Alright, fess up, is John McCain going to win this thing tomorrow?
Well, he's going to be at an advantage come February 6th. The real question is whether he's the presumptive nominee or not. Here's a quick gauge for the GOP race given how things have shaken out the last week: watch California and Georgia, which show signs of tightening. McCain will likely win more delegates tomorrow but a Romney win in California would give him probably cause to stay in the race. A win in Georgia would be an even stronger indicator that the post-Florida conservative backlash to McCain - with talk radio playing a notable role - has legs. Conversely, if McCain wins both of those then the writing is close to being on the wall.
Are you sure McCain is going to win more delegates?
Yep. McCain has a huge advantage in states that are awarding delegates in a winner-take-all format (see more about each state with a contest tomorrow here). He can count on Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York for a big slew of them. Romney can only count on Utah. He's favored in Montana but Delaware could go either way and McCain is the front-runner in Missouri. Those four states alone where McCain is almost guaranteed to win count for 236 of the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination. That's a big problem for all candidates not named McCain.
Is there any way for Romney to match that delegate haul?
He's at a real disadvantage thanks to how various states have chosen to allocate their delegates according to RNC rules. Like I said, McCain has a clear advantage in winner-take-all states while the states Romney will do well in - especially caucus/convention states - just don't offer the same delegate potential.
What about Mike Huckabee?
He'll win some delegates in the South, beyond just Arkansas. But that's about it. Moreover, he's well on his way to soiling his reputation within the national GOP the way he's conducting himself on the campaign trail. Even when large parts of the conservative establishment came out against a number of his positions when he rose to prominence late last year, he still generally held people's respect. Now, however, his not so subtle role as John McCain's 3rd party attack-dog has him going so far as to make bizarre, conspiratorial accusations about why Sean Hannity is voting for Mitt Romney. Classy.
Let's get back to McCain. Is he making any progress making nice with conservatives now that he's the front-runner for the GOP nod?
Precious little. He's throwing out a few buzz words on the trail, many of his surrogates are talking a good game, but reports from the trail indicate rather clearly that McCain expects disgruntled conservatives to come to him more than he expects to go to them.
What if he tries a little harder and is a bit more tangible, like throwing out some possible names for a potential VP nominee?
I don't think that will quite do the trick in all probability. The rapid movement of vocal conservatives like Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rick Santorum toward Mitt Romney is indicative of McCain's problem. One can either believe the thinking of the pundit class that such figures simply lead their intellectually challenged masses with an artful word into the mike or one can accept that such conservatives speak for a considerable segment of the GOP base. Obviously, it's the latter.
Thus, overt ads like this just aren't going to work:
It's almost laughable that John McCain, campaigning the last half year as the maverick of old on the Straight Talk Express, is now going to be sold by his campaign as a true blue conservative. It doesn't jive with the John McCain who can't stop talking about global warming on the campaign trail as he scoops up endorsements from prominent moderates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger, all while campaigning with Joe Lieberman at his side. It sure as heck isn't going to convince the rank-and-file conservatives that have long harbored concerns with him.
What about the VP issue? You forgot that.
Sorry, it's easy to get off track when talking about McCain.
The VP situation is tricky. A strong conservative, especially a popular governor, would be a very prudent pick. But McCain is in a real quandary. If he isn't careful and picks someone like a Huckabee, who has his own issues with many corners of the Republican coalition, then he'll just exacerbate the problems with his base. Someone like Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota or Mark Sanford of South Carolina would be a good choice.
On the flip side, Ramesh Ponnuru is right that McCain will likewise face a tough standard from the press that has given him such a boost. They will frown on many conservative VP choices but will cheer if he goes the Bill Clinton route of amplification rather than diversification (remember that in 1992 Al Gore, like Clinton, was viewed a moderate southern Democrat, not the current liberal apostle we recognize). McCain is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
That's not a pretty picture. Will most disgruntled conservatives come around to McCain in the end?
Eh, in a way. Some actually won't vote for him. But many will, however grudgingly. This really comes down to the fact that McCain is conservative, but not "a conservative." He's spent so much time driving a wedge between he and the GOP base on those differences that even if he wins their votes, he won't win their support.
Wait a minute, what's the difference?
The grassroots donors and activists - who were so important for the GOP in 2004 - will cast their ballot but won't send the small dollar donations, won't knock on doors, won't man the phone banks, etc. A contest with Hillary Clinton might motivate some, but a significant portion of the activist class will sit things out, at least at the Presidential level, if McCain is the nominee.
People forget how important those activists were in 2004. While the media likes to spread the tale of the Karl Rove-led conspiracy to turn the election into a Republican base versus Democratic base, the truth is more votes were cast in 2004 than in any other Presidential election. Both sides brought a lot of new voters into the process by identifying people potentially sympathetic to their side, then giving them a lot of attention with personal voter contacts - via live phone banks and door-to-door campaigning.
John McCain has his fans, but he simply won't garner that same level of activist support. If 2008 is anything like 2000 or 2004 then the GOP is going to have real problems in competitive swing states.
So is there anything McCain can do to seriously mend fences with the conservative base?
Perhaps. A Clinton nomination simplifies things for him. A Barack Obama nomination in some respects looks more formidable, but his exceptionally liberal record will give conservatives pause when it is fully aired. Thus, if McCain can make some serious commitments to conservatives he has a fighting chance to at least calm their furor. The easiest and most logical such pledges would be on judges and taxes. In theory he needs to do so on immigration too, though getting that camel through the needle's eye might be too complex a trick. Either way, McCain has his chance at the big Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) later this week. It's an event McCain dodged last year and the most high profile chance in the near-term he'll have to make nice with conservatives if he's seriously interested in doing so.
Any thoughts on why Mitt Romney's campaign is where it is?
I'll save much of that discussion for a latter date, but it's clear Mike Huckabee's campaign has caused Romney's immense damage. He was and is a serious competitor for certain conservative votes. Yet, he ultimately stood very little chance of being the conservative standard bearer against whoever won the the moderate-national security leader mantle over which McCain and Rudy Giuliani were competing last year. In the end, it's complicated, which we can talk about more at a later date.
For now, it's fair to say that Romney is a strong but imperfect candidate. He's just clearly the best option out there right now for not only those that support him, but for those that simply believe John McCain is not a wise Presidential nominee for the Republican party.
Any final thoughts?
Sure. I should mention I'm actually rather terrified of how McCain will hold up in a general election focused on domestic policy, especially against Obama. Yuval Levin and David Brooks have had some interesting thoughts on the matter, which sum up this way (regardless of either author's intent): a McCain nomination is heavily reliant on a 72-year old man with a reputation for severe stubbornness suddenly developing a passion and understanding for issues that have never before been his fancy. You'll excuse me if that doesn't make me overly optimistic.
I'm with Mark Levin on the electability argument. The GOP looks to be on the cusp of putting itself in an exceedingly awkward position for November.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 04, 2008 09:23 PM | Email ThisI mean, here's a guy who claims first and foremost to be a Christian pastor, engaged in some of the most anti-Christian, and as Eric noted, classless campaign behavior. Where's the beef Huck? In hindsight, I really don't think he was ever more than an aberration or a rabbit to pace the race.
It makes one wonder what exactly is in the water down in Arkansas where more than one classless hick claims "Got Religion," and emerges from the governor's mansion full of triangulating venom.
At least with Romney, there's a _chance_ he'll be conservative. McCain has the DoSomething disease. And to get anything done he'll need... Democrats.
Posted by: Al on February 4, 2008 09:59 PMRemember this:
In 1980 when Reagan beat up Carter by 10%, the exit polling showed that 23% of those who identified themselves as conservatives actually voted for Jimmy Carter. Reagan still won by 10%. If McCain loses the 13% of the Republican base that hates him because of immigration, that still leaves a large gap in the General Election. Reagan won by a two to one margin with independents. McCain v. Hillary would be the same way. However McCain v. Obama would be different. Still you are wildly incorrect to think that Romney would have an easier go against Obama than McCain.
Your attacks on fellow republicans McCain and Huckabee are disgusting, just like Coulter's and Limbaugh's. They reek of opinion that is obtained through irrational judgement rather than rational thinking.
The 'conservative base' would have been able to get their candidate nominated if they had a candidate that could appeal to the less conservative faction of the base. Romney had tens of millions of dollars at his disposal at a time when Huckabee had less than a million dollars and he wasn't able to close the deal in Iowa, then New Hampshire.
I bet you a dime to a doughnut that Jeb Bush would have walked away with the nomination, a conservative could win, but only if they had the ability to rally most of the republican voters. Face it Romney couldn't, he couldn't even make a good portion of the conservative base believe he was conservative - yet he kept trying to get that base. The only true success he had is when he appealed more to the rest of the voting block up in Michigan.
Posted by: Doug on February 4, 2008 10:03 PMI doubt he would do this, but for me it would take a complete reversal on one one of his major outward liberal positions. For example, if he was to completely renounce the Global Warming nonsense, then I think I would be sufficiently impressed.
Now realistically, I think a polar bear has a better chance of drowning in the Arctic, than McCain does of admitting errors and showing humility. It's not in the man.
I think he was forever changed by his torture in captivity. I think if one lives through such a traumatic experience, one often makes the pledge to oneself that if one survives, then the rest of life will be about taking care of nothing, and no one but #1. And I think that embodies John McCain. For him, this is about his own entitlement, and nothing more.
But I think it's also because Romney isn't 100% secure in his new direction, even if he is sincere about that direction. It's like any one telling us about themselves, we will believe them, if they believe themselves. Same was true with Fred. He just never seemed to really want to own his label, even if he was sincere.
Americans really like a bit of bravado. It does not have to be classless like McCain, but it has to be there. When Romney has shown a little more teeth is when Romney has succeeded.
Sure, he might get some bad press initially, but eh. The real fear, of course, is that his choice of running mate could change perception of McCain himself: "wow, he picked Huckabee as running mate, who is far-right on social issues, and is a theocrat, and besides, McCain visisted Jerry Falwell!!!" But people who think like that probably wouldn't vote for McCain anyway.
I still think McCain is extremely electable against a Hillary, and even against an Obama. Say whatever you want about McCain's problems: all he has to do is put up a web page of highlights listing all the things Obama wants to do from his own Blueprint For Change, like saying that we can reduce health insurance costs with ... more regulation. And all the rights he wants to take away. And on and on.
It's a blueprint for losing an election, especially with a Democrat Congress, if the campaign against him has any sense.
If Obama wins the nomination, I am probably going to finish going through it and post the highlights myself. It's really incredible stuff. Clinton is a much tougher target in that respect, but she has so many problems with her own party that it might not matter against someone like McCain, that independents and moderate Democrats like.
Posted by: pudge on February 4, 2008 11:52 PMAny comments?
Posted by: JohnG on February 5, 2008 01:22 AM
No, it is based on the issues and their actions. I will vote for neither. This is probably my last week as a Republican, because of people like you, Chirs Vance, and John McCain who want the GOP to be Democratlite instead of trying to attract voters sick of bloated, ineffective government. I will never vote for McCain. You vote McCain in the GOP primary, you are voting for Obama or Hillary for President because John McCain can't win his own base, remember that Doug.
What's next Chris Vance?? Do we plan to get Keith Richards in-between blood transfusions and prop him up against the podium for that election? Bang up job fellas.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2008 06:07 AMReally, Geraldine Ferraro hurt Mondale. Dan Quayle was a joke (and has disappeared from the political scene). Whereas, Bush wouldn't have won without Cheney (i.e., public wouldn't have bought Bush's inexperience w/o experienced Cheney to back him up).
McCain's real problem with the VP choice is chaving in to the conservative crowd. I think their are only a few choices that make sense that aren't chaving in. Newt would be a good choice. So would Jack Kemp. None of the current governors are well known enough, nationwide, to make much a difference. Picking a current sitting Senator doesn't add anything. A good wild card pick would be Condi, especially if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, but even with Obama as the Democratic nominee.
Two years ago, people predicted McCain and said even Giuliani and Romney had problems with name familiarity.
In other words, it's McCain's turn. Right, Doug, that is all you are looking at.
Posted by: swatter on February 5, 2008 06:57 AMWelcome to your nightmare John, you created it!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 5, 2008 07:04 AMHm. I see it the other way around. Mondale was a dud and without Ferraro he would have lost by even more.
Dan Quayle was a joke (and has disappeared from the political scene).
But Quayle didn't hurt Bush's election chances in either '88 or '92. He won significantly in '88 even with Quayle, and his loss in '92 had absolutely nothing to do with Quayle: it was all about the economy and Ross Perot.
Whereas, Bush wouldn't have won without Cheney (i.e., public wouldn't have bought Bush's inexperience w/o experienced Cheney to back him up).
I disagree -- I don't think most people cared about Cheney -- however, even if it is true, then that would support my argument, which is that a VP sometimes HELPS, but doesn't HURT.
Newt would be a good choice. So would Jack Kemp.
I think both would be bad choices. Newt would actually be one of the few examples of a VP pick who COULD hurt, because -- similarly to Hillary -- Newt's negatives are so high, across the board. And Kemp, while I admire him greatly, is not all that conservative when it comes to social programs. I don't think Kemp would hurt McCain like Newt could, but it won't help him much either.
None of the current governors are well known enough, nationwide, to make much a difference.
I disagree. If you pick a good strong conservative governor, even if they aren't well known NOW, there will be plenty of opportunity for them to BECOME well-known by conservatives before the election.
Picking a current sitting Senator doesn't add anything.
It does if they are a strong conservative without serious baggage, like Tom Coburn, who has endorsed McCain already, and is a hero for conservatives on pretty much every issue. And even independents would like a lot of things about Coburn, such as when, as a freshman Senator, he stood toe-to-toe with the longest-sitting Senator in the party, Ted Stevens, over the Bridge to Nowhere. That was an amazing sight.
Other than Coburn, yeah, there's no one who sticks out as a great choice, but there's some decent ones: Mitch McConnell comes to mind. He is also a very strong conservative, and has relatively little baggage considering his position of power, and more than 20 years in the Senate. Most of it is just average Senator stuff (you got money from this and voted for that). Plus, pretty much every Republican Senator owes a lot to McConnell for his fundraising, so the ones that wouldn't rally around McCain now, would do so if McConnell was the running mate. But he doesn't have the potential crossover appeal that Coburn has with independents.
A good wild card pick would be Condi, especially if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, but even with Obama as the Democratic nominee.
Maybe. It could be seen as pandering, of course, even though a Barack pick would be pandering no less than a Condi pick.
Posted by: pudge on February 5, 2008 08:18 AMBesides, you want your VP to be experienced, but fresh so as to groom them for a run at the presidency at some point, which is why Michael Steele would make an excellent choice. Get it done RNC!!.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 5, 2008 08:31 AMOn Newt and Kemp, yes Newt may have negatives, but with the conservative base he is strong, which is what McCain needs. Additionally, Newt can probably out-debate any candidate out there, plus he'd be an excellent "bad-dog," like Cheney has been. Both have a plus that an unknown doesn't have, and that is both could be seen as stepping in on day one. Let's face it McCain's age will be a factor. It isn't a time to groom a replacement (ala Clinton grooming Hillary while throwing Gore to the wolves), if McCain is on the top of the ticket than his VP needs to also be ready from day one. Some speculate that McCain will only serve one term, anyway.
I think Kemp did an excellent job at HUD. He was innovative with his programs to look in a different way and still stick to his conservative principles.
Posted by: tc on February 5, 2008 08:54 AMYES!
Limbaugh is losing his clout!
Posted by: Duffman on February 5, 2008 10:13 AMSo as soon as McCain is the nominee, guess what story will be running 24/7 in the MSM? John McCain is a liability to the party becaus first he has spent most of the last 6 years siding with Dems on legislation and second because he will be labeled as corrupt.
It will take a long time for the Republican party to overcome the fallout of a McCain nomination.
Posted by: Ken on February 5, 2008 10:16 AMMust have served in the military for at least 2 years.
That automatically would disqualify the other 3 front runners from both parties (Romney and Hillabama).
There is no way that in today's modern technologically oriented Defense system, that a person who has not served can be Commander and Chief.
Case closed. McCain is the only qualified candidate.
Sadly, we'll be the ones LIVING the nightmare.
B. Hussein
Whorrabillary
McAmnesty
This country is so screwed.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 5, 2008 11:54 AMSecondly, serving in the Military is through volunteering now, not by draft. Even during Vietnam, Romney didn't evade the draft. His number never came up. Obama came of age after the draft and during the timeframe that there were no major conflicts or need to serve in the military.
You could also state that Bush didn't really serve, for any great extent. He went to some weekend Air National Guard training missions that had no bearing on what was really going on. It wasn't like he stood the likelihood to be called up to go to Vietnam, like other National Guard troops at that time and like the National Guard troops today.
Posted by: tc on February 5, 2008 12:11 PMDid John Bailo say anything about seeing combat? Actually Ronald Reagan enlisted in the Army Reserves in 1937 as a private in the cavalry in Iowa. After being ordered to active duty in 1942, he transferred to the Army Air Force and made training films due to his eyesight. He was discharged as a captain in 1945. So he actually served in the military for 8 years in one capacity or other.
Posted by: RBW on February 5, 2008 01:38 PMI'd have to disagree a bit on GW Bush too. Bush was a fighter pilot. Undergraduate Pilot Training in the Air Force takes over a year of solid active duty in itself before you become a qualified pilot. You don't get your wings by going to a few weekend meetings. After that year of active duty, your weekend meetings and summer duty begin.
Posted by: RBW on February 5, 2008 01:48 PMPersonally, however, I think McCain is the LEAST qualified by temperament and demeanor to be president. He is vindictive and should not be anywhere near the "button". His vindictiveness caused him to consider jumping from the GOP after the 2000 election and to not support the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. And note the vindictive and false attacks he continues to make against Mitt Romney.
Posted by: Bill H on February 5, 2008 03:59 PM