With the McCain surge the press has long been calling for now showing signs of actually emerging, it's worth pointing out that a McCain nomination would be bad news for Democrats . . . the press loves the guy, he does well in early polls, and while he has terrible policy views he doesn't have much in the way of the sort of trivial slip-ups that really hurt you in a campaign. Folks should read Matt Welch's McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.
« Warnings | Main | Wrong on Race? »
McCain
24 Dec 2007 10:30 am
Comments (27)
McCain would win easily against any of the Dems, unless he loses his cool publicly or starts looking REALLY old, both of which are distinct possibilities.
As horrible as he is, both as a person and on policy grounds, he probably wouldn't be much worse as a president than most of his competitors. He certainly is the only serious Republican candidate - the rest are clowns, monsters, lightweights, or some combination thereof. Honestly if I had to choose between him and Clinton, I'm not sure I'd vote for Clinton (well, honestly I wouldn't vote for either of them, but if you held a gun to my head ...) They are both extreme hawks, but McCain's greater knowledge, and Clinton's need to appear "tough", might actually mean a slightly more restrained policy under McCain. And I expect that McCain would be marginally better - well, who am I kidding, marginally less horrible - on executive power issues.
There was a poll getting some attention about 2 weeks ago showing that McCain had the highest negatives among Republicans. Surely that's not going away. Within the GOP, who's going to turn out for the guy they like the least?
When thinking about how bad it might or might not be to have a McCain presidency, shouldn't we be thinking about who his running mate might be?
Peering into my crystal ball, I see a battle for the GOP nomination brewing between McCain and Huckabee (something I've been saying for weeks now) with a brokered ticket of McCain-Huckabee for the general election, a match-up that would be extremely difficult to beat. There are only two problems with my scenario: how McCain's age will play out and how well Huckabee would like playing second fiddle. But it's tough to see how a Democratic ticket could stand up to that combination -- David Broder's ultimate fantasy.
If in the general, Obama faces McCain, just watch how fast folks like Brooks and Sullivan abandon Obama in favor of their one true love.
By the way, Romney's so over, even if pundits like Josh Marshall can't quite figure it out. (From what I can tell Josh has virtually no personal experience with red-state "values voters" so he doesn't grasp the fact that as a bloc they'll never vote for someone who belongs to a "false religion.")
I'm increasingly of the view that McCain would be the John Kerry of the GOP field this year: old Vietnam vet senator with high negatives, whom nobody in his party particularly likes but most might be grudgingly willing to accept in lieu of the alternatives. This time with cancer.
The man's been wrapping himself in the Iraq war and Bush's loincloth. He's beatable, a suppine press notwithstanding.
McCain's rise is good news for Hillary. People don't like to throw away votes. Two weeks ago plenty of independent New Hampshire voters who might not have considered entering the GOP primary there are now tempted to do so, thus depriving Obama of a rich source of votes.
I'm a skeptic about McCain-- his previous run collapsed on contact with actual political opposition. I predict that there will be a quantity of journalistic premature ejaculation, but not much else.
As much as it may be a myth that McCain is a complete maverick, you'd gotta admit that putting your name with Ted Kennedy's on a pro-immigration bill the year before a Republican primary nomination is somewhat mavericky.
My crystal ball is tuned into the same channel as BryklynLibrul's. Huckabee has been positively reverential towards McCain, who seems to like him in return. That's a hell of a lot more than can be said for Rudy or the Rombot. Huckabee would be very smart to take the VP nod on McCain's ticket as he has little to no chance in the general election at the top of the ticket even if he could overcome the Republican establishments horror of him and get the nomination, which is extremely unlikely. As VP candidate all his nutty policy ideas are no longer a problem, he boosts the ticket by bringing the disaffected Christian right back to McCain, and after four years looks primed to take over for the aging maverick. McCain/Huckabee is a ticket for which the Democrats have no likely effective counter.
Dr. Anatole, the answer to your question is, "all of them", if Clinton is the Dem's nominee. Her negatives are even higher than McCain's. In my view Obama is the only Dem with a chance if the Republicans pull themselves together and nominate their most effective ticket.
McCain would be the John Kerry of the GOP field this year: old Vietnam vet senator with high negatives
I'm pretty sure Kerry had extremely low negatives until the post-primary campaign began -- it was part of the electability narrative.
Robert, I was really referring to the primaries, but point taken. I just don't see where McCain's going to be winning delegates on Super Tuesday.
McCain clearly is the GOP's only viable candidate by virtue of the fact that his is not a ridiculous buffoon. Romney/Huckabee 08!
I just don't see where McCain's going to be winning delegates on Super Tuesday.
By Feb. 5th, Rudy will be sunk. The bulk of that support goes to McCain. (How his campaign figured that they could lose every single primary between Iowa and Super Tuesday and still be viable is beyond me.
Romney is sunk completely after he loses Iowa to Huckabee and NH to McCain. Fred is done even if he finishes a very distant 3rd (or possible 4th) in Iowa, and then behind Ron Paul in NH.
After NH, McCain most likely wins Michigan (no real dem contest there, and an open primary means Dems/Ind. can cross over. What is different from 2000 is that there really is no "conservative establishment choice" like Bush was.
McCain would be a serious threat to win the whole election if he wasn't, like, 800 years old. The only Dem he could possibly beat is Kucinich.
And while I disagree with him on many policy issues, he doesn't terrify me in the way that most of the other Republicans do.
Q: Has McCain ever played dirty?
I'm much more worried about if he plays clean than if he plays dirty. I think if a Republican plays clean against Hillary, they'll beat her easily.
See, I want someone who plays dirty on the Republican side. That turns them into villains and makes the prospect of an overwhelming electoral beatdown much more likely. In fact, my dream nominee for the Republicans is Mitt Romney, who I think comes off as such a total asshole that people couldn't help but show up just to vote against him.
I really think the Democrat has play the role of good guy, not a villain. That's why I think Edwards and Obama are good choices, not Hillary. People see Edwards and Obama as "nice". A lot of people see Hillary as a villain.
Matt, you're absolutely right in your assessment of McCain. Just as in 2000, if the GOP is smart enough to nominate McCain, I think we Democrats are pretty much screwed.
It's possible that he could lose a general election, but I have trouble seeing Clinton, Edwards, or Obama defeating him in November.
I'm skeptical that McCain would be so unbeatable in the general election. Conservatives just hate the guy. Now granted, the kind of people who fulminate on blogs about campaign finance reform probably aren't numerically significant enough to swing an election by sitting out, but I think they're indicative of a sour mood in the GOP that can't be helpful in November.
Also, unlike Giuliani, McCain won't demagogue the torture issue to make the Democratic nominee look weak (he may try other things, but not in as toxic a manner as Rudy).
right...
" if he wasn't, like, 800 years old"
That meme was trotted out in 2000, and again this year. If McCain were a slow talking, slow moving geezer, that might take root, but in any interview/public appearence I've seen him he comes off as almost hyper-caffinated. Almost every poll I've seen seem him beating Hillary pretty handily, though much closer or behind Edwards or Obama.
McCain would win easily against any of the Dems
This is absurd. The Democratic nominee is going to demolish the Republican candidate. If I wasn't broke, I'd put real money down on it. There is no matchup I see that can change this. None. McCain? Mr. Iraq War? Think about 2006. The Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost because of Iraq. Unless the Republican nominee is Paul, in which case it would be a landslide of epic proportions, Iraq will once again bring about Republican downfall. The country hates the war. It already voted its dislike. If you think the most consistently hawkish candidate can win the presidency, in effect saying to the county he'll continue in Iraq and would be inclined toward something similar, you are all nuts.
2008 is the new 2006. The Dems win the White House easily, take 4-6 Senate seats and at least hold what they have in the House. Read the writing on the wall. The country is not happy, things are not going well, people are scared about the future (legitimately), and they'll vote that way. Many Republican voters will sit this one out. The Democrats and energized and independents will vote for the Dems or against the Republicans by a wide margin. And that's assuming the evangelicals vote Republican as they have in the past. If not it's lights out.
"2008 is the new 2006."
Um, no it isn't. In December 2006, 112 American troops were killed in Iraq; 16 American troops have been killed in Iraq this December, month to date. I know many liberals are innumerate liberal arts types, but certainly a contrast between those numbers jumps out at you. If U.S. casualties in Iraq continue to approach the level of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq will continue to drop off the electorate's radar screen like Afghanistan already has.
The electorate is concerned, but they're not concerned so much about Iraq, or Global Warming. They're concerned about the economy. This would be the perfect time for Dems to run a candidate who had experience successfully running a large business, or balancing a budget as a governor. Instead, your top three candidates are an ambulance chaser-phony populist, and two attorneys with 10 years of Senate experience and no executive experience between them. You still have a good chance of winning, particularly with Obama, who gives the appearance of seeming thoughtful, but not if you run as if it's 2006.
In any case, I'd hate to see you guys get your hearts broken in the event a Dem does win the presidency next year. The chances that President Obama or Hillary will risk Iraq reverting back to disaster on his or her watch are approximately zero. That means we'll still be in Iraq in force in 2012, regardless of who wins next year.
2006 is the new 2008? It depends on how the war goes in the next few months, but this election has quickly become one about domestic issues, not the war. Though I do agree that if McCain is the nominee many Republicans will sit the election out. Maybe less if Huckabee is on the ticket, but McCain/Huckabee will be the final straw that broke the GOP coalition.
Agree that McCain is quite electable. But is there any chance the Dems would consider getting around to the right of him on immigration, exploiting the fact that a lot of white working class Republicans hate him because of McCain-Kennedy? No need to get all xenophobic or endorse cruel policies. But why not remind voters that Barbara Jordan (who headed the 1996 immigration reform commission, and endorsed a sensibly restrictionist series of recommendations, was a Democrat! The idea is basically outlined here: http://www.amconmag.com/07_28_03/feature.html
an article advocating this strategy for Howard Dean in 2003.
McCain might win against Clinton, but probably not against Obama or Edwards. He'd lose by less, though, than any other Republican. There are a lot of people who would vote for McCain over Clinton. Democrats, even.
And as for Sullivan, he'd vote for Obama over McCain because of the war. He endorsed Ron Paul over McCain because of the war. Most Americans do not want an indefinite occupation of Iraq, and that's what it would boil down to in a McCain vs. Democrat contest. The reason that the war has been less of a big deal in Dem primary is because most of the Dems seem to believe that Clinton will pull out the troops, despite her vote. But it will be a huge issue in the general.
Personally, I think this is a weak Democratic field. I really would wish a governor was running. McCain/Huckabee would be doubly dangerous, as Huckabee would be groomed for the presidency and would gain a lot of experience.
Probably it's a result of all the goyim being off with their families, having lives - but after all the comments on Huckabee's version, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any comments on McCain's new Christmas ad, which is at least as strongly evangelical as Huckabee's and probably a lot more effective to boot.
Plus, because while McCain may be a scumbag (he basically engineered the passage of the pro-torture bill in the last Congress, while claiming credit for his quandam opposition), he's not a total tool like the true evangelical wing of his party (see: Huckabee, Keyes, etcetera), so after all the 'Christ' 'Blessed' red meat has been issued to the crowd he does make sure to tack on an inclusive 'happy holidays'.
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, -- bomb, bomb Iran"
"he doesn't have much in the way of the sort of trivial slip-ups that really hurt you in a campaign."
I don't think that even voters who might actually think that bombing Iran might be a good idea, would be at all comfortable with that idea expressed to the tune of the Beach Boys song, and in a rendition presented by the candidate for the Presidency himself. And if McCain becomes the Republican nominee, you can bet that we'll be seeing and hearing a lot of that particular clip.
That clip and the new ones he'll be generating. His tendency in this year's campaign to put his foot in his mouth has been obscured the last two months, since people stopped paying attention to him because we all thought he was goners, largely because of these gaffes. People start paying attention again, and we'll have fresh material.
I don't remember him being like this in 2000. Maybe he had more favorable press back then, that swept verbal gaffes under the rug. But the press still seems pretty deferential to him, and maybe the difference is that he's starting to suffer from a dementia. Contrary to what some of the above commentators think, dementia would not usually cause a person to be lethargic or "slow". That wouldn't even be at all common an effect until late in the course, when memory lacunae have grown so numerous and extensive that whole areas of competence in daily living have been lost, and the patient is checkmated into a very limited scope of life. The first effect is usually a lowering of inhibitions and social judgment. This tends to give the patient's premorbid personality, whatever that was, a new sharpness of edge, as he loses the inclination and ability to soften the edges to present a more socially acceptable front. The "bomb Iran" vocal performance would be fairly classic for this sort of friskiness of early dementia.
Comments closed January 07, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I commented on this a few days ago when people were piling on Mitt and Huckabee: this only enables McCain, who is the one GOP candidate who scares me, because of the adulation he gets from the press.
Posted by McKingford | December 24, 2007 10:40 AM