? »
Keys To The White House
Jan 16th, 2012 | 7 responses
With the primary season underway it is already time for people to speculate the winner in November.
Of course this is hardly a new situation; pundits have been trying to predict the outcome of the elections for decades and usually with mixed results at best. In the early 1980′s, a political scientist named Allan Lichtman decided to try and figure out a way to predict the outcome of Presidential elections without having to rely on the polls.
Over the last 25 years he has worked to modify and perfect this system with considerable success. In fact, his system can be used to accurately predict the outcome of every election from 1860 to 2004. In both 2000 and 2004 the system was able to forecast the result months in advance. If the good doctor is reading this post, I hope he does not mind my using it for my analysis.
However there is one caveat, the system predicts the popular vote winner, and while that is usually also the Electoral College winner, as we saw in 2000 that is not always the case. The system itself is actually rather simple. You are presented with thirteen yes or no questions with regard to the party in control of the White House.
If the incumbent party holds on to eight or more of these keys then they will win, if the challenging party manages to grab six or more, then they win. Most of the questions are fairly easy to answer, though there is a level of subjectivity, which is why Dr. Lichtman has taken care to explain the conditions required for a yes or no answer.
So without further delay, let us take a look at the thirteen keys and see where they put us (if you are a Republican, you might want to take this in slow doses).
The first six keys are what I have termed the political keys.
Key One: Is the President running for re-election ?
This one is easy enough to answer. Obama is running so the Democrats get Key One and lead 1-0.
Key Two: Does the President’s party have more House seats now than they did four years ago ?
This is intended to measure support for the President’s party and is also easy to answer. The Democrats are down from 2008 so the Republicans get Key #2 and the vote is tied 1-1.
Key Three: Did the President’s party have an unopposed nomination process ?
While there are angry liberals out there, Obama is unopposed and gets this key. Democrats lead 2-1.
Key Four: Is There A Major Third Party Candidate ?
Obviously we cannot say for sure because something could emerge between now and November, such as a Ron Paul campaign, but for now there is not one. Another key for Obama and a 3-1 lead.
Key Five: Is There Major Social Unrest ?
This one is fairly easy to answer when you look to the standards set down by Dr. Lichtman. His basic example for social unrest is 1968 or 1860, a time where there are literally riots in the streets. While there is certainly some level of social unrest, I do not think it rises to the level of national civil war.
Democrats now lead 4-1.
Key Six: Is there a major scandal involving the President ?
While there are some things floating around out there I don’t see a major scandal so the Democrats now lead by a 5-1 margin. For comparison the vote was tied 3-3 last time, a demonstration of the power of incumbency.
The next five keys are performance keys, looking at how the administration is doing.
Key Seven: Has The President Made Major Changes In National Policy ?
This key is intended to look at the broad impact of the administration. Some examples of this would be FDR during the New Deal or LBJ during the Great Society. They passed legislation than fundamentally altered the way American society operated.
Certainly the Affordable Care Act was a major step and is seen as a key issue in November, so I think this one goes to the Democrats which puts them up six to one.
But I could see people on both sides debating this key so we can call it 5 solid Obama, 1 leans Obama and 1 Solid Republican.
Key Eight: Has The President Avoided A Major Foreign Policy Blunder ?
We certainly have had a lot of activity on the foreign scene but I don’t see a major blunder for Obama. Libya could have been a mess but it worked out for him. So now the Democrats lead seven to one (or Five Solid, Two Lean and One GOP)
Again a debatable point.
Key Nine: Has The President Accomplished A Major Foreign Policy Success ?
Dead Osama and moving out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Eight to one lead for Obama (or Six Solid, Two Lean and One Against)
Key Ten: Short Term Economy Key
This key looks at the condition of the short term economy, asking if the economy is in recession on Election Day. From a purely technical standpoint, this key would seem to side with the Republicans. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which would require the current quarter (ending June 30th) to be negative. Despite the serious flaws in the economy, this does not seem likely.
On the other hand, the public perception is that there is a recession, so it is tough to call this one. However since the standards are supposed to be strictly held to, we have to give this key to the Democrats for a strong nine to one lead.
But clearly this is another debatable point.
So we have six solid for Obama, three leaning to Obama and one solid against.
Key Eleven: Long Term Economy
This key looks to the long term economy and asks if the per capita growth in the economy during the last term is equal to or greater than the prior two terms. In other words, does the 2009-2013 economy match or exceed the 2001-2009 economy.
While things are still slow they are picking up some and 2005-2009 was pretty grim. But we’ll call it another leaner.
This gives the Obama six solid and four leaning with only one solid against.
The final two keys look to the candidates themselves and ask whether the incumbent is charismatic and whether his challenger is. Looking at the GOP nominees I don’t see any that fits this category while Obama retains his charm, so both go to Obama. Just for the sake of fairness we’ll make his key solid and the GOP Key leaning
So that totals seven solid keys for Obama, five leaning keys for Obama and one against him
All you need to win are seven keys and he has then solidly in his camp. Even if the economic keys go against him and there is a third party candidate like Paul and the GOP nominee is Mr. Charm, Obama still wins..
Of course a lot of time remains and if some major scandal breaks or there is a foreign policy disaster then it could all turn on Obama. But at this point I see little chance of his defeat.
Photo via shutterstock.com
7 Responses to “Keys To The White House”
Cannot disagree. So why should the Republicans even bother?
Perhaps Israel will bomb Iran to drag President Obama and the USA into an unpopular war. Obviously the right wing in Israel want the Republicans in power and a USA-Iran war. What better way than a preemptive attack on Iran?
Slam dunk for Obama. Every rule has a slip of the lip, perhaps this time the general anger directed at the incumbent may be the ringer.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.
When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc
There’s no need to rush to abolish the Electoral College and go for direct election of the President, as so many want.
First try awarding electoral votes on a proportional basis (abolish winner take all).
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
I’ll vote for it. I hate the current system and think the 2000 results were a joke.