Historian's see little chance for McCain victory »
Posted by: raats6662 2 months, 3 weeks agoPolitical historians of both parties see little chance of a McCain victory in November. Several saw "Obama's prospects as the most promising for a Democrat since Roosevelt trounced Hoover in 1932."
Read Full Story at politico.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 18
-
-
0%
raats66622 months, 3 weeks ago
The best part of this is....McCain's own actions and words are his own worst enemy.
As more and more people find out about the REAL McCain, it's only going to get worse for him.
He's already admitted that he doesn't..... have ANY idea how to work a computer
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/11/...
really get the economy (certainly proven by his PERSONAL finances)
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/14/...
that it's not really important WHEN the troops come home from Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/2514158...
It's just a matter of time before almost NO ONE will be admitting to plans to vote for McCain in November.
Reply
-
-
0%
raats66622 months, 3 weeks ago
FTA-"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.
Reply-
0%
raats66622 months, 3 weeks ago
FTA- 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."
Reply -
0%
Beau78902 months, 3 weeks ago
Maybe I'm a cynic, but these historians are not taking into account the Republican media monolith and the fact that Americans are so polarized today they have a hard time telling fact from fiction. This wasn't the case in 1932, 1976 or 1980.
And that's not to mention how much simpler it is today to rig voting systems, affecting orders of magnitude more votes than in decades past.
I just hope Democratic voters don't get too comfortable, thinking the election's in the bag and posibly staying home on election day. We will need to feel the same urgency on November 4th as we do today.
Reply
-
-
0%
Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago
I agree. Of course its a shame Hoover lost so badly in 32. He was a good President, not nearly what people make him out to be. He was to nice, favoring "volunteerism" I believe the term is. When that didn't happen he began to work on alot of the things FDR did. Still, popular opinion was against him. I wonder who'd have actually been better?
Reply-
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months, 3 weeks ago
I checked with Bell Labs:
There IS an alternate universe where Hoover DID win in 32.
The lack of FDR-type social programs to combat the depression led to a tipping of greater strength to the American Socialist Party, which brought the US into the Spanish American War in 35, preventing world war II.
Gas there is $2.00 a gallon, but they are still on analog TV the barbarians.
Reply
-
-
0%
scott42612 months, 3 weeks ago
FTA:
"...Only Harry Truman and Nixon - both of whom were dogged by unpopular wars abroad and political scandals at home - have been nearly as unpopular [as George W. Bush] in their last year in office, and both men's parties lost the presidency in the following election."
I have been saying this for months...no, YEARS!!!
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre2 months, 3 weeks ago
"Only Harry Truman and Nixon."
Truman
1952: Stevenson had to face Ike, the guy who to many Americans won WW2
Nixon
1976: Ford had Watergate and the fact that he pardoned Nixon. He also had a close primary against Reagan, many of whose supporters saw Carter as more conservative than Ford.
McCain faces nothing like this; in fact, he butted heads with Bush often and he faces a guy who has little experience and a lot of problems with friendships.
Reply-
0%
raats66622 months, 3 weeks ago
McCain faces nothing like this; in fact, he butted heads with Bush often>>>>>
That was BEFORE he realized that those position made him UNELECTABLE to the Republicans. That was BEFORE he decided that it was MORE important to be the Republican Presidential Candidate then to stand up for what he believed.
Since he decided that being the Repub nominee he has sided with GWB on EVERY single position INCLUDING torture. He has since taken the position that the detainees are EXEMPT from protection of the Geneva Convention, because they aren't members of an organized army even thought the WORDING explicitly contradicts that position.
He has even taken the position of denouncing his OWN legislation (laws that were introduced BY McCain), because they are NOT supported by GWB.
He isn't a 'flip flopper' he has been taken over by aliens.
Reply
-
-
0%
mackiemesser2 months, 3 weeks ago
The conditions tend to agree with what the historians are saying: an unpopular war in Iraq, an economy in the doldrums, an unpopular President...but one factor is new and untested...the opposing candidate is non Caucasian. How much of the electorate will be affected by latent racism? I suspect that this unknown factor will play a part in this year's elections. How much of a part is the question. Hillary Clinton had the support of blue collar Democrats. How much of this support will transfer to Obama? I'm sure many out there will be outraged that I brought up this factor but I sincerely believe that this factor will play a part in how close this election will be as I don't for a second believe that it will be a blowout as these historians suggest. BTW, I will most definitely vote for Obama.
Reply -
0%
SwampFox-82nd2 months, 3 weeks ago
Anyone remember Nixon's "Checkers Speech?" Seems Ike wanted to drop Nixon badly! In his own words, Ike said he didn't trust Nixon! Why??? Real Estate!!! For the unknowing, Fraud was really the bad-guy, confessed Nixon while holding his little "Checkers" in his crotch. Checkers was his little doggie, a cocker spaniel. Ending his denial of ever doing wrong (I am not a crook), he patted Checkers on the head saying, at least his crotch (er, make that crocker) still had faith in him...
Damned, I am truly one ol' fart...
Reply
Submitted By:
raats6662
I'm a left of center, highly educated (regardless of what some responses to my post may indicate), 45 yo woman. I've traveled extensively ...
Also submitted:
- 4.4 - With Palin revelations, McCain's gamble is clearer, but will it cost him more then help him?
- 2.8 - What else DON'T we know about Palin?
- 3.8 - Conservative Washington Post journalist Sally Quinn questions McCain's choice of Palin
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
MidnightPrism
Helixbuilder
ciera-marie
tehranchik
dandt1612
BronxBomber
david_nwpa
not2needy
Aidenag
_kam0_
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
