Predicting Trump vs Harris

 

Kamala Harris (Vice Presidential Portrait)

Donald Trump (Official White House Portrait)

A few weeks ago I listened to Allan Lichtman discuss his 13 Keys model for predicting the White House on J.G. Michael's Parallax Views podcast. Lichtman, a historian at American University, claims his system has successfully predicted every Presidential election since 1984.

A few days later, Lars Emerson of The Postrider came on the same show with his critique of Lichtman's 13 Keys. The gist of it: Lichtman was wrong in 2016 when he predicted a Trump popular vote victory; Trump lost the popular vote but did win the Electoral vote. Lichtman was correct on Al Gore's 2000 popular vote win although Gore eventually lost the Electoral vote. Lichtman can claim 90% accuracy on the popular vote OR 90% on the Electoral vote but doesn't get to pick and choose to claim l00% accuracy.

Then there was the argument that about half the elections were easy calls anyway; to call four out of five close elections is too small a sample size; sometimes the coin will be heads on four out of five flips.

Nevertheless, upon hearing about the 13 Keys I thought it was a good model to work with because I know I will be asked by friends and family who I think will win. Even if I personally don't have a preference. Even if I won't vote at all.

So to get into the prediction game, I'll see how my application of the 13 Keys will work. As the American University website says,  "The 13 keys are simple to use: if 8 or more of the 13 keys are true for the incumbent party, its candidate will win the election—but if fewer than 8 are true, the challenger will win." 

Or, if six or more are false, the incumbent will lose. Six strikes and you're out. That's the theory anyway.

Here are the 13 Keys in bold with descriptions in italics taken verbatim, followed by my Analysis including whether this key is objective or subjective, my interpretation, and my verdict on whether this is true for the incumbent Democratic Party and its presumptive nominee Kamala Harris. 

1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. 

Analysis: objective. The Republicans took four seats from the Democrats in 2022 to gain a narrow majority. While it came across as a moral victory for Democrats, it was a loss. Verdict: False. (Strike 1 of 6)

2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. 

Analysis: objective. Lichtman uses a two-thirds vote on the first ballot at the Convention as an indicator of "no serious contest." Taking his queue, and assuming no major developments in the next week, Harris should win on the first ballot easily. Verdict: True. (Still on Strike 1 of 6)

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. 

Analysis: objective. President Joe Biden will not be the nominee. Verdict: False. (Strike 2 of 6)

4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Analysis: objective. According to Wikipedia, "key 4 is turned false when a single third party candidate consistently polls at 10% or more, indicating they are likely to receive 5% or more of the national popular vote." Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may have been polling above 10% a few months ago but isn't close to that now. Verdict: True. (Still on Strike 2 of 6).

5. Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. 

Analysis: subjective, because it depends on the data we want to look at. If it's debatable, I'm inclined to give a pass to the Administration. Verdict: True - though I could be mistaken.  (Still on Strike 2 of 6).

6. Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. 

Analysis: objective, or at least more objective than #5. Verdict: True - though I could be mistaken. (Still on Strike 2 of 6)

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. 

Analysis: subjective. I can't think of a name for anything Biden did. What is there, an attempt at student loan forgiveness? No Obamacare, no No Child Left Behind. No Reagan Tax Cuts. To be honest, I didn't pay attention to the news much at all during his Presidency, but you'd think I'd remember a signature program. Verdict: False (Strike 3 of 6)

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. 

Analysis: subjective. Nothing worse than usual. Verdict: True. (Still on Strike 3 of 6)

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. 

Analysis: subjective. Again, nothing worse than usual.  Verdict: True. (Still on Strike 3 of 6).

10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. 

Analysis: subjective. If RFK Jr had opposed Israel's war in Gaza, he'd be pulling over 10% (rendering #4 False)  and would likely be the cause of a Democratic defeat. I don't recall Netanyahu behaving this badly under Trump's watch, and neither did Putin. I think both knew that Biden's mental capacities were limited and took advantage. Verdict: False. (Strike 4 of 6)

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Analysis: subjective.  For pulling out of unwinnable Afghanistan I'll give the Administration a pass, Verdict: True. (Still on Strike 4 of 6)

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. 

Analysis: subjective.  Kamala Harris is not charismatic the way I've understood the word.   Verdict: False. (strike 5 of 6)

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. 

Analysis: subjective. MAGA has been called a cult, and cult leaders like Trump get to be that way because they're charismatic even if they're not anyone's cup of tea.  Verdict: False (Strike 6 of 6)

Six strikes, Harris is out.

Even after giving the Biden Administration a pass on the economy, according to my estimation and based on the 13 Keys, Donald Trump will defeat Kamala Harris.

It could be that Lichtman has differing subjective opinions, would reduce the number of "falses," and predict a Harris victory.

If so, and if Harris wins, that means he's good at predicting elections, while here I am using the same 13 Keys and making a false prediction. If Lichtman is right once again, that's a testament to the soundness of his subjective judgment.

But even if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean the 13 Keys are defective, only my estimations of the country's condition. What I appreciate most about them is what Lichtman argues: that governance, not campaigns, determines the outcome of elections.

The election won't turn on a gaffe or a negative campaign ad. It's about whether the people are reasonably satisfied with the way things are going with the current party in the White House.

James Leroy Wilson writes The MVP Chase (subscribe) and JL Cells (subscribe) and is a monthly columnist at Meer. Thank you for your subscriptions and support! You may contact James for writing, editing, research, and other work: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.