So the Lichtman Test so far

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
Clearly FALSE
Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Lichtmann defined "serious contest" as the nominee winning less than 2/3 of the delegates. So far unknown, but I'm willing to bet Sanders doesn't get a 1/3 of delegates, so lean TRUE.
Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.
FALSE
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.
Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
LEAN TRUE. Could change.
Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.
TRUE
Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
In this case, FALSE
Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term.
TRUE. The test requires that it be long and sustained, Ferguson doesn't qualify.
Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
TRUE. Before anyone screams "Benghazi!" I'll note that Lichtman didn't even count Iran-Contra as a "major" scandal.
Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.
Barring any major development, TRUE
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.
Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.
FALSE. Not true for Hillary, and actually even if Sanders manages to pull it off he wouldn't qualify either.
Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
UNKNOWN. I'd say this is TRUE for any candidate except Trump. Trump would have to qualify as charismatic to get as far as he has.

so 5 TRUE
2 lean TRUE
5 FALSE
and one that we just need to see how the Republican contest turns out.

Based on this though, I'm willing to call it a lean D election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

[RI]

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.

[bobloblaw]

Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
Clearly FALSE
Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Lichtmann defined "serious contest" as the nominee winning less than 2/3 of the delegates. So far unknown, but I'm willing to bet Sanders doesn't get a 1/3 of delegates, so lean TRUE.
Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.
FALSE
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.
Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
LEAN TRUE. Could change.
Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.
TRUE
Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
In this case, FALSE
Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term.
TRUE. The test requires that it be long and sustained, Ferguson doesn't qualify.
Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
TRUE. Before anyone screams "Benghazi!" I'll note that Lichtman didn't even count Iran-Contra as a "major" scandal.
Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.
Barring any major development, TRUE
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.
Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.
FALSE. Not true for Hillary, and actually even if Sanders manages to pull it off he wouldn't qualify either.
Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
UNKNOWN. I'd say this is TRUE for any candidate except Trump. Trump would have to qualify as charismatic to get as far as he has.

so 5 TRUE
2 lean TRUE
5 FALSE
and one that we just need to see how the Republican contest turns out.

Based on this though, I'm willing to call it a lean D election.

It is a lean D and you dont need any test.

The GOP is in the same position as the Dems in 1988, though not quite as bad (2012 wasnt 1984 and 2014 was way worse than 1986).

You dont preside over foreign and domestic debacles like 1979-80 and 2008 and win again anytime soon.

The GOP will win again when the Dem is inaugurated with 5% unemployment and close to a balanced budget with low inflation and then going into re-election faces higher unemployment, larger deficits and faster inflation....ie 1988 v 1992. It will happen and when it does the so called "Blue Wall" will come crumbling down and the GOP will get 55% and 350 EVs

[bobloblaw]

I wouldnt count the Iran Deal, which a majority oppose, or Cuba, which no one cares about or is even aware of, as major foreign policy victories.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

What the heck are you talking about? Every poll shows a majority of Americans supporting the Cuban thaw.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

Ah yes. 6 True then, so it only needs one more.

I'll still stand by Cuba at least, due to what px pointed out.

[Nym90]

The incumbent party needs 8 out of 13 keys in their favor in order to win, BTW. Not just 7.

[windjammer]

BRTD

Key 4 is "True", not false.

So basically with your model, there are:
6 True
3 Lean True
4 False

And Nym is correct, 8 keys are needed.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

[pbrower2a]

Big Business is going to like the re-opening of relations with Cuba and Iran.

The test is intuitively valid. So suppose that the incumbent President is running for election when the economy is in a tailspin, a war is going badly, and riots and student demonstrations are commonplace. The President can't push any agenda, and a cabinet secretary is under investigation for bribery. His Party is fracturing with some of its leaders contemplating third-party candidacies. He's going down.

Let's see how it applied in 1932:

Key 1: The incumbent party (in this case, Democrats) holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
Clearly FALSE --huge losses in 1930.

Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
Lichtmann defined "serious contest" as the nominee winning less than 2/3 of the delegates.
TRUE -- Hoover faced no real challenge that year from inside his party.

Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president.
TRUE  

Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.

TRUE. Basically D vs R that year.


Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
That could not have been more FALSE.


Key 6: Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.

Very, very FALSE.

Key 7: The incumbent administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
In this case, FALSE

Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term.

Lots of strikes, large informal assemblies of people lamenting their economic distress, and the Bonus March. FALSE

Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
TRUE. Hoover was squeaky-clean.

Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.
TRUE -- except that the worst disaster (the rise of Hitler) was beginning around election time


Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term.
FALSE.

Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.
FALSE. Hoover was not at all charismatic.

Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
FALSE. FDR exuded optimism and certainty as Hoover couldn't.

Eight false, five true.


  

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Which one failed the test?  I'm thinking 1960 or 1948?

The election that failed was 2000.

1932 analysis

Prove you aren't a hack by doing a Republican one. Use 1988, I'd like to see how a 17 point lead sink so low. Or 1980 if you want similarities.

[pbrower2a]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Which one failed the test?  I'm thinking 1960 or 1948?

The election that failed was 2000.

1932 analysis

Prove you aren't a hack by doing a Republican one. Use 1988, that was the shock at the time. Or 1980 if you want similarities.

1980 probably looks much like 1932 in view of the scale of the Reagan victory. I could as easily have used 1980.

1. Republicans gained 15 seats in 1978, so FALSE.

2. Ted Kennedy made a serious challenge to Jimmy Carter, so FALSE.

3. Jimmy Carter was the incumbent President, so TRUE.

4. John Anderson did rather well as an independent, so FALSE.

5. The economy was in stagflation, and not recession, so TRUE. 

6. Carter promised what he could not deliver, so FALSE.

7. Major policy changes? Slight at most. FALSE.

8. No major social unrest. OK. TRUE.

9. Carter was squeaky clean. Ergo, TRUE.

10. No major foreign-policy failures. Hostages in Iran, thus FALSE.

11. He did start the peace process in the Middle East, so that is a legitimate achievement. TRUE.

12. The nominee of the incumbent Party is charismatic. Not Carter. FALSE.

13. Opposition nominee charismatic. Reagan is as charismatic as anyone other than Kennedy since FDR. FALSE.

8 false and 5 true. The 1932 and 1980 elections have obvious parallels.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Nice to know.

[bobloblaw]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Which one failed the test?  I'm thinking 1960 or 1948?

The election that failed was 2000.

1932 analysis

Prove you aren't a hack by doing a Republican one. Use 1988, that was the shock at the time. Or 1980 if you want similarities.

1980 probably looks much like 1932 in view of the scale of the Reagan victory. I could as easily have used 1980.

1. Republicans gained 15 seats in 1978, so FALSE.

2. Ted Kennedy made a serious challenge to Jimmy Carter, so FALSE.

3. Jimmy Carter was the incumbent President, so TRUE.

4. John Anderson did rather well as an independent, so FALSE.

5. The economy was in stagflation, and not recession, so TRUE. 

6. Carter promised what he could not deliver, so FALSE.

7. Major policy changes? Slight at most. FALSE.

8. No major social unrest. OK. TRUE.

9. Carter was squeaky clean. Ergo, TRUE.

10. No major foreign-policy failures. Hostages in Iran, thus FALSE.

11. He did start the peace process in the Middle East, so that is a legitimate achievement. TRUE.

12. The nominee of the incumbent Party is charismatic. Not Carter. FALSE.

13. Opposition nominee charismatic. Reagan is as charismatic as anyone other than Kennedy since FDR. FALSE.

8 false and 5 true. The 1932 and 1980 elections have obvious parallels.

While in Nov 1980 the economy was not in recession. The 1Q and 2Q were negative before a rebound in 3Q


1988 was a shock??

[bobloblaw]

2000

1. True

2. True-Bradley isnt serious

3. False.

4. False. Nader did well enough

5. TRUE.

6. True.

7. FALSE.

8. TRUE.

9. TRUE (maybe a False) Monica Lewinsky definitely hurt in Southern States Clinton won in 96

10. TRUE.

11. FALSE. Oslo and Y-River. No one gives a crap.

12. FALSE.

13. TRUE


2000 8 True 5 False

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Well, sure it does great when you know what result you're aiming for when you retroactively decide the subjective ones.

[muon2]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

Which one failed the test?  I'm thinking 1960 or 1948?

The election that failed was 2000.

The Keys claim to predict the popular vote winner, not the Electoral College winner, which they did in 1876 and 2000. In Oct 2000, this was Lichtman's published analysis of the race using his Keys.

1. MAN: true (Dems had a net gain in seats over from 1996-98)
2. CON: true (Gore easily wrapped up the nomination)
3. INC: false (Gore was not the incumbent)
4. 3RD: true (Nader was unlikely to break 5% as it was written, and got less than 3%)
5. STE: true (the economy was not in recession in 2000)
6. LTE: true (real per capita growth in 1997-2000 exceeded the average of the two previous terms)
7. POL: false (Clinton did not have major policy changes from 1997-2000)
8. UNR: true (there was no sustained social unrest)
9. SCA: false (the impeachment was a major scandal)
10. FMF: true (Clinton avoided any notable military failure)
11. FMS: false (Clinton had no notable foreign success)
12. ICH: false (Gore was neither charismatic nor a military hero)
13. CCH: true (Bush was neither charismatic nor a military hero)

With only 5 false, he predicted a Gore win, which happened in the popular vote.

[muon2]

Here's Lichtman's own analysis from last month.

1. MAN: false (Pubs hold more seats than after the 2010 midterms)
2. CON: undecided (becomes true if Clinton wraps up the race early)
3. INC: false (Obama isn't running)
4. 3RD: undecided (no forecast until next year)
5. STE: true (the economy is not headed for recession in 2016)
6. LTE: true (real per capita growth in 2013-2016 exceeds the average of the two previous terms)
7. POL: false (Obama has no policy change like Obamacare this term)
8. UNR: true (there is no sustained social unrest)
9. SCA: true (there is no scandal that touches the presidency)
10. FMF: true (Obama has avoided any notable foreign or military failure)
11. FMS: undecided (Obama has no major foreign success to date)
12. ICH: false (Clinton is not charismatic nor a military hero)
13. CCH: true (none of the Pubs are charismatic or a military heroes)

That makes 4 false and 3 undecided. Unless two more keys go false the Dems should win.

[SteveRogers]

The Lichtman test is overrated.

It's worked on all but one election in the past 100 years.

But you understand that it didn't predict all those elections, right?

[/]

Political truisms are stupid.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Here's Lichtman's own analysis from last month.

1. MAN: false (Pubs hold more seats than after the 2010 midterms)
2. CON: undecided (becomes true if Clinton wraps up the race early)
3. INC: false (Obama isn't running)
4. 3RD: undecided (no forecast until next year)
5. STE: true (the economy is not headed for recession in 2016)
6. LTE: true (real per capita growth in 2013-2016 exceeds the average of the two previous terms)
7. POL: false (Obama has no policy change like Obamacare this term)
8. UNR: true (there is no sustained social unrest)
9. SCA: true (there is no scandal that touches the presidency)
10. FMF: true (Obama has avoided any notable foreign or military failure)
11. FMS: undecided (Obama has no major foreign success to date)
12. ICH: false (Clinton is not charismatic nor a military hero)
13. CCH: true (none of the Pubs are charismatic or a military heroes)

That makes 4 false and 3 undecided. Unless two more keys go false the Dems should win.

He doesn't conceder The Iran Deal or Cuba FMS?

[jaichind]

I wouldnt count the Iran Deal, which a majority oppose, or Cuba, which no one cares about or is even aware of, as major foreign policy victories.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I wouldnt count the Iran Deal, which a majority oppose, or Cuba, which no one cares about or is even aware of, as major foreign policy victories.

Just like your opinions.

[muon2]

Here's Lichtman's own analysis from last month.

1. MAN: false (Pubs hold more seats than after the 2010 midterms)
2. CON: undecided (becomes true if Clinton wraps up the race early)
3. INC: false (Obama isn't running)
4. 3RD: undecided (no forecast until next year)
5. STE: true (the economy is not headed for recession in 2016)
6. LTE: true (real per capita growth in 2013-2016 exceeds the average of the two previous terms)
7. POL: false (Obama has no policy change like Obamacare this term)
8. UNR: true (there is no sustained social unrest)
9. SCA: true (there is no scandal that touches the presidency)
10. FMF: true (Obama has avoided any notable foreign or military failure)
11. FMS: undecided (Obama has no major foreign success to date)
12. ICH: false (Clinton is not charismatic nor a military hero)
13. CCH: true (none of the Pubs are charismatic or a military heroes)

That makes 4 false and 3 undecided. Unless two more keys go false the Dems should win.

He doesn't conceder The Iran Deal or Cuba FMS?

Apparently not, and Lichtman is a strong Dem.