YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Springfield, MO

Log in Subscribe

Opinion: Who would have predicted the outcome of this election?

Posted online
Allan Lichtman did it.

The American University historian accurately predicted Donald Trump’s triumph in the presidential election. Well, sort of.

Lichtman had a streak going of projecting every presidential race since he called Ronald Reagan over Walter Mondale in 1984. Earlier this year, he forecasted Trump the victor, and this win would represent nine correct elections in a row.

The only hitch is Lichtman’s system is designed to predict the winner of the popular vote, meaning he gets credit for forecasting Al Gore’s popular vote victory in 2000.

In this case, Hillary Clinton was the popular winner by over 200,000 votes, according to The Associated Press. Since the electoral college called this one, maybe we put an asterisk on the victory for Lichtman.

Still, the question is how.

Lichtman boils it down to 13 keys, and he’s written a book about it. Read it for a full understanding – he released the 2016 edition in May: “Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House” – but his theory focuses on party performance rather than candidate influence.

“It’s not primarily candidates that turn elections. It is rather that elections turn on performance, how well the party holding the White House has governed the country,” Lichtman says in a 2012 briefing at American University in Washington, D.C.

With his study of every presidential election from 1860 to 1980, he starts by breaking down the keys to three categories: political, performance and personality.

He doesn’t care about voting groups, swing states and polls.

Here are Lichtman’s 13 keys to the White House, according to American.edu:

1. Party mandate – assessing the incumbent party’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Contest – whether the incumbent party has a serious contender for its nomination.

3. Incumbency – Is the incumbent-party candidate the sitting president?

4. Third party – Any significant third party or independent campaigns?

5. Short-term economy – Is the economy in a recession during the election campaign?

6. Long-term economy – considers real per-capita economic growth during the term compared with the previous two terms.

7. Policy change – Any major changes in the incumbent administration’s national policy?

8. Social unrest – Any sustained social unrest during the term?

9. Scandal – no major scandals to taint the administration.

10. Foreign/military failure – no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11. Foreign/military success – a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12. Incumbent charisma – whether the incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13. Challenger charisma – whether the challenging party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

Lichtman poses them in a true-false manner, and a true answer always favors the re-election of the party in power.

It takes six false answers to lose power in his prediction.

There you have it.

Turns out, this one was close for Lichtman, and it was undecided until Libertarian Gary Johnson was forecasted to earn at least 5 percent of the vote. That gave the incumbent party and Clinton the sixth false answer, and tipped his scale toward Trump. In reality, Johnson only received about 3 percent of the vote. Maybe that’s where Lichtman went wrong on the popular vote prediction.

Locally, campaign contributors haven’t fared so well in leading to the presidential winners. At Springfield Business Journal, reporters track the political donations of local businesspeople.

This year, contributions to Clinton, $95,000, doubled those to Trump, $47,000. Didn’t foretell the winner, but it did follow the popular vote trend, partly evidenced by Clinton’s 447 single contributions to Trump’s 48 in the city.

Four years ago, the top campaign donors in Springfield gave $15,000 toward President Barack Obama’s re-election, while over $40,000 from the highest spenders went to Mitt Romney. Again, following Springfield donations does not take us to the victor.

The Obama and Sen. John McCain race was much closer in 2008 – only about $4,000 separated the two. McCain led in contributions here but lost the race. It should be noted a fundraiser for Obama organized by former financial adviser Nadia Cavner netted a whopping $250,000 – well exceeding the $188,000 in individual donations to both candidates combined.

So following those breadcrumbs in recent history is not a good indicator. The short answer is the area’s longstanding conservative character, especially so in business and capitalistic philosophies.

But opinion polls, analyses and donations can only take us so far. In the polling booth is where it’s at.

Springfield Business Journal Editorial Director Eric Olson can be reached at eolson@sbj.net.

Comments

No comments on this story |
Please log in to add your comment
Editors' Pick
From the Ground Up: Republic Intermediate School

The Republic School District is on track to open its Intermediate School for fifth- and sixth-grade students for the 2025-26 academic year.

Most Read
Update cookies preferences