Aaron Strife
Banned
The problem with the keys is outside of a few ironclad rules (incumbency, party mandate) it's easy enough to retroactively turn keys to suit whatever the result was and whichever narrative you buy at the moment.
The two I'd see in most contention are the primary challenge and the third party candidate. You could argue that Sanders' candidacy was a major roadblock to Clinton's nomination and he did fairly well - but ultimately it was never a close race. Clinton held onto a very stubborn delegate lead starting from South Carolina. In past election cycles, primary challengers dropped out when it was clear they didn't have a path to victory, but Sanders stayed in mostly on principle.
Johnson is polling okay, but we've seen in past election cycles that third party candidates' numbers drop the closer you get to election day. Is he pulling more Clinton supporters though? His and Stein's presence in the polls ranges from splitting the difference to slightly hurting Clinton, but not enough to cut into her lead. Lichtman seems to believe a big third party effect is strictly detrimental to the incumbent party but I'm not seeing that as much here. He seems to be a nonfactor.
Johnson and Sanders can essentially both be used to fit whichever outcome you desire. Want Trump to win? Then yes, they're both credible blows against Clinton's chances. Want Clinton to win? Sanders was no more than a nuisance and Johnson is a nobody. And subscribing to the keys theory will only tell us which interpretation is true after the fact.
The two I'd see in most contention are the primary challenge and the third party candidate. You could argue that Sanders' candidacy was a major roadblock to Clinton's nomination and he did fairly well - but ultimately it was never a close race. Clinton held onto a very stubborn delegate lead starting from South Carolina. In past election cycles, primary challengers dropped out when it was clear they didn't have a path to victory, but Sanders stayed in mostly on principle.
Johnson is polling okay, but we've seen in past election cycles that third party candidates' numbers drop the closer you get to election day. Is he pulling more Clinton supporters though? His and Stein's presence in the polls ranges from splitting the difference to slightly hurting Clinton, but not enough to cut into her lead. Lichtman seems to believe a big third party effect is strictly detrimental to the incumbent party but I'm not seeing that as much here. He seems to be a nonfactor.
Johnson and Sanders can essentially both be used to fit whichever outcome you desire. Want Trump to win? Then yes, they're both credible blows against Clinton's chances. Want Clinton to win? Sanders was no more than a nuisance and Johnson is a nobody. And subscribing to the keys theory will only tell us which interpretation is true after the fact.