13 thoughts on “Alan Lichtman”

1. You linked to a bitten finger article.

2. It depends on who the Republicans select. Like the Senate election in Nevada last year its up to the Republicans to lose. If they shake free of the Tea Party they have a better then average chance of winning, if not, its 1964 all over.

3. Thomas, I think it’s more like 1968 all over. Against Obama, Republicans could nominate Richard Nixon and still win.

4. repeat: bad link…

5. The putrid corpse of John Birch could give Obama a run for his money right now — though I think in the end Obama would win.

   Barely.

6. Tom,

   1964 was a sympathy vote for Kennedy.

   Are you proposing Biden as the 12′ nominee?

7. Thomas, you have it exactly backwards. Tea Party pushing candidates to act on conservative principles is what caused the Republicans to sweep back into power nationwide in 2010.

8. “Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point. So does Hoover.”

   On the contrary, a third party would help Obama by splitting the conservative vote. So Obama loses this one.

   “Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.”

   The Tea Party and Unionistas would disagree.

9. No social unrest? What do you call the flash mobs in the rust belt and protests against BART police in the California bay area? Expect the violence by the left to spread as the reality sets in that cut backs in government is needed.

10. Did some sweet young thing wearing a Tea Party pin give Thomas Matula the brush off?

    Or is he just nuts?

11. Unlike the president, Hoover didn’t have the fanatic loyalty of 13% of the nation’s population who were willing to burn the country to the ground if he didn’t win.

12. I think Obama would win against Hoover. 😉

13. Every election since 1984? Sheesh. There hasn’t been a close election since 1984, except for Gore-Bush, which Lichtman got wrong.

    This is 1980 redux.

Comments are closed.