Would you bet against him? This historian correctly predicted all but one US presidential elections, and he thinks Harris will win

Nevin Al Sukari - Sana'a - US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris meets with local union members and their families at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 9 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 2, 2024. — AFP pic

BETHESDA (United States), Sept 10 — Forget the polls, ditch the data and stop sending journalists to swing-state diners to interview undecided voters: historian Allan Lichtman already knows who is going to win the US presidential election.

“Harris will win,” Lichtman confidently announced to AFP.

He was speaking at his home in the leafy Washington suburb of Bethesda shortly after unveiling his much-discussed, once-every-four-years White House prediction, based on what he calls the “13 keys” method.

It can be easy to dismiss Lichtman’s signature methodology as just another gimmick in the endless, drawn-out “horse race” style coverage of US elections — where journalists, pollsters and pundits are constantly trying to see who is up and who is down.

But the American University history professor has answers for his critics — and a track record that’s hard to beat, having correctly called all but one election since 1984.

Lichtman pays no attention to opinion polls.

Instead, his predictions are based on a series of true-or-false propositions applied to the current presidential administration. If six or more of these “keys” are false, the election will go to the out-of-power challenger — in this case, Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Sage of Bethesda?

One of the keys, for example, posits that the president’s party won seats in the most recent midterm elections. The Democrats actually lost control of the House in the 2022 midterms, meaning this particular key is termed “false,” tipping the scales toward Trump.

A few more keys break Trump’s way: President Joe Biden stepped down, meaning Democrats lost the key which determines the “incumbency,” a vital advantage.

Biden’s vice president and replacement as nominee, Kamala Harris, is surging on optimism among party faithful. But Lichtman rules that she does not qualify for another of the keys, which is being a charismatic, “once-in-a-generation” candidate in the style of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt.

More points to Trump, yes. But after that the keys start breaking in rapid succession for Harris.

For example, the Biden administration’s massive environment and infrastructure legislation ticks the box for the key requiring a “major policy change” by the current White House.

Historian and American University professor Allan Lichtman answers questions during an interview with AFP in Bethesda, Maryland, on September 7, 2024. — AFP pic

Another key for Harris is the exit of fringe independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

She also satisfies the key demanding lack of major scandal.

Do the math and it turns out that only three keys are falling for Trump. But to be declared the presumptive winner, he would have needed six.

And there’s another key which could go Harris’s way, if the administration reaches a ceasefire and hostage release in Gaza.

It’s a move that would likely require Democrats to push harder against the Israeli government — sure to cause strain among poll-obsessed advisors in a party trying to straddle a base that is heavily divided over the issue. Yet, a ceasefire would mean the Democrats actually delivered a policy achievement, Lichtman argues, and deliver one of the keys on foreign policy.

“I don’t like to speculate, because the devil is in the details, but that could be seen as a big success,” he said.

Forget the ‘noise’

Critics of the “13 keys” home in on the speculative nature of some of the true-false propositions. What is a charismatic leader, for example?

Yet the sage of Bethesda, as some have dubbed him, is well-versed in arguing his case.

“I’ve been doing this for 40 years. I think I’ve heard every conceivable question,” he said. “‘Aren’t your keys subjective?’ I obviously have an answer to that — they’re not subjective, they’re judgmental.

“We’re dealing with human beings. Historians make judgments all the time, and the judgments are very tightly constrained.”

Amid the “noise” of national political punditry, Lichtman argues, presidential elections are a simple “vote up or down on the strength and performance of the White House party.”

In that way, his method is anti-horse race — focused on good governance rather than campaigns, since in reality “we forget virtually anything a candidate has to say.”

The one election where Lichtman’s calculations did not predict the president was the 2000 victory of George W. Bush. Lichtman can defend his record by pointing out that this was a legally complicated nail-biter in which Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush took victory courtesy of a Supreme Court decision. — AFP