Historians: McCain’s Going to Lose
Posted by Ryan on June 15, 2008
According to this Politico story, historians (mostly liberal ones rooting for Obama I sure) give McCain a small chance of winning in the Fall. (The rest of this post may seem like a little inside baseball if you’re not an historian.)
One historian compared this election to 1932, when FDR trounced Hoover. Another compared it to the 1980 thumping of Jimmy Carter or Ike’s 1952 smackdown of Adlai Stevenson. Some, more reasonable historians have related this to 1968, but on both ends: McCain as Humphrey, tied too closely to the party in power, as well as McCain as Nixon, taking advantage of a Democrat Party in total disarray. Some cite historical cycles, which I can see hinders McCain in this case, and that those candidates tied to incumbent party’s popularity go against McCain in this cycle.
The article falls flat for me when it states that “the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president.” Um… not quite: the Democrat-controlled Congress is considerably LESS popular than Bush, by nearly half. Remember, McCain is not an incumbent, and in the last non-incumbent race (1952) the war-hero trounced the intellectual and articulate liberal. Plus, like Richard Nixon in 1968, everyone knows McCain, and unlike Jimmy Carter in 1976, the more we know about Obama, the more he seems like more of the same — he’s not a refreshing outsider like Carter seemed, rather Obama’s an unaccomplished political opportunist who occasionally doesn’t even know who his friends are.
I agree with the premise that McCain’s got a tough road, but so does Obama in my opinion: we are at war, Obama is too inexperienced, has a cowardly voting record, and he’s not very bright when pushed on the issues.