A bit early for Lichtman to be making incorrect predictions on 2008, isn't it?
Posted on 05/12/2005 1:00:07 PM PDT by areafiftyone
Although the next presidential election is three and a half years away, the Keys already point to a dramatic political turnabout in 2008. It is still too early for a definite prediction. However, the Keys suggest that the Democrats are likely to regain the White House in 2008 regardless of their choice of a nominee. The difficult historical position of the Republicans also explains what’s happening in politics today.
I developed the Keys system in 1981, in collaboration with Volodia Keilis-Borok, a world-renowned authority on the mathematics of prediction models. History shows that the choice of a president does not turn on debates, advertising, speeches, endorsements, rallies, platforms, promises, or campaign tactics. Rather, presidential elections are primarily referenda on how well the party holding the White House has governed during its term. The Keys give specificity to this idea of how presidential elections work, assessing the performance, strength, and unity of the party holding the White House to determine whether or not it has crossed the threshold that separates victory from defeat.
Retrospectively, the Keys accurately account for the results of every presidential election from 1860 through 1980, much longer than any other prediction system. Prospectively, the Keys predicted well ahead of time the popular-vote winners of every presidential election from 1984 through 2004. As a nationally-based system the keys cannot diagnose the results in individual states and thus are attuned to the popular vote, not the Electoral College results. The 2000 election, however, was the only time since 1888 that the popular vote verdict diverged from the Electoral College results.
The Keys are 13 diagnostic questions that are stated as propositions that favor reelection of the incumbent party. When five or fewer of these propositions are false or turned against the party holding the White House, that party wins another term in office. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins.
According to the Keys, the incumbent Republicans are precariously positioned for 2008, with only four keys likely to fall in its favor. Four keys are uncertain and five Keys are likely to fall against the party in power. Thus, the GOP forfeits the White House in 2008 if the likely positive and negative keys line up as anticipated and just one of four uncertain keys falls against it.
The following four keys currently favor the incumbent Republican Party.
*The lack of any prospective third-party challenger with prospects of winning 5 percent of the vote tilts the third-party key towards the GOP.
*The absence of social upheavals comparable to the 1960’s, likely avoids the loss of the social unrest key.
*The lack of a significant scandal on the horizon that implicates the president should avert the loss of the scandal key.
*No prospective Democratic challenger matches the charisma of Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy, probably keeping the challenger charisma/hero key in line for the incumbents.
The following five keys are likely to fall against the incumbent party.
*The Democrats need to win just four U. S. House seats in the 2006 midterm elections to topple the mandate key.
*The Republicans are likely to battle fiercely in choosing a nominee to replace George W. Bush, forfeiting the contest key.
*Bush’s inability to run again in 2008 dooms the incumbency key.
*With bitter partisan divisions in Congress, Bush is unlikely to achieve the policy revolution needed to secure the policy-change key.
*The GOP lacks a prospective presidential candidate with the charisma of a Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, jeopardizing the incumbent charisma/hero key.
The following four keys are uncertain.
*Both the long-term and short-term economy keys depend on unpredictable future trends in economic growth.
*Likewise both the foreign/military success and failure keys will turn on unforeseeable events abroad and in homeland security within the United States.
The difficult prospects for Republicans in 2008 explain much of today’s politics. The 2006 midterm elections are so critical because the mandate key turns on the outcome. The president and Republicans in Congress are pushing for the “nuclear option” to end judicial filibusters by majority vote because this is likely their last chance to pack the Courts with reliable conservatives. And the president is bucking public opinion on the rewriting of Social Security to win the pivotal policy change key for 2008.
Mr. Lichtman is a professor of history at American University and the author of The Keys to the White House (1996).
I had no idea who he was. Never read anything but I assumed Freepers would know more about him. Thanks for telling me that. NOW I WILL NEVER read anything of his!
What a surprise coming from this crackpot who attempts (and not very well) to pass himself off as a neutral observer. Has he ever said according to his theories anybody but the Commie would win?
A bit early for Lichtman to be making incorrect predictions on 2008, isn't it?
I wasn't being chastising . I looked up the POS and read a couple of other things he wrote. The prison scandal at Abu Ghraib was one he commented on. Another was how years ago Republicans were tolerant, now they are Christian right wingers. And it goes on and on with him.
Sounds like the same POS to me! ;)
He sure does! What's the date today? Thursday, May 12, 2005?
Unfortunately for that theory there is plenty of time between now and 2007 for a "Theodore Roosevelt and a Ronald Reagan" to appear.
Remind me again... How did Theodore Roosevelt get elected?
It has as much validity to me as Baghdad Bob.
Good ole Baghdad Bob! We had loads of fun with that guy! LOL! I guess you are right! This is only the beginning!
I guess I am a hopin and a wishin. Like I do that the Repubs will get some intestinal fortitude, or even that they somehow are told by the "Keeper of Knowledge" that they, the Republicans are now the majority and could do great things.
I'm afraid we just can't take a step back any longer. It may be the step off the cliff.
The truth is getting out, the story the democrats want to present as fact is regularly laid bare as fiction. More people awaken every day. No, the KEYS theory has to be re-normed for a diminished media role.
Hmmm...Despite anyone's ideological disagreements with this man, I cannot dispute the relevance of very many of these indicators....actually the only one I can dispute is the significance of midterm House elections.
A 3rd party challenge could materialize quickly...look at Ross Perot.
In recent years, midterm House elections have been a very weak predictor of the following Presidential election.
1966 Rep +47 1968 R wins Prez
1970 Dem +12 1972 R wins
1974 Dem +48 1976 D wins
1978 Dem +1 1980 R wins
1982 Dem +24 1984 R wins
1986 Dem +4 1988 R wins
1990 Dem +4 1992 D wins
1994 Rep +57 1996 D wins
1998 Dem +13 2000 R wins
2002 Rep +6 2004 R wins
History does show that a tough fight for the nomination forbodes a difficult election for the nominee...however in recent years, the nominees have been sewing things up rather quickly so that indicator is not as useful as it once was...
I don't doubt that lack of social upheaval, scandal, as well
presence of a good economy, foreign policy/war going smoothly, and charisma in the Republican candidate would point to a Republican victory. Incumbency does help as well.
didn't Clinton come out of nowhere to win his nomination, didn't he lose bigtime in Iowa [I didn't pay much attention to US politics at that time, correct me if I am wrong]
Yes, and Reagan lost in Iowa in 1980 but eventually each one the nomination handily. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports (and maybe some of their other published materials) has a summary showing that a difficult path to nomination indicates a difficult time in the general election.
Of course the standard of what constitutes a "difficult" path to the nomination has come down over the years; I want to say that they considered whether the candidate was an incumbent President or not as well.
For example, Buchanan in 1992 won very few delegates, but did get around 35% or so of the vote in several states; CQ cited this as a "difficult" path for Bush 41. By historical standards for an incumbent president, it was a difficult path.
I misread my World Almanac...that should have been Reps gaining 15 seats in 1978....however even going back to the mid-1800's, performance in mid-term elections is a very poor indicator of the next Presidential election.
Mike Pence!http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2428
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/5/8/143759.shtml
That's fine. Now all he needs is name recognition, charisma, a good ability to debate, have facts and specify his plans for the United States policy, both domestic and foreign and he's on his way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.