Let me try looking at your response here myself.

I had to look it up, since I was unfamiliar with his book (a travesty I had never read this before!), So let's see: 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." This is false. The 2002 midterm elections were a direct response to the 9/11 attacks, many Republicans won on aggressive wartime platforms to unify the government under one party. Without 9/11, it's possible that the Bush administration would have faced continued fallout from the 2000 election that Democrats rightly won in the popular vote.

Yes, I agree with this, and frankly, gerrymandering in 2002 might not be enough to prevent the Republicans from losing seats in both houses of Congress in the 2002 midterm elections if 9/11 would not have occurred.

Contest: "There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination." True.

Agreed.

Incumbency: "The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president." True.

Agreed.

Third party: "There is no significant third party or independent campaign." True.

Agreed.

Short term economy: "The economy is not in recession during the election campaign". In 2004 without 9/11, this is most likely still true for a few short more years.

Agreed.

Long term economy: "Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms." I think this would be false, we'll be presuming that the recession that crippled the world will still happen, but probably at a sooner rate, since war did not prolong this event.

Agreed.

Policy change: "The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy." This would be most likely true, since President Bush was most likely to still try an make a war against terrorism a platform, but it wouldn't have been a strong one since the United States has not suffered a terrorist on US soil since the Oklahoma City Bombings, and no terrorist attack by a foreign entity since the 1993 World Trade Center Bombings.

Agreed, but you forgot to list things such as the No Child Left Behind Act.

Social unrest: "There is no sustained social unrest during the term." True.

Agreed.

Scandal: "The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal." The Bush administration is caught lying or fabricating information about Weapons of Mass Destruction as probable cause for war in Iraq. This is caught because - as no nation has probable cause to go to war and the UN finds no such weapons, Congress has no reason to engage in war. This might be the most significant scandal, though Bush himself will most likely avert disaster, leading those in his administration to take the fall.

Maybe ... maybe. I suppose that it might depend on just how badly Bush wants to invade Iraq and on what exactly Bush thinks his odds are of winning reelection without an Iraq War.

Yes, Bush might be tempted to do this, but it's not a guarantee that he will do it. Also, it is worth noting that even if Bush does try doing this, his claims in regards to Iraq having WMDs might not be conclusively debunked before the 2004 election. After all, without an Iraq War, there will always be a perceived possibility that Saddam is still successfully hiding some WMDs.

Foreign/military failure: "The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs." This is false, President Bush's obsession in Middle Eastern affairs will probably play a major role in the 2004 election, especially when he attempts to drum up support for war in Iraq using unfounded claims about WMDs.

Maybe ... maybe.

Foreign/military success: "The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs." False, the United States does not enter any major military conflicts.

Agreed.

Incumbent charisma: "The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero." False, President Bush is mocked as a bumbling fool who clearly aspires to be a wartime President, and came dangerously close to throwing the nation into a war it does not want to engage in.

Agreed.

Challenger charisma: "The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero." If Al Gore or Hillary Clinton is running, then false, because they are now a charismatic leader.

Let me check and see how exactly Lichtman defines "charisma" here and then get back to you on this. :)

Seven false in this scenario, Democrats win.

Unless I am missing something, I myself got four false, six true, and three which could go either way. As far as I know, the incumbent party needs to get eight or more true keys in order for it to be favored in the upcoming/next U.S. Presidential election.