So the Lichtman Test so far

[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.


  

[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.

[pbrower2a]

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.

It was created in the 80's and has been used to predict every election from 1984 to the present. Again, all but one time it was correct. Then it was retroactively applied to elections going all the way back to 1860 and it still worked.

Ever head of the Redskins Rule? It has the same record. As I said, electoral truisms are hilariously inane.

...or who wins the World Series.






At least the criteria of the Lichtman test make some sense.  The incumbent (Gerald Ford is the obvious exception) has typically shown the ability to win at the least the VP race. Economy good, no scandals, no social unrest, success in midterms, no military or diplomatic disasters, some achievements in domestic and foreign policy, no rifts within the incumbent's Party...

[pbrower2a]

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).