Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.
Licthmann defines "significant" as earning 5%. Webb isn't going to do that and it's probably too late for Trump to go indy, so FALSE.
Shouldn't that be listed as true, then?
Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term.
TRUE. The opening of Cuba relations and Iran deal would definitely qualify.
If you say so. Most people don't care about either of those things or even have a negative view of them.
The real problem on Key #4 is whether the Third Party nominee draws significant support from the incumbent's Party. So if some conservative independent runs and gets a significant support largely from Republicans, then the test would say FALSE when the effect is basically TRUE.
Third-Party nominees hurt
Democrats in 1948
Democrats in 1968
Democrats in 1980
Republicans in 1992
Republicans in 1996 (but the test would have shown Clinton being hurt).
This ^^^^
More to the point, Key 4 seems useless as a predictive tool since in elections where there is a noteworthy third party candidate this will be the one key that cannot be called until
after the election. Look at 2000: In June and July of that year, Nader was polling at 5-6%, so at that point that key could be considered turned against the Democrats. And in the last 2 months of the election Nader's polling still fluctuated between 2 and 4%. But of course Nader finished with only 2.7%, so Key 4 resolves as a TRUE
after the fact and the model is praised for correctly "predicting" Gore's victory
in the popular vote. Ugh.
Same thing in 1980. If you were looking to the Keys at this point in the 1980 election you'd confidently declare Key 4 turned to FALSE since John Anderson was polling in the mid-20s. But of course he only finished with 6.7%, a photo finish for Key 4.
Same thing in 1996. You wouldn't have known until election night whether Perot was really going to get over 5%.
Ugh.
