03-11-2020, 02:43 AM
Here are the Lichtman keys. Six turning against the Party then holding the Presidency implies that that party will at the least lose the popular vote for the Presidency. Explanations:
1. (President's Party gains seats in the House from the second-to-last midterm to the most recent one). This is a tough standard, one that few incumbent Presidents find working for them. Promises often come with costs, and what sounds wonderful often has problems -- including resistance from powerful interests. Just think of the massive reform that Barack Obama promised on health care that, if fully enacted, would cut costs and make medical care more accessible. The only problem is that some people waxed fat on high costs built into the system. Anyone who fails to recognize the virtue of profits irrespective of costs to the common man ignores that the people who make those profits will rebuke anyone who challenges those profits. If you think healthcare costs are difficult to challenge, then think of how difficult it was to put an end to chattel slavery.
This one has turned against Trump, and he cannot win this one back. One against him.
2. (The incumbent Party does not face a significant challenge from an intra-party challenger). I was unaware of a numerical value for such a challenge. I thought that it was enough to have someone with some widespread credibility as an opponent of the incumbent. Thus a Lyn Larouche or David DuKKKe, a fringe character, does not matter. The last five incumbent Presidents (Reagan, the elder Bush, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama sailed through the nomination process). Ford faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan, and Carter faced a challenge from Ted Kennedy. Good feelings within the Party don't get put together quickly, and if there is a meaningful challenge, then the opposition Party will exploit it in negative ads. Trump has violated plenty of canons of the center-right, and just about any Democrat will be able to exploit those.
The incumbent President usually experiences no significant dissidence from within his Party unless he is unusually incompetent or unlucky. The perception of vulnerability is exactly what one sees. I am calling this one tentatively against President Trump because people voting for a mainstream opponent in the Primary or casting blank or "uncommitted" votes instead of those for the incumbent indicate that support for the incumbent is not so solid as it was in the election in which the incumbent became President. 9.1% of participants in the Republican primary in New Hampshire went to Bill Weld, who is not a joke.
This key has some ambiguity, but this one might turn favorably for the President, only for such expression to appear in votes for a Third-Party or independent nominee who siphons away votes that the incumbent needs.
3. (Incumbent President running for re-election) Enough said. The incumbent President has control of the agenda, which is ordinarily a huge advantage. Even if something should happen to the President that removes him from office (death or a debilitating stroke or coronary), I would predict that Mike Pence runs for a continuation of his term as President. Strong positive for the GOP here. .
4. (Third Party challenger to the incumbent's Party) Third Parties can ruin an incumbent Party's campaign by taking away part of the Party's natural constituency. To be sure, this criterion (Ross Perot) hurt the elder Bush in 1992 no more than it hurt Bill Clinton in 1996. The Nader vote in 2000 was much larger than the winning margins for Dubya in both Florida and New Hampshire -- and voters for Nader were not taking votes away from Dubya; either state would have tipped the election for Al Gore. The George Wallace candidacy of 1968 got a bigger share of the popular vote than the margin by which Nixon won in the following states:
OK 8
VA 12
NC 12
TN 11
FL 14
SC 8
KY 8
WI 12
DE 3
CA 40
IL 26
AK 3
OH 26
NJ 17
MO 12
Wallace really was a big-government pol, a veritable socialist. He differed from the Democratic establishment only in his racism. Nixon won 301 electoral votes, and Humphrey won 191... but it is relatively easy to see how Humphrey could have gotten 79 more electoral votes from this combination of states. You might ignore California because Nixon was from California.
Back to current times: possible, but it has yet to happen. Any right-of center nominee who takes away significant votes from the President's re-election bid would seal his defeat.
5. (Economy not in recession, stagflation or hyperinflation) Since Hoover, economic stewardship has become de facto a responsibility of the President who has some control over monetary policy (which Hoover bungled severely). Administrations can buy elections through loose fiscal and monetary policy, only to achieve stagflation; Nixon won big in 1972 only to cost re-election bids of Ford and Carter. Stagflation may not be a recession, but it implies under-investment for which society will pay heavily. It is far easier to challenge a President who has the misfortune to have high unemployment and falling securities prices.
...I differ from Lichtman in recognizing stagflation and hyperinflation as similarly troublesome to an incumbent President. I doubt that Lichtman would disagree with me on that. Note well that any bubble can burst, and the recent week and a half of decline in the stock market might be the start of a bear market. Much of Trump's appeal has been on the strength of the American economy, most notably on the valuation of securities.
6. (More economic growth than the previous President) Presidents get credit for economic growth out of a recession or a depression, and not doing as well as the predecessor at that does not look good. After a recession or depression is underway, expectations go down, which makes things easier for any incumbent President. This is a tough standard, an Trump fails here because he cannot surpass the growth that Obama had out of a really-bad recession. This key turns against President Trump, and it will stay turned. I am not sure that it is justified in his case, but it he is to be re-elected he must be able to afford a key going against him.
7. (The President is able to force major changes in policy) Nothing is said on whether the policy change is benign or catastrophic. The Smoot-Hawley tariff that made the economic meltdown of 1929-1932 more severe would have counted as a positive key no matter what else went wrong. A President capable of forcing change is more effective than one who can't. Trump so far has nothing but a tax cut dedicated to his plutocratic allies, which counts for little. This key so far turns against him, and I cannot imagine any major change in policy happening between now and November. President Trump has a radical-right agenda and the Democratic majority in the House can stop that.
8. (No significant unrest) Every President will face some dissent, but as long as it does not transmute into riots and ethnic or religious violence, things aren't so bad.
It may be picky on my part; racist violence occasionally happens and it can be lethal. A President with any moral compass condemns such unambiguously. There have been two ugly incidents of people firing upon (and killing) Jews in religious ceremonies. Most of us, if President, would have expressed contempt with the threat of through federal investigation and prosecution. It is President Trump's weak response that suggests Presidential failure. Add to this his infamous statement that "there are good people on both sides" in the aftermath of a neo-Nazi running over a protester at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. There are no good people on both sides of racist violence any more than there are good people on both sides on arson, child molestation, armed robbery, or drug trafficking. Trump fails to show effective and responsible leadership on this.
9. (No major scandals) Scandals involving the Presidency are extremely rare. Getting away with a scandal might be possible for a while; Nixon was doing fine until people thought that the Watergate scandal was more than a third-rate burglary. Dubya got away with a corrupt boom from shady lending... but that would lead to a financial panic that would destroy any chance of John McCain winning the Presidency. The Teapot Dome scandal fizzled out with honest prosecutions under Harding's successor.
At worst, scandals can result in an impeachment. The scandals implode the Trump Presidency, and those might be enough to take him down. Americans have shown that they have little tolerance for political corruption except under machine governments whether in such a giant city as Chicago or in some hamlet in Mississippi in which white people will vote for a corrupt white Republican over an honest black Democrat or in which black people will vote for a corrupt black Democrat over an honest white Republican solely due to the tribal (ethnic) split in the electorate.
Americans typically show little tolerance for corruption scandals involving Senators, Governors, and Congressional Representatives, so why should this not affect the Presidency? This key has turned so severely that it could by itself ensure the defeat of the President in November. Although the President was impeached and not removed, such happened on a rigid party-line divide. I see Donald Trump as acting without accountability.
10. (No significant failure of foreign policy) What is a major failure? The 'loss' of a seemingly reliable ally that is shakier than people realize. Military defeat (rare in American history). Republicans were never going to let Truman get away with "losing" China, and they were never going to let Carter get away with "losing" Iran.
Getting a deal that implodes is worse than no deal at all. Does anyone here trust either the Taliban or North Korea?
11. (A significant success in foreign policy) The opposite of #10... turning an enemy into a mere rival... military success... getting a peace treaty or an arrangement to reduce the stock of nuclear weapons.
I see none yet. There is no enforcement in place. A President has more leeway with foreign policy than with domestic policy because partisan carping looks bad.
12. (The Party's nominee has charisma) You know charisma when you see it.
Donald Trump is a wreck. This key has turned against him.
13. (The opposing nominee either has no charisma nor recognition as a military hero) Ditto.
It looks as if Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. I don;t see charisma... this key seems to work for Trump.
Numbers #1, #6, #8, #9, and #12 already have turned unambiguously against the President. If #2 doesn't get him, then #4 probably will, but I don't see either having turned yet.
#3 and #13 are on his side and aren't going away. #7, #10, and #11 are ambiguous and can go bad if time runs out on this President.
#5 suddenly became shaky. Any bear market that results in increases in unemployment will doom this Presidency because there will not be enough time to get decisively out of any recession and get credit for such. Any sustained bear market usually has a recession attached. Much of the rationale of this President has been that he has inspired faith in the American economy to establish a lasting prosperity.
The fundamentals of the American economy are anything but strong. There is not enough saving to back the investment necessary for creating new jobs. Securities values have been excessive, and the wealth effect can erode with the complete loss of consumer confidence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The inverted yield curve ensures that companies on life support will die and that a credit crunch will cut into such high-priced consumer activities as remodeling and big-ticket purchases.
In view of a recent downturn in securities valuations that I cannot easily see being reversed, I can easily see that one turning against him. So far the meltdown
1. (President's Party gains seats in the House from the second-to-last midterm to the most recent one). This is a tough standard, one that few incumbent Presidents find working for them. Promises often come with costs, and what sounds wonderful often has problems -- including resistance from powerful interests. Just think of the massive reform that Barack Obama promised on health care that, if fully enacted, would cut costs and make medical care more accessible. The only problem is that some people waxed fat on high costs built into the system. Anyone who fails to recognize the virtue of profits irrespective of costs to the common man ignores that the people who make those profits will rebuke anyone who challenges those profits. If you think healthcare costs are difficult to challenge, then think of how difficult it was to put an end to chattel slavery.
This one has turned against Trump, and he cannot win this one back. One against him.
2. (The incumbent Party does not face a significant challenge from an intra-party challenger). I was unaware of a numerical value for such a challenge. I thought that it was enough to have someone with some widespread credibility as an opponent of the incumbent. Thus a Lyn Larouche or David DuKKKe, a fringe character, does not matter. The last five incumbent Presidents (Reagan, the elder Bush, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama sailed through the nomination process). Ford faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan, and Carter faced a challenge from Ted Kennedy. Good feelings within the Party don't get put together quickly, and if there is a meaningful challenge, then the opposition Party will exploit it in negative ads. Trump has violated plenty of canons of the center-right, and just about any Democrat will be able to exploit those.
The incumbent President usually experiences no significant dissidence from within his Party unless he is unusually incompetent or unlucky. The perception of vulnerability is exactly what one sees. I am calling this one tentatively against President Trump because people voting for a mainstream opponent in the Primary or casting blank or "uncommitted" votes instead of those for the incumbent indicate that support for the incumbent is not so solid as it was in the election in which the incumbent became President. 9.1% of participants in the Republican primary in New Hampshire went to Bill Weld, who is not a joke.
This key has some ambiguity, but this one might turn favorably for the President, only for such expression to appear in votes for a Third-Party or independent nominee who siphons away votes that the incumbent needs.
3. (Incumbent President running for re-election) Enough said. The incumbent President has control of the agenda, which is ordinarily a huge advantage. Even if something should happen to the President that removes him from office (death or a debilitating stroke or coronary), I would predict that Mike Pence runs for a continuation of his term as President. Strong positive for the GOP here. .
4. (Third Party challenger to the incumbent's Party) Third Parties can ruin an incumbent Party's campaign by taking away part of the Party's natural constituency. To be sure, this criterion (Ross Perot) hurt the elder Bush in 1992 no more than it hurt Bill Clinton in 1996. The Nader vote in 2000 was much larger than the winning margins for Dubya in both Florida and New Hampshire -- and voters for Nader were not taking votes away from Dubya; either state would have tipped the election for Al Gore. The George Wallace candidacy of 1968 got a bigger share of the popular vote than the margin by which Nixon won in the following states:
OK 8
VA 12
NC 12
TN 11
FL 14
SC 8
KY 8
WI 12
DE 3
CA 40
IL 26
AK 3
OH 26
NJ 17
MO 12
Wallace really was a big-government pol, a veritable socialist. He differed from the Democratic establishment only in his racism. Nixon won 301 electoral votes, and Humphrey won 191... but it is relatively easy to see how Humphrey could have gotten 79 more electoral votes from this combination of states. You might ignore California because Nixon was from California.
Back to current times: possible, but it has yet to happen. Any right-of center nominee who takes away significant votes from the President's re-election bid would seal his defeat.
5. (Economy not in recession, stagflation or hyperinflation) Since Hoover, economic stewardship has become de facto a responsibility of the President who has some control over monetary policy (which Hoover bungled severely). Administrations can buy elections through loose fiscal and monetary policy, only to achieve stagflation; Nixon won big in 1972 only to cost re-election bids of Ford and Carter. Stagflation may not be a recession, but it implies under-investment for which society will pay heavily. It is far easier to challenge a President who has the misfortune to have high unemployment and falling securities prices.
...I differ from Lichtman in recognizing stagflation and hyperinflation as similarly troublesome to an incumbent President. I doubt that Lichtman would disagree with me on that. Note well that any bubble can burst, and the recent week and a half of decline in the stock market might be the start of a bear market. Much of Trump's appeal has been on the strength of the American economy, most notably on the valuation of securities.
6. (More economic growth than the previous President) Presidents get credit for economic growth out of a recession or a depression, and not doing as well as the predecessor at that does not look good. After a recession or depression is underway, expectations go down, which makes things easier for any incumbent President. This is a tough standard, an Trump fails here because he cannot surpass the growth that Obama had out of a really-bad recession. This key turns against President Trump, and it will stay turned. I am not sure that it is justified in his case, but it he is to be re-elected he must be able to afford a key going against him.
7. (The President is able to force major changes in policy) Nothing is said on whether the policy change is benign or catastrophic. The Smoot-Hawley tariff that made the economic meltdown of 1929-1932 more severe would have counted as a positive key no matter what else went wrong. A President capable of forcing change is more effective than one who can't. Trump so far has nothing but a tax cut dedicated to his plutocratic allies, which counts for little. This key so far turns against him, and I cannot imagine any major change in policy happening between now and November. President Trump has a radical-right agenda and the Democratic majority in the House can stop that.
8. (No significant unrest) Every President will face some dissent, but as long as it does not transmute into riots and ethnic or religious violence, things aren't so bad.
It may be picky on my part; racist violence occasionally happens and it can be lethal. A President with any moral compass condemns such unambiguously. There have been two ugly incidents of people firing upon (and killing) Jews in religious ceremonies. Most of us, if President, would have expressed contempt with the threat of through federal investigation and prosecution. It is President Trump's weak response that suggests Presidential failure. Add to this his infamous statement that "there are good people on both sides" in the aftermath of a neo-Nazi running over a protester at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. There are no good people on both sides of racist violence any more than there are good people on both sides on arson, child molestation, armed robbery, or drug trafficking. Trump fails to show effective and responsible leadership on this.
9. (No major scandals) Scandals involving the Presidency are extremely rare. Getting away with a scandal might be possible for a while; Nixon was doing fine until people thought that the Watergate scandal was more than a third-rate burglary. Dubya got away with a corrupt boom from shady lending... but that would lead to a financial panic that would destroy any chance of John McCain winning the Presidency. The Teapot Dome scandal fizzled out with honest prosecutions under Harding's successor.
At worst, scandals can result in an impeachment. The scandals implode the Trump Presidency, and those might be enough to take him down. Americans have shown that they have little tolerance for political corruption except under machine governments whether in such a giant city as Chicago or in some hamlet in Mississippi in which white people will vote for a corrupt white Republican over an honest black Democrat or in which black people will vote for a corrupt black Democrat over an honest white Republican solely due to the tribal (ethnic) split in the electorate.
Americans typically show little tolerance for corruption scandals involving Senators, Governors, and Congressional Representatives, so why should this not affect the Presidency? This key has turned so severely that it could by itself ensure the defeat of the President in November. Although the President was impeached and not removed, such happened on a rigid party-line divide. I see Donald Trump as acting without accountability.
10. (No significant failure of foreign policy) What is a major failure? The 'loss' of a seemingly reliable ally that is shakier than people realize. Military defeat (rare in American history). Republicans were never going to let Truman get away with "losing" China, and they were never going to let Carter get away with "losing" Iran.
Getting a deal that implodes is worse than no deal at all. Does anyone here trust either the Taliban or North Korea?
11. (A significant success in foreign policy) The opposite of #10... turning an enemy into a mere rival... military success... getting a peace treaty or an arrangement to reduce the stock of nuclear weapons.
I see none yet. There is no enforcement in place. A President has more leeway with foreign policy than with domestic policy because partisan carping looks bad.
12. (The Party's nominee has charisma) You know charisma when you see it.
Donald Trump is a wreck. This key has turned against him.
13. (The opposing nominee either has no charisma nor recognition as a military hero) Ditto.
It looks as if Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. I don;t see charisma... this key seems to work for Trump.
Numbers #1, #6, #8, #9, and #12 already have turned unambiguously against the President. If #2 doesn't get him, then #4 probably will, but I don't see either having turned yet.
#3 and #13 are on his side and aren't going away. #7, #10, and #11 are ambiguous and can go bad if time runs out on this President.
#5 suddenly became shaky. Any bear market that results in increases in unemployment will doom this Presidency because there will not be enough time to get decisively out of any recession and get credit for such. Any sustained bear market usually has a recession attached. Much of the rationale of this President has been that he has inspired faith in the American economy to establish a lasting prosperity.
The fundamentals of the American economy are anything but strong. There is not enough saving to back the investment necessary for creating new jobs. Securities values have been excessive, and the wealth effect can erode with the complete loss of consumer confidence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. The inverted yield curve ensures that companies on life support will die and that a credit crunch will cut into such high-priced consumer activities as remodeling and big-ticket purchases.
In view of a recent downturn in securities valuations that I cannot easily see being reversed, I can easily see that one turning against him. So far the meltdown
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.