So sayeth Allan Lichtman, a professor whose analysis has picked the winners in seven presidential contests in a row:
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.”
Looks like there is something extra in the link (quotation mark).
Interesting read.
In a lot of ways I don’t think Republicans are concerned too much with winning elections. Not this year. 2011 for them is about altering the landscape and having as much effect there as possible. I guess for practical reasons we might see the “kinder, gentler” side of their repressive social agenda next year.
I think it’s pretty clear Obama can win. The Republicans are so badly screwing themselves right now and will continue to do so until the convention that I think Obama will win in a squeaker. You have to remember that Obama has a higher rating than Perry in Texas.
Hey, what do y’all think about an amendment supporting direct popular vote for President? I’m totally into it. More Texans voted for Obama than voted for him in the four or five lowest population states that went for him, yet our votes counted for nothing. Why should Wyoming get three electoral votes when my home county has a population equal to four or more Wyomings?
BTW, I am totally chill with Wyoming, and I totally loved that you honored that you had women’s suffrage before any other state on your state quarter.
There are only two choices here, so as long as there are significantly less than 128 systems for picking who will be president we should be impressed by this. It gets even worse though; many of his 13 keys are subjective, if it is looking very likely that one party will win then you can simply rationalise why that party wins those keys. Maybe one day people will understand statistics but it doesn’t look like something that will happen soon when university professors aren’t able to get it.
Never wrong? Eh, that’s only a 1/128 probability to contend with. Surely there have been at least 100 systems to pick candidates, and while this one certainly has a much higher chance of getting things right than if it had failed, it’s still not clear that this guy didn’t just get lucky. 1% of people would do just as well flipping coins. Not that I think any Republicans are likely to win this round, but in the grand scheme of things a 7/7 record isn’t that impressive of a system.
Francisco –
I would be totally in support of either direct popular election of the President, or requiring states to apportion their electoral votes according to the popular vote rather than winner-take-all, so that the Electoral College more closely reflects the popular vote. I used to live in a “red” state, and it was endlessly frustrating knowing I could vote for the Democratic presidential candidate election after election and my vote had little-to-no chance of influencing the outcome (although Obama actually did win there in 2008, but that was an unusual year).
Considering the witless blunders who currently infest the list of Republican hopefuls, we can but hope for yet another Obama term. It would serve the Tea Party right.
I have yet to vote for a president. Since I’ve been old enough to vote, it has been a vote against the other guy, every time. And in voting for Obama (that is, voting against whatever foam-flecked rabid authoritarian the rethuglicans put forward), I’ll be gritting my teeth more than ever.