In 1981, Professor Allan Lichtman developed an innovative model for predicting the outcomes of U.S. presidential elections, based on 13 “keys,” called The Keys to the White House. This model assesses the state of American politics and attempts to predict the election winner. According to Lichtman, the keys take a broad view of politics, independent of polls or campaign events. They analyze factors such as strong short-term and strong long-term economy, the presence of strong third-party candidates, the success of the president’s party in the previous midterm congressional elections, whether the incumbent president is running for re-election, the presence of strong primary challengers in his party’s primaries, the charisma of both the incumbent and the challenger, foreign policy or military successes and failures, major policy change, persistent social unrest, and any political scandals tied to the administration. The 13 keys are a set of statements that can be answered with “True” or “False”. If at least eight of the keys are “True,” the candidate of the party currently in the White House is predicted to win another term. Otherwise, the challenger is expected to win.
Lichtman emphasizes that his model is not based on polls but on how voters perceive the state of American politics. Only two keys are related to the candidates’ characteristics (charisma of the incumbent and the challenger). Therefore, voters are less concerned with candidates’ campaign statements or actions and more focused on the success or failure of the administration’s policies. If voters are satisfied with the current administration, they grant the incumbent another term; otherwise, they opt for the challenger. Responding to criticism that some keys are subjective, Lichtman insists his assessments are fact-based.
Up to 2024, Lichtman’s model successfully predicted the outcomes of nine out of the last ten presidential elections. The sole exception was the 2000 election when he predicted Al Gore’s victory. This race, however, was exceptionally close, and George W. Bush ultimately won despite receiving fewer popular votes than Gore. Public interest in Lichtman surged after he correctly predicted Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, despite polls favoring Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by an average margin of 3.2%. Since then, he has been a regular media guest, earning the nickname “Nostradamus of Presidential Elections”. In his analysis for the 2024 election, Lichtman forecasted a win for Democratic candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris.
However, the actual results couldn’t have been further from his prediction. Donald Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College, preventing Harris from becoming the first woman to lead the world’s most powerful nation. After several days of avoiding the media, Lichtman reappeared, admitting his error and listing factors he blamed for the misprediction – including disinformation, the influence of Elon Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter) and Fox News spreading fake news, and what he described as misogynist, racist, xenophobic and chauvinistic attitudes among American voters unwilling to elect a Black woman of Indian and Jamaican descent as president. Lichtman concluded his first post-election appearance by stating that while his model isn’t entirely flawed, he plans to reform the “keys” before the next election in four years.
A Misstep in the Keys or Misjudgment?
While disinformation, racism, and misogyny undoubtedly influenced some voters, blaming them as the primary reasons for Harris’s loss—and thus Lichtman’s erroneous prediction—is fundamentally flawed. The 13 keys model serves as a comprehensive evaluation of a presidential administration leading into an election, offering insight into various issues that matter to voters. The problem lies not in the keys themselves but in Lichtman’s interpretation of them for this election.
In a September interview with The New York Times, Lichtman predicted Harris’s victory based on eight “True” keys. Among other things, he concluded that both short- and long-term U.S. economic conditions were favorable, that Biden’s administration had achieved foreign policy success by rallying Western allies to impose sanctions on Russia and provide financial and military aid to Ukraine, and that the challenger – Donald Trump – lacked charisma. The “False” keys included two notable ones: the existence of a foreign policy/military failure (Israel’s war against Hamas) and whether the incumbent party’s candidate was charismatic (Lichtman determined that Harris, despite the early positive momentum of her campaign, lacked charisma).
However, Lichtman failed to see the broader picture – i.e., he has not done what he claims to be the contribution of his model. While economic indicators in the U.S. have improved in recent months compared to the start of Biden’s term, many citizens still feel the effects of high inflation and high gas and energy prices. Numerous polls reflected this, where voters consistently identified the economy as the primary issue. Categorizing both economic keys as favorable to Democrats based on raw numbers was a significant misjudgment. Another problematic key was the foreign policy/military success of Biden’s administration, of which Harris was a part. While the U.S. successfully united Western allies to aid Ukraine financially and militarily and imposed sanctions on Russia, the conflict remains unresolved and far from a favorable outcome for the administration. Thus, this key could hardly be deemed a success. The third key worth discussing is the challenger’s charisma. Trump’s personality continues to resonate with voters for the third consecutive election cycle. He enjoys consistent support within the Republican Party, averaging 90%.
The 13 keys model remains a refreshing approach during U.S. election cycles, standing out amidst the daily barrage of polling data. It offers a unique perspective on various topics influencing voters’ lives, unaffected by campaign events. However, a closer examination reveals two major shortcomings. First, the answers to the keys’ questions are highly subjective, and Lichtman is the sole evaluator of each election cycle. This flaw has been highlighted by numerous critics, including pollsters and political scientists. The second issue lies in the equal weighting of all keys, producing binary results that can be reduced to 0s and 1s. The long-term and short-term economic conditions cannot realistically hold the same weight as the number of midterm seats won by the president’s party or the presence of a third-party candidate. The economy is consistently the most critical issue in any election cycle, while third-party candidates last significantly impacted elections in 1996.
If we analyze the broader political and economic landscape in the U.S. and apply Lichtman’s model without subjective interpretation, it becomes clear why Donald Trump won again despite the controversies surrounding him. By flipping just two economic keys, and the foreign policy/military success key to “False,” we end up with six negative keys, which, according to Lichtman’s model, spells defeat for any Democratic candidate.
