The Keys To The White House Revisited


Jul 2, 2012 by


With the two major party nominees settled, speculation has begun to flow as to the outcome of the November election. Almost every day we see polls from the key swing states which are analyzed by all of the pundits, and yet most of them are guessing from day to day who will win.

Of course this is hardly a new situation; people 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 30 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 2008.

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. However we have only had three elections in which the popular vote winner did not win the electoral college.

If you use 1840 as the first election in which most places counted the popular vote (you could go earlier but 1840 is undisputed) then we have 40 elections in which the popular vote winner did win so the odds are 93% it will happen.

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. President Obama is running, so the Democrats get key #1

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 40 seats from four years ago so the Republicans get key #2 making it a 1-1 tie.

Key Three: Did the President’s party have an unopposed nomination process ?

While there were some protest votes against the President in a few states I don’t think you can claim he faced any real opposition so he gets key #3 giving the Democrats a 2-1 lead

Key Four: Is There A Major Third Party Candidate ?

So far there does not seem to be any, so the Democrats now have a 3-1 lead.

Key Five: Is There Major Social Unrest ?

You could argue that things like the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement as signs of social unrest but it does not seem to rise to the level of the late 1960′s. So the Democrats now have a 4-1 edge.

Key Six: Is there a major scandal involving the President ?

You could argue about some of the scandals (or claimed scandals depending on your POV) could become major but right now there is nothing on par with Watergate or Teapot Dome.

Democrats thus win five of the six political keys for a 5-1 lead.

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.

Given the ruling last week on the Affordable Care act I think you can certainly say President Obama has made a major change in policy.

So Democrats now have six out of seven keys

Key Eight: Has The President Avoided A Major Foreign Policy Blunder ?

Things may not be perfect overseas but I don’t see anything you can point to right now that amounts to a major blunder on par with the 1980 hostage crisis or Vietnam

This gives Democrats a seven to one lead.

Key Nine: Has The President Accomplished A Major Foreign Policy Success ?

Bin Laden is dead, enough said.

Democrats now lead eight to one.

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 White house since a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Economic growth has not been robust but it has not been negative.

In theory if the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2012 go negative this could change but that seems unlikely

Democrats lead nine to one.

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.

Economic growth from January 2009 to present has been about 1.5%

Economic growth from January 2001 to January 2009 was about 2.5%

So the Republicans pick up this key.

This gives the Democrats nine keys to two for the GOP.

The final two keys look to the candidates themselves and ask whether they rise to the level of major charisma or national hero. Examples of this would be President Eisenhower after WW2 or Ronald Reagan/John F. Kennedy.

Certainly I do not think we can give the charisma/national hero key to Romney, so the Democrats pick that one up.

The charisma key for President Obama is a little harder to decide for me. Certainly he has charisma but he has also been in office for four years and has shown a tendency to have trouble without the teleprompter in place. Just to give the benefit of the doubt to the Republicans we can give them this key

This results in a final tally of ten keys for President Obama compared to three for Governor Romney

Just for reference in 2008 the result was eight keys for the Democrats and five keys for the Republicans.

Since the incumbent party just needs eight keys and the Democrats have ten, the current prediction would be a lock for President Obama winning re-election.

Of course this is just one method of predicting things and a lot can change between now and November, but it does serve to remind us that defeating an incumbent is very difficult

Donate to The Moderate Voice

Share This

Sponsors

468 ad

11 Comments

  1. ShannonLeee

    Nicely done. it would be interesting to see how the math works when certain keys are given more or less weight. I would say the economy could have the value of 2 keys.

  2. zephyr

    It still boggles my mind to imagine why any rational person would choose to give R’s the keys to the white house after their “accomplishements” this century so far. That said, I realize we are far from being a rational country.

  3. adelinesdad

    I think the flaw in the methodology is to assume that past indicators are useful as predictive indicators. To illustrate, imagine that we looked at the national average temperature on July 2nd of the election year, and then correlated that with the election results. I could devise a formula that could take the temperature as input and output the correct election result for 100% of the past elections. But yet it is meaningless for this election.

    Now, I’m not saying this methodology is as arbitrary as that, I’m just making the point that historical accuracy does not necessarily imply future predictive success. That depends on the relevance of the questions (temperature being an example of an irrelevant question).
    There are at least some that don’t appear relevant, or which have unique extenuating circumstances surrounding them:

    4. The most likely third party candidates would hurt Romney more than Obama. For example, if the libertarian candidate picks up steam, that would illogically give a key to Romney, illustrating that this key isn’t predictive.

    7. In this case the major change in policy is unpopular. What is the mechanism by which that helps Obama more than it hurts him?

    10. While the short term economy is not in a recession, and we hope it won’t be, I think the attitude of the people coming out of a major recession is not one of optimism. In fact, I think if you asked most people they’d tell you we are still in a recession. Clearly this is not to Obama’s benefit.

  4. DaGoat

    I think Obama has the edge over Romney, but I agree with AD this system is a little funky in that it doesn’t take amplitude or direction of some of the keys into account very well.

  5. PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

    Thanks for the comments folks.

    I certainly see validity in the points raised but the system does accurately predict the popular vote winner in every election from 1860 to 2008 so that’s a pretty good track record.

    While certainly it is true that the past doesn’t always predict the future this is pretty convincing (39 times in a row).

  6. adelinesdad

    Patrick,

    I think you missed my point, which is admittedly a bit technical but I think important. I’ll put it another way.

    If I developed a crystal ball in 1860 that told me who would win, and it was right every time since then, that would be impressive. If I develop a crystal ball in 2012 that told me who won in previous elections, that is not impressive. Even if I restrict the inputs to my crystal ball such that it is not directly told the historical winner, that is still not very impressive, because I can substitute the “winner” input with other inputs (like 13 “keys”) that are cherry-picked such that I can identify the winner based on those keys. The keys themselves may have little or no predictive value, however.

    This is similar to when people say that X state always votes for the person who eventually wins. In that case it’s mostly a coincidental correlation, not a true predictive indicator.

    It is an interesting experiment, but I don’t think it would stand up to a rigorous statistical analysis, and unless there is evidence that the 13 keys that are chosen are significantly predictive (and are the only ones that are significantly predictive) I’d say it doesn’t mean much.

  7. adelinesdad

    To put the argument yet another way (sorry to beat the dead horse, but I don’t think I’m explaining this well):

    It is very likely that there exist some other set of 13 “keys” that could be chosen such that they are also 100% historically accurate, and they predict Romney as the winner. If I had the time I’d find them, but there’s little doubt that they exist. Now, I don’t know if that set of 13 would better or worse predictors, which is my point.

  8. DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Very interesting, Patrick (And I hope that the “keys are right” this year).

    However, and as AD I believe is hinting at, I believe it is relevant to know how the keys were selected, and why. Could another set of keys be selected that give a different consistent outcome?

    Anyway, I enjoyed it very much.

  9. PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

    Well AD I do see your point.

    But my point was the keys were developed in the 1980′s and have predicted elections since then in advance.

    For example in 1988 when many experts thought the Democrats would win, this model gave it to the GOP.

    Similarly in the close races of 2000 and 2004 the model predicted the PV winner months in advance.

    I agree it is not an absolute predictor and that other keys could probably be used, but it’s been pretty accurate so far.

    I will try to find something from Professor Lichtman explaining how he chose the keys (or if by chance he is reading this please feel free to let us know).

  10. adelinesdad

    “Over the last 30 years he has worked to modify and perfect this system”

    I took that to mean that he has been modifying the keys to more accurately reflect the historical data, including data that has occurred since 1980.

    But if you are right, then that does add some evidence of predictiveness. But, 1980 is much different than 1860, of course.

    Also, in attempting to find more information on this, I came across this critique, which includes my criticism, more thoroughly explored and explained: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/despite-keys-obama-is-no-lock/

  11. PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

    Thanks AD for the link !