We could be seeing the third-party support for Johnson having first pared from the usual voters for a generic Republican ... and then going to Hillary Clinton. In this the key has an ironic effect.
Maybe the third-party key should have read to the harm of the incumbent:
A significant third-party of independent candidate is clearly paring support away from the incumbent party.
In no way could I fault Mr. Lichtman for failing to imagine a Presidential nominee like Donald Trump. I would have never expected someone like him to go anywhere in Presidential politics.
This allows for a dissident wing of one of the major Parties taking a region (and usual electoral votes) of support from the incumbent party (as with the racist campaigns of Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968), preventing an incumbent from winning support that he might otherwise get while losing support elsewhere (John Anderson, 1980) or taking away support that the incumbent that makes the challenger to win with considerably less than 60% of the national popular vote (Ross Perot, 1992... but paradoxically aiding the incumbent in 1996).
This time I can hardly imagine many Obama-to-Trump voters. I can't imagine many people who voted for Barack Obama finding Barack Obama such a disappointment that he could make Donald Trump a welcome change. Maybe Obama to Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Romney instead of Obama to Clinton? Get your typewriter ready to write your alternative-history novel. Romney-to-Clinton voters? I expect to see lots of those.
Following a Presidential election that was close to being close in electoral and popular votes, the more obvious question of who would win was how votes would make partisan switches. Thus, barring demographic change in the electorate largely from entrances and exits:
1. Bigger numbers of Romney-to-Clinton voters than Obama-to-Trump voters implies a Clinton victory.
2. An even split between the two implies a Clinton win.
3. A slightly-larger number of Obama-to-Trump voters than Romney-to- Clinton voters makes things iffy.
4. A big shift of voters from Obama to Trump ensures that Donald Trump becomes President.
That's even simpler.
Maybe the third-party key should have read to the harm of the incumbent:
A significant third-party of independent candidate is clearly paring support away from the incumbent party.
In no way could I fault Mr. Lichtman for failing to imagine a Presidential nominee like Donald Trump. I would have never expected someone like him to go anywhere in Presidential politics.
This allows for a dissident wing of one of the major Parties taking a region (and usual electoral votes) of support from the incumbent party (as with the racist campaigns of Strom Thurmond in 1948 or George Wallace in 1968), preventing an incumbent from winning support that he might otherwise get while losing support elsewhere (John Anderson, 1980) or taking away support that the incumbent that makes the challenger to win with considerably less than 60% of the national popular vote (Ross Perot, 1992... but paradoxically aiding the incumbent in 1996).
This time I can hardly imagine many Obama-to-Trump voters. I can't imagine many people who voted for Barack Obama finding Barack Obama such a disappointment that he could make Donald Trump a welcome change. Maybe Obama to Kasich, Jeb Bush, or Romney instead of Obama to Clinton? Get your typewriter ready to write your alternative-history novel. Romney-to-Clinton voters? I expect to see lots of those.
Following a Presidential election that was close to being close in electoral and popular votes, the more obvious question of who would win was how votes would make partisan switches. Thus, barring demographic change in the electorate largely from entrances and exits:
1. Bigger numbers of Romney-to-Clinton voters than Obama-to-Trump voters implies a Clinton victory.
2. An even split between the two implies a Clinton win.
3. A slightly-larger number of Obama-to-Trump voters than Romney-to- Clinton voters makes things iffy.
4. A big shift of voters from Obama to Trump ensures that Donald Trump becomes President.
That's even simpler.
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.