So the Lichtman Test so far

[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.

[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.

[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?

The Iran deal is unpopular and Cuba is irrelevant.

I think it is more that Lichtman does not consider the Iran deal in the same league as Carter's Camp David Accords or the renormalization with Cuba in the same league as Nixon's trip to China. His threshold for most of the keys is quite high.

[muon2]

It is intuitively unclear why Key 4 even exists. It doesn't follow logically that a strong third party candidate would always hurt the incumbent party. Infact, in 1996, Ross Perot probably helped Clinton win (even if he didn't need the help). This year, if we have Clinton vs Bush or Clinton vs Rubio and Trump decides to run as an independent, that definitely helps the incumbent party.

Outside of that, the keys all seem like relevant factors, but the fact that they aren't weighted makes them fairly useless. A 12 to 1 split wouldn't make me confident of an incumbent win, if that one false Key was an absolutely disasterous economy or a major personal scandal occuring close to the election day.

Lichtman recognizes that some keys have more individual predictive power than others and that many keys are redundant, in that there are subsets that also predict the outcome. He explains that they started with a set of 30 factors that could be answered yes/no. It's based on a forecasting technique used by geophysicists to predict earthquakes. A series of statistical and pattern recognition filters were applied to arrive at the final set of 13 keys.

[muon2]

It is intuitively unclear why Key 4 even exists. It doesn't follow logically that a strong third party candidate would always hurt the incumbent party. Infact, in 1996, Ross Perot probably helped Clinton win (even if he didn't need the help). This year, if we have Clinton vs Bush or Clinton vs Rubio and Trump decides to run as an independent, that definitely helps the incumbent party.

Outside of that, the keys all seem like relevant factors, but the fact that they aren't weighted makes them fairly useless. A 12 to 1 split wouldn't make me confident of an incumbent win, if that one false Key was an absolutely disasterous economy or a major personal scandal occuring close to the election day.

Lichtman recognizes that some keys have more individual predictive power than others and that many keys are redundant, in that there are subsets that also predict the outcome. He explains that they started with a set of 30 factors that could be answered yes/no. It's based on a forecasting technique used by geophysicists to predict earthquakes. A series of statistical and pattern recognition filters were applied to arrive at the final set of 13 keys.

Are there really enough data points, with enough similarities, to make this exercise statistically meaningful at all, or is just more of a curiosity? Obviously some of the factors have something to do with how popular the incumbent regime might be, all things being equal, but that gets one only so far.

Statistically meaningful - probably yes. Statistically perfect - highly unlikely. It used 31 elections with 30 factors on each, that's 930 input points. The model has been successful in 8 subsequent elections with one minor change to how short term economy is calculated (ie use the status as understood during the campaign, not the official NBER value that comes later). Getting 8 out of 8 right from predetermined factors, not based on polls, is 1/64 or about 2%. Getting 7 out of 8 right is about 14% likely, which is still pretty good from a list of predetermined factors.

[muon2]

Lichtman was on Smerconish this morning following his interview with the Fix last week. He claims that there are 4 against the Dems with two keys unable to call. Here was his assessment:

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. FALSE
Key 2: There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. NO CALL; It depends on whether Bernie takes his battle to the convention.
Key 3: The incumbent-party candidate is the current president. FALSE
Key 4: There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy. TRUE
Key 5: The economy is not in recession during the campaign. TRUE
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. FALSE
Key 8: There has been no major social unrest during the term. TRUE
Key 9: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. TRUE
Key 10: There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term. TRUE
Key 11: There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term. NO CALL. Though Iran could qualify the majority of Americans do not consider it a success. As a Dem he urged Obama to hit the trail, but tout his foreign policy, not attack Trump.
Key 12: The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero. FALSE
Key 13: The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero. TRUE. He thinks negatives are not an indication of charisma, but the radio team thought about how they would listen every time he went on TV. They leaned true.