McCain's Moment

It's a bit odd, isn't it, that after all the drama of the Republican nominating race it now looks like John McCain will win? That, after all, is exactly what it seemed like would happen 18 months ago before any of the campaigning had happened. It's shades of John Kerry in 2004. I resolved four years ago to pay less attention to the details of the primary campaign next time around, and I think I succeeded to some extent, but I'm pretty sure I should have paid even less attention.

There's also a hack gap issue here. I spent, as did many liberals, much time mocking the eminently mock-worthy Mitt Romney. But in purely cynical terms, we should have all been mocking John McCain and acting really, really, really frighted of Romney. Such hair! How can we beat that? He'll put Massachusetts into play! Panic! That kind of thing.

Comments

"I'm pretty sure I should have paid even less attention."

Of course, some of us paying close attention have been saying all along that it was likely going to be McCain.

In fact, some of us paying close attention are going to make a LOT of money on McCain contracts bought on Intrade at 5 cents on the dollar...

(PS Romney's not the favorite, but he's not out of it either.)

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 1:32 PM

And if it is McCain, I think Democrats had better hope the nominee isn't Hillary.

Posted by El Cid | January 3, 2008 1:34 PM

If it's Clinton vs. McCain in the general, my brain will weep tears of blood.

Posted by Christmas | January 3, 2008 1:37 PM

But is McCain as inevitable as Dean was in 2004? Even if it looks like he won't win, he'll win?

Posted by Jonas | January 3, 2008 1:38 PM

McCain is simply the safe, sane girlfriend you go back to after the sexier, wilder affair has turned out to be a disaster.

Posted by tinisoli | January 3, 2008 1:42 PM

"But is McCain as inevitable as Dean was in 2004?"

Dean 2003 = Rudy 2007.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 1:44 PM

Well, look on the bright side if this happens.

All the excitable rightwing anti-immigrationists who hang around here will probably begin attacking the Republican ticket so ferociously that the liberal commenters will feel compelled not merely to defend McCain, but even to vote for him...

Posted by RKU | January 3, 2008 1:45 PM

McCain has always looked strong when compared one on one to the dems. If the hair club for growth lays off him for his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, he'll be tough to beat by any democrat except Clinton. She has almost no chance against him without a third party candidate.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 3, 2008 1:52 PM

First, it's still a little early. Second, McCain doesn't have too much money ... he needs a big cash infusion to be competitive on 2/5. Third, people did slag McCain in 2007 ... they just thought they were finished between the immigration mess and the press seeming to catch on to McCain's act in the summer months.

Still rooting for a Romney squeaker.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 3, 2008 1:54 PM

If McCain in the nominee, is there any wany the Dems DON'T win Ohio and Florida?

On the downside, he would make it difficult to carry the western swing states like NV and CO.

Posted by Joe | January 3, 2008 1:54 PM

Uh, you guys really don't think the worm will turn again? McCain is a terrible front runner, terrible. This thing is far from settled. (This is precisely the kind of post, by the way, that looks silly three months on. And you mention Kerry/Dean! Amazing.)

Posted by Freddie | January 3, 2008 1:54 PM

And, like 18 months ago, before any campaigning happened, it seemed like Hillary was the D choice. And she will be. It is inevitable. I have all but ignored the D wrangling, and will end up knowing what I did then. Money, power, and contacts drive the nomination process. She dominates in all three.
Of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by Beer Here | January 3, 2008 1:56 PM

What about fucking Huckabee!!! why do bloggers - liberal and conservative - view the prospect of a Huckabee nomination as so unlikely, given that he's at or near the top of most state and national polls????

Posted by Matt D | January 3, 2008 1:58 PM

If Romney wins Iowa, he'll be in an excellent position to win New Hampshire. So I wouldn't just annoint McCain as the frontrunner yet.

Posted by Peter H | January 3, 2008 1:58 PM

It's a bit odd, isn't it, that after all the drama of the Republican nominating race it now looks like John McCain will win? That, after all, is exactly what it seemed like would happen 18 months ago before any of the campaigning had happened.

I'd say it's exactly what seemed like would happen maybe three years ago. Eighteen months ago was in the midst of the immigrant-bashing crisis, and by then it looked like McCain would likely have a hard time vying for the nomination. In fact, prior to maccacagate, it was Senator Allen who was looking like a plausible favorite.

Posted by Jasper | January 3, 2008 1:59 PM

"If McCain in the nominee, is there any wany the Dems DON'T win Ohio and Florida?"

Yes. McCain is their strongest general election candidate by far.

If we don't nominate Edwards, I'd say McCain would have a 50/50 shot to win the general.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:00 PM

If Romney wins Iowa, he'll be in an excellent position to win New Hampshire.

That's a *huge* if at this point. Like really unlikely, even.

Posted by justinb | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM

"Yes. McCain is their strongest general election candidate by far."

Maybe nationwide. But in swing states where the GOP relies heavily on the bubba vote, I have a hard time seeing him do very well. Although he's tried to backtrack in recent years, he built his national standing on being the GOP anti-bubba. And since he is a westerner, it will be even more difficult to do well in FL.

Posted by Joe | January 3, 2008 2:04 PM

"What about fucking Huckabee!!! why do bloggers - liberal and conservative - view the prospect of a Huckabee nomination as so unlikely, given that he's at or near the top of most state and national polls?"

Because he's incredibly unlikely to actually win the nomination.

You win early primaries by getting up to 35%. You win the nomination by getting up to 50%. Huckabee can't do the second of those things.

-----

(And as an aside, it's funny to note that if you watch C-SPAN at all, a remarkably high percentage of caller, both pro and anti-Huck refer to him as "Hucklebee" without any trace in their voice that their attempting a funny.)

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:05 PM

After reading this thread, I'm tempted to send a check to McCain. Sure, he's wrong on illegal immigration, but any of the Dem candidates would be worse.

In any case, McCain's rebound is the result of two things:

1) The success of the surge so far in stabilizing Iraq, and

2) The defeat of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill receding into the memory hole.

Posted by Fred | January 3, 2008 2:07 PM

In any case, McCain's rebound is the result of two things:

1) The success of the surge so far in stabilizing Iraq, and

2) The defeat of the Bush-Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill receding into the memory hole.

Looks more like the collapse of the Giuliani campaign has sent hawkish voters running to their second choice candidate.

Posted by Gabriel | January 3, 2008 2:10 PM

If Romney wins Iowa, he'll be in an excellent position to win New Hampshire.

That's a *huge* if at this point. Like really unlikely, even.

We'll find out tonight. I'm predicting a Romney win because (1) All the polls are showing some movement back towards Romney (2) Romney has the vastly superior organization. Also, I have the feeling that more of the second-choice voters are going to move towards Romney than Huckabee.

Posted by Peter H | January 3, 2008 2:13 PM

"You win early primaries by getting up to 35%. You win the nomination by getting up to 50%. Huckabee can't do the second of those things."

What Republican candidate CAN do the second of those things? Rudy's a liberal. Fred's too lazy.
Paul's too libertarian. Romney's a Mormon. Huckabee is too hated by the economic ideologues and McCain is too hated by all those right-wingers who decided that getting in the way of the coronation of George W. Bush in 2000 was an unforgivable sin.

Mike

Posted by MB unge | January 3, 2008 2:15 PM

Joe: I think McCain has lots of qualities that would let him run well in OH and FL. Heck, MI and WI too. I also think he takes NV, AZ, and maybe NM off the table, and might put OR into play.

That leaves you hoping you can somehow make a critique-from-the-right on immigration, and I don't know how you do that without making Robert Byrd vice president.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 3, 2008 2:16 PM

"That leaves you hoping you can somehow make a critique-from-the-right on immigration, and I don't know how you do that without making Robert Byrd vice president."

Clinton/Tancredo '08!

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:18 PM

What Gabriel said.

And if Huckabee wins Iowa, I don't think it matters if McCain ultimately wins the nomination. We still get a GOP civil war, with Huckabee's Roundheads on one side, and McCain's Royalists on the other. It'll be long and intense, and reveal the gaping chasm at the heart of the GOP coalition.

It's already revealed the disdain the royalists have for the roundheads, which will undoubtedly be matched by a considerable quantity of resentment going the other way.

For three decades, the fundies have been coddled and petted and told they're part of the club, and now they're suddenly finding out that the guys in the club never meant a word of it.

I think I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 3, 2008 2:21 PM

Petey,

re: "Dean 2003 = Rudy 2007."

Yes, but Rudy was/is sooo much easier to call! Dean was able to present at times with a bit of Midwestern veneer somehow, didn't even present as a Northeasterner at times much less a Noo Yawker.

I am forever amazed how many northeasterners cannot see that a classical "in your face" born-and-bred Noo Yawker personality will not sell for national office. There could never be a President Ed Koch, Al D'Amato, or Donald Trump, for example. Even though many nationwide are amused and root for their "in your faceness" at certain times, they don't want a president like that. Even Al Sharpton knows this: when in presidential debates, he would put on a Midwestern reasonableness jacket. Rudy knows, and tries to do it, but he just can't take the Noo Yawk out.

The problem is not just in flyover country, it's west coast, too. In fact, I was surprised to see Yglesias buy into Guiliani's potential and spend so much time attacking him, because I thought that Yglesias, even though a native New Yorker, should ahve some Hollywood-infused understanding of all of this.

Posted by artapppraiser | January 3, 2008 2:21 PM

There could never be a President Ed Koch, Al D'Amato, or Donald Trump, for example.

Bloomberg?

Posted by goethean | January 3, 2008 2:26 PM

"Yes, but Rudy was/is sooo much easier to call!"

Dean was slightly more likely in 2003 than Rudy was in 2007, but only slightly.

They both faced the problem of an almost impossible climb to ever get to 50% of their parties' vote.

"The problem is not just in flyover country, it's west coast, too. In fact, I was surprised to see Yglesias buy into Guiliani's potential and spend so much time attacking him, because I thought that Yglesias, even though a native New Yorker, should ahve some Hollywood-infused understanding of all of this."

You assume Matthew understand electoral politics.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 2:26 PM

Rudy is still the favorite, based on what will occur in the 2/5 primaries, where Rudy will clean up.

Posted by Al | January 3, 2008 2:36 PM

Isn't this TPM reader still right about McCain?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062529.php

Analogies with 2000 don't totally work because Romney doesn't have anywhere near as much establishment consensus behind him as Bush did back then...but, unless I'm badly mistaken, McCain hasn't gotten any more popular with Republican partisansm, and they're going to decide the nomination, not independents. That's one potentially fatal flaw in relying too much on what happens in Iowa and NH. It's related to that post MY had a little while back where he mistakenly failed to observe that Romney's negatives with Republicans were lower than McCain's.

I think it's probably different with Obama because he's reasonably well liked among Dems, and independent-fueled success for him in the first two states might be enough to convince Clinton supporters that Obama might be viable enough to win in the general, that being the most likely concern they have about him (not that he's a heretic to the party, a la wide swaths of the GOP base vis-a-vis McCain).

Posted by Haggai | January 3, 2008 2:42 PM

His "bomb, bomb Iran" ditty tells you everything you need to know about McCain. He's the Manchurian Candidate. He didn't learn a thing from his POW years. And the neurasthenic brittleness is still there. What Romney has to do is push the envelope a bit to get under his skin and the tinpot blowhard will flip out.

Posted by Trevor | January 3, 2008 2:57 PM

You assume Matthew understand electoral politics.

You assume I thought Rudy was likely to win. I spent a lot of time attacking Rudy because he was the worst of the bunch and because lots of juicy material kept coming to the fore.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 3, 2008 3:00 PM

The cognitive dissonance here is incredible. Guys, you're talking about the failure of making early assumptions in presidential primaries, and then doing the exact same thing. I mean, seriously. The folly of what you are doing is staring you in the face.

Posted by Freddie | January 3, 2008 3:30 PM

"I spent a lot of time attacking Rudy because he was the worst of the bunch and because lots of juicy material kept coming to the fore."

Dunno if you caught the Kolbert piece on Rudy in this week's New Yorker, but if not, it's highly recommended.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 3:32 PM

If McCain is nominee, fundamentalists will be angry and a slice will sit it out. Numerically small, but a critical loss.

If McCain and Huckabee is the ticket, that's problematic because moderates/independents will not be pleased with a fundy on the ticket, given McC's age. It's weaker than McCain and a true anti tax conservative.

McCain is their best, but he is very far from unbeatable. I'd say Petey is off - I'd say he would have a 40 to 45% chance. The economy sucks, and he has no message or credibility for that. He also does not represent change in any way.

Posted by frank C | January 3, 2008 3:36 PM

Guys, you're talking about the failure of making early assumptions in presidential primaries, and then doing the exact same thing. I mean, seriously. The folly of what you are doing is staring you in the face.

It's a lot like investing. If you're a small investor, about the dumbest thing you can do is make frequent trades. The smart thing is to pick a portfolio and then forget about it. This isn't rocket science -- almost any reasonably honest, reasonably intelligent financial advice columnist will say this periodically. But they can't say it too often, or they'd be out of a job. So they have to keep informing people about "news" that they know perfectly well is best ignored.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 3, 2008 3:40 PM

"If McCain and Huckabee is the ticket"

Will never happen. Huckabee and Paul are one-offs who won't be considered VP candidates no matter how well they do. McCain-Romney is possible, if McCain should actually win the nomination. They would complement each other in a number of ways (geographically, business-versus-military experience, etc.). The next position Huckabee will be running for is Sean Hannity's job.

Posted by Fred | January 3, 2008 3:43 PM

So Petey - are you selling high on your McCain contracts? Or are you going to hold out for more?

Posted by mpowell | January 3, 2008 3:45 PM

McCain would desperately need an anti-tax VP who is palatable to religious conservatives who is NOT old.

Agree HRC is weakest against him, but Obama or Edwards is fine IMO. Externals are against an R no matter who they nominate. McCain of 2000 wins this easily. This is not 2000.

Posted by frank C | January 3, 2008 3:48 PM

"So Petey - are you selling high on your McCain contracts? Or are you going to hold out for more?"

Romney and McCain contracts are both still undervalued, since Intrade is wildly overvaluing Paul, Huck, and Rudy.

So, yes, I'm holding my McCain at the moment.

Posted by Petey | January 3, 2008 3:49 PM

Romney and McCain contracts are both still undervalued, since Intrade is wildly overvaluing Paul, Huck, and Rudy.

So, yes, I'm holding my McCain at the moment.

I guess you if you wanted to express that opinion while hedging your McCain bet you could buy Romney as well.

Posted by mpowell | January 3, 2008 4:02 PM

McCain-Romney is possible, if McCain should actually win the nomination

Except that McCain seems to despise Romney, so it's not possible. Thompson seems the only feasible VP for McCain out of the current presidential contenders, and he's hardly exciting. Someone like Pawlenty or Barbour could work. If he's really daring, he'd choose Jeb Bush.

Posted by right | January 3, 2008 4:09 PM

There's always Lieberman - he's got experience running for veep.

Posted by henry evans | January 3, 2008 4:13 PM

I am forever amazed how many northeasterners cannot see that a classical "in your face" born-and-bred Noo Yawker personality will not sell for national office.

I think a southern first primary might, strangely enough, have helped Giuliani, because what most southern bubbas know about Mistah Mayah is that he seemed comfortable with New York's Finest shooting the odd black guy to show them who's boss. Florida may still work for him.

That final graf from the TPM correspondent is interesting:

Romney has the least enemies, and the most (sort of) friends. And he has the constituency that has ultimately decided every modern republican contest: Money.

I've long adhered to James Bryce's observations from a century ago:

eminent men make more enemies, and give those enemies more assailable points, than obscure men do. They are therefore in so far less desirable candidates. It is true that the eminent man has also made more friends, that his name is more widely known, and may be greeted with louder cheers. Other things being equal, the famous man is preferable. But other things never are equal.

On the one hand, Romney seems such a transparent phony that I can't for the life of me understand why the GOP establishment has apparently pinned its hopes to him. On the other hand, no-one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 3, 2008 4:46 PM

Rudy is still the favorite

Care to make it interesting?

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 3, 2008 5:21 PM

What are the Intrade odds? My personal odds are somewhere around:
Rudy 25%
McCain 22%
Romney 20%
Huck 20%
Fred 13%

What does the market say now?

Posted by Al | January 3, 2008 5:41 PM

Care to make it interesting?

What exactly do you have in mind?

Posted by Al | January 3, 2008 5:42 PM

What exactly do you have in mind?

Having you shut the fuck up for eternity if 9iu11ani doesn't get the nom?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 3, 2008 5:58 PM

The problem, pseudonymous, is how do I get 3-1 odds on that?

Posted by Al | January 3, 2008 6:04 PM

We'll get you a raise on your per-comment rate. Promise.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 3, 2008 6:12 PM

syke.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 12:42 AM