McCain's Big Win

I continue to march in lockstep with my comrades-of-convenience National Review against the attempted coronation of John McCain. For example, did you know what Michael Graham notes:

In 2000, running against George W. Bush and the entire Carroll Campbell machine in South Carolina, John McCain got 42% of the vote, and 240,000 votes out of 573,000 or so cast.

Tonight, he got 33% of the vote in a field where his top challengers—Romney and Giuliani—aren't even running, and 135,000 actual votes. If just the same people who voted for McCain in 2000 had voted for him today, he would have won 50+% of the South Carolina vote. That would have been truly impressive.

Go, Mitt, go! (I'd also note that the open cheerleading for Romney in progressive circles seems to me to have gotten shockingly little play in the world of conservative commentary)

UPDATE: Let me note that while I do think Romney is a weak general election candidate, one shouldn't exaggerate this to much. In the modern era, I think we can expect all presidential elections to be relatively close and Romney does have a certain "I know what I'm doing" appeal that I think the American people mostly haven't seen yet.

Comments

"(I'd also note that the open cheerleading for Romney in progressive circles seems to me to have gotten shockingly little play in the world of conservative commentary)"

Well, the only people that would have an incentive to mention it are anti-Romneyites in conservative circles. Those who want him to win are rightfully ignoring it. Why? Well, because your reasoning is pretty solid, and pointing out that Yglesias thinks he will be both the most technocratic and easiest to beat are pretty big downsides for someone making the case that he is the best conservative in the field.

Posted by David | January 21, 2008 1:53 PM

Romney is going to end up being a harder target to hit than you think, Matt. If the election comes down to a referendum on whether to give the Clintons a third co-presidency, Romney won't have to be a great candidate to eke out a victory, only inoffensive. Saying he's full of shit won't help a whole lot when he's running against two people who are known as being full of shit themselves.

Posted by Rid | January 21, 2008 2:00 PM

Giuliani is one of McCain's "top challengers"? Wtf? The guy who has less delegates than Duncan Hunter?

Posted by Shawn | January 21, 2008 2:01 PM

I think it's time to start advocating for Rudy, no? I mean, if he has a chance in Florida, a win there would probably put NY, NJ, and CT back in play. Right now they seem to be a McCain lock to me. But maybe Romney is more likely in FL than Rudy, in which case, GO ROMNEY!!!!

Posted by Marshall | January 21, 2008 2:01 PM

I'm voting for the Stormin' Mormon. Go Mitt!

Posted by B. Hive | January 21, 2008 2:02 PM

Wouldn't open cheerleading for Romney in progressive circles actually undermine Mitt's campaign? Obviously progressives wouldn't cheer for someone who could actually win the general election for the GOP.

Conversely, the visceral hatred that I see coming from progressive circles vis a vis McCain would make me more likely to support him, if I was a conservative. Clearly there is intense fear of a McCain-led GOP in the general election.

I for one do support McCain for the GOP nomination. I believe that McCain could defeat Hillary, and not Obama. If the GOP nominates any old schmuck like Romney, then the Dems are free to let Hillary go with it. But McCain winning for the GOP will make the Dems think twice about passing up Obama...

Posted by Nick | January 21, 2008 2:03 PM

I believe that McCain could defeat Hillary, and not Obama.

Why?

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 2:08 PM

What Graham and the rest of the right-wing machine don't want to admit though is that if McCain so underperformed his 2000 SC race and still won...what does that say about the pathetic state of the rest of the field? I mean, where's the conservative concern that their two favorite candidates, Rudy and Romney, have bascially admitted they can't win the Religious Right South?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 21, 2008 2:11 PM

1. Please close italics in your post below, so I can read your blog without getting a headache.

2. Maybe conservatives are ignoring pro-Romney progressives because pro-Romney progressives aren't saying anything particularly interesting. Everyone already knows that, once upon a time, Mitt Romney was a socially moderate and technocratic governor of Massachusetts. His evolution from that into Mitt 2.0 has been covered exhaustively by reporters and commentators across the political spectrum. It's unremarkable, given that Romney's rivals are a Baptist minister, two crazy people who want to escalate Bush's warlike foreign policy, a guy who pretends to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul, that Romney is the most appealing Republican from a liberal/progressive point of view. After all, it's worth the gamble that Romney 1.0 is the real Romney, and Romney 2.0 is an invention designed to fool Republicans into voting for him. Not a stirring endorsement, but more plausible than whatever progressives might say about the other guys.

As far as whether conservatives should care that some progressives think Mitt Romney would be easier to beat than other GOP candidates, I'm not sure that they should. That would only matter if there were some reason to suspect that Romney actually is a weaker candidate in a general election than his rivals, and I haven't read any interesting progressive analyses that say he is.

Posted by JB | January 21, 2008 2:14 PM

Here is why I think McCain beats Clinton but not Obama. The dynamic changes considerably when you compare a McCain / Obama matchup vs a McCain / Clinton matchup. Consider in each matchup, who is going to be inspired to vote? Who will be disheartened or uninspired, and perhaps stay home?

When McCain goes up against Obama, McCain's great strength (independents) vanishes completely. Meanwhile, the conservative establishment isn't a huge fan of McCain (everyone knows this), so his candidacy doesn't inspire them to mobilize for his cause. Not to mention, many conservatives don't mind Obama all that much. Some conservatives will vote McCain, but others will defect for Obama and the rest will just stay home. Meanwhile, Obama is going to inspire the entire democratic establishment to get out and vote.

Now think about the McCain / Clinton matchup. HRC's campaign against Obama right now is very disheartening to democrats and liberals. To see the two most powerful democrats in America lash into the most popular one is just plain ugly. Andrew Sullivan is correct when he describes it as "Rovian". HRC simply won't inspire as many Democrats to vote as Obama will. Meanwhile, guess who HRC is in fact inspiring to vote? If you think gay marriage and "moral issues" mobilizes the conservative vote, you haven't seen anything yet.

Posted by Nick | January 21, 2008 2:19 PM

I'm with Rid. I like HRC against anyone in the Republican field except Romney. I don't know if he'll kill her, but I think he'll beat her. He was a good enough politician to get MY's vote, after all.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 21, 2008 2:21 PM

The Feb 2008 Scientific American (p. 36 ) has a report on an experiment involving capuchin monkeys which I think explains this:

------------
In another experiment in which two capuchins were trained to exchange a granite stone for a cucumber slice, they made the trade 95 percent of the time.

But if one monkey received a grape instead ( a delicacy capuchins greatly prefer over cucumbers ), the other monkey cooperated only 60 percent of the time, sometimes even refusing the cucumber slice altogether.

In a third condition in which one monkey received a grape without even having to swap a granite stone for it, the other monkey cooperated only 20 percent of the time. And in several instances , they became so enraged at the inequity of the outcome they heaved the cucumber slice back at the human experimenters!"

---------
Here in Philly, the monkeys at the zoo hurl feces in protest. Something to remember if you are seated near the Pennsylvania delegation at the Democratic Convention.

Posted by Don Williams | January 21, 2008 2:24 PM

They have to get Romney nominated, at what appears to be any cost. He's the only true supply-sider in the race (well, Guiliani is too... I guess his one delegate in this race is a truly ironic development given his economic policies. Maybe it'll "trickle down" to get him more delegates?). But I suspect an awful lot of Republicans aren't too confident about winning this thing in the end. Better to keep the fairy tale going rather than to let some boogeyman like McCain derail their entire platform of the past thirty years.

Posted by Jake in Milwaukee | January 21, 2008 2:26 PM

Nick, I don't agree with your analysis.

In New Hampshire, Independents decided to vote for McCain and not Obama. McCain has lock on the independent vote. I also don't agree that Obama is going to inspire the entire democratic establishment to vote for him. If this was true he would be running away with the democratic nomination which he clearly is not doing presently. Obama can't get people over 45 who are not black to vote for him. This seems like a real problem to me.

I think HRC beats McCain. All these people that say they wont vote for HRC are full of it. When it comes down to it they would rather vote for her than spend the next 100 years in Iraq. Plus she will overwhelmingly carry the women vote.

Posted by buyproduct | January 21, 2008 2:37 PM

Re Don Williams

Obviously those monkeys have been bought off by Hian Saben.

Posted by SLC | January 21, 2008 2:43 PM

Living in SC, I have to call BS on the claim that Mitt Romney didn't campaign here. Romney was the first to air campaign ads on TV in my area, at least, and that was in October, 2 months before anybody else did. His kids have made numerous campaign stops in the area, though I'm not sure if Romney himself did.

In other words, Romney campaigned his butt off here, he just stopped spending a couple of weeks ago to focus temporarily on Michigan.

Posted by Arr-squared | January 21, 2008 2:47 PM

Here is why I think McCain beats Clinton but not Obama. The dynamic changes considerably when you compare a McCain / Obama matchup vs a McCain / Clinton matchup. Consider in each matchup, who is going to be inspired to vote? Who will be disheartened or uninspired, and perhaps stay home?

When McCain goes up against Obama, McCain's great strength (independents) vanishes completely. Meanwhile, the conservative establishment isn't a huge fan of McCain (everyone knows this), so his candidacy doesn't inspire them to mobilize for his cause. Not to mention, many conservatives don't mind Obama all that much. Some conservatives will vote McCain, but others will defect for Obama and the rest will just stay home. Meanwhile, Obama is going to inspire the entire democratic establishment to get out and vote.

Now think about the McCain / Clinton matchup. HRC's campaign against Obama right now is very disheartening to democrats and liberals. To see the two most powerful democrats in America lash into the most popular one is just plain ugly. Andrew Sullivan is correct when he describes it as "Rovian". HRC simply won't inspire as many Democrats to vote as Obama will. Meanwhile, guess who HRC is in fact inspiring to vote? If you think gay marriage and "moral issues" mobilizes the conservative vote, you haven't seen anything yet.

Your "dynamic" is quite static, omitting the Republican noise machine and its enablers in the MSM. I currently support Obama, but do not believe that he is any more electable than Clinton. Whether it's "black Muslim socialist" or "man-hating lesbian socialist," it's coming, and will be overlayed with the MSM's idolatry of Granpa McCain (should he be the nominee).

1. Ignore today's HTH polling.
2. Vote for your candidate.
3. Win or lose, fight like hell for the Democrats in November.

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 2:54 PM

Lots more independents voted for Obama than for McCain in New Hampshire. Buyproduct is wrong on that point.

I think that HRC can beat McCain because it is a very bad year for the Republicans and economic issues may drive a lot of votes. However, the favorable / unfavorable numbers for both candidates are not encouraging if you are a Democrat. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is not being realistic about November . . .

Posted by ikl | January 21, 2008 3:23 PM

Clearly there is intense fear of a McCain-led GOP in the general election.
I for one do support McCain for the GOP nomination. I believe that McCain could defeat Hillary, and not Obama. If the GOP nominates any old schmuck like Romney, then the Dems are free to let Hillary go with it. But McCain winning for the GOP will make the Dems think twice about passing up Obama...
Posted by Nick

Nice try, Nick. The media did their best to to fluff Bob Dole, old war hero, in 1996 simply to proffer up an easy target for the Clinton team to carve up. Old warhorse=trussed up turkey. Chris Matthews was still wiping the cum out of his mouth for his Bob Dole Fluffery into 1998. Now they have him doing a double fellating of Obama and McCain.
The "indie vote" breaks with the main issue du jour. In 2000, it was integrity for them. IN 2004 it was still terror and evildoers. In 2006 it was Bush mismanaging Iraq. 2008 looks to be the economy.
And Independents have in the past, and will continue, to avoid tired old candidates 30 years Inside the Beltway and over 70 years old. Meaning that indies might give the old fighter jock they liked in 2000 who has the same "my way or the highway" management style of Dubya a last hurrah in the Primaries, but want the fool in the Oval Office as much as the Republican base does.

Personally, the more I read about Romney, the more I like his chances of being a good President. A goofy, big-brained Ned Flanders President, but a good one still....The more I see or learn of Hillary, the less I like her, but the more I admit she is very smart and grounded in what she would seek to do as President..unfortunately I disagree with much of what she wants.

Obama? He will have some work ahead of him and no longer use his soaring oratory to cover up specifics in his proposed policies, but I like him. From John Calhoun to William Jennings Bryant to Adolph Hitler to FDR to JFK to Fidel Castro to Reagan - people have always loved their spellbinding orators. If not the results when they go with feeling and heart vs. understanding exactly what that skilled orator seeks to do.

McCain? The more I learn about him which the uncritical press covers up, the queasier I feel.

1. Had bad luck and bad flying (pilot error) to crash 5 jets over his time as a pilot. Two should have washed him out before he ever got to Vietnam.

2. He has had an ex-Senator come out and say that what Mccain said in public on several important matters was the exact opposite of what he was trying to do behind closed Senate doors. And that McCain would sometimes fight for what the Democrats wanted, lose badly, then come out and say that he helped initiate the law or program he fought against secretly.

3. Some say McCains being in the military in combat and suffering at the hands of the enemy (the only thing liberals criticize the N Vietnamese for, BTW) makes him the most qualified to be Commander in Chief. Except the majority of our better commanders in chief, including Eisenhower, never were in combat personally.
With McCain, he was evaluated all his 27 years in the Navy for fitness. In the end, the Navy passed on McCain as fit to be a senior general officer despite his family connections and POW bonus points - on matters of temperment and judgment. His Examining Board, rejecting his bid to become Admiral, let alone a 4-Star one like his Father and Grandfather, probably had an opinion about his ability to become a Commander in Chief..

4. Two Senators back in 2002 named McCain as having the same approach to decision-making as Bush. As a fighter jock, a certain swagger and arrogance...an absolute reluctance and stubborness to revisit decisions. Back in 2002, they meant it as a compliment, of course.

5. There have been past incidents of McCain vendettas against military officers, judges, Administration officials that required intercession of leadership to get him to back off personal witch hunts - which form the basis of the "mean streak" reputation McCain has. The media has studiously avoided mentioning the who-why-where of these incidents to the public. Or incidents of tantrums, tirades directed against Hill Staffers, fellow elected officials...

Posted by chris ford | January 21, 2008 4:40 PM

Whether Inable McCain is able (or not able) to beat The Democrat, the fact of the matter is, is that he's winning open primaries on crossover votes by liberal types. By that I mean people who apparently support Democratic positions. The exception to that might be the war, except the New Hampshire polling strongly suggested people were really confused and thought voting for McCain meant repudiating the war and George Bush. Curiously, the NYT polling I read left out the question of the war, altogether. (Why?)

So I can't tell if McCain won those two primaries because of liberal hawks/neoconservatives or if the press push for McCain has convinced people he's anti-war or something. In either event, in both cases they were his margin of victory.

So I don't see how McCain then turns around and whips either Clinton or Obama (or Edwards for that matter), since he won't be representing the conservatives so they'll all stay home and let him do the Barry Goldwater routine.

From either direction, a candidate has to hold his (or her) base and get them out to vote while winning independents and carrying a few guys from the other party.

So if the war issue is not a winner, and the amnesty issue is not a winner, and the tax-breaks -for-rich-people-while-the-economy-tanks issue is not a winner, what the hell has McCain got to get votes from his side or from the center?

Deciding McCain will be dangerously successful is like deciding Guilani or Bloomberg is going to dangerously successful: maybe in New York, but that ain't where the ducks are.

It's all very odd.

max
['But it should be since we live in a 'managed democracy' now.']

Posted by max | January 21, 2008 6:27 PM

In a year where the GOP will struggle to win the WH, McCain remains the only guy who can pull it off. He puts states into play that none of the other candidates (save for Guiliani) can win, while still holding down the solid South for the Republicans. Romney continues to be the most unelectable candidate in the field, mainly because of transparent pandering that even those who are politically ignorant can see through. His flip-flops and double-speaks would be poked through so many times that Hillary would barely need to campaign if you were running enough negative ads. So it comes down to this: if you don't want 4-8 years of Billary, GOPers will need to suck it up, and vote for McCain.

Posted by Publius | January 21, 2008 6:49 PM

Romney does have a certain "I know what I'm doing" appeal that I think the American people mostly haven't seen yet.

Well, he certainly knows how to let the dogs out and then get jiggy wit it.

Posted by javaphil | January 22, 2008 7:06 AM

McCain is a libral. Ron Paul needs to Take Back-the-GOP from the warmongering, corporate owned jackals that have hijacked the party. The Republicans of today probably have Reagan spinning in his grave. The nation is on a dangerous path to financial destitution and loss of status around the globe. It simply boggles my mind mind when the caucus voters of South Carolina voted for McCain. McCain pushed for amnesty and wants to be in Iraq for 100 year. Huckabee wants to change the constitution to line-up with the Bible and Romney is simply another man trying to buy his way into office. I pray that none of these snakes manages to slither into the oval office. Ron Paul is a vote for integrity, decency and true fiscal conservatism.

Posted by angela pearchman | January 22, 2008 10:11 AM

Matt are you completely insane? Romney is a monster. He will do or so anything to get elected, he is just so much more clumsy at it than Clinton. I can only hope your support for him is ironic.

Posted by JC | January 22, 2008 10:57 AM