Posted on 08/30/2011 2:31:49 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House…
Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration.Undermining his re-election is a lack of charisma and leadership on key issues, says Lichtman, even including healthcare, Obama’s crowning achievement.
Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”
They’ve been right seven elections in a row about the popular vote. See Wikipedia’s precis of what the Keys predicted for Bush and Gore in 2000. For fair-use reasons, I can’t excerpt Lichtman’s analysis of how the 13 Keys will play out for Obama next year, so follow the link up top and read through. He’s got The One winning on nine of 13 counts:
1. No contested primary
2. Incumbency
3. No third-party candidate
4. Major domestic-policy changes in his first term
5. No social unrest
6. No major scandals
7. No major foreign-policy failures
8. Major foreign-policy achievements in his first term (killing Bin Laden)
9. Little charisma by his likely opponent
The GOP wins three categories:
1. The incumbent’s party lost seats in the last House election
2. The long-term economy looks poor
3. Little charisma by the incumbent
One other criterion, the state of the economy during the campaign, is undecided because no one knows yet how the short-term trends will look. In other words, if I’m reading this correctly, the GOP will be within one Key of winning the presidency if (a) economic indicators look bad next year, which is only too grimly plausible, and (b) they nominate someone charismatic, like, say, Rick Perry. (What the threshold is for measuring “charisma,” I have no idea.) In which case, how can Lichtman seriously say, “I don’t see how Obama can lose”? Especially since, surreally, he’s counting the stimulus, which the public reviles, and ObamaCare, about which the public is deeply suspicious, as a point in Obama’s favor because they are, after all, major “changes” to American domestic policy. By that standard, even the dumbest, most hated piece of legislation should be treated as an asset to a presidential campaign so long as it’s significant enough to constitute “major change.” If you flip that Key to the GOP, then you’ve got six for the Republicans — enough to take the White House by Lichtman’s own metrics.
All of which assumes, of course, that this will be an ordinary election like the past seven were. Maybe it will; maybe there’s no such thing as an extraordinary election. But the state of the economy is surely extraordinary, poised as it is for a double-dip, and unemployment is extraordinary compared to any other era over the past 75 years. That is to say, we’re assuming that these “Keys” are equally weighted in election after election, no matter the circumstances, when basic awareness of the current political climate suggests the two economic Keys will be weighted way more heavily than any of the others. Can’t wait to see how it plays out. If, heaven forbid, we do end up in another recession and The One wins anyway, then maybe Lichtman really is a genius.
Right. ObamaCare, millions of new regulations strangling the economy, and a crippling debt. Those are changes all right, but they're huge losers for the Obozo.
5. No social unrest
Not yet,anyway........
7. No major foreign-policy failures
No successes, either.......
8. Major foreign-policy achievements in his first term (killing Bin Laden)
He didn’t kill Bin Laden, Seal Team 6 did.........
9. Little charisma by his likely opponent
People are soooo over that one, now........
Oh well. I guess that we can all take a pass on voting if the Chicago fix is in.
Gun Walker, if MSLSD and the other kiss 0bama's butt media don't report on it apparently it is not a scandal.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLogKNloGULOVqMM91jU_7DmtckMdK9DdT88D7kdLO12iA_iJquA One word....TOOL.
If America wants to be a nation of beggars than I can think of no better President for American than Obama. But I, for one, am not going under the yoke.
1. No contested primary — so far
2. Incumbency — check
3. No third-party candidate — so far, but that could be to his benefit, depending on who might run.
4. Major domestic-policy changes in his first term — a lot of stuff a lot of people don’t like
5. No social unrest — huh?
6. No major scandals — just wait
7. No major foreign-policy failures —things are not that peachy.
8. Major foreign-policy achievements in his first term (killing Bin Laden) — OK, but who is talking about that anymore?
9. Little charisma by his likely opponent — he must be assuming Romney, and he’s probably wrong on that too.
Can’t bat 1000 forever.
Sorry. We aren't accepting any more applications at this time.
Tea part demonstrations can be viewed as “social unrest” and No foreign policy failures?? Gee losing Pakistan, Iranian nukes, losing Egypt, alienating many allies, ignoring generals’ advice in Afghanistan, abandoning Iraq, ...., there is a long list.
But, excellent toupe.
Handy that he came up with this list in ‘81 as opposed to say...’79. Several of those 9 affirmatives for Hussein are more than a little suspect.
If Perry gets the nomination he’ll beat 0zer0 like a red-headed stepchild. He is the anti-0bama.
The “No Third Party Candidate” one is backwards because many threatened 3rd parties would hurt the republicans.
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.