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.

 

link

I tend to agree with the historians that it's Obama's race to lose. However, this is not your normal historical race and all bets are off this year so a McCain win would not be a shock. Surprising, but not a shock.

Had the Democrats not nominated the most liberal candidate in history, I would agree with the historians. If McCain was not so busy trying to move to Obama's left, the race would be his to lose. Drill here! Drill now! would be a winning campaign slogan.

An economist in Europe who specializes in US elections currently shows Obama winning with 51% over the overall vote but having approximately 290 electoral votes.

Well gee, why have the election? Lets just crown him king to reign over all now.

Well gee, why have the election? Lets just crown him king to reign over all now.

 

Yeah, because that is exactly what this article is for. :lol:

Had the Democrats not nominated the most liberal candidate in history, I would agree with the historians. If McCain was not so busy trying to move to Obama's left, the race would be his to lose. Drill here! Drill now! would be a winning campaign slogan.

 

Spoken as a true Rebublican. Maybe American's (other than those conservative Republican's) are tired of "the same old, same old" (and McCain is old) and are looking forward to something different than what we have had the last 8 years. It's worth a chance because the Republican's haven't got it done! I hope the historians predictions are correct about McCain.

Had the Democrats not nominated the most liberal candidate in history, I would agree with the historians. If McCain was not so busy trying to move to Obama's left, the race would be his to lose. Drill here! Drill now! would be a winning campaign slogan.

 

I still think Kerry was more liberal and it seems to me McCain is trying to move more to the right these days.

Spoken as a true Rebublican. Maybe American's (other than those conservative Republican's) are tired of "the same old, same old" (and McCain is old) and are looking forward to something different than what we have had the last 8 years. It's worth a chance because the Republican's haven't got it done! I hope the historians predictions are correct about McCain.

 

:thumb:

Electorial-vote.com shows Obama with a lead in early polls. They project Obama winning the electorial college 304-221 with a tie in Virginia...

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Spoken as a true Rebublican. Maybe American's (other than those conservative Republican's) are tired of "the same old, same old" (and McCain is old) and are looking forward to something different than what we have had the last 8 years. It's worth a chance because the Republican's haven't got it done! I hope the historians predictions are correct about McCain.

Obama is the same old liberal politics, though. So, what exactly will be different, other than even higher taxes?

Obama is the same old liberal politics, though. So, what exactly will be different, other than even higher taxes?

 

Q: Is McCain going to go after you as another classic liberal tax and spender?

 

A: Well, I'm going to go right back at McCain, because look at his tax proposals. He not only wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he actually wants to extend them, and he hasn't told us really how he's going to pay for them. It is irresponsible. And the irony is he said it was irresponsible. When George Bush initiated these tax cuts in 2001, McCain said, "This is shameful." He said that it offended his conscience, he said, for us to give tax breaks to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war. If you look at my approach to taxation, what have I said? I said I would cut taxes for people making $75,000 a year or less. I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed.

Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?

 

OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.

 

LINK

Q: Is McCain going to go after you as another classic liberal tax and spender?

 

A: Well, I'm going to go right back at McCain, because look at his tax proposals. He not only wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he actually wants to extend them, and he hasn't told us really how he's going to pay for them. It is irresponsible. And the irony is he said it was irresponsible. When George Bush initiated these tax cuts in 2001, McCain said, "This is shameful." He said that it offended his conscience, he said, for us to give tax breaks to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war. If you look at my approach to taxation, what have I said? I said I would cut taxes for people making $75,000 a year or less. I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed.

 

Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?

 

OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.

 

LINK

So his plan is to cut taxes for the poor and raise taxes for the rich (if I am reading it correctly)?

Electorial-vote.com shows Obama with a lead in early polls. They project Obama winning the electorial college 304-221 with a tie in Virginia...

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

 

His final showed Kerry winning in 2004.

 

This one shows Obama's lead much closer though:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

 

This includes their projection with 110 tossups. Obama leads by 50 before the toss ups.