Does the election of Barack Obama, D-Illinois, who Tuesday will take the oath of office to become the 44th president of the United States, herald a new economic era?

American University professor and political historian Allan J. Lichtman, speaking Monday on CNN, went so far as to argue that it is the end of the conservative economic era ushered in by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and that the Obama election represents the start of a new liberal era.

In November 1980, Reagan won the presidency in a landslide, with Republicans capturing the Senate, in an election that marked the start of the Reagan Revolution of tax cuts, increases in defense spending, and decreases in the growth of social programs. Reagan's presidency ushered in a broad, secular trend toward privatization and free markets that would eventually encompass all of the world's major economies, including China, and the former Soviet Union, which disbanded in 1991.

The times, they are a changin'

During his Monday interview on CNN, Lichtman went so far as to say that Obama's election marks the end of economic conservatism and the start of new era of liberalism. However, in a column published on January 16 at Gazette.com, a Maryland Community Newspaper, he argued that "Obama should recognize that there is no consensus answer to recovery and reform, and experiment with a mix of market and regulatory approaches." Further, rather than 'governing from the center,' Lichtman said Obama should "move the middle to [him] them by changing the conversation about government and implementing programs that work."

Most major polls have U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leading U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, in the contest for U.S. president. And, if the election were held today, instead of on Tuesday, November 4, Election Day, Obama would register a decisive victory in the all-important electoral college, as well as in the popular vote.

As of late Friday, NPR.org's survey of polls had the electoral vote at Obama, 291, McCain 163. Four battleground states are still in play: Ohio, where Obama lead by 5%; Florida, Obama by 3.5%; Indiana, McCain by 1.7%; and Missouri, McCain by about 0.5%. Concerning the national vote, on Friday, Gallup.com's daily tracking poll had Obama leading McCain, 52% to 41%.

Still, as most political aides will tell you, "the only poll that really counts is the one on Election Day, Tuesday, November 4." In other words, polls can err; that's why they have a margin of error, typically +/- 2%.

Polls only recently have become more accurate. Some notable poll mistakes include the 1980 U.S. presidential election, when some polls had incumbent President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat slightly ahead of the challenger, then Gov. Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Reagan, of course won the 1980 election in a landslide.

Pres. Truman had the last laugh on pollers

But the biggest polling error in a presidential election has to be the 1948 election between President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, and challenger Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, a Republican.

The polls predicted that Dewey would win by a large margin. They were wrong: Truman won a decisive victory, 303-189, in the electoral college.

Stock, oil and related futures provide valuable clues for investors/readers concerning where these market / commodities are headed.

With the above as background, Intrade.com's futures for the 2008 U.S. presidential election currently predict a decisive victory for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, over U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

InTrade's Realtime Electoral Vote Predictor is projecting an electoral college vote total of: Obama 364, McCain, 174. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Futures for Obama win are high

Futures on an Obama win are at 86.4. The 86.4 level means that the market predicts there is an 86.4% chance of this event happening. All Intrade markets trade between 0 and 100.

Futures on a McCain win are at 14.4, signaling that the market believes there's a 14.4% of McCain winning the election.

Have you decided who to vote for in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election?

If you're like most Americans, you have. By this date, two weeks or so before the election, at least 90% and in some elections 95% of you know who you're going to vote for, political science research tells us.

Historically, at this stage of the campaign, the only people who have not determined which candidate they'll vote for are those adults who tend to not vote regularly: they'll often even pass up voting in a presidential election.

2008 campaign: most negative ever?

One benefit, if you've decided who to vote for U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, or U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is that you don't have to watch any more campaign coverage or campaign ads (if you can avoid them).

True, it must seem like this presidential campaign has been the most negative ever, but if the truth be told, it's no more negative than the one in 2004, or in 1960, and certainly not more negative than the one in 1928. In 1928, the insults and smear tactics used against Democratic Party nominee N.Y. Governor Al Smith, would set the standard for gross and outrageous campaign tactics.

The nation's two candidates for U.S. president met Friday in Mississippi in their first debate, with both candidates scoring points, but with neither candidate registering a decisive "knock out blow."

The debate played out pretty much along scripted lines -- something campaign operatives were no-doubt delighted to see. In modern, televised debates, the goal is not so much to win as to avoid losing; a serious gaff can set a campaign back, whereas a victory, even a decided one, rarely moves a candidate up in the polls more than a percentage point or two.

Republican Party nominee U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, effectively demonstrated his experience in and knowledge of foreign policy, underscoring the need to win the war in Iraq. McCain believes the United States now has taken the upper hand in Iraq -- if he doesn't believe the nation is winning the war outright -- and does not see defeat as an option.

Democratic Party nominee U.S. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, effectively demonstrated that electing him president would represent a decided break from the policies of the Bush Administration, and he underscored the need for the United States to rebuild both its economy at home and standing/reputation with its allies abroad and throughout the world.

Perhaps the most compelling dimension of the debate was the fact that despite discussing the financial crisis currently gripping the nation, neither candidate said he would make any adjustments to his platform/agenda in light of the decidedly more-challenging fiscal environment. Sen. McCain did not say he would forgo his goal to cut income and business taxes. Sen. Obama did not say he would curtail goals to increase spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research/technology.

Political science teaches us that, historically, the first U.S. Presidential debate is the most important debate during the presidential campaign, mainly because it's the most-watched debate of the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

That would have been the case this year, as well, given the closeness of the race, and the increase in political interest/participation by American citizens in several segments of the electorate this election cycle.

Financial crisis alters debate backdrop

However, the debates have been displaced in importance by the crisis facing the financial system and the U.S. Congress' and President's efforts to reach an agreement on a plan that will end the crisis and shore-up severely-stressed credit, bond, stock, and currency markets.

The upcoming debate now looks like a side-show, a momentary diversion, before the nation returns to the work of trying to avoid a re-emergence of the barter system in two thousand and eight, Anno Domini.

Selected House Republicans said they had never agreed to a bailout deal, despite only hours earlier Bush Administration officials announcing an agreement on "fundamentals."

That segment of House Republicans, many from the party's conservative wing, say they oppose assisting Wall Street firms, which they believe made wrong business choices that led to the crisis. As an alternative, House Republicans offered a plan under which companies would buy insurance from the government, and that includes proposed tax cuts and a relaxation of government regulations.

Currency trader Andrew Resnick said the House Republicans' plan was deficient from a number of standpoints.

"Is this the way a responsible coalition behaves? You say nothing all day, then in the dead of night present a questionable plan via back-channels? Frankly, it's reckless and bizarre," Resnick said. "The House Republicans are playing with fire. Here we are trying to prevent a financial crisis from turning into a catastrophe and one political camp wants to play partisan politics. It's the height or depth of public irresponsibility."

Resnick said credit markets, already stressed by a series of financial institution and bank failures, as well as forced margin calls, could degenerate further.

"I'll tell you right now this whole [expletive] system could come crashing down if banks continue to hoard funds and a series of cascading sales starts to occur," Resnick said. "The House Republican plan also isn't credible. Few expect it to provide the liquidity necessary to keep the financial system functioning, and their tax cut proposal is just nuts. They want to increase the federal budget deficit more? With the dollar weak and after eight years of deficits?" Resnick added that he was presently flat, or had no open currency trading positions.

Historically, the vote for U.S. president hinges on three factors: a voter's party identification, the voter's attitude toward the candidate, and 'a most important issue.' (See: Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, The American Voter.)

Some voters cite two or three most important issues, but most have only one. One such issue that has repeatedly shown up in survey research dating back to 1952 as a factor affecting vote is the U.S. economy.

In general the rule is that if the U.S. economy is doing well, the party in power -- the party occupying the White House -- is re-elected.

If the economy is doing poorly, the party in power is voted out of office. In other words, if the economy isn't doing well, the American people "throw the rascals out," as my Ph.D. advisor, Professor Sarah Morehouse, UConn professor emeritus of political science, used to say.

The U.S. President as manager of the economy

It matters not if the president caused the damage. On many occasions the president rarely is entirely at fault, but it doesn't matter -- the president is still held accountable for the economy's performance. If the economy's strong, the president gets the credit; if the economy's in poor condition -- the blame.

Although it may seem like it's been going on for a long time, the sprint called the U.S. presidential campaign has just started.

Maybe you just wish the race was over by now?

True, given the near-continual political coverage of the primaries and general election campaign on 24-hour, cable broadcast news networks MSNBC (NYSE: GE), CNN (NYSE: TWX), and Fox News (NYSE: NWS), it probably seems like the campaigns have been going on since the dawn of recorded history.

But, really, the political calculus becomes substantive after Labor Day, primarily because the polls are more telling. The summer polls are less-predictive/less-reliable because, in a nutshell, Americans have vacations and summer leisure activities on their minds.

The Gallup Poll

U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, has pushed ahead of U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 49%-44%, in the Gallup tracking poll, as of interviews conducted through September 8. There are several, accurate polls one can monitor, but the recommendation here is to follow Gallup, given the organization's strong performance record in survey research.

Look for McCain's percentage to fall and Obama's percentage to rise as the 'bounce' that McCain received stemming from the Republican National Convention fades. Almost all candidates get a 'bounce,' or an increase in voter support, coming out of their party's nominating convention. But know also that at least a portion of this bounce typically disappears in a week or two. The conventions are largely four-day advertorials for the candidates and they tend to sway selected voters, but only temporarily. As the convention hype fades, voters look at the candidates more-critically, which accounts for the dip in support.

However, if McCain's bounce doesn't disappear before September 26, or if his support continues to increase, then most likely some other factor is at work, boosting the Republican U.S. Senator. And given her newness to the campaign and the national political stage, it's most likely Vice Presidential Nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska. But don't draw any conclusions about Palin yet: let's see what the Gallup Poll looks like in a week or so before forming any conclusions about her impact.

Could the U.S. economy tolerate, and, equally significant, will the American people push the nation's chief executive, the president, in the direction of more government intervention?

The view from here is: probably not. Everything in the American ethos and culture speaks against it.

Unlike in France, where the French Government is simply, "France," Americans, for the most part, view their government -- save defense spending -- usually as part of the problem, not the solution. 'Government is best which governs least' is a longstanding Americanism. And most investors/readers know about candidates who say they want to "get the Washington bureaucrats off the backs of the American people" and "clean up the mess in Washington!"

Americans are anti-central government, and they are anti-state (they generally dislike the limited federal government that exists). In the United States, it is always private first, public second.

What's the new president - - Republican or Democrat -- likely to face after taking the oath of office in 2009?

Daunting fiscal problems -- and right at a time when Congress may have to consider more fiscal stimulus to jump-start the U.S. economy, one economist observed.

The biggest problem, economist Glen Langan said, will be the federal government's budget deficit. The United States is on-track to record a $200 billion deficit in Fiscal 2009 and a $241 billion in Fiscal 2010 -- and that's if the U.S. economy doesn't fall into a recession, Langan said, citing Congressional Budget Office data.

"The baseline CBO projections present a large budgetary task for the new president, but by itself it's not an impossible one, absent a major recession. The problem is there's no money available to tackle any other problems, including ones a Democratic president would address -- health care, energy policy, education and infrastructure. And don't forget the Iraq War, anti-terrorism efforts, and potential mortgage assistance programs," Langan said. "If there aren't changes to the tax code, given the current revenue structure and tax rates,to say the next president's hands are tied regarding new programs, would be an understatement."

Social scientists, unlike some journalists, are reluctant to label anything a trend until they've amassed and evaluated a great deal of data often over years. A journalist can always cite a lack of information, or the crush of daily (and shorter) deadlines as a reason his/her news story did not describe reality, but if a social scientist errs in a refereed-article, well let's just say the action is not conducive to career advancement.

And that's why many social scientists are reluctant to comment on the impact of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) run for the U.S. presidency: it's way too early to articulate informed conclusions that are likely to endure.

Still, that's not to say that one can't comment on developments that may -- and underscoring "may" -- be indicative of a trend. And along that line, here's what we know about the Obama candidacy regarding voting behavior:

One of the Democratic Party's worst nightmares regarding the 2008 presidential election is coming to fruition: Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) will be the Republican Party's nominee.

Some investors / readers may argue that as a moderate, somewhat rebellious Republican and an advocate of the Iraq War, McCain will be a fairly easy candidate for the Democrats to oppose. Well, to borrow one of Vice President Gore's renowned, low-key allusions, Now, I can see you really haven't researched the matter thoroughly.

True, the short-term forces -- issues -- are against McCain. The economy is barely growing, or is already in a recession, and the Iraq War continues with little certainty regarding its outcome or ultimate impact. Further, because there's a Republican in the White House, the American people -- if decades of political science survey research mean anything -- will blame the party in power for not having solved the above problems, and this will take votes away from McCain.

A colleague based in Washington, D.C. recalled that moment in the 1960 presidential campaign when Kennedy's campaign staff knew that John F. Kennedy would defeat Richard Nixon. It occurred that fall, just before their first televised debate -- the first presidential debate ever broadcast on television.

The then Sen. Kennedy, a Democrat, was fresh from a vacation at the Kennedy Compound at Hyannis on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. He was bronzed from days spent sailing in the sun, and he was well rested. He looked like a Greek sculpture.

Conversely, the then Vice President Nixon, a Republican, looked ashen, tomb-stone white, with deep-set eyes from weeks of campaigning.

And as is the norm before a show, the TV producer asked Kennedy if he wanted some make-up.

"Nah, I don't want any make-up," Kennedy said, and motioned off the make-up man with his hand.

Nixon, perhaps trying to match Kennedy, and despite his sweaty face, refused make-up, as well.

It is not a revelation to state that Sen. Hillary Clinton's (D-New York) campaign has stumbled and is reeling.

It would be a revelation to argue that despite all of the advantages that public policy experience, party apparatus, and political contributions affords, Hillary Clinton could lose the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination, and to an upstart at that.

When one is trained in public policy and economics, you tend to view the world, at least the economic and political worlds, through a social science prism, and with that lens one can detect three Clinton campaign errors that have led to the current nomination process state-of-things.

The economy
To-date, the Clinton campaign has failed to emphasize Clinton's biggest strength: how she would fix an ailing U.S. economy. Clinton has at least five policy proposals that speak directly to what many Americans need economically; she'll have to emphasize these to secure the nomination.