The same things we would read in anything by Hal Lindsey of Tim Lahaye. Granted, it is a bit more logical and well argued, but it still suffers from many weaknesses.
Now, as for who the antichrist is...we'll only know after the rapture when the tribulation begins, he says. Whether he is right or not is thus dependent almost entirely on the truth of pre-tribulation dispensationalism (which is more or less assumed to be true).
Hitchcock takes the Bible extremely literally, except of course when it would go against the dispensationalist, pre-tribulation rapture view. For example, although he admits that the beast represents both a kingdom and its king, we know that when it speaks of it suffering a mortal wound and coming back to life that the person, not kingdom is in view because a kingdom can't suffer a mortal head wound and resurrected. That would be great, except it doesn't say "the person represented by the beast" suffers a mortal wound and rises again. Specifically, it is one of its multiple heads (Revelation ). Does that mean the antichrist has multiple heads too? Or, could it be that a symbolic beast being destroyed and rising again itself symbolic for something? After all, that is the case quite often when a kingdom is symbolized in scripture (including the 4th beast in Daniel 7 where this imagery comes from; that beast is slaughtered and then incinerated, representing the end of the kingdom, not the fate of a person). Similarly, the kingdom of Babylon must rise again and be destroyed a second time. How do we know that? Because the Babylon of Isaiah's time was destroyed, as he predicted in Isaiah 13, but since the sun didn't go out (Verse 10) and other such details did not come to pass, it must be the case that there will be a new Babylon in the end times to fulfill the prophecy (as opposed to Isaiah, the most poetic of all the prophets, being hyperbolic...). As for how he would explain the use of bows and arrows by the Medes (another kingdom that will need to be re-established), I can only guess.
On the rare occasions where alternative points of view are looked at, they are addressed poorly. In dealing with the preterist interpretation of the beast, the understanding of that view and the arguments for it shows itself to be quite superficial. In many cases, it is a matter of how something "seems better" than something else.
This book takes for granted dispensationalism, which can make some of his points quite muddled if you don't adopt the assumptions held in the first place.
As for other details, it is not often clear if he is right or wrong, so you'll need to do a lot more study than just reading a book review to know if he is right ;)
Overall, I wasn't impressed, although I will give Hitchcock credit for at least basing his arguments on exegesis (albeit unsuccessfully) and much less on emotional appeals than writers who further similar positions.