THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
Posted on 06/15/2008 7:11:48 AM PDT by BerniesFriend
Many historians see little chance for McCain
David Paul Kuhn
One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.
Historians belonging to both parties offered a litany of historical comparisons that give little hope to the Republican. Several saw Barack Obama’s prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932.
“This should be an overwhelming Democratic victory,” said Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006. Lichtman, whose forecasting model has correctly predicted the last six presidential popular vote winners, predicts that this year, “Republicans face what have always been insurmountable historical odds.” His system gives McCain a score on par with Jimmy Carter’s in 1980.
“McCain shouldn’t win it,” said presidential historian Joan Hoff, a professor at Montana State University and former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. She compared McCain’s prospects to those of Hubert Humphrey, whose 1968 loss to Richard Nixon resulted in large part from the unpopularity of sitting Democratic president Lyndon Johnson.
“It is one of the worst political environments for the party in power since World War II,” added Alan Abramowitz, a professor of public opinion and the presidency at Emory University. His forecasting model — which factors in gross domestic product, whether a party has completed two terms in the White House and net presidential approval rating — gives McCain about the same odds as Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Carter in 1980 — both of whom were handily defeated in elections that returned the presidency to the previously out-of-power party. “It would be a pretty stunning upset if McCain won,” Abramowitz said.
What’s more, Republicans have held the presidency for all but 12 years since the South became solidly Republican in the realignment of 1968 — which is among the longest runs with one party dominating in American history. “These things go in cycles,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “The public gets tired of one approach to politics. There is always a measure of optimism in this country, so they turn to the other party.”
That desire for change also tends to manifest itself at the end of a president’s second term. Only twice in the 20th century has a party won a third consecutive term in the White House, most recently in 1988, when George H.W. Bush replaced the term-limited Ronald Reagan, who was about twice as popular in the last year of his presidency as President George W. Bush is now.
But the biggest obstacle in McCain’s path may be running in the same party as the most unpopular president America has had since at least the advent of modern polling. Only Harry Truman and Nixon — both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home — have been nearly as unpopular in their last year in office, and both men’s parties lost the presidency in the following election.
Though the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says the Democrats’ 2006 midterm wins resemble the midterm congressional gains of the out-party in 1966 and 1974, which both preceded a retaking of the White House two years later.
One of the few bright spots historians noted is that the public generally does not view McCain as a traditional Republican. And, as Republicans frequently point out, McCain is not an incumbent.
“Open-seat elections are somewhat different, so the referendum aspect is somewhat muted,” said James Campbell, a professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo who specializes in campaigns and elections.
“McCain would be in much better shape if Bush’s approval rating were at 45 to 50 percent,” Campbell continued. “But the history is that in-party candidates are not penalized or rewarded to the same degree as incumbents.”
Campbell still casts McCain as the underdog. But he said McCain might have more appeal to moderates than Obama if the electorate decides McCain is “center right” while Obama is “far left.” Democrats have been repeatedly undone when their nominee was viewed as too liberal, and even as polls show a rise in the number of self-identified Democrats, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of self-identified liberals.
Campbell also notes that McCain may benefit from the Democratic divisions that were on display in the primary, as Republicans did in 1968, when George Wallace took the electoral votes of several Deep South states that could have given Humphrey a victory over Nixon. Democrats benefited from similar Republican divisions in 1976, when Ronald Reagan battled Gerald Ford all the way to the party’s nominating convention.
Still, many historians remain extremely skeptical about McCain’s prospects. “I can’t think of an upset where the underdog faced quite the odds that McCain faces in this election,” said Sidney Milkis, a professor of presidential politics at the University of Virginia. Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”
Without regard to the outcome, I’d say to these historians, that no time in history have we ever had an election year such as this to compare to. When in history did we have a black socialist who beat a female socialist for the nomination to run against a liberal Republican?
Obama will want debates that do not point out the printed record because any pointing to the real and true facts is an “attack”.
He wants a clean campaign, complete with cupcakes and napkins.
If the desire for change is so strong why do 94% of Incumbents win reelection?
And not just those two Democrats pathetically going after each other.
I want a Conservative or Conservatives who are qualified on 50 state ballots, to also get into the debates, and through that sucker wide open for the American People to decide.
These eggeheads probably also predicted a year ago that Hillary would be our next President.
Obama has to be considered the prohibitive favorite. That is just the reality. And because the Stupid Party has nominated its maverick as its standard bearer, issues like immigration, global warming legislation, and obtaining greater access to domestic energy sources are off of the table. Obama and McCain have similar stands on these issues.
Obama has to be considered the prohibitive favorite. That is just the reality. And because the Stupid Party has nominated its maverick as its standard bearer, issues like immigration, global warming legislation, and obtaining greater access to domestic energy sources are off of the table. Obama and McCain have similar stands on these issues.
Obama has to be considered the prohibitive favorite. That is just the reality. And because the Stupid Party has nominated its maverick as its standard bearer, issues like immigration, global warming legislation, and obtaining greater access to domestic energy sources are off of the table. Obama and McCain have similar stands on these issues.
Allan Lichtman recently published a history of the conservative movement entitled White Protestant Nation (Atlantic Monthly Press, 2008). While I haven't had time to read the book, I have looked it over, and it seems to have been well-researched. However, Lichtman seems to be arguing that conservatism is essentially a white Protestant movement, a thesis with which most conservatives would vehemently disagree.
This interested me as strange. I heard a liberal so called psychic pronounce with absolute certainty that Romney will be president....yes recently. Of course he also predicted that the Stanley Cup winner would have something to do with M. C. hmmmmmmm motor city?
What makes you think she won't? ;)
Technicalities like losing elections never stopped the Clintons. I have a feeling she has a hand in all of these new criticisms of Obama which are now starting to surface.
Each historian has one vote.
Sen. McCain may have little chance, but it has nothing to do with history. The bigger problem facing Sen. McCain is the lack of enthusiasm for him or his campaign.
I live in a “red” area. So far, I’ve seen a grand total of two McCain bumperstickers and no lawn signs. Contrast that with the dozens of Obama stickers and lawn signs. That does not bode well for Sen. McCain.
This article, on the other hand, is pure agitprop.
Being a conservative doesn’t mean that one must put on the blinders.
McQueeg is greatly disliked by almost all conservatives whether traditional or otherwise. He has dissed us repeatedly, he has trounced the 1st Amendment, his proclaimed “national security” credentials are totally negated by his wish to provide 20++ million unknown and unknowable illegals with official United States identity credentials (and remember that “Z Visa” was never limited to Mexicans, it could have gone to ANY person of any nationality or ethnicity who claims illegal status in the USA).
No, this McQueeg joker didn’t earn his stripes from the hard and earnest work of a Republican leader, he won them by taking outrageous ideological positions, by thmbing his nose at other Republicans, and by doing just about anything to enhance his “maverick” status.
As a Democrat McQueeg is unexceptional. As a “conservative Republican” he has easily gained his fitting nicknames “McQueeg”, “McCrazy”, and “McInsane”.
There’s no point in flaming me or anyone else who plainly sees and accepts that McQueeg is no better and perhaps a great deal worse than the alternatives.
A few more assaults on the Constitution, legalizing 20++ million unknown criminals and security impostors, appointing another Souter (just to poke us in the eye with a sharp stock).... these are all very real possibilities with this man.
It never ceases to amaze me the gullibility of the American and the willingness to be flim-flammed. The so-called “wisdom of the American electorate” is little more than the MSM rubbing the belly to watch the back leg move.
That being said, I also believe most Americans have experienced Affirmative Action and instinctively recoil from it. Obwana is the Affirmative Action candidate.
History? Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, all liberal all losers. That is enough history to tell me McCain will win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.