[2][3][4] Some of the items on the checklist involve qualitative judgment, and therefore the system relies heavily on the knowledge and analytical skill of whoever attempts to apply it.
Lichtman also noticed that even if the president did not seek re-election, his successes and failures would help or hinder the prospects of the nominee of his party: these insights shaped how he and Keilis-Borok conducted their research.
[19] The system consists of 13 true/false statements pertaining to circumstances surrounding a presidential election, with an answer of "true" always favoring the incumbent party.
Additionally, if the incumbent party performs poorly, a large loss of House seats can also affect the president's ability to enact policy, which can result in other keys turning false.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party won the popular vote on 23 of the 28 occasions when key 2 was true, losing the Electoral College in 1888 and 2000, with the exceptions being in 1932, 1960, 1992, 2008, and 2020.
[24][25] Lichtman says an incumbent president seeking re-election has several advantages, such as the ability to set the national agenda, and will often attract much more media attention than a non-incumbent.
American presidential elections since 1860 have largely been de facto binary contests between Democrats and Republicans, as no third party candidate has come close to winning.
[29][30][31][32] As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won the popular vote on 25 of the 31 occasions that key 5 was true, losing the Electoral College in 1888, 2000 and 2016, with the exceptions being in 1860, 1892, 1912, 1952, 1968, and 1976.
As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won the popular vote on 17 of the 22 occasions that key 6 was true, losing the Electoral College in 1888, 2000, and 2016, with the exceptions being in 1860, 1892, 1912, 1968 and 1980.
The incumbent party has won the popular vote on 17 of the 21 occasions when both economy keys were true, losing the Electoral College in 1888, 2000, and 2016, with the exceptions being in 1860, 1892, 1912, and 1968.
This key often correlates with other keys: for example, Herbert Hoover's failure to take vigorous action during the Great Depression prolonged the Depression, which in turn led to widespread social unrest, Hoover's Republicans having a large loss of House seats in the midterm elections, and the nomination of a charismatic challenger in Franklin D.
[34] By contrast, the voters ignore allegations of wrongdoing that appear to be the product of partisan politicking or are not directly linked to the president: for example, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868 and the Iran-Contra affair during Ronald Reagan's second term did not turn the key false.
Lichtman cites the attack on Pearl Harbor under Franklin D. Roosevelt, the botched Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy, North Vietnamese victory in the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford, and the Iranian hostage crisis under Jimmy Carter as failures that turned the key false.
By contrast, failed diplomatic initiatives, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower's failure to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union, will not turn the key false.
Key 11 (major foreign or military success) is turned true if an achievement is seen as improving the prestige and interests of the United States.
Lichtman cites the formation of NATO under Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower negotiating an armistice to the Korean War, John F. Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the killing of Osama bin Laden under Barack Obama as successes that turned the key true.
[20] As of the 2020 election, the incumbent party has won re-election on 17 of the 21 occasions when it achieved a major success in foreign or military affairs, with the exceptions being in 1920, 1952, 1980 and 1992.
Lichtman defines a charismatic candidate as one with an extraordinarily persuasive or dynamic personality that gives him or her broad appeal that extends to voters outside their party's base.
Having studied the political careers of all historical presidential candidates, Lichtman found that James G. Blaine, William Jennings Bryan (in 1896 and 1900), Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama (in 2008) had the charisma that was exceptional enough to make a measurable difference in their political fortunes.
[36] Lichtman has said that it is possible for candidates to lose their charismatic status: William Jennings Bryan was seen as charismatic and inspirational in 1896 and 1900 but his voter appeal had faded and he had become the subject of frequent press ridicule in 1908, while Barack Obama exuded charisma in 2008 but failed to have the same success in connecting with the voters in 2012 due to high levels of political polarization.
[44] Gore won the popular vote, but Republican nominee George W. Bush was declared the winner of the Electoral College and was elected president.
[47][44] Lichtman further argues that Gore was the rightful Electoral College winner of the 2000 election, and lost because of improper ballot counting in Florida.
Lichtman has claimed (after the 2016 election) that since the contested result in 2000, he began predicting the outcome of the Electoral College rather than the popular vote.
[54] He attributes this to three unprecedented events: the Democrats "trashing" their sitting president after the first presidential debate, their eventual nominee not participating in any primaries or caucuses, and "a general belief in disinformation during the election cycle being at a very high level".
Lichtman has been credited with a correct prediction for 2016 by The New York Times,[74] The Guardian,[3] The Washington Post,[67] Wisconsin Public Radio,[75] The Arizona Republic,[76] Washingtonian,[72] and Brandeis University.
[7] James E. Campbell, a professor of political science at the University at Buffalo, has criticized the keys for their subjectivity, noting that they are often judged "in the eye of the beholder.
As an example, McArdle applied them to Herbert Hoover in 1932, writing, "Unlike the economic models that rely on external metrics, perception is doing a lot of the work here.
[80] Julia Azari, a professor at Marquette University, believes the keys are useful as a starting point for assessment of the race, but that they do not constitute a "model.
"[11] Silver has pointed to historical data to critique the accuracy of Lichtman's model, showing that the margin of victory or defeat can vary significantly for elections with the same number of false keys.
[82] Lichtman responded to Silver's critiques, stating that the keys system is grounded in a theoretical model and is not the result of random data-mining.