By TRS

November 7, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Martin - help me out here. Is it your hopes that this blog pretty much centers of Lichtman’s keys and discussion around them? For example, in Key 1, party mandate, no question thats a No. That being said, in your comments about Krystal you indicated that polls don’t matter; yet, it would seem possible that the polls reflecting the low popularity of the Dems in Congress could make this question more of a wash. Granted, this is speculation, but doesn’t political prognostication involve a good deal of that? If nothing alters Lichtman’s formula and it is simply a yes or no, whats the point of a discussion? I guess I see this as an interesting and viable blog, but I’m not clear what your after.

By Martin Gottlieb

November 7, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the question. Answer coming when I get a chance.

By Martin Gottlieb

November 8, 2007 12:21 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the question. It’s perfectly reasonable. I guess that to be considered “on-topic” here, a post could trash the Lichtman system, or promote other predictive schemes at its expense, or question whether the subject of predictions should be taken as seriously as I do, or discuss whether the system could be applied to races other than U.S. presidential ones, or claim that all this is a cover for some partisan scheme on my part, or something like that. I don’t know. I just don’t want to argue politics, as that is commonly understood. As to polls and the key about congressional gains: This system is based on historical precedents. Specifically, in this case, Lichtman has found that if the incumbent party has made a net gain in the U.S. House over the previous two elections, its chances for winning the presidential elections are X. I forget what X is, exactly; it’s in Lichtman’s first book on the subject, “The 13 Keys to the Presidency.” But for most of the keys, X is about 65 percent; for some, X is higher. (The power of the system comes from combining the keys.) So, yes, one can certainly say that this might be one of the years in which the congressional-strength key is wrong. And one can certainly argue that the polls suggest that. My own guess is that there’s nothing even a little bit unusual about a Congress of one party being more unpopular than an unpopular president of the other party. (Approval ratings for Congress haven’t been measured until fairly recently.) Congress is another word for “the politicians”. There’s no more consistently unpopular group in the country. Further, I would guess that if people are more down on Congress than usual, it’s because they are mad at everybody. That seems clearly to be a recipe for presidential defeat for the party that holds that job. Taken as a whole, the keys always or almost always work. Someday they will fail, of course. My guess is that when they fail, it will because something important happens (more likely, a couple of things) that is (or are) totally unprecedented in history. After all, the whole system is based on historical precedents. Congress having really low approval ratings doesn’t strike me as anyplace near unprecedented.

By TRS

November 8, 2007 7:45 PM | Link to this

Not to dwell on one point, I too kind of thought this could be one of those throw all the bums out year. I think folks feel betrayed by both parties as neither has lived up to expectations. I don’t see them flocking back to the Republican side, but I don’t see them as enamored with the Dems either. Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully it will stay on point and the DDN will provide other places to “vent” issues.

By TRS

November 11, 2007 11:58 PM | Link to this

This predicting stuff is interesting. I’m wondering if one of those unprecedented moments in history could be shaping up. Never before in this country has a former President’s wife sought the same office. The Republican nominee will be a new face whereas the perception of the Clintons, Act II, might be that of the incumbent. Obviously some of the Clinton fatigue has worn away so this scenario may be a bit far fetched, but if it were to stick, using Lichtman’s system there are about 6 No’s. Actually as I googled predicting, I only came across a few sites, one being a stock market for politics questions and the 2nd had some research which states elections can be someone accurately predicted by someone feelings about a candidate (forget the issues) or their appearance (if the candidate is not known). Of course there are always the polls, etc. Are you aware of other systems? As best as I can tell, Lichtman’s system has the best track record.

By Martin Gottlieb

November 14, 2007 11:53 PM | Link to this

On the possibility that Hillary’s identity as Bill’s wife is an unprecedented-enough circumstance to mess up a system based upon precedent: As somebody who has seen the keys be validated again and again, I don’t think so. But it’s a perfectly fair question. We had a president’s son become president only eight years after the father left office in bad defeat. Now it’s eight years since Bill Clinton left undefeated. So the relationship itself wouldn’t seem to be a problem. The possibility that Hillary would somehow seem a sort marginal incumbent seems slight. One concludes from absorption in the keys over a few cycles that the swing voters are clear on one thing, if nothing else: whether they want change, and who represents change. (Well, two things.) They may not be able to tell you who stands for what. But they can certainly tell you — clearly — who’s in, and who’s out, because that (not ideology) is what it’s all about for them.