Obviously, there are spoilers below.At the end of the fourth season of the Netflix series House of Cards, President Frank Underwood, the most Machiavellian, murderous politician of our time, is in a serious mess. Journalists are starting to take seriously the allegations that he was involved in the overthrow of his predecessor. His Republican opponent is far ahead of him in polls. Terrorists have just executed an American captive. He has no way out.
It probably goes without saying that in the real world, Underwood would almost certainly lose the upcoming election, even with one of his two-steps-ahead methods up his sleeves. House of Cards is (hopefully) far, far from the real world, but assuming there actually was a President Underwood up for election in 2016, here's an analytical look at his actual chances.
The biggest myth about American elections is that they are a race between two candidates. They are not. They instead are a referendum on the party in power. The winner wins essentially based on how satisfied or disappointed the American electorate is in the incumbent administration. Underwood's short amount of time in office is certainly tumultuous, but he still has elements that favor him. The simplest factor in his favor is that incumbents are really hard to defeat. In the past 11 presidential cycles, only Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush lost their re-election bids. Underwood would join them.
Let's consider what "The Keys to the White House" would say about his chances. The Keys system was developed by American historian Allan Lichtman and Russian scientist Vladimir Keilis-Borok in 1981 to predict the popular vote winner of presidential elections using 13 true/false statements (or "keys") based on factors from every presidential race from 1860-1980. If six or more statements are false, the incumbent loses. If you're skeptical of this system, let me mention that it's been quite accurate: the model has accurately predicted every U.S. presidential election from 1984-2012.
Let's use the Keys to predict Underwood's chances of survival:
1. Party Mandate After the midterms, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
The timeline of the fictitious universe of House of Cards starts in 2013 during the Walker Administration. The Speaker of the House of Representatives at the time is Bob Birch (Larry Pine). In an early episode of season four, Underwood is addressing Congress during the State of the Union, and the Speaker is now a Republican. We can assume that the Democrats have lost control of the House of Representatives in 2014.
Verdict: False
2. Contest There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
The contested convention, something that almost always dooms the incumbent party, at least in recent history, is one of Underwood's biggest obstacles. A house divided often does not survive election. (Think when then-Governor Ronald Reagan challenged President Gerald Ford, or in 1980 when Senator Ted Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter.) Underwood loses a host of states to his opponent, Heather Dunbar (Elizabeth Marvel), a former Solicitor General. Then he is actually challenged by his own Secretary of State Kathy Durant (Kayne Atkinson) at the convention when she learns that Frank has been politicking to get his wife, Claire (Robin Wright) the nomination for vice president and not Durant, as originally promised. This alone should drive a nail in his re-election bid's coffin.
3. Incumbency The incumbent candidate is the sitting president.
Despite an assassination attempt, Underwood survives and lives on to be his party's candidate for the general election, helping his party's chances.
Verdict: True
4. Third Party There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
This would have to be a significant third party challenge akin to Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in 1992. (Both President Howard Taft and President George H.W. Bush lost those elections.) As of season four of the show, there is no evidence that Underwood would face a third party challenger, and we have no reason to believe he will.
Verdict: True
5. Short Term Economy The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
We know from season three that the economy is in a slump. Underwood proposes a controversial solution called America Works, a plan with the aim of adding 10 million new jobs, essentially (and unrealistically) doing in 18 months what President Obama did in six years, and bringing about full employment. Aside from the fact that zero employment is impossible, Underwood marches on.
But he has other economic problems. The shortage in gas produces long lines at stations, likely increasing anger at Underwood and increasing the chance of a recession. (The 1979 oil shock resulted in a U.S. recession.)
While the show doesn't explicitly state so, the House of Cards universe is probably going through a recession or recession-like conditions.
Verdict: False
6. Long Term Economy Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
This is the most challenging to predict, as, outside of the economic conditions previously mentioned, the show has not revealed what the economic growth is like. For the heck of it, let's just cut Frank some slack and say that despite all his other troubles there is good enough economic growth.
Verdict: True
7. Policy Change The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
It doesn't appear that the Underwood administration is actually able to pass any kind of change in national policy. They make a go for it with gun control reform but likely will come up short.
Verdict: False
8. Social Unrest There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
There don't appear to be any protests or unrest similar to those of the late 1960s.
Verdict: True
9. Scandal The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
This is by far the biggest obstacle to Underwood's success in 2016. During the final episode of season four, reporter Tom Hammerschmidt (Boris McGiver) and the Washington Herald publish a chronicle of the revolting ways Underwood made his way to the top, including orchestrating the overthrow of his predecessor. While the revelation that he also murdered two people are not included, these charges are serious enough to provide a political maelstrom similar to Watergate.
Verdict: False
10. Foreign/Military Failure The incumbent party suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
In season two, the U.S. (under then-incumbent president Garret Walker, played by Michael Gill) experiences a major trade war with China. In season three, the Underwoods (with Claire as Ambassador to the UN) are dealt a setback with Russia; it's such a serious blow that it serves as the impetus for their marriage troubles we see at the start of season four.
These may be setback, but they do not constitute a foreign or military affair failure akin to "losing China" in 1949 or 9/11.
Verdict: True
11. Foreign/Military Success The incumbent party achieves a major success in foreign of military affairs.
If you need examples of this one, think of the Bin Laden raid in 2011 or the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979 (even though Carter still lost in 1980). If anything, the Underwoods experience tense situations in foreign policy, especially with regards to Russia. Claire does score a victory by negotiating with Russia while Frank is fighting for his life in the hospital, but nevertheless it's not a major foreign policy victory.
Verdict: False
12. Incumbent charisma The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
As his rivals for the presidency point out, Underwood has never served in the military. And despite his Southern charm (and reminding ourselves that his fellow citizens are not aware that he actually threw a woman in front of a moving train), Underwood is not a charismatic candidate like Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama.
Verdict: False
13. Challenger charisma The challenging part candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Kinnaman plays Conway as a tough (almost macho), youthful candidate opposite the ailing Underwood. His Kennedy-esque photogenic qualities put him on magazine cover after magazine cover, and his military record stands in contrast to the lack of service from Underwood.
But like Underwood, he may have charm, but he doesn't have charisma, and his military service in Afghanistan does not make him an almost mythical national hero in the eyes of the public similar to Ulysses S. Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.
Verdict: True
Frank Underwood probably has at least seven false keys, absolutely assuring us that he would lose to Conway. But that wouldn't make for a very entertaining fifth season, would it? This is House of Cards, after all, the only show that succeeded in making The West Wing look like neo-realism. Frank and Claire will find a way out, just as they always do.
Posts
