The Keys to the White House

The Keys to the White House, also known as the 13 keys, is a historically based prediction system for attempting to predict the outcome of contemporary presidential elections in the United States. It was developed by American historian Allan Lichtman and Russian geophysicist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981, adapting methods that Keilis-Borok designed for earthquake prediction.
The system is a thirteen-point checklist that uses true-or-false statements: when five or fewer items on the checklist are false, the nominee of the incumbent party is predicted to win the election, but when six or more items on the checklist are false, the nominee of the challenging party is predicted to win. Some of the items on the checklist involve qualitative judgment, and therefore the system relies heavily on the knowledge and analytical skill of whoever attempts to apply it.
Using the keys, Lichtman has successfully predicted nine of the last eleven presidential elections held since 1984, often making his prediction months, or sometimes years in advance. However, he incorrectly predicted that Kamala Harris would win the 2024 election, and the nature and accuracy of his predictions for Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016 have been disputed.
Lichtman argues that his model demonstrates that American voters select their next president according to how well the United States was governed in the preceding four years and that election campaigns have little meaningful effect on American voters. If voters are satisfied with the governance of the country, they will re-elect the president or whoever from his party runs in his stead. If they are dissatisfied, they will transfer the presidency to the challenging party.

Development

While attending a dinner party at Caltech in 1981, Allan Lichtman met Vladimir Keilis-Borok, a leading Russian geophysicist. Both men were Fairchild Scholars at Caltech. Keilis-Borok was interested in applying his prediction techniques to liberal-democratic political systems. This was not possible for him to do within the Soviet Union, which was a one-party state, and a guest at the party referred him to Lichtman. Lichtman attracted Keilis-Borok's interest because he was a quantitative historian who mathematically analyzed trends in American history. Lichtman agreed to help Keilis-Borok apply his prediction techniques to American presidential elections.
Lichtman and Keilis-Borok examined data collated from every presidential election from 1860 to 1980 to identify factors that seemed predictive of election outcomes. From his own studies of American presidential elections, Lichtman had come to the conclusion that voters are in fact not swayed by election campaigns and instead vote according to how well the president has performed in office. Lichtman also noticed that even if the president did not seek re-election, his successes and failures would help or hinder the prospects of the nominee of his party: these insights shaped how he and Keilis-Borok conducted their research.
Lichtman and Keilis-Borok published their prediction model in a 1981 paper: at this stage, their system had 12 keys, including keys that considered the number of terms the incumbent party had held the presidency, and if the incumbent party had won a popular vote majority in the previous election. Another four keys were ultimately cut that considered political ideology, the dominant party of the era, if there was a serious contest for the challenging party nomination, and if the country was in wartime or peacetime. The system was later modified to 13 keys, with the tenure key and the popular vote majority key both replaced by the party mandate key and the foreign/military failure and success keys being added.
Some of the keys are objective, such as economic growth, while some are judgmental, such as candidate charisma. Judgements are constrained by tight definitions of the keys and that future calls on each key must be consistent with all past calls.

Thirteen keys

The system consists of 13 true/false statements pertaining to circumstances surrounding a presidential election, with an answer of "true" always favoring the incumbent party.
If five or fewer keys are false, this indicates political stability and the incumbent party is predicted to win the election. If six or more are false, this indicates a political earthquake and the incumbent party is predicted to lose.

#	Name	Description
1	Party mandate	After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2	No primary contest	There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3	Incumbent seeking re-election	The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4	No third party	There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5	Strong short-term economy	The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6	Strong long-term economy	Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7	Major policy change	The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8	No social unrest	There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9	No scandal	The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10	No foreign or military failure	The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11	Major foreign or military success	The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12	Charismatic incumbent	The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13	Uncharismatic challenger	The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Party mandate (1)

Key 1 is turned true if the incumbent party has achieved a net gain of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the previous presidential and midterm elections combined. For example, Lichtman refers to the 1982 U.S. House elections in the middle of Ronald Reagan's first term when the Republicans lost 27 seats: as the Republicans had gained 35 seats in 1980, this left them with a net gain of eight seats, turning the key true.
Lichtman says that midterm elections reflect the performance of the incumbent party and are an indicator of nationwide electoral trends. Additionally, if the incumbent party performs poorly, a large loss of House seats can also affect the president's ability to enact policy, which can result in other keys turning false.
As of the 2024 election, the incumbent party has won the popular vote on 12 of the 14 occasions when it achieved a net gain of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, compared to the previous midterm elections, losing the Electoral College in 2000, with the exceptions being in 1860 and 1952. The incumbent party has lost the popular vote on 15 of the 28 occasions that key 1 was false, winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College in 1888 and 2016 and winning the Electoral College in 1876, with the exceptions being in 1872, 1900, 1916, 1924, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1964, 1972, 1996 and 2012.

No primary contest (2)

Key 2, the first of two control variables, is turned true if the incumbent party nominee wins at least two-thirds of the total delegate vote on the first ballot at the nominating convention, with no deep and vocal party divisions.
Lichtman says the incumbent party's ability to unite behind a consensus nominee is reflective of successful governance, whereas a contested nomination is indicative of internal party strife caused by weak governance.
Notable primary contests that turned the key false occurred in 1860, 1896, 1912, and in 1968.
As of the 2024 election, the incumbent party won the popular vote on 23 of the 29 occasions when key 2 was true, losing the Electoral College in 1888 and 2000, with the exceptions being in 1932, 1960, 1992, 2008, 2020 and 2024. The incumbent party has lost the popular vote on 11 of the 13 occasions that key 2 was false, winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College in 2016 and winning the Electoral College in 1876, with the exception being in 1880. Of the 13 keys, Lichtman has said that this key is the single best predictor of an election outcome.
Conversely, a serious contest for the challenging party's nomination does not harm its nominee's election prospects, as a weak incumbent party often results in a crowded challenging party primary field in anticipation of a winnable general election. Landslide challenging party popular vote victories coming after a serious contest for the party's nomination include those of Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Democrat Woodrow Wilson in 1912, Republican Warren G. Harding in 1920, and Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.

Incumbent seeking re-election (3)

Lichtman says an incumbent president seeking re-election has several advantages, such as the ability to set the national agenda, and will often attract much more media attention than a non-incumbent. The president can also benefit from the rally 'round the flag effect in times of crisis.
Lichtman also says that presidents running for re-election will rarely face the strongest candidates from the challenging party, as they typically refrain from running unless the president is seen as very vulnerable.
As of the 2024 election, in which the incumbent president did not run for re-election, the incumbent won the popular vote on 18 of 25 occasions when they ran again, losing the Electoral College in 1888. Of the 16 open seat elections, the incumbent party lost the popular vote on nine occasions, winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College in 2000 and 2016 and winning the Electoral College in 1876, with the exceptions being in 1868, 1880, 1908, 1928, and 1988.
The incumbency key, the other control variable, also correlates with key 2, as it usually guarantees there will be no serious contest for the incumbent party's nomination. As of the 2024 election, when the incumbent president both ran for re-election and faced no serious contest for the nomination, thus turning key 2 true, the president won 18 of 21 times, losing the Electoral College in 1888, with the exceptions being in 1932, 1992, and 2020.
If there is a serious primary contest to the president, it signifies major discontent within their own party and thus the broader electorate. On all four occasions when the president was running for re-election and key 2 was turned false, in 1892, 1912, 1976, and 1980, the president was defeated.