Why I think the accurate forecaster predicting a Biden win is wrong *UPDATED*
I have been brooding for days about a story in the Daily Mail that offers an expert’s prediction about who will win in 2024, based on his analysis of past election data: He’s calling it for Joe Biden. Normally, Allan Lichtman is worth taking seriously because he’s predicted the popular vote winner every year since 1984. However, 2024 is an anomalous year, and I think (and hope) that this year, he misunderstands the operative facts.
According to the Daily Mail:
A historian who has correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984 has declared that 'a lot would have to go wrong' for Joe Biden to lose to Donald Trump - in November.
Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University in Washington, DC, devised a system, which he terms '13 Keys', and wrote a 1980s book explaining the idea.
He says the technique enables him 'to predict the outcome of the popular vote solely on historical factors and not the use of candidate-preference polls, tactics or campaign events.'
Despite polls showing Biden in trouble nationally and behind in several swing states, Lichtman believes its [sic] still in the president's favor to retain office, with two of his 13 keys - lack of serious primary challenge and incumbency - already in Biden's favor.
All thirteen keys are as follows:
- Which party controls the House in the midterms
- Whether someone is challenging the incumbent in the primaries
- The fact that one of the candidates is the incumbent
- Whether there’s a significant third party
- Short-term economic prospects
- Long-term economic prospects
- Whether the incumbent brought about major changes in American policies
- Social unrest
- Scandal
- Major military and foreign policy failures
- Major military and foreign policy successes
- Incumbent’s charisma
- Challenger’s charisma
Looking at the bullet points of Lichtman’s factors (and I have not read his book), I’m a bit confused as to his pronouncement in Biden’s favor.
- Which party controls the House in the midterms: Since the midterms, Republicans have controlled the House, although just barely.
- Whether someone is challenging the incumbent in the primaries: RFK, Jr., did challenge Biden, but the Democrat party froze him out using obvious election interference. Democrat voters aren’t going to forget that they didn’t get to cast a vote for their preferred presidential candidate.
- The fact that one of the candidates is the incumbent: Yes, that’s in Biden’s favor, although increasing numbers of Americans believe that he cheated his way into the White House, which works against him.
- Whether there’s a significant third party: When the Democrat party drove out RFK, Jr., they turned him into a significant third party who seems to hurt Biden more than Trump.
- Short-term economic prospects: There is a battle over the statistics about America’s economic health, but what’s clear is that people’s grocery bills are, on average, 30% higher than in 2020.
- Long-term economic prospects: Biden’s energy, tax, and immigration policies are all on a trajectory to hurt the economy very badly.
- Whether the incumbent brought about major changes in American policies: Yes, they certainly did, on everything from immigration to crime and punishment, to political lawfare, to the economy, to so-called transgenderism, to foreign policy, to racial matters, to the Middle East. The verdict seems to be that Americans are deeply pessimistic about the changes Joe wrought.
- Social unrest: Lots of it, and Democrats are not just inert in the face of the growing social unrest; they are encouraging it.
- Scandal: Those who can work their way through the media’s praetorian guard know about Hunter Biden’s laptop, Biden’s decades of pay-for-play, and his corrupt lawfare against his political opponent. Trump’s “scandals” have been debunked.
- Major military and foreign policy failures: Aside from the embarrassing withdrawal from Afghanistan, wars are popping up across the globe on Biden’s watch. Moreover, these are bad, WWIII kinds of wars, not just regional skirmishes. On Trump’s watch, there was world peace.
- Major military and foreign policy successes: None for Biden; world peace for Trump.
- Incumbent charisma: None. No one except paid activists can get excited about a crepuscular, barely sentient, child-sniffing, almost-cadaver.
- Challenger charisma: Buckets-full.
There are two other factors that Lichtman hasn’t accounted for.
One: This is the first election since 1892 that, while it involves an incumbent, still allows Americans to compare two presidential terms head-to-head. The norm is for the incumbent to face someone who assures voters that, given the chance, he can do better. This time, however, as was the case when Grover Cleveland ran against Chester A. Arthur in 1892, voters can do that head-to-head comparison. And in 1892, Cleveland won. [See UPDATE, below.]
Two: This is the first election in which the incumbent is using the power of the government to destroy his opponent. Americans still like fair play. That’s why Trump’s popularity has grown since the lawfare began. If he gets convicted—which is likely considering the careful forum shopping—that won’t destroy him. Instead, it will convince many Americans that if they don’t like lawfare as a campaign tactic, Trump must win.
So, Lichtman’s been right before (although he only got it partially right in 2000, when Al Gore, whom he predicted as the victor, got the popular vote but not the Electoral College vote). This year, I believe—and hope—that Lichtman’s predictive abilities have broken completely before the bizarre realities of 2024.
Image by AI
UPDATE: It's always a fatal mistake when I rely on my memory without double-checking my facts. Thankfully, a friend helped me out:
Grover Cleveland did not run against Chester A. Arthur in 1892. It was a three-way race with Republican Benjamin Harrison and Populist party candidate, James B Weaver, who, incidentally, carried 5 states and garnered 22 electoral votes.
Chester A. Arthur never ran for the office of President. He succeeded the assassinated James Garfield in 1881 and completed his term. However, the Republican Party declined to nominate him in 1884, selecting instead James G Blaine, who was defeated by Grover Cleveland for Cleveland's first term.
Many people believe that a lawsuit directed against Arthur challenging his qualification for office played a role in his defeat in 1884. His father was a British immigrant from Canada at the time of Arthur's birth to a US citizen mother in Vermont. It is regrettable this lawsuit was dismissed as moot when Arthur was passed over for the nomination. I believe SCOTUS would have ultimately ruled he was not a natural born citizen, as his father did not naturalize until Chester was 14 years old. A ruling such as this would have eliminated Barack Obama and Kamala Harris from the presidency and Vice Presidency.
Well, I was totally wrong on my facts, but I think my argument still works, which is we have two men squaring off who both served four years and whose records are on display. This differs from the usual situation, which is an incumbent versus something making promises, or two people make promises. This time, voters have hard facts.