Blogtrek

Spain and the Lichtman Keys

First Trainattack occurs, the 10 bombs on 4 trains on 2004 March 11 that killed 200 people in Madrid. Then the elections come, and Jose Maria Aznar is thrown out in favor of Socialist Jose Zapatero. Some people are thinking that the terrorists swung the election in Spain, so they may try it in the US. Barbara Stock has gone out as far as to say that there certainly will be a terrorist attack between now and Election Day in the US.

Is that really the case? Maybe the Lichtman Key theory can help. This theory says that there are 13 keys or questions to ask of the situation before an election, and that if five of these or less are false, then the incumbent party wins, and if six or more are false, then the challenging party wins. If terrorists can swing an election, it is because they change the values of the keys.

Let's go over the keys and find out what the chances are:

1. After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Not any more, in either country.
2. There is no serious contest for the incumbent-party nomination. I don't see how a terrorist attack can create a new candidate for President.
3. The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. No changing of this, provided the sitting president remains sitting.
4. There is no significant third party or independent campaign. Same as 2.
5. The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. This is possible, but requires a huge attack, on the scale of Planeattack or greater.
6. Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. Same as 5.
7. The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. Possibly, but this probably would work against the terrorists.
8. There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Terrorists could cause social unrest if they act cleverly enough.
9. The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. Why stage a terrorist attack when planting a factoid in some official's ear does a better job of creating a scandal?
10. The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. This is for certain. A terrorist attack is a military failure.
11. The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. Possibly, but again works against the terrorists.
12. The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Terrorism can't change the charisma of a person; it is possible that the person could be replaced with one who is charismatic. Right now I am saying no effect.
13. The challenging-party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Same as with 12.

This means that only keys 5, 6, 8, and 10 can be reasonably changed by terrorists.

How about applying the key theory to Spain? It's not a perfect fit, but it may give some illumination. Here is what I found with Aznar as the incumbent:

1. Stands. Aznar won the last election by huge majorities and he seemed to be popular.
2. Stands. I have heard of no challenge to Aznar. Rajoy is more like a vice-president.
3. Stands. Aznar is the incumbent, regardless of terrorists.
4. Stands. I heard of no third parties in Spain.
5. Fails. Unemployment is 11.7%. That tells me the economy is not good.
6. Fails. It has not improved much recently. Unemployment has been bad the past few years, averaging 12%.
7. Fails. Aznar has not made any important changes that has caused world notice.
8. Stands. I have heard of no unrest in Spain.
9. Stands. There is no scandal involving the Aznar administration.
10. Fails. Trainattack.
11. Fails. Sending troops to Iraq is not a military success.
12. Fails. Aznar is not charismatic.
13. Stands. Zapatero is a nice-looking guy but I haven't heard of any heart throbs or Peronista type excitement involving him.

Six keys failed. Hence the Aznar government was defeated. What if Trainattack had not occurred? Then Key 10 would have stood, and hence Aznar's successor, Rajoy, would have been elected. So yes, the terrorists did change the outcome. That forebodes ill for other supporters of Bush's invasion. If an attack can change an election, they will be emboldened to attack elsewhere.

But in the US? Because of what happened in Spain, is a terrorist attack likely here? I am not sure, since I don't know what the terrorists know or how they operate. But if the keys are any factor in their decision, I don't think so. Why not? It is because Bush has won keys 1, 2, 3, 11, and 13; lost keys 5, 10, 12 and 7; probably has keys 4, 8, and 9, and key 5 is favoring Bush but is wobbling severely. Note carefully that Key 10, military failure, is already down because of Planeattack, and if another attack occurs, that does not make it count twice; it will have no effect. The terrorists would have to tamper with keys 4, 5, 8, and 9, and those are harder to deal with. So I don't think a terrorist attack will affect the election results. It still looks like a victory for Bush, and terrorists can't change that. So I think there will be no terrorist attack for the rest of the year.

Let me know if I have any of the facts about Spain wrong.