WASHINGTON—US history professor Allan Lichtman believes he has the secret to predicting who will win the vote in any US presidential election and he has the record since 1984 to prove it.“The 13 Keys to the White House”—a system he developed 27 years ago with mathematician Volodia Keilis-Borok—has been proven right in every US presidential race since then, Lichtman told Agence France Presse. The 13 keys comprise a set of variables that will indicate whether the US presidency will change party hands in the quadrennial contest, which takes place this year on Nov. 4. The true-or-false statements assess the conditions facing the incumbent political party—it’s President George W. Bush’s Republicans this time—on issues such as the candidate’s standing, party’s legislative power, national security, state of the economy, and level of charisma of the two major presidential candidates. Using these metrics, Lichtman called the 2008 presidential race as early as two and a half years ago. Before Barack Obama was even in the running, Lichtman told Foresight magazine in February 2006 that the Democrats would retake the White House. Winds of change “I could see the winds of change were blowing, based on the keys ... Long before the nomination contest unfolded, the Democrats could take a name out of a phone book and still win,” said Lichtman, who lectures on the history of US presidential elections at American University in Washington. For the incumbent party to lose the presidency, six or more of Lichtman’s 13 keys have to be false. In early 2006, Bush and the Republicans had eight falses, and the assessment remains the same today. This would indicate Republican candidate John McCain hardly has any chance, according to Lichtman. The 13 keys give no weight to the candidate’s vice presidential running mate, how his wife looks, or how the campaign goes. “The basic theory behind the whole system is that American elections are basically a verdict on the performance of the party holding the White House,” Lichtman explained. “The basic thesis is—it is governing, not campaigning, that counts. It’s why you can make these predictions before you even know who the nominees are.” 9 false keys For the outgoing Bush administration, Lichtman has counted nine false keys spelling failure on Nov. 4 for the Republicans: 1. After midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. False. 2. There was no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. True. 3. The incumbent party candidate is the current president. False. 4. There is no significant third-party or independent campaign. True. 5. The economy is not in recession during the campaign: Technically true, but Lichtman has counted this as a false because of the deep financial crisis. 6. Real per capita economic growth during the current president’s term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. False. 7. The incumbent government brings about major changes in national policy that improve the people’s lives. False. 8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term. True. 9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. True. 10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. False. 11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. False. 12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. False—Lichtman says “John McCain . . . is a national hero in the sense he performed heroically in a war, but to win that key you have to be a leader in war like (1953-61 President Dwight) Eisenhower.” 13. The candidate of the challenging party is not charismatic or a national hero. False. Unprecedented Lichtman acknowledged that as an African-American, Obama has made the Nov. 4 contest “an unprecedented situation” in US presidential showdowns. According to the history professor, however, the 2008 presidential race resembles that of 1980. Under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, who lost the race to Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, “you had a bad economy, difficulties in foreign affairs, with the Iran hostages crisis, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets, and the boycott of the Olympics,” Lichtman said. “The same thing with Bush. You have got a bad economy and you have difficulties in foreign affairs with the ongoing, unresolved war,” he added. In the 1980 race, Reagan had been trailing Carter in opinion polls as late as October but pulled off a landslide victory when voters went to the polls in November. Different case But Reagan’s case differs markedly from McCain’s—Reagan had a chance to distinguish himself from Carter in a debate televised only a week before the election, while McCain failed to score a knockout in his three debates with Obama. Some experts say only an extraordinary event—such as a major international crisis or a terrorist attack—could reverse trends against McCain’s favor. The most famous comeback in US presidential politics, often cited by candidates who are lagging behind, came in 1948 when Democrat Harry Truman managed to pull off an upset victory against Republican Thomas Dewey. A victorious Truman, who had trailed in opinion polls, took delight after his reelection holding up the Chicago Tribune newspaper that erroneously announced his opponent as the victor with the headline: “Dewey defeats Truman.” Lichtman, however, said a repeat of 1948 was highly unlikely. “Every candidate who is behind wants to tell you they’re Harry Truman. There hasn’t been a Harry Truman in 60 years,” he said. 8-point margin of victory Lichtman said the 13 keys had also allowed him to forecast the size of Obama’s victory over McCain. “I predicted two and a half years ago an 8-point margin. It could be pretty close (to that), maybe bigger.” Pundits and pollsters agree with Lichtman that Obama is the odds-on favorite to win, with McCain facing daunting prospects. But US presidential races are rife with unpredictable, even bizarre plot twists, according to Doug Usher, a pollster who worked on John Kerry’s unsuccessful campaign in 2004 against George W. Bush. “What is endlessly fascinating about US politics, you think about the most insane thing that could happen—and something even crazier happens,” Usher said. And sometimes opinion polls turn out to be wrong. During the battle for the Democratic party’s nomination, surveys showed Obama headed for victory in the New Hampshire primary but he ended up losing to Hillary Clinton. “For those of you who are feeling giddy, or cocky or think this is all set, I just have two words for you—New Hampshire,” Obama reminded his supporters. | 
