Election 2020

[pbrower2a]

(05-18-2019, 04:53 PM)carecare7 Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 10:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Lichtman test, as you may recall, consists of thirteen keys for predicting who wins result of the next Presidential election.

Update due to three recent events: the fanatical Trump supporter who sent bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, the murder of eleven people in a synagogue  (one key covers those two), and of course the huge number of Republican seats in the House of Representatives (one key!).  

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

Code: red -- favors Democrats without ambiguity.
blue -- favors the Republican (Trump, or in case something happens to him, Pence)
green -- yet to be decided
-- ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive answer on November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration. This was green (pending) until a week ago.
2. There could be, but that is yet well enough into the future that we can't say anything. Talk and speculation are not enough to establish such. If a significant Republican starts setting up a campaign apparatus, we may have something. Let there be so much as a contest in an early primary, and this goes negative. We are a year and a half away from knowing this.
3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.
4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet.
5. Way too early to tell. Ask again in August or September 2020. Because the only bubble is valuation of stocks, I see no pervasive meltdown likely.
6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet.
7. He hasn't yet. The tax bill is it. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. This is a positive key even if the changes are widely unpopular.
8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of those bombs blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite, but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. Worse, he has bumbled in his response. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition. 

President Trump's political image is being hit by both polite and civilized opposition (which is more effective) and by politically-charged violence *which is not so effective in forcing change, but is effective in discrediting the President.. He has offended thoughtful people who are organizing against him while his supporters and people that he has stirred up with his vituperation against immigrants and Islam. The polite and civilized opposition is far stronger than was the Tea Party against Obama, and politically-charged violence of any kind that people can trace to his rhetoric disgusts average people. Lichtman dismissed Tea Party protests, and Women's marches, marches for science, Black Lives Matter, and anti-gun protests get similar treatment from me. When one of the President's  loud supporters mails pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and to celebrities, or someone mows down Jews in a synagogue service in response to the President's rhetoric against a different group of people, then we have more dangerous unrest than the usual detraction that every President faces. This has gone from 'ambiguous' to 'solid negative' against the President. Worse, the President has bungled his response which solidifies the negative.

Brotherly love will not suddenly break out with this President. 
 
9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up.
10. Likely but it has yet to happen. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. He even bungled the memorials of the centennial of the end of World War I. If Trump had been wise, he would have deputized Barack Obama to do the job. Then again, this President knows about as much about scuba diving, which is nothing.  
11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer, and ignored both. It turns out that the North Korean leader has dismantled some obsolete nukes while building more effective ones. Maybe the situation does not implode in the next two years. Let us all hope that this key does not turn negative. I prefer that South Korea fit the description "I have seen the future -- and it works".  
12. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has as solid support as ever from his cult.
13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

One clear blue, four red, seven green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He has room for only one going red.

Is there some reason you have  put Republicans in blue and Democrats in red?  Everyone else does the opposite.  Doing this your way makes things  difficult to read.  Just saying.

I appreciate your concern.

I also post at a site, Leip's Election Atlas, whence I took this data that I post here. David Leip discusses elections going back to the early years of the United States, and for many decades, Republicans were in blue (serving blue-blood interests?) and Democrats were in red (associated with socialist causes, Democrats long being closer to social democracy than Republicans are. Only in the last two decades has red stood for Republicans and blue for Democrats.

I do not argue with Leip's color scheme on his site. But I cross-post some of my contributions on his site over here.

In any event Republicans now deserve the color red for being closer to totalitarian ideologies such as fascism (fascists saw themselves as"true" revolutionaries as opposed to the Bolsheviks) and Communism.

But maybe I can update this:

The Lichtman test, as you may recall, consists of thirteen keys for predicting who wins result of the next Presidential election.

Update due to three recent events: the fanatical Trump supporter who sent bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, the murder of eleven people in a synagogue  (one key covers those two), and of course the huge number of Republican seats in the House of Representatives (one key!).  

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

Code: red -- favors Democrats without ambiguity.
blue -- favors the Republican (Trump, or in case something happens to him, Pence)
green -- yet to be decided
-- ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive answer (as of) November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration. This was green (pending) until (the 2018 midterm election).

2. There could be, but that is yet well enough into the future that we can't say anything. Talk and speculation are not enough to establish such. If a significant Republican starts setting up a campaign apparatus, we may have something. Let there be so much as a contest in an early primary, and this goes negative. We are a year and a half away from knowing this.  William Weld, a former Governor of Massachusetts,  offers a primary challenge to Donald Trump. Because he has experience as a Governor and is not ridiculously old, I must consider him a serious primary challenge to Trump. Reagan challenged Ford in 1976; Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980, and both incumbent Presidents lost re-election bids.

3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.
4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet.
5. Way too early to tell. Ask again in August or September 2020. Because the only bubble is valuation of stocks, I see no pervasive meltdown likely. (A trade war might cause economic disruption without compensation, but I do not judge that yet).
6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet.
7. He hasn't yet. The tax bill and his tariffs count as an achievment. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. This is a positive key even if the changes are widely unpopular.
8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of those bombs blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite, but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. Worse, he has bumbled in his response. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition. 

President Trump's political image is being hit by both polite and civilized opposition (which is more effective) and by politically-charged violence *which is not so effective in forcing change, but is effective in discrediting the President.. He has offended thoughtful people who are organizing against him while his supporters and people that he has stirred up with his vituperation against immigrants and Islam. The polite and civilized opposition is far stronger than was the Tea Party against Obama, and politically-charged violence of any kind that people can trace to his rhetoric disgusts average people. Lichtman dismissed Tea Party protests, and Women's marches, marches for science, Black Lives Matter, and anti-gun protests get similar treatment from me. When one of the President's  loud supporters mails pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and to celebrities, or someone mows down Jews in a synagogue service in response to the President's rhetoric against a different group of people, then we have more dangerous unrest than the usual detraction that every President faces. This has gone from 'ambiguous' to 'solid negative' against the President. Worse, the President has bungled his response which solidifies the negative.

Brotherly love will not suddenly break out with this President unless as resistance to him. 
 
9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up. I expect Democrats to hammer the Trump Presidency for this. Should Donald Trump go down to defeat in 2020, then this will be the key theme for historians. American voters have shown little tolerance for corruption for Governors like Rod Blagojevich and Congressional Representatives like William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (the only incumbent Democrat in the House who lost a re-election bid in the Obama rout of 2008. We have yet to see how that works for the Presidency, but I expect such to apply to the Presidency in 2020.

10. Likely but it has yet to happen. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. He even bungled the memorials of the centennial of the end of World War I. If Trump had been wise, he would have deputized Barack Obama to do the job. Then again, this President knows about as much about scuba diving, which is nothing.  
11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer, and ignored both. It turns out that the North Korean leader has dismantled some obsolete nukes while building more effective ones. Maybe the situation does not implode in the next two years. Let us all hope that this key does not turn negative. I prefer that South Korea fit the description "I have seen the future -- and it works".  (addendum: we have yet to see the effects of the President's saber-rattling against Iran will have, so this is still ambiguous).
12. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has as solid support as ever from his cult.
13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

Two clear blue, six red, four green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He has room for only one going red. If six of the keys turn against the President, then the President's Party loses the popular vote (and usually the electoral college as well).