DaytonDailyNews.com

site web

OK, here's the call: The Democrats win the presidency.

What about the possible Democratic divisions caused by an endless, tooth-and-nail fight for the party's nomination? No biggie.

For 20 years, this column has covered the record of a predictive system that has arguably never been wrong. It predicted the 1988 victory of George H.W. Bush, when he had been way behind in the polls month after month. It predicted George W. Bush's victory in 2004 in January, though the polls were even through that year, and everybody else was trying to tell you that the outcome depended upon future events.

On to 2008. Last October, the system's creator, Allan Lichtman, a professor at Washington's American University, was reported in this space to be saying that the year looked Democratic, pending only some "cataclysmic" change in circumstances.

No cataclysm has happened.

Well, one maybe. When I reported that, I predicted that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. But, as I made clear then, that was me, not Lichtman, not the system.

Today's column is agnostic as to whom the Democrats will nominate. For purposes of the general-election prediction, it doesn't matter.

The system — outlined in an adjacent box — is not as complicated as it looks. It is basically, though not entirely, about how the country and the government are doing.

Is there concrete, major success or failure in the largest realms? If there's enough success, then independent voters will split in favor of the incumbent party, which will win.

(Note the factors that are absent, that do not determine who wins: who has Karl Rove or some other vaunted strategist; who goes negative or has the most money; who has the best running mate; what happens in the outside world in October. In short, all the stuff the "experts" prattle about. It's not about the campaign. It's not about ephemera. It's about the state of the nation.)

Of the 13 factors the systems considers, seven now favor the Democrats. Only six are needed for it to win.

Specifically, the Democrats have recently increased their numbers in Congress. (This suggests that the public has not been satisfied with things on the Republican watch).

And the Democrats do not have to confront a sitting president (and deal with the experience issue that raises).

Meanwhile, the economy has been growing at about 2.7 percent a year during this term, as opposed to 3.2 percent during the previous eight years. That's three keys.

Also, Bush has failed to enact any major change in national direction in his second term. (In all the keys where the word "major" is used, it means "MAJOR.")

He has not had any major foreign policy success. But there's the major failure: Iraq.

That's three more.

Let's pause over Iraq. The success of the surge is too small. It has not changed the fact that this country is bogged down in a frustrating war now 5 years old. No troops are coming home in victory. A "major" success is a victory in a war, or at least a turning point that looks like it has resolved a war.

The final Democratic key: the party's opponent won't be charismatic or a national hero.

Let's pause over John McCain as a possible "national hero." Many nominees have had striking military records without turning the key, including George H.W. Bush (the youngest fighter pilot in World War II) and John F. Kennedy (whose naval exploits became a movie).

The "national hero" key is about the relationship of the man and the country before he entered politics. Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses Grant turned the key.

Could anything happen to thwart the prediction of a Democratic victory now? Well, no predictive system is fool-proof. Someday the keys will simply be wrong.

But division in the Democratic Party isn't a problem. Internal divisions are a major problem only for an incumbent party. There are plenty of examples of divided parties winning when they didn't have the presidency.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower won the Republican nomination over Ohio's Robert Taft at a convention that began unsettled and divided.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't nominated by the Democrats until the fourth ballot.

In 1920, Ohio's Warren Harding wasn't even among the leading candidates for the Republican nomination going into the convention; he emerged after many ballots.

All those nominees won.

Why does one kind of division matter and not another?

Because division within the incumbent party suggests and reflects widespread dissatisfaction with the party's record; but for a party that doesn't have a presidential record, division carries no such meaning.

Some keys could still change, but the Democrats seem most likely to benefit. A recession gives the Democrats a key. And Barack Obama might emerge as a charismatic figure, ala Ronald Reagan.

People ask, what if another terrorist attack happens? Wouldn't that help the more hawkish or experienced candidate? More likely, it would have the usual effect of bad news: hurt the incumbent party. People might rally around the president, but only in relation to the enemy, not to the other party.

Anyway, the election doesn't come down to any one key. It's a clear call.

Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the

Dayton Daily News

. He may be reached at 225-2288 or by e-mail at mgottlieb@DaytonDailyNews.com.

The keys to the presidency

Here are Allan Lichtman's "13 Keys to the Presidency" (to use the title of his first book on the subject).

The "keys" are phrased as statements that favor the re-election of the incumbent party. If six or more of the statements are untrue, the incumbent party is predicted to lose (the popular vote). There's nothing magic about the number six. That's just the way it works out.

The keys were derived from an analysis of every presidential election in the history of the current two-party system (that is, back to the Civil War). Specifically, Lichtman studied which factors have been most often present when the incumbent party has won.

Since being derived, the keys have been used to correctly predict the outcome of every presidential election, starting with 1984 (though there's a dispute about 1992). Also, applied retroactively, the system accurately "predicts" the outcome of every presidential election since the Civil War.

Key 1 (Party mandate): After the last midterm election, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm election.

Key 2 (Contest): There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination at the national convention. (Specifically, the standard is whether the nominee has two-thirds of the delegates at the start of the convention.)

Key 3 (Incumbency): The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.

Key 4 (Third party): There is no significant third-party or independent campaign.

Key 5 (Short-term economy): The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

Key 6 (Long-term economy): Per-capita economic growth during the current presidential term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

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

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

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

Key 10 (Foreign/military failure): The incumbent administration has suffered no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

Key 11 (Foreign/military success): The incumbent administration has achieved a major success in foreign or military affairs.

Key 12 (Incumbent charisma): The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

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