The 13 Keys to the Presidency: Predictive Genius or Just a Lucky Guess?

Allan Lichtman’s “13 Keys to the White House” system has long been heralded as the Nostradamus of presidential election predictions. Created in 1981 alongside Vladimir Keilis-Borok, a Soviet geophysicist, the model was based on earthquake prediction techniques. Yes, you read that right: earthquake prediction. Because nothing says, “Let’s figure out U.S. voter behavior,” like tectonic plate shifts.

The “keys” are a series of 13 true-or-false statements, with “true” always favoring the incumbent party. If six or more statements are false, the challenger is predicted to win. Lichtman has used this checklist to claim an impressive record: nine correct predictions out of eleven elections. But scratch the surface, and the system starts to look more like a lucky magic trick than a crystal ball.

Let’s explore what the 13 keys are, how they supposedly work, and where they’ve gone hilariously off track. Spoiler alert: the real question isn’t whether the model is flawed but whether its creator will ever admit it.

The 13 Keys: Earthquake Science Meets Political Theater

Here’s the gist of the system: the keys evaluate factors like whether the economy is booming, if the incumbent is charismatic, or if there’s a major scandal. Some are based on clear, measurable metrics—like GDP growth—while others are so subjective they could double as personality test questions on a dating app. (Are you charismatic? Check “true” for swiping right!)

Here’s the full list:

1. Party Mandate: Did the incumbent party gain House seats in the midterms?
2. No Primary Contest: Was there an uncontested nomination for the incumbent party?
3. Incumbent Seeking Re-election: Is the current president running again?
4. No Third Party: Are voters ignoring some flashy outsider like a Ross Perot?
5. Strong Short-Term Economy: Is the economy not tanking right before the election?
6. Strong Long-Term Economy: Has economic growth been steady for years?
7. Major Policy Change: Has the incumbent achieved a major legislative or policy victory?
8. No Social Unrest: Is the country not literally on fire?
9. No Scandal: Did the incumbent avoid Watergate-level impropriety?
10. No Foreign/Military Failure: No botched wars or hostage crises, please.
11. Major Foreign/Military Success: A big win abroad, like killing Osama bin Laden.
12. Charismatic Incumbent: Is the sitting president a rock star with broad appeal?
13. Uncharismatic Challenger: Is the opposing candidate boring, bland, or a national nobody?

The idea is that voters care less about campaign drama and more about whether the nation is stable and prosperous. According to Lichtman, if the party in power has done a good job, Americans reward them with four more years.

The Hits: Lichtman’s Brightest Moments

Lichtman nailed it when he predicted Ronald Reagan’s landslide re-election in 1984, despite polling showing a tight race early on. He correctly called George H.W. Bush’s victory in 1988 and Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012 when others doubted.

Perhaps his boldest call was Donald Trump’s shocking 2016 win. At a time when nearly every poll had Hillary Clinton in the lead, Lichtman pointed to six false keys for the Democrats and declared Trump the likely victor. It was a mic-drop moment for the “professor who doesn’t care about polls.”

The Misses: When the Keys Rusted Over

But for every hit, there’s a head-scratcher. In 2000, Lichtman predicted Al Gore would win. Gore did win the popular vote, but he lost the presidency to George W. Bush due to the Electoral College. Lichtman has since argued that his system only predicts the popular vote, even though, inconveniently, his public statements at the time didn’t specify that. Convenient, right?

Fast forward to 2024. Lichtman predicted a Kamala Harris victory over Donald Trump, an election Trump decisively won. Lichtman blamed “unprecedented events,” including Democrats “trashing” Joe Biden and nominating someone who didn’t even campaign. Translation: “Not my fault!”

So, Does It Actually Work?

Here’s where the model loses credibility. Critics, from Nate Silver to fellow academics, have pointed out three glaring issues:

1. Subjectivity Rules the Day: Some keys, like “charisma,” are so subjective that they’re practically useless. How do you define charisma in a world where Trump’s brashness and Biden’s empathy both appeal to different voters? Lichtman’s definition of charisma changes depending on who wins.
2. Selective Retconning: Lichtman’s model has evolved post-hoc. After Trump’s 2016 win, he suddenly claimed the keys predict the Electoral College, not just the popular vote, contradicting his earlier writings. Moving the goalposts much?
3. Overfitting the Data: The 13 keys were tailored to fit past elections. While they align neatly with history from 1860 to 1980, that doesn’t make them inherently predictive. Predicting history is easy when you already know the outcome.

The Trump Factor: A Tectonic Shift

Here’s the thing: Donald Trump is a political earthquake, and earthquakes don’t follow rules. He upended every norm of presidential politics, turning scandals into rallying cries and turning charisma into a polarizing spectacle. No prediction system could have anticipated how effectively Trump would weaponize division and disinformation to consolidate his base. The 13 Keys were built for a world of predictable politics. Trump is the demolition crew.

The Verdict: A Fun Party Trick, Not a Crystal Ball

While Lichtman deserves credit for his academic rigor and for making politics more interesting, his model is far from infallible. It thrives on post-hoc rationalization, subjectivity, and a willingness to gloss over its flaws. The 13 Keys are less a science and more an entertaining parlor game for political junkies.

In the age of Trump—and whatever chaos comes next—politics doesn’t fit neatly into 13 keys or any other checklist. As for Lichtman, maybe it’s time to stick to earthquakes. At least tectonic plates don’t blame disinformation when they misbehave.

Further Reading and References

1. Nate Silver, “Why Lichtman’s ‘Keys to the White House’ Aren’t a Great Predictor,” FiveThirtyEight, November 2020. FiveThirtyEight
2. Allan Lichtman, “The Keys to the White House: A Surefire Guide to Predicting the Next President,” Rowman & Littlefield, 2020.
3. The Atlantic, “Did Lichtman Predict 2016 Correctly, Or Is He Just Lucky?” October 2016. The Atlantic

Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece that provides analysis, commentary, and educational insight on recent news topics, informed by reliable sources. It reflects the author’s sole opinion, and neither the newspaper nor its website, as a news, commentary, and educational platform, bears responsibility for any misinterpretation or consequences arising from this analysis. For the latest breaking news and official results, refer to the news organizations cited above. This article does not constitute primary reporting.

Recommended Video

Watch Allan Lichtman Spar with Cenk Uygur on Kamala Harris’s Defeat