Being the intuitive type, I didn’t need a “system” to come up with this result:
Never-Wrong Pundit Picks Obama to Win in 2012
Allan Lichtman, the American University professor whose election formula has correctly called every president since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election, has a belated birthday present for Barack Obama: Rest easy, your re-election is in the bag.
“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.
Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election. [Check out political cartoons about the 2012 GOP field.]
Working for the president are several of Lichtman’s keys, tops among them incumbency and the scandal-free nature of his administration.Undermining his re-election is a lack of charisma and leadership on key issues, says Lichtman, even including healthcare, Obama’s crowning achievement.
Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”…
Of course, things can change, and Obama’s had a bad run of luck in recent weeks. I still wouldn’t yet change my prediction that he will win the general election, mainly because Republicans (so far) seem determined to nominate a Perry rather than a Huntsman.
Related Posts
Once again, the evil of two lessers …
Considering the Republican field, even with a dismal disapproval rating, Obama should win by a sizeable margin.
The economy will improve just enough unless something drastic happens and give voters the slimmest of reasons to vote him in for another term.
I am also convinced Democrats will regain seats in the House and may pick up a few more in the Senate. The voters wanted change in 2010, they got change in 2010, and now, if the array of periodicals, websites, and news outlets I follow is any indication, the voters are not too happy with their choices.
Wanting and getting change does not always translate into accepting or welcoming change when it comes, especially if your toes are stepped on in the process.
Read Nate Silver’s analysis of Mr. Lichtman’s presidential prediction model. He shoots a lot of holes in his methodology. You can find it at fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.
Seems that Obama’s scandal key in Lichtman’s prediction model is negligible, for now. There may yet be enough time for a fast and furious hit to his administration, but wouldn’t that require print journalists to be objective?
Lichtman formula actually spotlights the press’s undeniable influence in 13 areas voters consider critical to a POTUS.
Fortunately, most editors are fundamentally unbiased and publish in a non-manipulative manner. Hmm!
The biggest problem with Lichtman’s model is that he under-values economic variable. As Nate points out just 2 out of 13 relate to the economy. That may be well and good during times when the economy is somewhat “normal” but this is a completely different animal. With persistently high unemployment it would seem reasonable to put at least 70% of the determination of voters on some type of economic variable. If unemployment ticks down a bit Obama is a lock. If it stays persistently high I’m not sure the other factors will even be on anyone’s radar.
“Fortunately, most editors are fundamentally unbiased and publish in a non-manipulative manner. Hmm!”
Juan Caruso
And may I add another “Hmm!” to that with more emphasis? HMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!! O.K., once more with feeling. HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!
“…Obama should win by a sizeable margin. The economy will improve just enough unless something drastic happens and give voters the slimmest of reasons to vote him in for another term.” – Bart
What a great hedge of confidence in your analysis. Could that be prudent because you had also thought Vincent A. Sheheen would beat Niki by the slimiest of reasons?
I don’t recall Bart saying any such thing. But I do remember that coming a lot closer to happening than I expected, given the GOP tidal wave that day. So if Bart had said that, he would have been just slightly off in his prediction.