2020 Predictions

[Eric the Green]

(03-10-2020, 02:13 PM)JDG 66 Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...But Trump still has a % advantage in his horoscope score. He has an advantage in the new moon before election method that I use too, as well as incumbency. The party in power is favored to win in 2020 by that method...

-Huh. I would have assumed that you would have equated Trump with a full moon. Oh well.



Sounds like you're copping out, Eric... Or perhaps that equates to a close election?



P.S. EDIT:

Again, my Word doc doesn't translate well, but here are my list of states and districts that have an essentially 0% chance of going for Trump:

CA (55), DC (3), HW (3), IL (20), ME1 (1), MD (10), MA (11), NY (29), OR (7), RI (4), VT (3), WA (12).

These essentially have a 100% chance of going for Trump:

AL (9), AR (6), ID (4), KS (6), KY (8), LA (8), MS (6), MO (10), MT (3), NE(-) (2), NE1 (1), NE3 (1), ND (3), OK (7), SD (3), SC (9), TN (11), WV (5), WY (3).

That's right, a close election is predicted.

I would include Delaware (3) among the certain blue states, especially with Biden the likely nominee, CT (7), and NJ (14), but then I would expect you to shortchange the blues. 

Utah (6) doesn't like Trump, but will vote Republican anyway. Indiana is likely safe Republican (11).

There are fewer swing states now, not more. The tribes are loyal and set. No matter what Trump does, his base is blindly behind him.

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2020, 04:50 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote:

(03-16-2020, 03:49 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: One of the Lichtman keys, #5 (economy not in recession, stagflation, or hyperinflation) may be turning against Trump.

The DJIA closed nearly 3000 points down in the absolute largest one-day drop and the second-highest percentage drop ever. Of the six largest drops by percentage, five are in 1929 or 2020. The other is the largest percentage drop was the odd drop of 50 points (over 22%) on 19 October 1987 which was reversed rather quickly because there was no underlying cause for a recession.This time (as in 1929)... there is one.

The worst three one-day declines by percentage in 2008 were #11, #15, and #16.  

Maybe the Great and Unqualified Genius can solve all our problems for us

A coronavirus-driven recession would turn key #5, and also #6 if severe enough. Factoring those in with the criteria listed above, I'd put the 13 keys in the following columns:

Trump Keys (7)
*Contest
*Incumbency
*Third party
*Policy change (most of it by executive action and SCOTUS appointments, but policy change nonetheless)
*Social unrest
*Foreign/military success
*Challenger charisma

Biden Keys (6)
*Party Mandate
*Short-term economy
*Long-term economy
*Scandal
*Foreign/military failure
*Incumbent charisma

I still give Trump the foreign success key because although there wasn't ever a NK deal and the agreement with Iran went up in flames, he did negotiate and get ratified a replacement for NAFTA, along with plans to finally get out of Afghanistan. It's a mixed category.

If you were to ask me a week ago, I'd have said Trump would likely win again. Hurricane Corona has thrown everything up in the air. This puts the score at 7-6 which by Lichtman terms is no serious lead at all, since five or less need to go to the challenger to secure reelection. One important distinction: the system only accounts for the popular vote, so the six that Biden has might mean a repeat of 2016.

Trump Keys (6?)
*Contest
*Incumbency
*Third party (so far)
*Social unrest? (this one is admittedly ambiguous. No violent uprisings like LBJ suffered, but gun violence is horrible, protests against him are the largest ever, plus the Charlottesville debacle)
*Foreign/military failure (I would switch these two. No big Trump failures yet; only minor ones.)
*Challenger charisma

Biden Keys (7?)
*Party Mandate
*Short-term economy (now in freefall, and partly because of Trump's lies and inaction)
*Long-term economy? (the economy has been Trump's selling point, but technically he didn't get this key)
*Policy change (absolutely nothing for Trump on this one. Big zero.)
*Scandal
*Foreign/military success (No success for Trump yet. Nothing accomplished in NK and the Afghan deal has crumbled already.)
*Incumbent charisma

[JDG 66]

(03-16-2020, 10:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-10-2020, 02:13 PM)JDG 66 Wrote: Sounds like you're copping out, Eric... Or perhaps that equates to a close election?

...Again, my Word doc doesn't translate well, but here are my list of states and districts that have an essentially 0% chance of going for Trump:

CA (55), DC (3), HW (3), IL (20), ME1 (1), MD (10), MA (11), NY (29), OR (7), RI (4), VT (3), WA (12).

These essentially have a 100% chance of going for Trump:

AL (9), AR (6), ID (4), KS (6), KY (8), LA (8), MS (6), MO (10), MT (3), NE(-) (2), NE1 (1), NE3 (1), ND (3), OK (7), SD (3), SC (9), TN (11), WV (5), WY (3).

That's right, a close election is predicted.

I would include Delaware (3) among the certain blue states, especially with Biden the likely nominee, CT (7), and NJ (14), but then I would expect you to shortchange the blues. 

Utah (6) doesn't like Trump, but will vote Republican anyway. Indiana is likely safe Republican (11).

There are fewer swing states now, not more...

I'm not short-changing anyone, Eric, it's just the math goes. 

Again, some Worddoc wackiness:

NM //40.04%//48.44%//0+1/45
CT //40.93%//49.40%//0+2/45
NJ  //41.00%//49.47%//0+2/45
DE // 41.92% //49.38% //2+0/45
CO // 43.25%//48.86%//2+2/45
VA  // 44.43% [w/o Kaine 45.94%?] // (49.23%)//4+0/45 [w/o Kaine 6+4/45?]
ME (-)//44.87%//49.03%//4+1/45
MN//44.92%//48.85%//4+2/45
NV//45.50%//49.13%//5+2/45
NH//46.61%//49.15%//10+10/45

UT // 45.54% //46.41%//8+28/45
NE 2//47.16%//48.95%//15+12/45
WI// 47.22%//49.10%//16+11/45
MI//47.50%//49.31%//21+6/45
PA//48.18%//49.42%//27+9/45
AZ//48.67%//48.35%//32+11/45
FL//49.02%//49.58%//36+6/45
NC//49.83%//49.47%//43+1/45
GA//50.77%//49.52%//44+0/45
IA//51.15%//49.06%//44+0/45
ME 2//51.26%//48.97%//44+0/45
AK//51.28%//48.38%//44+1/45
OH//51.69%//49.37%//44+0/45
TX//52.23%//49.40%//44+1/45
IN//56.82% [without Pence 52.70%?]//49.61%//45+0 [w/o Pence 45+0/45] 

OK. 1st Column is the state// 2nd Column is R 2016 vote // 3rd Column is the estimated percentage by which the incumbent (i.e., Trump) would win the state by a plurality. I explained my reasoning for this figure above (2016 3rd party; divided by 3.75; divided by half, since I'm assuming that the miscellaneous vote was roughly 50-50) // Last Column is the Chance out of 45 that the incumbent (DJT) would win by a majority + Chance out of 45 that the incumbent would win by a plurality (see that chart I posted previously).

There are a lot of assumptions here. This assumes that the incumbent's (i.e., Trump's) improvement in the national vote, over his 2016 performance, is a multiplier of 1.059 (as explained above).  I assume that Pence will be DJT's running mate (although, as you can see, the results in IN probably don't matter), that Kaine will not be the challenger's running mate (I estimated Kaine's impact on VA's 2016 results; I'll explain later), and does not take the challenger's home state (DE?) or his running mate's home state (?) into account. If Biden gets the nomination (likely), then, based on Biden's impact on the 2008 vote (I'll explain my calculations later), DE would go to 0+0/45 for DJT.

UT's results are admittedly an artifact of McMuffin's campaign in 2016. I agree with you that my method probably underrates the incumbent's chances, but I'm just going with the math. Also, remember that this is the probability that DJT wins the state; the remainder does not necessarily go to the "D" candidate. If PBrower2a's fantasies of a serious 3rd party challenger to DJT in 2020 have anything to them, according to my method, it would most likely show up in UT (6 EVs for Mitt Romney, I guess).

Note that when this method shows DJT having a chance of winning NM, CT, or NJ, that it's a small one, and then by a plurality. It also gives the "D" an essentially 0% of winning AK, TX, or IN once you allow for winning by plurality.

In 2004 (the pattern), the miscellaneous vote narrowed from 3.75% to 1.00%, as more people pick one side or the other than they did in the first election, but this does not necessarily narrow the number of swing states.

One other thing: I did most of these calculations in January or February 2017. The only change was in finding a way to calculate the miscellaneous vote, and thereby calculate a way of to figure out the chance of winning a state by a plurality, rather than just majority (a refinement the my system didn't have yet for my 2016 prediction). Again, these are the only things that might seriously the national calculation (multiplied by 1.059) or the state-by-state calculations:

Economic Downturns
Security Problems
3rd Party/Independent Candidate (symptom or cause?)
Loss of the incumbent POTUS/VPOTUS candidate
Home State of the POTUS/VPOTUS candidates

[Eric the Green]

I can't follow what your numbers means or what your method is James. Can you explain a bit more?

I don't think we can put that much stock in how a state voted in 2000 and 2004 anymore, and certainly not in the 1980s and 1970s which was the last time states like CT and NJ voted Republican.

[JDG 66]

(03-18-2020, 01:07 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: I can't follow what your numbers means or what your method is James. Can you explain a bit more?

I don't think we can put that much stock in how a state voted in 2000 and 2004 anymore, and certainly not in the 1980s and 1970s which was the last time states like CT and NJ voted Republican.

Yeah, maybe I'm not explaining this well. It's hard to show the whole thing because the 4TF plays havoc with Word docs.

The 2000 vs. 2004 election simply provides a pattern for the spread, of how states shift from a candidate's first election (in this case, 2016) to his reelection attempt (2020), and also provides a pattern for how much the 3rd party/miscellaneous vote will expand or contract from one election to another. I'm not implying that the state of CT will react in in 2020 as it did in 2004 (although it might). I am implying that the 50 states plus DC, combined, give a spread sample that would show a similar pattern between one election and the next WHEN ONE OF THE CANDIDATES is the same. I'm just using 2000/2004 as a pattern for 2016/2020 because I see them as likely to have similar spreads. For 2020/2024, with no incumbent running, I'd have to use a different pattern.

Here's how it works:

1) Take the 2016 state-by-state vote (in this case, the "R") vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Unite...l_election

We'll use Florida as an example, where Trump got 49.02% of the vote in 2016.

2) Now, find the percentage by which Trump could win with plurality.

Take the third party/miscellaneous vote from 2016, then divide by 3.75 (based on the 2000 vs. 2004 shift of 3.75% to 1.00%).

In this case, 4.36% divided by 3.75 = 1.16% (I'm rounding down). Then divide by two (I'm assuming that the split is roughly even) and subtract from 50 = 49.42%. That implies that in 2020, Trump would need at least 49.42% to win FL with a plurality.

3) Find out how much Trump's vote needs to improve to win (or how much his vote could drop, and still win).

Take the 2016 vote and compare that to what he would need to win. In this case, that's a necessary multiplier of 1.012 (i.e., 49.02 x 1.012 = 50%+. I'm rounding up, to make sure it's more than the required number).

4) Find the likelihood that Trump can do this.

Compare the necessary multiplier (1.012) to the spread of state changes between 2000/2004 (I eliminated CT, MA, TN, TX, WY, and NC due to the possible impact of the presidential and vice presidential candidates on elections, although in most cases, using the sample of 45 vs. 51 doesn't make a big difference, but I do it anyway). We're not comparing what FL did in between 2000 and 2004 (which would be a multiplier of 1.066. NO!). We're comparing it to the sample of all the states (and DC). Not counting the discarded states, 42 out of 45 states (and DC) saw a 1.012 multiplier increase or better, implying that Trump would have a 42 out of 45 chance of winning FL.

5) Find the average number of EVs that Trump gets.

Multiply Florida's 29 electoral votes by 42/45 = 27.07 EVs for Trump from FL (I'm rounding to the nearest whole number).

Do that for every state and district (in reality, it's obvious when you're past the 1.211 multiplier on the high end or the 1.049 divisor on the other end).

The result I get is 292.64 EVs as is, or 294.37 EVs if you assume that Kaine (VA) will not run in 2016, but Pence does (Trump and Clinton were both from NY, which I assess Trump as having a 0/45 chance of winning, so they really don't change what happens in NY). When we discover who the "D" nominee and who his running mate is, I might have to modify the calculation. For example, Biden as nominee would certainly change Trump's chance of winning DE from 2/45 to 0/45, changing Trump's 294.37 EVs to 294.24 EVs. Calculating the effect that Biden's running mate might have on her (?) state is a lot more complicated and unpredictable, but would probably require a multiplier of somewhere between 1.020 and 1.120. I have a way to deduce it, sort of.

If anyone really cares, you can PM me and I'll send you the worddoc will all my work.

[pbrower2a]

How credible is Trump? I think he has lost it. State leaders avoid going through him to get something done. In Michigan, restaurants have closed their intenral dining -- carry-out or drive-in only. (This may reduce staff and thus cost, and the tendency away from "casual dining" may intensify, and public libraries (although one can still use their wi-fi for research). Ohio has deferred a primary election (Biden and Trump have all but clinched). I could take a trip into Indiana just to see how things are going there... but why?

Stores have shortened hours. Banks and credit unions now give access to the lobby by appointment only. Life is terribly inconvenient, but think of what is really inconvenient: the ICU. We will probably do more business on line, accelerating the demise of brick-and-mortar retailing.

On the other hand -- we could get very stir-crazy very fast. There will be pend-up demand, and most people temporarily laid off will get their jobs back. I expect some firms to go under, such as one restaurant chain that offers bland, over-priced "comfort food" in a casual setting. It already has an aging clientele, as younger people tend to have little taste for bland, over-priced food. I suspect that many "casual dining" places will go to fast-food models just to survive. Why pay $10 for a hamburger and fries and pay a tip?

There will be pent-up demand... just in time for President Joe Biden.

[David Horn]

Right now, there is no way to evaluate the coming election, because it will be FOAK in any advanced democracy. What we know: the stock market will be down, and may be in deep bear territory; COVID-19 will still be active in the world, with the US response being less than stellar; DJT will still be blame-gaming, though how and who is problematic.

How much this matters is still TBD, but none of it can be branded as a positive for the Donald. Stay tuned.

[beechnut79]

(03-18-2020, 06:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: How credible is Trump? I think he has lost it. State leaders avoid going through him to get something done. In Michigan, restaurants have closed their intenral dining -- carry-out or drive-in only. (This may reduce staff and thus cost, and the tendency away from "casual dining" may intensify, and public libraries (although one can still use their wi-fi for research). Ohio has deferred a primary election (Biden and Trump have all but clinched). I could take a trip into Indiana just to see how things are going there... but why?

Stores have shortened hours. Banks and credit unions now give access to the lobby by appointment only. Life is terribly inconvenient, but think of what is really inconvenient: the ICU. We will probably do more business on line, accelerating the demise of brick-and-mortar retailing.

On the other hand -- we could get very stir-crazy very fast. There will be pend-up demand, and most people temporarily laid off will get their jobs back. I expect some firms to go under, such as one restaurant chain that offers bland, over-priced "comfort food" in a casual setting. It already has an aging clientele, as younger people tend to have little taste for bland, over-priced food. I suspect that many "casual dining" places will go to fast-food models just to survive. Why pay $10 for a hamburger and fries and pay a tip?

There will be pent-up demand... just in time for President Joe Biden.

That's pretty much the way Pizza Hut went. Not sure if they even have full service dining anymore. The chain you are referring to is probably Boston Market, as they have closed many locations recently including the last one in the city that gave it the name.  The trend towards more takeout and delivery was well underway long before the virus struck. What do you feel is behind this trend?

[pbrower2a]

(03-19-2020, 10:56 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(03-18-2020, 06:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: How credible is Trump? I think he has lost it. State leaders avoid going through him to get something done. In Michigan, restaurants have closed their intenral dining -- carry-out or drive-in only. (This may reduce staff and thus cost, and the tendency away from "casual dining" may intensify, and public libraries (although one can still use their wi-fi for research). Ohio has deferred a primary election (Biden and Trump have all but clinched). I could take a trip into Indiana just to see how things are going there... but why?

Stores have shortened hours. Banks and credit unions now give access to the lobby by appointment only. Life is terribly inconvenient, but think of what is really inconvenient: the ICU. We will probably do more business on line, accelerating the demise of brick-and-mortar retailing.

On the other hand -- we could get very stir-crazy very fast. There will be pend-up demand, and most people temporarily laid off will get their jobs back. I expect some firms to go under, such as one restaurant chain that offers bland, over-priced "comfort food" in a casual setting. It already has an aging clientele, as younger people tend to have little taste for bland, over-priced food. I suspect that many "casual dining" places will go to fast-food models just to survive. Why pay $10 for a hamburger and fries and pay a tip?

There will be pent-up demand... just in time for President Joe Biden.

That's pretty much the way Pizza Hut went. Not sure if they even have full service dining anymore. The chain you are referring to is probably Boston Market, as they have closed many locations recently including the last one in the city that gave it the name.  The trend towards more takeout and delivery was well underway long before the virus struck. What do you feel is behind this trend?

I wasn't thinking in specific of Boston Market... Boston Market fare is now available in the freezer section of many grocery stores, so that is an alternative.  Zap it in the microwave... no cloying waitstaff, no tip, no expenditure of gasoline to get to the restaurant... One of the tip-offs to the demise of a restaurant chain is that its fare appears in the freezer section of the grocery store, as with Marie Callender's and Boston Market. I have no desire to accelerate the demise of any struggling large business with a large number of employees. Many people employed in casual-dining restaurants could not work elsewhere. Many are college students who would have to abandon college education for factory work with rotating shifts. Such pays better, but for a smart person with the talent to do something else  such is a dead end.  

A sharp change in mass culture, economic realities, or politics -- or a virus that people compare to the Spanish Influenza of a century ago -- can bring the end to a shaky enterprise.   I chose not to name names. I will neither confirm nor deny your guess. I speak in generalities about business failures until something reaches the news media.

[pbrower2a]

William Weld dropping out of the Republican race for President (I considered him serious because he had been a State governor), the second key goes back to Trump or requires qualifications. I am tempted to believe that his performance in the 2020 primary in New Hampshire indicates an unusually-heavy level of dissent with the incumbent President within his Party -- much more than was the case with Clinton in 1996, Dubya in 2004, or Obama in 2012. I suspect that President Trump will face a third-party or independent nominee from a faction within his Party. Conservative dissent against Trump for the despotic style of decision-making of this President, the personality cult, the contempt for old decencies and legal norms, the adoption of Big Government as a means of intensifying power of the Leader, and the erratic foreign policy might not lead to the Democratic Party, but it can certainly go to a third-party nominee.

Any third-party or independent nominee who can draw 4% of the conservative vote away from Trump will destroy his chances of re-election. That is one key, and this (third party alternative) key can easily become relevant. It has not appeared yet.

[pbrower2a]

Back  to the Lichtman Test:

Note that one way of illustrating how the test is to contrast two elections, one involving the current incumbent as a challenger and one five months away from the election (which is as good as one can get right now)


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.

Six keys against the Incumbent's Party give an overwhelming chance of failure.

So let's see how it worked out for 2016. In that open-seat election, blue would be for Donald Trump and red for Hillary Clinton:

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.

All four of the first four turn against the Democrats. Obama did not successfully build an electorally-stronger Democratic Party. Sanders was unable to get all of his supporters to go to Clinton in November. Jill Stein of the Green Party won enough left-leaning voters who would have never voted for Trump in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

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.

OK, Obama's stewardship of the American economy was far steadier than that of Dubya, at the end of whose second term had an economic bubble going bust in a financial panic about as scary as that of 1929. It's the economy, stupid? To a large degree, but one can lose while the economy is going well.

7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

I forget -- over what change in policy did Obama preside? The biggest change was Supreme Court decisions about same-sex marriage and child custody rights. Obama handled it well. Give him some credit. There were no great pieces of legislation in the 114th Congress -- not that there was likely to be much agreement between a President and a hostile Congress. But I will have to hand him LGBT rights.

8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

Such unrest as there was was local and transitory. Obama had the most scandal-free Administration in decades.

10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Benghazi was out of the blue, a minor incident until ISIS found a way to exploit what had been a protest over the release of a very bad movie hostile to Islam -- a movie that practically nobody saw. Republicans successfully made a mountain out of a molehill, and that may have decided the election. Purple due to ambiguity. Perception is everything, and Americans were split along party lines on this.  

11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Nothing really happened, which is the best that could happen with a President facing a hostile Congress, but that is a negative for Obama's Party.

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.





It may be a hollow slogan, but Trump was able to appeal to the "basket of deplorable(s)" that Hillary Clinton derided. Trump expressed his love for "low-information voters". Whether one likes or loathes such and finds Trump's message hollow or even abominable, he succeeded in winning the right votes and getting elected.

Seven keys unambiguously  turned for Trump in 2016, and it is amazing, if one looks at all the keys, that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote if not the electoral vote.  

.....Now let's see how that works in 2020. Trump had his chances with both Houses of Congress on his side for two years and plenty of servile media praising him for everything and ridiculing all Democratic opposition.

Red favors the Democrat, and blue the Republican, with purple as ambiguous and green yet to be decided.  

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.

This key turned decisively against a Trump re-election bid. Gaining seats is tough for any Party that has the incumbent President, but the 2018 midterm election was an unmitigated and unambiguous disaster for Trump and the GOP.

2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

William Weld did get nearly 10% support in the New Hampshire Republican Party, demonstrating that some dissent with Trump exists within the Republican Party -- but most states are decided by winner-take-all in the Republican nominating convention. Trump is in a far-stronger position here than he was in 2016 -- almost as strong as Obama in 2012.

4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

Not definitive unless the 2020 election be close enough. Still too early to call, so in green.

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.

Trump was going to get a bum rap on this because it is very difficult to maintain a seven-year recovery following a meltdown that led to the threat of a second Great Depression. But the Plague of 2020, which by all reasonable accounts this President has handled ineptly, is causing mass unemployment and causing big losses of income to multitudes. Even if America gets out of a recession it will do so too late for Trump.    

7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

Tax cuts for his super-rich supporters and putting reactionaries into court seats? He has not successfully banned abortion, rescinded LGBT rights, put organized prayer back in public schools, established a flat tax, privatized the Interstate Highway system to monopolistic profiteers, closed the Postal Service, or destroyed unions; success in any one of those would count even if they are harmful to more than to whom such would be desirable...  even pathological change would count as major policy.

For example, a new persecution of an ethnic or religious group, no matter how abominable such a deed would be, would count as a positive. This key does not depend upon whether the change is good or evil.

8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

Have you been following the news? Even before that there were sporadic examples of racist violence, including the shootings of two synagogues and some lone-wolf Trump supporter mailing bombs to liberal politicians and celebrities. This has gone from green or purple to red.


9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

This is the most corrupt Administration since at least Warren Gamaliel Harding.

10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

The President was impeached for an effort to get the President of Ukraine to embarrass the President's most likely opponent. Sure he got off -- on a nearly-strict party-line vote that might not look so good in November. Add to this -- while Americans are demonstrating over an incident of inexcusable police brutality, the People's Republic seems to be throttling such freedom as it had recently tolerated in Hong Kong. This may be even more momentous.

11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Possible, but I don't see this yet.

12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

The President is a wreck.

13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Biden charismatic? Not really.

Eight keys have turned against the President. The Lichtman test says that he loses even if I can interpret it to say that he would win decisively in 2016. Six of those are catastrophically wrong for re-electing Trump. And, yes, Trump has brought those upon himself.

[Eric the Green]

If you saw my other post, you got my opinion on this. Yours is a good summary, but I think this is the best analysis I've seen, and I agree, although I am less hesitant to turn the keys. He may be right to be hesitant. But I think at the least that the key that says the incumbent party faces no recession during the campaign has to be turned. This steep downturn has lasted for almost 3 months now, with the stimulus failing and unemployment still high. That's enough not to be forgotten. This author is also hesitant to turn the social unrest key, #8, and he makes a good case for caution, but I would agree with you and turn it.
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Predic...rn-in-2020

I also agree with you that the long-term economy key #5 has turned, if you define it as that the economy is worse that either of the preceding two terms. But hesitation on turning this key is understandable.

I don't see any third party challenge at this point. Such a challenger would have to get 5% or better support in the polls to turn the key. I would give that key to Trump at this point, as the soapboxie author does. I would also give Trump the Key #10, no foreign policy failure, also in agreement with soapboxie. I think that is defined in the public mind as a major military defeat or endless stalemate caused by the incumbent party, while the Ukraine mess has to be filed under Key 9. I would turn Key 11 against him at this point, although it could change. But this seems doubtful, and I agree with the soapboxie author on that.

That still gives Trump only 5 Keys, and 8 have turned against him. 6 are needed to defeat him.


For 2016, Lichtman turned Key 4, third party challenge, against Hillary Clinton because of Gary Johnson. Jill Stein did not have enough support. There are so many reasons Hillary lost those 77,744 votes in 3 states that it's impossible to say that Jill Stein or voters staying home were the only ones.

And I would not have given Trump the charismatic challenger key. He had a lower approval rating than Hillary throughout the campaign.

[Eric the Green]

Handicapping the electoral college is always fun.

Right now Biden leads nationally by 7 points and his average lead over Trump in the 3 blue states Trump won is about 4 points. So if Biden's lead nationally falls to 3 points, then Trump would probably carry at least one of those 3 states.

Biden would then have to pick up Florida, Arizona, or two electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska to make up for a loss in Wisconsin, the most likely former blue state to go red.

[pbrower2a]

(03-19-2020, 10:56 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(03-18-2020, 06:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: How credible is Trump? I think he has lost it. State leaders avoid going through him to get something done. In Michigan, restaurants have closed their intenral dining -- carry-out or drive-in only. (This may reduce staff and thus cost, and the tendency away from "casual dining" may intensify, and public libraries (although one can still use their wi-fi for research). Ohio has deferred a primary election (Biden and Trump have all but clinched). I could take a trip into Indiana just to see how things are going there... but why?

Stores have shortened hours. Banks and credit unions now give access to the lobby by appointment only. Life is terribly inconvenient, but think of what is really inconvenient: the ICU. We will probably do more business on line, accelerating the demise of brick-and-mortar retailing.

On the other hand -- we could get very stir-crazy very fast. There will be pend-up demand, and most people temporarily laid off will get their jobs back. I expect some firms to go under, such as one restaurant chain that offers bland, over-priced "comfort food" in a casual setting. It already has an aging clientele, as younger people tend to have little taste for bland, over-priced food. I suspect that many "casual dining" places will go to fast-food models just to survive. Why pay $10 for a hamburger and fries and pay a tip?

There will be pent-up demand... just in time for President Joe Biden.

That's pretty much the way Pizza Hut went. Not sure if they even have full service dining anymore. The chain you are referring to is probably Boston Market, as they have closed many locations recently including the last one in the city that gave it the name.  The trend towards more takeout and delivery was well underway long before the virus struck. What do you feel is behind this trend?

People will likely penny-pinch more, and one of the easiest ways in which to do so is to go places (carry-outs) where tipping is not expected. Bad chain restaurants that serve over-priced, banal food may go under. Thus Perkins, Marie Callender's, Big Boy, and Boston Market.  Bill Knapp's, once a fairly good place for eating, got scared about an aging clientele and thought that it could cater to young adults whose habits had not been set. The problem: in the 1990's, young adults had little disposable income, so the people who might have bought more exotic fare than pot roast and mashed potatoes didn't make that effort profitable. 

Pizza parlors might revive because they are good for a party atmosphere in which a "traditional home cooking" place isn't. Were I to try to establish a fast food chain I would imitate Kentucky Fried Chicken or Long John Silver's without being so greasy. One does need the older clientele, and if I am at all normal I can find grease slightly tolerable and spices enjoyable -- but spicy, greasy food gives me a stomach ache. 

MacDonald's, Wendy's, and Arby's have been seeking to add higher-priced items into their repertory, as those are more profitable. 

Going out to eat may become more "special", unless to diners that specialize in serving breakfast to the 'movers and shakers' of a small town -- the real estate salesmen, insurance and classified-ad salesmen, the bankers, and the other (George) Babbitt types  who find such a place good for hearing all the rumors of economic activity. Grabbing a breakfast burrito at a fast-food place for a commute to a job at a store, office, or factory isn't good for hearing such stuff. But if you are a store clerk, typist, or a factory worker you don't have the responsibility to drum up business. 

People are going to be leery about taking any crammed transportation for pleasure -- jetliners, cruise ships, or buses. People might take pleasure trips late this summer, but those will be shorter than usual -- and typically with the family car. People will long be expected to wear masks at concert halls, sports arenas, museums, historical sites, casinos, and theaters -- but everyone will be selling those masks as souvenirs. 

In entertainment I expect cinema to seek ways of doing movies on lower budgets because.. well, the theater owners will need to turn a profit on the ticket. I expect fewer blockbuster attempts except among those who already do those. Low budgets can imply lower-cost places in which to make movies (you would be surprised at how well parts of Michigan resemble non-urban parts of coastal California, and San Antonio and El Paso look like cities in California. Why do the movie theaters need to make a profit from showing the movie? Because they have made their profits off snacks, and it may be difficult to have people eating those safely with COVID-19 around. Low-budget movies can be entertaining...  

I expect the dead-tree edition of the book to largely vanish in favor of reader versions. I expect bookbinders and printers to get ravaged in employment.  Too bad; they had good jobs.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I recently tried to buy maps in several different gas stations. No luck. Does anybody make old fashioned paper maps anymore?

[David Horn]

(06-07-2020, 09:52 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recently tried to buy maps in several different gas stations.  No luck.  Does anybody make old fashioned paper maps anymore?

This is all I could find on short notice.

[pbrower2a]

(06-07-2020, 09:57 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-07-2020, 09:52 AM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: I recently tried to buy maps in several different gas stations.  No luck.  Does anybody make old fashioned paper maps anymore?

This is all I could find on short notice.

If you are an AAA (Automobile Association of America) member, then you can get paper maps easily as part of your membership. Otherwise, paper road maps are becoming obsolete. You can often pick them up at state rest areas

[Mickey123]

(03-19-2020, 02:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: William Weld dropping out of the Republican race for President (I considered him serious because he had been a State governor), the second key goes back to Trump or requires qualifications. I am tempted to believe that his performance in the 2020 primary in New Hampshire indicates an unusually-heavy level of dissent with the incumbent President within his Party -- much more than was the case with Clinton in 1996, Dubya in 2004, or Obama in 2012. I suspect that President Trump will face a third-party or independent nominee from a faction within his Party. Conservative dissent against Trump for the despotic style of decision-making of this President, the personality cult, the contempt for old decencies and legal norms, the adoption of Big Government as a means of intensifying power of the Leader, and the erratic foreign policy might not lead to the Democratic Party, but it can certainly go to a third-party nominee.

Any third-party or independent nominee who can draw 4% of the conservative vote away from Trump will destroy his chances of re-election. That is one key, and this (third party alternative) key can easily become relevant. It has not appeared yet.

This isn't possible.

It's already too late to get onto the ballot in many states, and the process of getting onto the ballot takes too long in the others where the deadline hasn't yet been reached.  Some theoretical third party candidate would have to be a write in candidate.  Nine of the states do not even allow write in candidates for president, and those that do mostly have filing deadlines which will be running out or have run out.

The only way the election is not Trump against Biden is if one of them is incapacitated or dies, in which case their party is allowed to choose a new candidate.

[David Horn]

(06-07-2020, 11:46 PM)Mickey123 Wrote:

(03-19-2020, 02:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: William Weld dropping out of the Republican race for President (I considered him serious because he had been a State governor), the second key goes back to Trump or requires qualifications. I am tempted to believe that his performance in the 2020 primary in New Hampshire indicates an unusually-heavy level of dissent with the incumbent President within his Party -- much more than was the case with Clinton in 1996, Dubya in 2004, or Obama in 2012. I suspect that President Trump will face a third-party or independent nominee from a faction within his Party. Conservative dissent against Trump for the despotic style of decision-making of this President, the personality cult, the contempt for old decencies and legal norms, the adoption of Big Government as a means of intensifying power of the Leader, and the erratic foreign policy might not lead to the Democratic Party, but it can certainly go to a third-party nominee.

Any third-party or independent nominee who can draw 4% of the conservative vote away from Trump will destroy his chances of re-election. That is one key, and this (third party alternative) key can easily become relevant. It has not appeared yet.

This isn't possible.

It's already too late to get onto the ballot in many states, and the process of getting onto the ballot takes too long in the others where the deadline hasn't yet been reached.  Some theoretical third party candidate would have to be a write in candidate.  Nine of the states do not even allow write in candidates for president, and those that do mostly have filing deadlines which will be running out or have run out.

The only way the election is not Trump against Biden is if one of them is incapacitated or dies, in which case their party is allowed to choose a new candidate.

I think you both miss the most likely effect: disinterest.  The GOP relies on high turn out, but Trump is now depressing many of his most likely voters who, not willing to vote for Biden or any other Democrat, will just stay home.  That will impact the Senate and House races too.

[pbrower2a]

We are going to see a large "Republicans for Biden" activity.