How Republicans Trapped McCain

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 14:00


On November 4th and 5th, Democracy Corps conducted a post-election poll that, among other things, looked at the reasons why voters supported and opposed Barack Obama and John McCain. The results offer real insight into the why Obama won, and also into just how deep a hole Republicans have dug for themselves.

Beyond even the anti-Republican political environment, in an election when McCain was forced to try and win voters who do not traditionally support Republicans, McCain found himself trapped by an activist base that both demands social conservatism and which has failed to elected a significant number of women and minorities to statewide and other leadership positions. The net result was that, in his necessary attempt to appeal to voters who usually do not support Republicans, McCain was practically forced to pick Sarah Palin. However, she ended up undermining his most effective campaign messaging--"experience vs. inexpereince"--presented Obama with a free line of attack, and overall became a net drag on the Republican ticket.

Full explanation in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: How Republicans Trapped McCain
First, according to the Democracy Corps survey, take a look at the concerns McCain voters had about Obama (emphasis mine):

Q.49 (DO NOT ASK IF VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA AND DIDN'T CONSIDER IN CHCEJM) Let me read you a list of doubts about Barack Obama. Regardless of how you voted, which THREE describe the most important reasons NOT to vote for Barack Obama?

Too inexperienced and too big a risk to be commander-in-chief.............................................................41
Wrong on abortion, gay marriage and restricting guns.......32
Would redistribute wealth and introduce socialism.............29
Would raise my taxes..........................................................23
Would increase taxes on small business and hurt the economy..............................................................................21
Too ready to retreat in Iraq and weaken our national security................................................................................21
Associates with people and groups that make me uncomfortable......................................................................20
Would increase government spending................................14
His health care plan is too government-run.........................13
Would give Democrats too much control in Washington.....13
Would end up catering to minority groups and not working for all.......................................................................9
Is out of touch with working people......................................3
(All).......................................................................................6
(Other)..................................................................................1
(None)..................................................................................5
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................2

The negative attack on Obama with the most impact was his lack of experience. By comparison, the attacks on Ayers and Wright that the McCain campaign and Republican third-party groups engaged in during the final weeks had minimal impact, with less than half as many people citing that as a negative reason to vote against Obama. Further, most of the other attacks listed here focus on socialism, taxes and big government. However, as a campaign focal point, those were losing attack as exit polls showed a majority of the country in favor of government expansion. This is important because it shows just how deeply McCain wounded himself by selecting Sarah Palin. The winning attack was neither opposing "big government" nor Obama's associates, but rather Obama's lack of experience.

However, as we can see with the top concern Obama voters had about McCain, rather than reinforcing McCain's "experience" message with his vice-presidential selection, instead Sarah Palin emerged as the top concern about John McCain:

Q.50 (DO NOT ASK IF VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN AND DIDN'T CONSIDER IN CHCEBO) Let me read you a list of doubts about John McCain. Regardless of how you voted, which THREE describe the most important reasons NOT to vote for John McCain?

Picked Sarah Palin as his running mate..............................37
Would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations and not to the middle class..................................................35
Would continue Bush's policies...........................................34
Would stay in Iraq................................................................28
Would privatize Social Security and cut Medicare benefits................................................................................22
Would tax health care benefits and give insurance companies more power.......................................................22
Ran a negative campaign rather than say what'd he do.....20
Would help end a woman's right to choose on abortion......17
Is too old to be president.....................................................16
His erratic response to the financial crisis...........................14
Supports outsourcing and bad trade deals...........................8
Would cut government spending and services.....................4
(All).......................................................................................4
(Other)..................................................................................1
(None)..................................................................................2
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................2


The focus of Obama's negative messaging was McCain's ties to Bush and plans to deliver tax breaks to big corporations. While those lines of attack were clearly effective, Palin still narrowly emerged as the top concern. This was a serious problem for McCain, because it undercut his effective attacks on Obama's lack of experience, and because it was a "free" attack that Obama never really had to make himself. It even undercut the positive messaging from the McCain campaign:

[877 Respondents]
Q.47 (ASK ONLY VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN) Now let me read you a list reasons to support John McCain. Which THREE describe the most important reasons why you voted for John McCain?

Total
Is a strong leader and would be a strong commander-in-chief.................................................................................48
Would drill for oil and explore all energy sources for energy independence..........................................................30
Supported the surge and would not retreat in Iraq..............28
Picked Sarah Palin as his running mate..............................28
Was a P-O-W and has always put country first...................26
Is a maverick who works with both parties..........................19
Would cut taxes...................................................................17
Would end earmarks and pork barrel spending..................14
I just couldn't vote for Barack Obama..................................13
Would stabilize home prices and help fix the financial crisis....................................................................................11
Is a reformer who would lessen the influence of special interests...............................................................................11
His health care plan gives everyone a $5,000 credit and more choice...................................................................7
(All).......................................................................................5
(Other)..................................................................................3
(None)..................................................................................1
(Don't know/ refused)...........................................................1


McCain picked Palin at least partially in order to appeal to voters who do not traditionally vote for Republicans. Given the unfavorable political environment for Republicans in 2008, appealing to such voters was necessary for McCain. However, Palin ended up as a net drag on the ticket, both because she undermined the most effective messaging from the McCain campaign ("experience"), and also because noticeably more people identified her as a concern (37%) than as a benefit (28%). The solution would have been for McCain to choose a woman or a minority with less baggage, more experience, and a higher level of campaign competence.

However, McCain was trapped on this front. With no Republican ethnic minorities holding statewide office, the obvious choice, Condoleezza Rice, refused consideration for the VP slot. Further, Colin Powell didn't even support John McCain. (Update: Rice and Powell might both be pro-choice, thus nixing them anyway.) Among women, all Republican Senators except for Elizabeth Dole are pro-choice. Further, this is also, at last by wingnut standards, the case for Jodi Rell and Linda Lingle, the other two women Republican Governors apart from Palin. Joe Lieberman fits this bill, too. So, as far as non-traditional picks go, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Dole (who was busy losing re-election at the time) and Mel Martinez (also inexperienced and favored immigration reform) were the only available options who had a chance to be approved by the hard, anti-choice delegate base at the Republican convention. Or, at least, those three were the only options that the theocons wouldn't despise, and cause them to turn away from McCain in large numbers.

Thus, McCain was simultaneously trapped by a political environment where he was forced to appeal to voters who are not traditionally Republican, by a party that has virtually no women and minorities in positions of power and also by a party which will not accept anyone but a social conservative at the top of the national ticket. In a search for socially conservative women or minorities in positions of power in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin was one of very few options for the job. Given that Mel Martinez was almost as inexperienced as Palin, and given Dole's general unpopularity and advanced age, even though Palin ended up being a drag on the ticket and undermining McCain's messaging, McCain didn't really have any better options.

It is possible, even likely, that if McCain had selected someone like Romney, he would have performed better in the election. However, he still would have lost, since Romney provides no new voters for Republicans, especially no new women. The socialist attacks were not enough, and neither were the "traditional values" voters. McCain needed to enhance his effective experience vs. inexperience attack, and combine it with an identity-based appeal to groups less likely to support Republicans. However, the profile of the Vice-Presidential candidate McCain needed--an experienced, campaign-ready, social conservative who could appeal to voters (mainly women) who do not traditionally support Republicans--simply was not available. If Condoleezza Rice had accepted the slot (always highly unlikely), and if she was accepted by the Republican base (again, highly unlikely) then--and perhaps only then--McCain might have had a shot. Otherwise, McCain was trapped by his party not only in terms of the anti-Republican environment, but also because of their lack of diversity in elected officials, and even further by the uncompromising social conservatism of their activist base.

To concern troll for a moment, if Republicans want to reverse this situation, they are going to have to start appealing to a wider array of demographic groups, and find a means to free their candidates from the hold of their theocon base. However, given that most Republicans want the party to shift even further to the right, don't hold your breath on that one.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Kay Bailey Hutchinson is only nominally pro-choice (4.00 / 2)
Her average NARAL rating over the past four years is 6.7%.  It would have probably have still been too much for the Republican base, but it wold have been less of a gamble than the Palin disaster ended up being.

Yes, only nominally (4.00 / 4)
but since she doesn't want to overturn Roe, or outlaw abortion generally, that wouldn't be enough.

[ Parent ]
Well, she could always change her position (4.00 / 1)
It's not like McCain didn't do it with pretty much every moderate position he used to hold so he could win the nomination.  No reason Hutchinson couldn't do the same thing if she was picked for VP.

By the way, everytime I hear KBH mentioned, I always think of one of my favorite political quotes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...

"And we are turning our back on the middle-class and poor people in this country who depend on the minimum wage and death-tax relief."


[ Parent ]
I think she's talking about (0.00 / 0)
gravediggers, who depend on tips from the ... oh never mind. Even that job is done with backhoes nowadays. I have no idea what the woman is thinking.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I thought Hutchison (4.00 / 2)
wanted to run for Governor and had no interest in the VP slot. Of course, this was the conventional wisdom after more experienced women were passed over for Palin. But, I can imagine a few female Republicans passing on the chance to be McCain's VP; he doesn't have a reputation for being kind to women. On paper, Hutchison seems like a natural pick for the position. But, does she have a good working relationship with McCain?    

[ Parent ]
If you have future political ambitions, I don't see how you could turn down the VP slot (0.00 / 0)
It's a chance to get your name rec up to 100%, and it gives you an outside shot at the Presidential nomination.

The abortion thing probably would have been too much.  And since they both serve together in the Senate, perhaps McCain does just personally hate her.  

Those caveats aside, she just seems like a much better choice to do what McCain was trying to do.


[ Parent ]
Political Ceilings (4.00 / 1)
That logic only applies if you think you have a long term viability in your political career. Hutchinson does not have sixteen years of political viability left --- she is already 65 --- she has one more big jump left in her career either in the Senate or as Governor of Texas.  I can agree with the premise of your argument that a 'young' forty something should take the VP slot as it should be a career enhancer, but the calculus changes once a person hits their mid-60s.  

[ Parent ]
I understand the upsides of being VP (0.00 / 0)
but I think the Texas gubernatorial race is in 2010. If Hutchison wanted to run in 2010 (which is what everyone has been saying all along), it would make no sense for her to be McCain's VP. She's already said she's not running for another Senate term. I just can't see a 65 year-old politician delaying his/her dream of being Governor to serve as VP. Of course, 65 isn't old. But, it doesn't seem to make sense from a strategy standpoint. If she really wants to be Governor, she would then have to wait until 2014 to run (she would have increased name recognition, but she would also be 71).

I wonder if her being from Texas had anything to do with it. I don't know if she has a relationship with the Bush family. But, it would be harder to portray her as a "maverick outsider" unconnected to Crawford. Could McCain reasonably distance himself from Bush with another TX Republican on the ticket?


[ Parent ]
yep (4.00 / 3)
It's today's topic on Politico's Arena, to which I contribute.  They're going to remain a regional party and lose the current under-30 voters forever if they keep pushing social conservative orthodoxy, esp. on gay rights.

You ask the right question: is there someone else they could have chosen to expand the pool -- a female candidate acceptable to social conservatives who was better qualified?  I think they might have accepted Kay Bailey Hutchison, but, gawd, taking Christie Whitman would have gone over even worse with them than Lieberman would have.  

Can I expand this to a second question?  Part of Obama's victory -- in the primaries and the general -- is that he didn't just cut off a bigger piece of electoral pie, but made the pie larger by registering millions of new voters.  Is there a pool of unregistered voters out there that's waiting for a Republican to sign them up?


Contrary to what Chris says (4.00 / 1)
the base wouldn't have liked Condi, not with her support for affirmative action and abortion rights, as well as the rumors of lesbianism.

What about Mel Martinez? I never saw his name mentioned, but he strikes as someone who could've won McCain Florida and helped him enormously in the southwest.


[ Parent ]
Condi's pro-choice? (4.00 / 1)
If so, that would have been a disqualifier.

I think the right can handle lesbians, as long as they preach hatred of their fellow lesbians and appear vaguely straight. I don't think the affirmative action thing would have been a big deal, either. Clearly, they loved Palin, and she is affirmative action all the way.

Martinez is an interesting possibility...


[ Parent ]
...but (0.00 / 0)
Martinez is interesting, but really they needed to target women. Obama at the top of the ticket was a real roadblock to increased support among minorities for Republicans. A woman made more sense, given that Martinez is almost equally inexperienced to Palin. He still undercuts the experience argument.

[ Parent ]
OTOH, he's probably not a sentence-garbling idiot. (4.00 / 2)
In seriousness though, Martinez would have been useful if not for the base issue.  A McCain Martinez ticket would have been two Republicans who strongly pushed comprehensive immigration reform, and one of them would BE Hispanic.  They would have gotten serious consideration from the Hispanic community, I'd venture.  And given that Obama actually won the election first in the Southwest, that would have been a good strong play for McCain to have made.

We've all forgotten though that Martinez was born in Cuba.  He's not eligible to be VP.


[ Parent ]
This, of course, is a two edged sword, though (0.00 / 0)
If there is something that riles up the conservative base more than abortion, it is immigration.  Of course, making a conservative voter stay at home at the cost of flipping a Hispanic voter still nets you one vote over the dem, so perhaps it would have been a winning move.  

Also, Martinez is Cuban, so there is a question as to how much his Hispanic-ness wold appeal to non-Cuban Hispanics.  


[ Parent ]
Oh, right! (4.00 / 3)
So that explains that:

We've all forgotten though that Martinez was born in Cuba.  He's not eligible to be VP.


[ Parent ]
re: Martinez (0.00 / 0)
Martinez could conceivably have worked with moderates, but even apart from the the inexperience issue he shares with Palin, I think Martinez would do the same thing to the same thing to the Tancredo wing of the base that picking a pro-choice VP would have done to the evangelicals.

They always saw McCain as very weak on immigration (and by weak, I mean "helping Dems flood the country's borders with scary brown people"), so picking Martinez would have undercut all the running to the right McCain did on immigration in the past year.

And not to get exceptionally cynical here, but a Latino VP would have wreaked havoc on the racial animosity that was necesary to bring out their base.  Obviously, Palin was the big driving factor here, but it seems like the nativist demagoguery was at least somewhat effective in keeping the bottom from dropping out of the Republican turnout.  With a black guy on one ticket and a brown guy on the other, I can't help but suspect that a lot of the "terrorist"-screaming crowd would have just stayed home.


[ Parent ]
pesky Constitution! NT (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Yeah, Since When Has THAT Stopped Them??? (0.00 / 0)
Go get Scalia, he'll tell 'em it's all right!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
were it not for the Constitution ... (0.00 / 0)
.... Vice President Schwarzenegger, right?

[ Parent ]
here's what Sec. Rice has said (0.00 / 0)
link:
"I believe if you go back to 2000, when I helped the president in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice.

"Yeah, mildly pro-choice. That's what that means. I think that there are a lot of things that we can unite around, and that's where I would tend to be. I'm very comfortable with the president's view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, 'Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?' And so I believe the president has been in exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible."



[ Parent ]
Ha, well "mildly pro-choice" (4.00 / 7)
is in the eyes of theocrats, mildly pro-infanticide.

[ Parent ]
Immigration (4.00 / 1)
The base doesn't apprecaite pro-"reform" folks like Martinez.  That said, here's what Martinez said on MTP recently:
Governor Jeb Bush -- former Governor Jeb Bush last week made a comment that if Republicans don't figure it out and do the math that we're going to be relegated to minority status.  I've been preaching this for a long time to my colleagues within my party.  I think that the very divisive rhetoric of the immigration debate set a very bad tone for our brand as Republicans.  The fact of the matter is I think in Florida there was not a great ideological shift, but I think there was plenty of room for improvement in how that state was looked upon.

The fact of the matter is that Hispanics are going to be a more and more vibrant part of the electorate, and the Republican Party had better figure out how to talk to them.  We had a very dramatic shift between what President Bush was able to do with Hispanic voters, where he won 44 percent of them, and what happened to Senator McCain.  Senator McCain did not deserve what he got.  He was one of those that valiantly fought, fought for immigration reform, but there were voices within our party, frankly, which if they continue with that kind of rhetoric, anti-Hispanic rhetoric, that so much of it was heard, we're going to be relegated to minority status.



[ Parent ]
"McCain-Martinez"? Good luck getting that past the talk radio xenophobes. (4.00 / 4)
Martinez was publicly and clearly in favor of comprehensive immigration reform back in... god, when was that, 07?  McCain and Martinez were probably the two Senate Republicans most closely identified with that legislation.  The xenophobes already nearly sunk McCain in the primaries over this issue.  They would have lost it if Martinez was named VP.

They're a more recent crowd than the pro-life bunch, but the anti-brown bunch are a pretty strong constituency right now and they could have done almost as much damage to McCain as the pro-life people could.  Martinez, like all the pro-choice women (possibly excepting Hutchison), was not available to McCain.


[ Parent ]
I think that pool was already signed-up in 2004 for Bush...... (4.00 / 1)
mostly in mega-churches.  I told people at the time - and Rove has all but admitted it - that the GOP's 2004 turnout was their high-water mark.

There is no more untapped GOP conservative voters.  Like peak oil.  They're tapped out.  And with our under 30s and Hispanics, we are nowhere near at our peak vis-a-vis numbers of potential voters.  In fact, if it weren't for many states' draconian rules on voting (like Georgia's strict law of identification) many more minorities and students would have voted.  Perhaps Georgia would have been blue, BUT FOR there voting law.  

So if the GOP is smart, they will have their state legislatures make many more laws like the one in GA.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
There was another (4.00 / 4)
route McCain could've taken. He could've picked Huckabee and mixed social conservatism with economic populism, which might have led him to oppose the bailout--a move that might have changed the outcome of the election; it was that unpopular.

It would've taken some reinvention, sure--his fanatical support for free trade would have posed a problem--but a populist-Huckabee-ish populism would have fit the condition of the country and allowed him to run against Bush in a genuine way.


hah -- on the same page here.... nt. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I think Huckabee (0.00 / 0)
Would have had a similar gaffe problem to Palin. Not as bad, but still struggling. Traditional media types hated Huckabee, too.

Further, given that Huckabee failed to to basically any non-evangelical voters in the primaries, I don't see how he would have expanded Republican appeal to new demographics.


[ Parent ]
Not my take at all (4.00 / 2)
Traditional media types hated Huckabee, too.

Every time he went on Hardball, Tweety wanted to kiss him. And I don't think gaffes would've been a problem; he's a pretty big talent.

And no, he would not have helped with emerging demos, but he could've have helped McCain, if he so desired, keep the base while moving to the center on economic-reform issues--that is, accomplished the very thing he'd envisioned doing with Palin.


[ Parent ]
Maybe Tweety liked him (4.00 / 2)
But I have never seen the winner of Iowa so easily dismissed at Huckabee was. Even though he won Iowa, he just wasn't taken seriously, pretty much all the way through the campaign.

[ Parent ]
That's true (0.00 / 0)
Fair point.

[ Parent ]
Because he had no money. (0.00 / 0)
Couldn't afford to contest Florida, and Fred Thompson's Last Stand in South Carolina prevented him from winning that state.

[ Parent ]
The press *liked* him a lot. They also did not take him seriously. (4.00 / 1)
Because of the no money problem, which itself was due to major weaknesses waiting to reveal themselves:  

1) He had raised taxes.  Permanent, unforgivable sin.

2) He had paroled a rapist-murderer, because of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

3) He had no real connection to the wealth centers of the country.  Dean had the same problem.  Palin did too, but she wasn't running on her own for the presidential nomination either.


[ Parent ]
They Liked Him Like A Pet (0.00 / 0)
Which can really bring out the affection in people.

But few people realize how much smarter their dog is than Sarah Palin.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
Rove gave the ixnay on that idea... said "Picking Huckabee would only worsen McCain's problems, not make them better."

Don't know what they hate so much about him... I think he raised taxes once as governor or something...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
what about huckabee? (0.00 / 0)
i could see him appealing to women, he's a fundie, and he presents himself quite well in interviews.  more than anything, he is likable.  

though, i suppose that he wouldn't appeal to women for whom choice is a major determinant of their vote.  so... maybe not.  


That's Just It--Palin Blows Huckabee Away (4.00 / 4)
Of course, Huckabee has another problem: he actually believes all that "compassionate conservative" horseshit, though he has no idea in Einstein's universe where and how to get the money he needs for his vision.  The Wall Street types absolutely loathe him, he got no real money from big donors after sweeping Iowa, and now they've got Palin to appeal to only the worst instincts of the GOP's evangelical base.

You betcha!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
I can't see him appealing to women (4.00 / 1)
Of course, few pro-choice women would vote for him. But he has a tendency to come across as very condescending towards women (particularly when it comes to choice). I barely paid attention to him during the primaries, but I have come across a few links from Feministing. I think he would have said some things that made McCain's "health of the mother" comment seem mild! This is one of the comments he's made about abortion providers:
"I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that's why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor...I think you don't punish the woman, first of all, because it's not about ... I consider her a victim, not a criminal."

As Feministing put it, why is he assuming the doctors are men who've forced weak unwilling women into abortion? Palin could get away with some of her anti-woman positions because she's a woman. Huckabee wouldn't have that advantage; the Right can't frame him as a feminist being picked on by "ugly, jealous pro-abortion" types.


[ Parent ]
maybe.... (0.00 / 0)
ultimately, i agree with you, at least with respect to women for whom choice is a significant determinant of their vote.  incidentally, it would be interesting to see if there are numbers on how large this group is...  

so yeah, when he talks about abortion, he isn't doing himself any favors with pro-choice women.

but his affect and manner, i think, are much more appealing to women than, say, romney's.  he doesn't come across as, for lack of a better word, a dickhead.  he isn't pompous.  he isn't even brash.  not being a pompous dude is a good thing in the eyes of most women.  

but ultimately, i think david's point above about populism is also really key.  huckabee's selection could have shaken things up in potentially unpredictable ways, i think.    


[ Parent ]
I thought Romney did well with women (0.00 / 0)
at least with Republican women. I think polling before the Iowa caucuses definitely showed him as a stronger candidate for women.

McCain had no good options, but Romney would have been less of a disaster for Republicans in terms of the electoral vote, in my opinion:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008...

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


Agreed on both counts. (4.00 / 1)
I really don't think McCain could have picked anyone that wouldn't have hurt him.  After years of pandering to most of the political spectrum at some point or other, he finally had to pick a side, and this was an especially big problem considering that his whole image was fundamentally about not choosing a side.  Pick a moderate and piss off the fundies, or pick a fundie and lose moderates.  There isn't a single candidate on the field now who can bridge the gap the way W did in 2000.

As far as Romney goes, I don't really see him as that much of a threat.  He may pick up a few demographics here and there, but he gives off such a powerful snake-oil salesman vibe he turns off huge numbers of people.  Even after dumping tons of his own money into the primaries, he still barely managed to squeak past Huckabee.  He's a good-looking guy, certainly, but he has zero charisma.

The two big strikes against him this election were his wealth (can you imagine the ads when the President and VP have 12-15 houses between the two of them?) and his Mormonism.  It's very easy to underestimate just how much the fundie base hates Mormonism.  Here's a hint: one of the basic tenets of the Mormon religion is that Christianity was completely wrong for the first 1820 years, until John Smith arrived to set everything right.  Romney is definitely one of the front runners for 2012 and expect the Mormon issue to heat up a great deal if he becomes the front-runner.


[ Parent ]
experience = not a winning argument (0.00 / 0)
Ask George HW Bush, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton how effective experience arguments are in American Presidential politics. Experience might have been a better argument than "Obama is a big scary socialist celebrity!" but it wouldn't have been a winning argument in this year's political environment for John McCain.

Something Else (0.00 / 0)
Picking Palin also undermined McCain's "judgment" argument, the positive flip side of the Obama = "inexperienced" argument, so McCain undercut his main argument on both ends.

And, then it went meta, since what kind of judgment does that show?  I don't think he had too many PoMo votes to lose, but it did lead to a subthread of campaign discourse about how McCain's "brilliant" pick didn't have much of a shelf life.

It sort of merged with the doubts sown by his impetuous, "Oh My God! We've Got To Drop Everything Else Sqwak Like Crazy!" strategy seen with regard to the Georgian provocation, then the hurricane during the RNC, and finally the bailout.

But what lies beneath all the above is the simple fact that Republicans don't have any solutions any more than they've got candidates.  It's not just McCain who got trapped.  It was the whole damned party.  He was just the one leading the parade at the moment.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


Yes, their enire party is in the box (4.00 / 1)
Similar to how they found themselves with a non-workable coalition after Nixon's fall from grace in 1974. But back then they had a Southern Strategy and Reagan's appeal to white Protestant working class voters in the West and MidWest. But the demographics have changed all that now. Economic trends and immigration are diluting the Southern block and white Protestants are a diminishing share of the electorate (as Chris has pointed out). I could foresee Republicans making new headway with appeals to economic populism, especially with a worsening economy. But big business and Wall Street is their top constituency.  

[ Parent ]
What do you mean no solutions? (4.00 / 1)
Republicans still have solutions available.  Taxes aren't at 0% are they?  Think of all that revenue we could produce with all the extra laffer curving down to no taxes at all.

[ Parent ]
Haven't You Heard? Laffer's Bailed On Them! (0.00 / 0)
I forget where it was, but I recently saw Laffer briefly, and he was quite adamant in pointing out that if you were on the wrong side of the curve, cutting taxes meant cutting revenue.  Of course, that was always part of the deal, but it went virtually unmentioned by most, and certainly by Laffer, back in the heyday of St. Ronnie.

My, how times have changed!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Nice argument, Chris (0.00 / 0)
And I love the debate it has spurred, but...

The polls you are using as the basis of this whole discussion are not completely useful in driving your thesis.

The polls (at least as presented) are infomative as to what voters for (and hence supporters of) Obama/McCain liked/disliked about their guy/the opponent.  It is informative regarding why some voted for (or against) a candidate, or more likely, how (which) messages resonated with those supporters.

But it doesn't touch on the thesis of your argument: is there some way McCain could have won (or: there is no way McCain could have won)?

To get to that discussion we would have need of information about the concerns of those that voted for Obama.  It is good to know that McCain's supporters were most concerned about Obama's inexperience (were they always, or were they just pre-disposed to that message due to being McCain supporters?), but did this message carry any weight with Obama's voters?  If yes, then the Palin pick was truly detrimental, but if not so then why would a more experienced VP have changed the results?  To get to where you wanted to go we need to know what was Obama's weakness(es) among those that voted for him?  What about those that voted agaist McCain (a subset of Obama voters plus the third party voters): could they have been persuaded to vote for McCain?  What about those that didn't vote?  Could any of them been persuaded to vote McCain?

From that we could more clearly hypothesize on what (if anything) McCain could have done differently to win those voters that did not vote for him.  It would, in effect, inform us of the subset of potential voters that McCain might have won, but did not.  

Of course, a truly thorough discussion then would have to deal with the question: if McCain had taken that different action, how would that have affected those that actually did vote for him?


there's one key different action (0.00 / 0)
Not on the Palin selection, but the decision to suspend the campaign to go to DC "to get a deal done".  Had he instead gone to DC "to ensure Republican voices are heard," he wouldn't have committed himself to approving whatever Pelosi/Reid put together, wouldn't have been hung out to dry by House GOP members, and instead could have opposed the deal and framed the election as McCain v. Bush/Obama/insiders.  

Would it have won?  Maybe.  It sure would have changed things.


[ Parent ]
That's a good point (0.00 / 0)
The polls, by their very nature, must itemize the issues and present them as individual choices to derive an explicit result.

I think your point is salient, McCain's actions had reinforcing effects on developing perceptions.  Polls do not pick this up.

The pick of Palin, followed by McCain's eratic behavior during the economic crisis ("good fundementals", suspension of campaign, trying to cancel debate, committing to the bailout unconvincingly, etc) all reinforced the developing meme of erratic and unsteady behavior.  His (and Palin's) constant hitting on "Maverick" as their go-to mantra didn't help in my opinion, as mavericks are, by their very nature, unpredictable (not the best tagline during a crisis).

I think a lot of this concern appears in polls as a direct expression in Palin.  She may well have been the most egregious mistake by McCain, but she was in no way the only one.  So I guess I am saying there might be a bit of a reinforcing effect from the other behavior which is appearing as concern for Palin.

Or I could just be completely wrong...


[ Parent ]
Had Palin shown competence (4.00 / 1)
this might have been different.  Any hope of her attracting dissatisfied HRC voters, disappeared when she proved that she was not ready to be VP.  In fact, from people I know that were pissed off about how HRC was treated, the choice of Palin was a slap in the face.  Had Palin shown she had some grasp of the issues and could actually answer a tough question, this might have been different.

tAssociates with people and groups that make me uncomfortable.... (0.00 / 0)
What would be interesting to see with this number - Associates with people and groups that make me uncomfortable: 20% - as well as with the redistribution/socialism question is the trend over time as the GOP and the Right filled the airwaves with the "socialism" accusation and the guilt by association stuff. If the #'s were ever-increasing, maybe it's just a matter of the GOP not starting those attacks soon enough...  


Huckabee destroyed Romney (0.00 / 0)
with the "guy who outsourced your job" line and he could never have recovered from that.  It would have been the gift that kept on giving to Obama.  Especially after the economy collapsed.  

So, Mr. Outsourcerer:  Still think it was such a good idea?

Etc. Etc.

There was a reason besides visceral dislike that McCain didn't pick Romney and this is it.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search