https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman Allan Jay Lichtman (/ˈlɪktmən/; born April 4, 1947) is an American historian who has taught at American University in Washington, D.C. since 1973. Lichtman created the Keys to the White House model, which he created with Soviet seismologist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981. The model uses 13 True/False criteria to predict whether the candidate of an incumbent party will win or lose the next election for the U.S. president.[1] He ran for the U.S. Senate seat from Maryland in 2006, finishing in sixth place in the Democratic primary. Lichtman authored the 2017 book The Case for Impeachment, laying out multiple arguments for the impeachment of Donald Trump.[2][3][4] Born Allan Jay Lichtman April 4, 1947 (age 75) Brooklyn, New York, U.S. Nationality American Alma mater Harvard University Brandeis University **Political party Democratic** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman#Early_life Lichtman was born in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn in New York City. He graduated from Stuyvesant High School. Lichtman received his B.A. degree from Brandeis University in history in 1967, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude while also running track and wrestling for the school. In 1973, Lichtman received his Ph.D. from Harvard University as a Graduate Prize Fellow, also in history.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman#External_links Categories: 1947 births20th-century American Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Lichtman's_prediction_record Lichtman's prediction record **Using the 13 keys, Lichtman has correctly predicted the winner of every American presidential election since 1984 with the exception of the election of 2000.** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#The_13_Keys The Keys to the White House is a checklist of thirteen true/false statements that pertain to the circumstances surrounding a presidential election. When five or fewer of the following statements are false, the incumbent party candidate is predicted to win the election. When six or more are false, the incumbent party is predicted to lose.[1] Midterm gains: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. No primary contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Incumbent seeking re-election: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. No third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Strong short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Strong long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Major policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. No social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. No scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. No foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Major foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Charismatic incumbent: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Uncharismatic challenger: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Overview By "incumbent party", Lichtman means the party to which the incumbent president belongs. In the 2016 election, the Democratic Party was the incumbent party because then-President Barack Obama was a Democrat. Obama was in his second term and was thus ineligible for re-election, so Hillary Clinton ran as the incumbent party candidate. Donald Trump was the nominee of the Republican Party and thus the challenging party candidate. Some of these Keys can be judged using objective metrics, such as economic growth, and some of these Keys are of rather subjective nature, such as candidate charisma. In the latter case, a forecaster must evaluate the circumstances of all past elections together so that his judgments are at least consistent if not objective. He must then observe how his judgments retroactively predict historical election outcomes. If his judgments show no correlation with success or failure, then he must refine his subjective standards until they are predictive of success or failure. Once his subjective standards are so calibrated, the forecaster can then make reliable predictions for future elections.[2] Key 2 (no primary contest) is true if the incumbent party nominee wins at least two-thirds of the total delegate vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention. **Of the 13 Keys, this Key is the single best predictor of an election outcome.** Conversely, if there is competition for the challenging party nomination, it does not hurt the challenging party's election chances.[3] With respect to Key 4, a third party is a political party other than the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Most American presidential elections since 1860 have effectively been binary contests between Democrats and Republicans, as no third party has come close to winning.[4] If a third party is unusually popular, it signals major discontent with the performance of the incumbent party, and therefore counts against them. Key 4 is turned false when a third party candidate is likely to win 5% or more of the popular vote.[4] Key 7 (major policy change) is true if the incumbent president redirects the course of government or enacts a major policy change that has broad effects on the country's commerce, welfare, or outlook. It does not matter whether the change is popular with the public, nor does it matter what ideological mold it was cast from. Examples include Abraham Lincoln abolishing slavery and Franklin D. Roosevelt enacting the New Deal.[1] This Key often correlates with other Keys: a president who fails to take vigorous action during a time of national crisis might prolong an economic recession, which in turn could lead to social unrest and his party losing seats in the House of Representatives. One case in point is Herbert Hoover and his handling of the Great Depression.[5] Key 8 (no social unrest) is turned false when there is widespread violent unrest that is either sustained or leaves critical issues unresolved by the time of the election campaign, which makes the voters worry that the fabric of the nation is coming apart. The civil war of 1861-1865, the anti-war riots of 1968, and the protests of 2020 triggered by the murder of George Floyd were all severe and widespread enough to turn this Key false. The 1992 Los Angeles riots sparked by the beating of Rodney King were too localized to turn this Key false.[5] Key 9 (no major scandal) is turned false when there is bipartisan recognition of serious impropriety, as the voting public ignores allegations of wrongdoing that appear to be the product of partisan politicking. While the Watergate scandal began during Richard Nixon's first term, it did not affect his re-election bid in 1972 because at the time, the voting public thought the fuss was just a partisan ploy by the Democrats (Nixon was a Republican). After Nixon's re-election, new information about the incident emerged that raised concerns among Republicans as well, and the Watergate affair thus turned into a full-blown scandal that contributed to the Republicans' loss to the Democrats in 1976.[6] A charismatic candidate, as it pertains to Keys 12 and 13, is a candidate with an extraordinarily persuasive or dynamic personality that gives him or her very broad appeal. Lichtman considers James G. Blaine, William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama to have been charismatic candidates. Having studied the political careers of all historical presidential candidates, Lichtman found that these seven men had charisma that was exceptional enough to make a measurable difference in their political fortunes. By contrast, Donald Trump had an intense appeal with only a narrow slice of the electorate.[7] It is also possible for candidates to lose charisma: Barack Obama exuded charisma in the 2008 election, but he failed to achieve the same connection with the public in 2012. As for being a "national hero", the candidate must be seen by the public as having played a critical role in the success of some national endeavour. Lichtman considers Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower to have been national heroes, both great war leaders.[8] Lichtman believes that John Glenn, the third American in space and first to complete an orbit around the Earth, would have qualified as a national hero had he run for President shortly after his spaceflight in 1962.[9]