Oh it was great. I had such a great weekend. I was still in that zone that’s why I was so pissed at myself for coming here this morning. Reading that idiot is like a crash landing.
Historians See Little Chance for McCain
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Oh it was great. I had such a great weekend. I was still in that zone that’s why I was so pissed at myself for coming here this morning. Reading that idiot is like a crash landing.
No I read the whole thing this morning before it was even posted here, and I noticed that they didn’t even touch it.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I hope to hell you're right but I heard the same thing about Bush in 04.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You know the very fact that you can't refer to those who disagree with you without using a pejorative is pretty much proof positive that your a fascist. I could actually put up with that, if you were at least a half assed decent writer like Dixie. But as a grenade tossing troll you are eminantly predictable and beating you in a debate has about the same level of satisfaction as masturbating while wearing playtex gloves.
Could you at least try writing something original or at least quite making so many inane posts. You're terribly boring.
I think this dude under estimates the scope and extent to which republicans use the science of voter suppression, to keep people with darker skin, and people with lower incomes from voting.
uscitizen
Villified User
That and rascism are the possible jokers in the deck.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Don't forget the manipulation of those who are different. For example, how they keep emphasizing Obama's middle name to reinforce the fallacy that he's a muslim.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Indisputable, if you are not going to read the article then try not to make yourself look more ignorant by talking about it.
It does NOT say that a historian is someone who predicts the future. It says that by studying the past elections, this historian (one who studies the past) has been able to accurately predict the outcome of the last 6 elections. Try and keep up.
And this nonsense of "vote early and vote often" is simply ignorance again. The practice of voting via absentee ballots and then voting in the actual election is not the sole property of the Democrats. Such irregularities have been found in most elections and on both sides of the party fence. There have been cases of Republicans registering people who have been dead for several years. Funny that these people managed to vote as well.
If you want to debate with facts, then stand up and do so. But these stupid remarks of "you are a racist if you don't vote for Obama" and "Vote at least 3 times for Obama" is just a waste of space.
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
"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."
Although the author claims that "historians belonging to both parties" made these predictions, my cursory examination of the article doesn't turn up a single identification of any of the "scholars" as Republican or even independent.
"(June 15) - One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many (I counted 6 cited in the article) presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.
Historians belonging to both parties (I saw no political affiliation reported at all, barring the identification of "Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006") 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 (No party affiliation cited). 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 (No party affiliation cited). 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 (No party affiliation cited). “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.
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. (No party affiliation cited)
“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.[/I]
Still, many ( I counted 6) historians (Not everyone quoted is a historian) 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 (No political affiliation cited). Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”
Does the writer know something we don't?
If so, I can't discover any such disclosure.
As for the claim that "the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says",
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Pardon me if I choose to interpret this as a propaganda piece.
"I think this dude under estimates the scope and extent to which republicans use the science of voter suppression, to keep people with darker skin, and people with lower incomes from voting."
Note the unsubstantited claim of racism.
Does Cypress (who for some reason uses a photo of Cynthia McKinney) refrain from capitalizing "Republican" because of "fear" or as a slight to the GOP?
Oh, yeah...don't feed the troll.
Although the author claims that "historians belonging to both parties" made these predictions, my cursory examination of the article doesn't turn up a single identification of any of the "scholars" as Republican or even independent.
"(June 15) - One week into the general election, the polls show a dead heat. But many (I counted 6 cited in the article) presidential scholars doubt that John McCain stands much of a chance, if any.
Historians belonging to both parties (I saw no political affiliation reported at all, barring the identification of "Allan Lichtman, an American University presidential historian who ran in a Maryland Democratic senatorial primary in 2006") 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 (No party affiliation cited). 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 (No party affiliation cited). 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 (No party affiliation cited). “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.
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. (No party affiliation cited)
“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.[/I]
Still, many ( I counted 6) historians (Not everyone quoted is a historian) 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 (No political affiliation cited). Even "Truman didn’t face as difficult a political context as McCain.”
Does the writer know something we don't?
If so, I can't discover any such disclosure.
As for the claim that "the Democratic-controlled Congress is nearly as unpopular as the president, Lichtman says",
http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Pardon me if I choose to interpret this as a propaganda piece.
"I think this dude under estimates the scope and extent to which republicans use the science of voter suppression, to keep people with darker skin, and people with lower incomes from voting."
Note the unsubstantited claim of racism.
Does Cypress (who for some reason uses a photo of Cynthia McKinney) refrain from capitalizing "Republican" because of "fear" or as a slight to the GOP?
Oh, yeah...don't feed the troll.
Last edited:
Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
"You know the very fact that you can't refer to those who disagree with you without using a pejorative is pretty much proof positive that your (SIC) a fascist."
Mottleydude
"fear it so much they cant even speak our Name properly"
Desh
Mottleydude
"fear it so much they cant even speak our Name properly"
Desh