Many historians see little chance for McCain

[Marcus Marulus]

Many historians see little chance for McCain

David Paul Kuhn



Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain acknowledges the crowd as he arrives for a town hall meeting inside a gym at Daniel Webster College in Nashua, N.H., Thursday, June 12, 2008. McCain won the New Hampshire primary last January.(AP Photo/Jim Cole)

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 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.”

[source]

[Strengthandhonour]

Interesting article.
I think this American election has been very unpredictable though. A year ago no one assumed McCain would get as far as he did and the same for Barrack Obama, no one saw hope in him at all.
Interesting fact about American presidential history..but no one that ever ran for office that was a former soldier ever lost an election. Something to keep in mind..The Americans love their army men.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

Interesting fact about American presidential history..but no one that ever ran for office that was a former soldier ever lost an election.

Is it so? George Bush Senior, who was pilot in the second world war (in the Pacific), lost to the draft-dodger Bill Clinton in 1992. John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, lost the 2004 presidential elections to George Bush jr., who had succeeded to avoid the combat during the same war.

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

The Americans love their army men.

Strangely, I heard and read exactly the opposite claims, namely, that they are traditionally not fond of soldiers, and that the present idolization of the military is something very new, fabricated by the media in the wake of 9/11 and wars in Iraq in Afghanistan.

Maybe you know better since you reside there at the moment...

[Errigal]

I would guess that McCain will eventually win the presidential race. America will likely say to itself that it was fun to play with the idea of a young Black president with an exotic name and family history, but choosing a president is serious business. Also Blacks and Whites in America are two loose nations, or mega-tribes competing for power within a single state; when it comes down to voting for president the Whites will not want to give the other team a victory.

[Strengthandhonour]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Is it so? George Bush Senior, who was pilot in the second world war (in the Pacific), lost to the draft-dodger Bill Clinton in 1992. John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, lost the 2004 presidential elections to George Bush jr., who had succeeded to avoid the combat during the same war.



Strangely, I heard and read exactly the opposite claims, namely, that they are traditionally not fond of soldiers, and that the present idolization of the military is something very new, fabricated by the media in the wake of 9/11 and wars in Iraq in Afghanistan.

Maybe you know better since you reside there at the moment...

I re-checked my facts and made a mistake, it's American army heroes, not army men(even though Bush didn't technically serve, he was enlisted. And George Bush Sr. had already won before.) But in America the perspective of soldiers changes regardless of what part of the country you go too. It's impossible to walk into any store and not see a sign that says "Support the troops!" not including the large campaign thrown out that says "Support the warrior, not the war."
I agree with Errigal though, I think McCain will win. The fans of Obama and Hillary are both massive extremists and will vote for the opposite just so the other one does not win, and with the rumors of Hillary running as an independent..
Plus, you are going to see John McCain play the discrimination card like never before and is going to take into the terror tactic about Obama's origins and real name like never before. It's hard to predict though..it was surprising to see Obama pull victories in mainly "white" states such as Iowa.

[Canute]

I doubt Obama will win. There seems to have been a great deal of euphoric "Obamamania" when Obama captured the Democratic nomination. And Bush is probably the most unpopular American president since Richard Nixon or Herbert Hoover. But yet Obama is in a dead heat with McCain. I think Americans will tire of the novelty of Obama shortly after the Democrats have their convention and McCain will win in November.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Errigal

I would guess that McCain will eventually win the presidential race. America will likely say to itself that it was fun to play with the idea of a young Black president with an exotic name and family history, but choosing a president is serious business.

Originally Posted by Strengthandhonour

I agree with Errigal though, I think McCain will win.

Originally Posted by Canute

I doubt Obama will win. There seems to have been a great deal of euphoric "Obamamania" when Obama captured the Democratic nomination. And Bush is probably the most unpopular American president since Richard Nixon or Herbert Hoover. But yet Obama is in a dead heat with McCain. I think Americans will tire of the novelty of Obama shortly after the Democrats have their convention and McCain will win in November.

I disagree. I think it is more likely Obama will win, because he seems to have backing from many powerful plutocratic circles. Plus John McCain, mentally deficient and very "Liberal" (in the American sense of word) as he is, looks like he was chosen with the purposeful intention to lose. That is at least my impression.

But we will see...

The minds of the mindless masses (aka voters in "liberal democracies") are extremely malleable, especially in these days of dumbing down by the means of the media of communication. It is not granted that the majority of "Whites" would vote McCain only because he is "white". Many may simply abstain, seeing no reason to vote for either one of the two. Too much media-and-mass-culture induced worship of the military might have a counter-effect, as was proven in many similar situations.