The “Keys” weren’t wrong, but Allan Lichtman was
The notorious predictor of presidential elections missed his mark, but don't discredit his model
Allan Lichtman is a famed political scientist and historian known for his strong record in calling almost every presidential election since 1984. He uses thirteen true-or-false statements, what he calls the “keys,” to decide who will win the presidential election.
A few months ago, I read Lichtman’s prediction for the 2024 race. He called it for Harris (and before that Biden), and while I had no clear sense of who would win, I was perplexed by his reasons—and after last week I can definitively say why. Lichtman pairs his analysis with objective measures to answer his "key" statements. This leaves room for subjective answers to what should be objective true or false answers.
Lichtman has admitted he was off, but blames misinformation and the unique dynamics of 2024 for his failure. I generally think Lichtman has the right idea about using the keys to make predictions—after all the keys have correctly predicted 9 out of the last 10 elections. Even in 2024, I think the Keys could’ve been right, but Lichtman made them wrong.
To demonstrate, I will contrast Lichtman’s arrogant, bias-prone true or false’s, with a more nuanced analysis. I agree with Lichtman on four key. Think of true and false as points for each candidate: True = Harris, False = Trump.
Where we agree:
Key 1: The Democrats lost more seats in the House than previously. Trump point.
Key 2: There was no serious challenge to Biden or Harris. While the data proved Biden to be incredibly unpopular sowing a deep divide within the party (the root of this key,) there was no challenge. Harris point (though for me, with reservation.)
Key 3: The incumbent party candidate is not the president. Point Trump.
Key 4: There was no serious threat posed by a third party. Point Harris.
Key 12: Kamala Harris is uncharismatic and is not a national hero. Point Trump.
Current standing: Trump 3, Harris 2
Where we disagree:
Keys 5 and 6 are about the strength of the economy, short and long-term. Lichtman has both of these going for Harris, but I disagree. While the economy is not currently in recession and economic data has been positive, the majority of Americans don’t feel it. Rising costs, deepening income inequality, and the pricing out of basic parts of the American dream put a huge damper on the “vibes” good economic statistics should generate. While Lichtman uses “objective” data to decide these keys, the objective data is not realized or felt by the people—a major difference from past elections. For this reason, I give these to Trump.
Now the subjective…Lichtman argues the Biden Administration instituted major changes in national policy, Key 7. While I agree that the Biden Administration passed some historic laws, they did not surmount in major changes to policy. Laws like the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan invested record sums and made some changes to healthcare and environmental policy, but on the whole, nothing major changed. These policies were also relatively unpopular, a factor not considered by Lichtman. So I again give this to Trump.
To satisfy Key 8 Lichtman argues there was no social unrest during the Biden’s term. This is where I think he was really off. Protests over Gaza (which ousted the leaders of major American institutions,) cultural fights, and sustained election denial by Republicans all seem to be significant forms of social unrest, especially when combined. Another flip to Trump.
On Key 9, Lichtman says the Biden Administration had no scandal, but again, think back to Hunter Biden, election denial, and cognitive decline. Regardless of how legitimate these scandals may have been, they were scandals nonetheless. Point for Trump.
While I agree with Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan after decades of a costly and pointless war, the withdrawal has been seen as a major failure, both on the domestic and global front. Lichtman refused to acknowledge this, giving Key 10 to Harris. Disagreeing again, I give this to Trump.
Not only does he argue Biden didn’t have a failure, Lichtman argues that Biden had major foreign policy success to satisfy Key 11. The majority of the country disagrees. The perceptions of Biden’s foreign policy have been awful. Wars in Israel and Ukraine, both beginning during the Biden years, have obliterated any perceptions of success Biden may have achieved. Point Trump.
Key 12: For our final disagreement, Lichtman argues Trump is an “uncharismatic challenger.” Trump's ability to mobilize a historic swath of voters proves his charisma. I’d say negative charisma, but charisma nonetheless. I disagree with Lichtman’s analysis of this key from his 2008 and 2012 predictions too, so I’ll consider this debatable. Final point: Trump.
This puts Trump with 11 keys to Harris’s 2. I admit in analyzing keys five, six, and thirteen about the economy and Trump’s charisma I stray from Lichtman’s model, even if these were all in Harris’s direction, Trump would still win.
Lichtman created a strong model for predicting presidential elections, but to be relevant it needs some adjustments. In such a polarizing time, analysis should be tied to more direct measures of how people feel. Perceptions are an important factor that Lichtman misses, seen especially this year.
Other critics disagree with the Key model entirely. They have a point. But I still have hope for Lichtmen’s model. At the end of the day, Lichtman is one person, with biases like anyone else. This is part of the problem with the current iteration of the Keys. Status quo and consensus are quickly disappearing qualities in everything. The fragmented nature of our culture, nonetheless our politics, strikes at the heart of determining the answer to the Keys. Lichtman, a 77-year-old liberal academic, is understandably delayed in his acknowledgment of that.
To summarize, below are the official thirteen keys, articulated by American University, with Lichtman’s and my answers. Remember “true” is a point for Harris, “false” for Trump.
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: True
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: True, but debatable
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Lichtman: False
Lincoln: False
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: True
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
True
False, but debatable
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False, but debatable
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Lichtman: False
Lincoln: False
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Lichtman: True
Lincoln: False, but debatable