He writes that, "Assuming that Mr. Obama is the nominee, he’ll lead a party that, judging by the usual indicators, should be poised for an easy victory — perhaps even a landslide."
Yes, he is absolutely right on, if you consider the historical evidence he provides:
"First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election.
Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power.
Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a
Despite this he says polls show McCain in a dead heat with Obama. "Pay no attention, say the experts: general election polls this early tell you almost nothing about what will happen in November. Remember 1992: as late as June, Gallup put Ross Perot in first place, Bill Clinton in third."
He added, however, that there is one thing that might give democrats pause, and that is the fact that this fight between Obama and Clinton has divided the party along class and race line. Sure Obama is winning the black vote, but he lost white voters by 23 and 22 points respectively for North Carolina and Indiana.
Thus, while Obama was supposed to be the candidate for America who was going to unite the nation, he has started out by dividing up his own party.
Now, the reason I thought of writing this blog here is that I noted one major flaw in his column, one big thing that he has overlooked -- OBAMA IS THE MOST LIBERAL PERSON TO EVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT. HE IS EVEN MORE LIBERAL THAN MCGOVERN. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE LIBERALISM.
This election is already going to blow history out of the water. We are going to have our first woman, first black or oldest president. If Obama wins, he will be the most liberal president ever. If McCain wins, it will not be by a landslide like Reagon won in a landslide over the very openly liberal Walter Mondale, and like Nixon won in a landslide over the very openly liberal McGovern.
No. If the republicans had nominated a conservative, he (or she) would, if history is an indicator, win in a landslide over the very openly liberal Obama. However, McCain is not so conservative. So, that kind of balances out the playing field.
And that's why I think the polls are accurate in casting Obama and McCain in a dead heat. I think this is not your ordinary presidential election.
My advice to McCain, as I don't want to see a liberal in the White House because I don't want him to screw up all the progress that's been made, is for him to stop catering to certain groups of people and giving up on the rest, and he should not simply cater the states that are "winnable" and write off the rest.
What he needs to do is cater his campaign to all of America as one. He needs to talk about how we are all in this game together, and together we can make America better, yet divided we will struggle at whatever we try to conquer.
In other words he needs to be honest with himself and the American people and speak from his heart, not simply use words that will cater to one group of Americans or another. Reagan used this strategy, he was not known to say things just to cater to one group of people, and he was never untrue to his own convictions.
And Reagan won in a landslide against against a liberal. McCain can win this thing in 2008, he simply needs to mix a little of Reagan's American optimism into his campaign. And that's the thought of the day.
Regardless, it appears that this 2008 presidential election will be like no other in American history, and historical trends may provide no insight at all as to what will happen.
P.S. Here's where I got that interesting picture from. An ineresting post.