Historians Say McCain Has No Chance To Win
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 candidate from the same party as a two-term president won the presidency, 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 Democratic divisions over the war in Vietnam dogged Humphrey and helped hand Nixon victory.
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.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
” “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.”
That statement should speak for itself. Key words are: University, who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary. Don’t believe a word of it.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:33 pm” “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.”
That statement should speak for itself. Key words are: University, who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary. Don’t believe a word of it.
————————————
Bingo!
Ill believe what I see AFTER the election.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:53 pmThese same pinheads said the same shit about Kerry and the Goracle.
Just because the chief propagandists in the LLLMSM and their puke minders in the pundit gallery say something; doesn’t make it so.
It ain’t over until the fat Dhimi-rat sings.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pmMost historians are Libs. They take it up the ass and it impairs their ability to think because that is where their brains are located.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:59 pmAcademia is leftist, in general.
There was also a time in history (two decades ago), when it would be unthinkable for an anti-American radical such as Barack Hussein Obama could possibly be the next POTUS. But, here we are.
Nothing is for certain, except death and taxes.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:06 pmAnd thus falls civilization, to thunderous applause for a false prophet.
June 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pmwow…that was really deep.
lol but true. 
June 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pmHistorians are much better at predicting the past, and even there they have serious problems getting it right.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:15 pmThis article make you want to stay home and not bother to counter the Dhimmi juggernaut with your insignificant vote?
That’s its purpose.
What these ’studies’ do not take into account is that, unlike past elections, the negatives against Bush and Republicans in general have been contrived by an unprecedented collection of liars and manipulators hell bent on deceiving the public.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pmThe Dhimmis have offered up the most likely candidate to lose in November.
If Republicans continue to NOT push back and hard, we WILL lose.
Truer words were never spoken.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:05 pmBesides a very liberal msm, Apathy is BHO’s greatest ally. An apathy to understand that real evil exists in the world that it must be faced with courage not cowardice, that it feeds of weakness and fear and revels in ignorance. Like the father of lies it will say and do anything, will use every instrument of confusion to beguile and gain favor, to ascend - then lay waste to everything.
Agree with other posters, Academia is libtard heaven, but there are always some lonely voices in the wilderness like Victor Davis Hanson. A most lucid historian who should be commended for his insight, immense knowledge and wisdom.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:07 amIt doesn’t matter who should win these days, it’s all about how people feel. I had this argument with my wife the other day about global warming and Obonehead. She takes “The View” view, but then she is a recovering communist, one day at a time.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:13 amthey didnt give mccain much of a chance to win the nomination either..i still say he will win and their will be rioting in the streets
June 16th, 2008 at 4:33 amSully, I think you have hit the nail on the head. It’s a bunch of golden words to undermine the voter turn out.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:59 amJohn Kerry won the last election, didn’t you know that?
June 16th, 2008 at 6:37 amIn other news, “many presidential scholars” came out to support Obama today…
June 16th, 2008 at 6:39 amNow, who exactly was the Republican historian?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:09 amWhere’s the Politico coverage of the mortgage scam being played on the American people by the Dhimmi Party?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121357125417575867.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
The Wall Street Journal is the lone voice in the wilderness on this issue.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:28 amEver wonder why Jim Johnson got thrown under Barry’s Bus as fast as he did? Why you didn’t hear.. “I could no sooner disown Jim Johnson than I could the other crooked folks that bankroll me.”
The Dhimmis were and are still hoping to do damage control on their complicity in the housing debacle.
I say Bring It!
This stuff is a bunch of crap. They don’t poll well in fly-over country. Never have. I guess this time will be as much shock for the left as last time.
Hopefully they will really cut their wrists this time rather than just bitch about how the world would suffer without them.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:11 amIf you’ve ever followed polls of historians, they get it worng alot of the time, predicting the future. It’s a joke.
June 16th, 2008 at 10:40 amI like what Dick Morris said on O’Reilly the other day. My paraphrase as follows:
On one side you have the Democrats, the party that can’t lose with the candidate that can’t win. On the other side you have the Republicans, the party that can’t win with the candidate that can’t lose.
************************************************************
Now Dick was not saying that Obama can’t win, but that if he does it will have more to do with the voters’ attitudes regarding the parties more than the candidates. If the election is centered on who is the better candidate then McCain wins hands down.
Personally, I think McCain will have a tough time of it but will ultimately win because…
1. He will pick up a majority of the voters who supported Clinton.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:37 pm2. He will pick a vp nominee that will win him the conservative base while not alienating the Dems and Independents who support him.
3. Rural whites are not about to support a radical leftist who attended a radical church.
4. With record high gas prices, voters are not going to support a candidate who advocates policies that are easily understood to lead to even higher prices.
5. McCain is a known quantity, Obama represents to many surprises.