Note: This is an update to a thread that I wrote in February, where I address the 2008 Presidential Election.
As we are now headed into a presidential season I thought that I would analyze the Keys to the Presidency. This formula, designed by AU Professor Allan Lichtman (full disclosure: he ran for US Senate as a Democrat in 2006 in the MD primary, but lost. However, this book was written well before he ran for office), predicts who wins and loses elections. The theory behind the keys is that Lichtman believes that campaigns don't matter.
There are thirteen keys. For an incumbent president to win he must not lose more than five keys. For the challenging party to win its candidate must have more than six. Beneath the fold I will address each key.
(One note: the Keys did pick Gore in the 2000 election, but didn't anticipate the FL debacle. So the system still works. It "worked" in 2000. The political processes didn't).
1. The incumbent party holds more seats in the U. S. House of Representatives after the midterm election than after the preceding midterm election.
This key turns against Bush. The Republicans have less seats in the House before the 2006 election, so the GOP starts off with one strike.
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination.
As Cheney isn't running and the field is open this key turns against the GOP. It didn't turn against the Democrats in 2000 because Gore was the nominee and he disposed of Bill Bradley without much effort.
Fred Thompson has now entered the race, which also makes it more competetive. While the early primaries may decide it, up until then, it looks like it is a competetive
So the GOP now has two strikes.
3. The incumbent-party candidate is the current president
As Bush cannot run for another term this key turns against the GOP.
4. There is no significant third-party or independent candidacy.
Unless a Nader-style candidate can get more than 5% this key won't turn. It did turn in 1992 and 1996 against both Bush and Clinton because Perot won more than 5% of the vote. For this key to turn a candidate must receive more than 5% of the vote on election day. If that candidate doesn't then it doesn't turn. One exception was the 1948 election when Lichtman combined Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond's percentages together against Truman. So the GOP keeps this key.
The other thing is that people have talked about "Unity '08". I think that Unity '08 will fizzle by 2008. The only "independent" candidate who could probably turn this key is if Hagel runs independently. And even then, by election day, in such a scenario, he would often end up with much less support than the polls indicate.
An important fact: When 3 out of the top 4 keys are turned the incumbent party has lost the White House more than 75% of the time.
5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign.
This one won't turn. The economy is growing--and not in a recession. The last "recession" was in 2001, when the stock market crashed.
Update: Recent data indicate a slowing economy. The .6% growth rate in the last quarter might put this key back in play. The next two or three quarters will determine whether this key enters contention; but, because I am conservative in my analysis, it stays with Bush.
6. Real (constant-dollar) per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth for the preceding two terms.
I don't know this one. I don't have the statistics handy. But I am going to assume that both economic keys remain with the GOP to make this analysis simpler and conservative. Is there an economist here
7. The administration has effected major policy changes during the term.
This one is a no. The Bush administration tried to privatize social security but failed miserably. Other than that there haven't been many "accomplishments". Thus is the fourth key to turn against the GOP.
Update: Could immigration reform win the key? I am not sure. The amnesty bill that they are pushing is really not popular with anyone and there may be a chance that it still dies in the Senate. Policy changes in the past that won the key were the New Deal, the Great Society, Civil Rights Laws, and Reagaonomics. I don't think that the immigration bill meets that standard.
8. There has been no major social unrest during the term.
This one stays with Bush. The massive protests of the late 1960s seem to be an obsolete relic of a previous era. The IMF/World Bank style protests don't qualify.
Update: I just had some further thoughts about this issue. Does Katrina and its aftermath qualify for this key? Does social unrest turn because of the massive migrations that followed after Katrina? There was a movement of many people from New Orleans out toward other states. New Orleans still isn't what it was pre-Katrina.
I feel conflicted. Initially I don't think that the Katrina aftermath qualifies because the effect was localized to New Orleans and the neighboring states. Furthermore there haven't been massive protests there. However, Katrina did reveal how crippled FEMA and DHS are in some respect when it comes to disaster respnse.
Any thoughts?
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
This one stays with Bush. Unless Plamegate spirals out of control or something at the level of Watergate or Monica Lewinsky comes forward this key remains with the GOP.
Update: The attorney firing has made the news, but this one hasn't blown up. For this key to turn these scandals have to blow up to a point where the public can no longer tolerate it.
10.There has been no major military or foreign policy failure during the term.
Iraq is a military failure by all objective accounts. This is the fifth key to turn against the GOP.
At this point it is important to note that the most keys that an incumbent administration can lose is five. The GOP has reached that point.
11. There has been a major military or foreign policy success during the term.
This one turns against Bush. In 2004 Bush split these keys. Lichtman considered 9/11 a "foreign policy failure" but considered the toppling of Saddam a "victory". The breakdowns that have occurred in Iraq didn't really start until 2005-2006. However, it goes without question that this key has turned against Bush.
The only feat that could perhaps save it for him is if he finally resolved the Israeli/Palestinina conflict or had Hugo Chavez deposed from power. Another area where he could win the key is if North and South Korea reuinified. At this point, though, the GOP has lost the key.
As this is the sixth key to turn the system predicts that the Democrats will win the White House. However, I will continue the rest of the analysis.
Update: The Capture of Bin Laden can also win this key back for Bush. However, based on further key analysis, even with this this key, #12 turns the whole system against the GOP.
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or is a national hero.
This one turns. McCain won't win it because he lacks the stature of Eisenhower or Reagan. Ronald Reagan is the epitome of this key. Rudy Giulanni doesn't win it either even with 9/11 because of his sordid history of marriages, divorces, and other problems with his personal life. Mike Huckabee might be able to win it, but I see no GOP candidate having this key.
Update: Fred Thompson may win this key. He is a famous actor, so this issue might turn the key back toward the GOP.
The seventh key turns against the GOP.
13. The challenger is not charismatic and is not a national hero.
This one is the only key that the challenging party can control. Hillary Clinton can't win it because of her husband. Barak Obama might have a shot at it, but none of the other Democrats probably can win it. Wesley Clark might have an outside shot of winning this key, but I am not sure how much "charisma" he would have. Jim Webb could win it. So could Brian Schweitzer or Jon Tester.
Overall, if this theory is to be believed, the Democrats look poised to win the White House back. The Republicans have already lost Keys 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 12. They might have lost one of the economic keys. Even if the GOP nomination process is relatively easy and they win back that key, they are still six down.
Counterintuitively, if this is correct, a Nader-like candidacy would not hurt the Democrats if it polled over 5%. (For the record, Nader apologists, this doesn't excuse Nader's 2000 campaign. It doesn't excuse a Green challenge this campaign season either). The way that I can explain this--and maybe I am wrong because I am not Lichtman--is that a third party candidate who starts to poll above 5% is appealing to both sides of the political spectrum. Perot, for example, took many Democrats and Republicans with him. Above 5% these candidates start to get wide appeal. Below 5%, however, those candidates are inevitably taking votes from the party whose beliefs are closest to that candidate.
The theory here is that campaigns don't matter--at least beyond charisma and war hero status. So even if the Democrats nominated Dennis Kuchinich, they would still win the White House. I'm not sure if I totally believe that argument, though.
I wonder if Lichtman ever analyzed the impact of the Republican Noise Machine (TRNM) on campaigns. Lichtman's work starts from the first modern campign in the two-party system and works to the present. I'm not sure if he has ever adjusted his model to include the the impact of the TRNM on campaigns. I would assume that he would state that an incumbent administration's performance cannot be undermined by the media or that the media can only do so much.
Anyway I wanted to post this topic to get some discussion rolling on this issue. At this point, though, 2008 looks good for the Democrats.