http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/historians-see-little-chance-for-mccain/20080615124509990001?icid=1615988631x1204275882x1200411838


Credit AOL News.


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.”

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.




More StoriesThough 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.”

And what do historians know? Virtually nothing. A bunch of blowhards just like Obama and his uppity wife. If this turkey is elected I'm moving to Mars.

Any good news is welcome .
Americans need change and sure enough they deserve a change for better .

This is a good news coming from wise historians . We hope the democrats win and give back the US its dignity in the eyes of the whole world . This Administration made a circus of the U.S.A. in the hearts of all the planet . .

Surely change is needed and the Democrats seemly are the only party going to bring that very thing, as well as help the little guy.. in which the MCcain party would failed to do so.

This is why every body must take time out this November and vote for the Democrats and not stand for a failing america and people going deeper and deeper into money problems etc.

So it's time for a change and it surely can not come soon enough.

I disagree with the article - the US should have elected Ford not Carter in 1976. It's no wonder Carter had such a low rating in 1980 - He did not have enough experience to be president. The only reason he was elected was because of voter discord over Ford's pardoning of Nixon for Watergate. And everyone said Ford was just another Nixon.

He freaking pardoned Nixon!

That was his biggest mistake..

It seems to me that the "historians" have overlooked one very important factor about Obama. The fact that he is black, unfortunately, will factor in to a lot of people's votes. As far as the "world" hating America, answer me this. If this is the case then why have so many pro-Bush pro-American conservative leaders been elected abroad? With the Democratic primaries lingering on for as long as they have both candidates on the democratic side have just about exhausted their funds, while McCain has been building his purse during the same time. Also and unfortunate truth about this country is that dollars tend to buy votes. Obama's lack of experience in politics are limited to a very short them in the Senate and NO international dealings. Whereas McCain has extensive experience in both of these areas as well as a track record to peruse. No democrat has actually "helped the little guy" it has always been republican, conservative fiscal policies that have benefited this country. Taxing the rich never works, never has and never will. This has ALWAYS wound up hurting the "little guy". Lowering taxes, on the other hand has always been shown to stimulate the economy. Having the government run or interfere with the free market economy we have has always caused problems in the past. Government oversight of industries also has not shown to be beneficial. All these things considered I don't see how Obama can or will win this upcoming election.

That being said, I don't think McCain will be a boon either. I see this election as a no win situation and who ever wins it, we lose.

james

I see your point to a bit however I do not see how MCcain can win when he has always been with the Bush same old same old failing.

Which gives Obama the lead and probably a win is how badly every body wants a change, and surely maybe Obama may not have the experience in every way that MCcain has but I am sure Obama with help from many others and even his VP could make it through the mess that Bush has created.

You saying no democrat has ever helped the little guy, well I can't say republicans has done anything to help any body but the higher end millionair like them selfs.

Surely the economy is very bad and may take years to get turned around no thanks to jobs going over sea and people getting layed off and what not.

I'm not saying taxing higher pay people will work or anything but taxing the lower income people who can't make end's meet doesn't help either.

Some kind of agreement will have to come into place sooner or later with how things like taxs and the economy can get turn around with out hurnting every body all at once.

But Just because we may have a first ever Black president doesn't mean that is a bad thing either which is sounds like most people are againest that for some odd reason just because of this man color of skin, need I remind you he is mix. He is also white too, but he thinks of him self as a black man.

Either way.. I would have taken a black man or a woman in the white house vs a John MCcain. But that's just my take.

The robber barons have fleeced the American people for far too long.

Enron, Worldcom, the list goes on.

And the families of Bush Jr. and Richard Cheney have become enriched on sticking it to the taxpayers for over 7 years.

How is this not a BIG conflict of interest?

They should be tried under racketeering laws.

In my opinion, voting for John McCain is a vote to continue this corruption, which politicians (including Democrats) have turned a blind eye to.

Richard Nixon looks like a saint compared to the current criminals in the White House.

I agree with you on voting for John MCcain is a vote to continue this corruption, I'm not too sure about including the Democrats part on that though.

Then why won't Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats hold impeachment hearings for all of the criminal activities that George Bush Jr. and Richard Cheney have been involved in?

Because they're only interested in elections, not justice.

I guess we are just screwed for whome ever we vote for come this November.

We have to relize we hold the power here, we as americans need to get up and stand up and only then will we truly see change