It's early but looking at the Lichtman test

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

   1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. FALSE

   2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Obviously no one knows, but I predict Hillary will carry all 50 states in the primary. If so TRUE

   3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. FALSE

   4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Unclear but seems likely TRUE.

   5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the campaign. Another unclear but likely TRUE

   6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. This will almost certainly be TRUE

   7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Lichtman gave this to Obama in 2012. However I'm unclear if it requires it to be last term, since it's clear there won't be any this term. So depends on definition.

   8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE

   9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Lichtman doesn't seem likely to consider this false on the basis of "OMG BENGHAZI!" so let's say TRUE for now. There's still two more years granted.

  10. Foreign/military failure: I suppose another question here is if "OMG BENGHAZI!" counts.  Admittedly it's a stronger case for a foreign policy failure than a scandal, so I'll be generous and say FALSE.

  11. Foreign/military success: Unlikely to happen in the next two years and can't think of anything in the last two that'd count. But Lichtman gave it to Obama on the grounds of killing bin Laden, so another case if it matters in the term or administration.

  12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. If Hillary this doesn't qualify. FALSE

  13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Unclear for now, but I'll say none of the GOP candidates seem likely to make this the case. So TRUE

[MurrayBannerman]

Rand Paul has some angry charisma

[Likely Voter]

In June Lichtman said that Hillary was down four keys already (1,3,7 and 11) and would be down five (for Key 1) if party lost in midterms (which it did).
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

At the time he didn't consider key 10 (no foreign policy failure) to be 'false' but if one considers the rise of ISIS or the spread of Ebola from Africa to the USA as a failure (both featured prominently in midterm advertising), an argument can be made for a 'false' there. If so, then Hillary is predicted to lose based on the 13 key model.

If not, then she had better hope to not have a serious primary challenge or for the economy to go into recession. Or for one of the Republicans to suddenly gain the charisma of a Ronald Reagan.


On the other side, maybe Obama can crush ISIS by 2016, and maybe he can come up with some major immigration reform deal or even executive action, which could turn keys 11 or 7 into Trues.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I dispute the fact that Hillary doesn't have charisma. Sure, she can't give the rousing speeches that Obama gave or "feel your pain" like Bill.
But she has a powerful brand of her own and during the last phase of the 2008 primary she showed huge improvement as a candidate. Not to mention that she is certainly more charismatic and inspiring than the current bunch of Republican frontrunners, or the historic nature of her candidacy and possible election.

As for ISIS and Ebola, the latter is already forgotten while the former seems to be on the run and I predict that it will eventually be defeated in the coming months.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I dispute the fact that Hillary doesn't have charisma. Sure, she can't give the rousing speeches that Obama gave or "feel your pain" like Bill.
But she has a powerful brand of her own and during the last phase of the 2008 primary she showed huge improvement as a candidate. Not to mention that she is certainly more charismatic and inspiring than the current bunch of Republican frontrunners, or the historic nature of her candidacy and possible election.

As for ISIS and Ebola, the latter is already forgotten while the former seems to be on the run and I predict that it will eventually be defeated in the coming months.

Hillary does not have Kennedy/Regan/Obama level Charisma, which is how I've always read the last key.

And while ISIS arguably doesn't count as a Major  Foreign-Policy Failure yet, between ISIS, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, there's a good chance of something blowing up in Obama's face between now and then. (Heck, does having Russia steal Crimea count?)

[Landslide Lyndon]

I dispute the fact that Hillary doesn't have charisma. Sure, she can't give the rousing speeches that Obama gave or "feel your pain" like Bill.
But she has a powerful brand of her own and during the last phase of the 2008 primary she showed huge improvement as a candidate. Not to mention that she is certainly more charismatic and inspiring than the current bunch of Republican frontrunners, or the historic nature of her candidacy and possible election.

As for ISIS and Ebola, the latter is already forgotten while the former seems to be on the run and I predict that it will eventually be defeated in the coming months.

Hillary does not have Kennedy/Regan/Obama level Charisma, which is how I've always read the last key.

And while ISIS arguably doesn't count as a Major  Foreign-Policy Failure yet, between ISIS, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, there's a good chance of something blowing up in Obama's face between now and then. (Heck, does having Russia steal Crimea count?)

Anything could happen during the next months. It's also probable that Russia's economy will implode due to the sanctions and declining oil prices.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In June Lichtman said that Hillary was down four keys already (1,3,7 and 11) and would be down five (for Key 1) if party lost in midterms (which it did).
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/208673-why-democrats-need-hillary-clinton-in-2016

At the time he didn't consider key 10 (no foreign policy failure) to be 'false' but if one considers the rise of ISIS or the spread of Ebola from Africa to the USA as a failure (both featured prominently in midterm advertising), an argument can be made for a 'false' there. If so, then Hillary is predicted to lose based on the 13 key model.

If not, then she had better hope to not have a serious primary challenge or for the economy to go into recession. Or for one of the Republicans to suddenly gain the charisma of a Ronald Reagan.


On the other side, maybe Obama can crush ISIS by 2016, and maybe he can come up with some major immigration reform deal or even executive action, which could turn keys 11 or 7 into Trues.

There's no way Ebola counts. Number of Americans outside of the health professions to get Ebola: 0. ISIS, maybe.

[Mister Mets]

One issue with the Lichtman test is that it seems easy to change based on who looks like the winner.

Incumbent charisma, challenger charisma and scandal are relatively ambiguous, so it could swing one way based on whoever's leading/ whoever wins.

[The_Doctor]

I think Litchman's test is ambiguous, subjective, and amorphous. To say the least, I agree with Silver's critique. But it's still fun and gives us some ideas about the 2016 stage. To play along, here we go.

If five keys are down, with the midterm elections, he identifies four remaining keys to flip the White House to the GOP: a significant Presidential scandal, a foreign policy failure, a contested Democratic nomination, and an election year recession.

For entertainment's sake, identifying the most likely last key to fall to the GOP, and securing the White House, let's evaluate the remaining keys.

1. Significant Presidential scandal. Would we count the Affordable Care Act's rollout as significant? It after all reversed the House Democrats' lead  in polling after the government shutdown and paved the way for the GOP's gain in November 2014. The Democrats never regained a lead after the Affordable Care Act rollout being botched. Do we count that? Or does he have a specific criterion?

If it's not this, it's unlikely to be any other scandal. The President and his advisors have been extremely cautious about scandals, hearkening back to how Gore lost 2000 and the Lewinsky scandal playing into that loss.

2. Foreign Policy Failure. Vietnam, Iraq, and in 1952, Korea, could be construed as such. There has been no major foreign policy successes (the China accord, I don't think, rises to the test?) but there hasn't been any failures yet. The most likely is ISIS continuing to spread and the Administration failing to succeed in putting out fires in the Middle East.

3. A contested Democratic Presidential Nomination. I find this interesting. While Hillary will lose a primary here or there, a caucus here or there, it would take serious fuel for a nomination struggle to significantly cost her time and money to put down it.

Note: I disagree with Litchmann that Hillary is better off avoiding a primary. If anything, I think she's hurt by a lack of a primary and a challenge to her from the left. I think she's actually boosted by a primary struggle, where the base expresses itself and she's forced to respond to the Democratic base.

There is serious appetite to challenge her from the Left. Reading DailyKos and listening to liberals, I have consistently heard "Hillary is the electable gal - but she is too much of a Corporatist Democrat, too much of a throwback to the 1990s, too much of a Third Way Democrat." Stuff like that. The purity people in the Democratic Party seems to have an outsized cachet. It's both unlikely and likely they force a contested nomination. Unlikely, because Hillary has such an edge in numbers, campaign support, and staff. Likely because there's a determined effort to force Hillary into a contested nomination struggle by certain segments of the activists.

4. Election Year Recession. The most likely happenstance. The middle class is still struggling, six years after the recession. Wages are not where they should be an economic recovery. I fundamentally find a large disconnect between the statistical indicators (DOW Jones, SP, etc) with the middle class's welfare. If people start cutting spending, we could get an election year recession.

I'd say the economic key and the Presidential nomination key is the most likely to fall, thus handing the White House to the GOP nominee under Litchtman's rubric. I don't think foreign policy, scandal, or whatnot will fall, if we're not counting the ACA rollout as a scandal. Nor do I think the GOP will give Obama an achievement for the last two years of his Presidency, and there doesn't seem room for a major foreign policy achievement.

[SPC]

  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE

Ferguson?

10. Foreign/military failure: I suppose another question here is if "OMG BENGHAZI!" counts.  Admittedly it's a stronger case for a foreign policy failure than a scandal, so I'll be generous and say FALSE.

ISIS taking over a third of Iraq and large parts of Syria and Russia taking over Crimea do not count? (While Obama has little to do with either of those developments, that has not stopped previous administrations from being saddled with foreign policy debacles)

[Landslide Lyndon]

  8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. TRUE

Ferguson?

10. Foreign/military failure: I suppose another question here is if "OMG BENGHAZI!" counts.  Admittedly it's a stronger case for a foreign policy failure than a scandal, so I'll be generous and say FALSE.

ISIS taking over a third of Iraq and large parts of Syria and Russia taking over Crimea do not count? (While Obama has little to do with either of those developments, that has not stopped previous administrations from being saddled with foreign policy debacles)

1)When he is talking about social unrest he means like that of 1968 or the period just before the beginning of the Civil War.

2)Again, he is talking about a massive failure that affects directly the country. Not to mention that the ISIS situation is changing as we speak.