So I’ve just encountered one too many "McCain slaughters Hillary" and "McCain slaughters Obama" and "McCain landslide" comments, and I thought I’d respond real fast. I apologize in that this is going to be pretty stream of consciousness, and I’m sorry if I lose folks early on. Basically, I argue that while McCain is probably the most formidable opponent that could have emerged from a truly horrible GOP field, the notion that he somehow can’t be beat or enters the general with a better than even chance of winning the presidency is, in my view, laughable. I don’t think the race is going to be a blow out—and we all know that if anyone can manage to throw away lots of potential advantages, it’s the Democratic nominee for president. But my view is that first, this is still shaping up as generally a democratic leaning year, and second, that McCain has plenty of awfully significant weaknesses that I don’t think folks are fully appreciating. I’m not denying that he has his strengths—and I don’t detail them here—but consider the following, for what its worth, below the fold.
- McCain handles prosperity poorly
He’s in his element when he’s the insurgent underdog; when its time to consolidate the base and make his move for the big prize, the track record is unimpressive. I won’t deny that merely having a true shot at knocking out GWB in SC in 2000 wasn’t an incredible achievement—or that his defeat in SC wasn’t largely a product of Buscho’s disgrace of a campaign. But he failed to adequately respond to the smear, got outmaneuvered tactically, and that was that.
This cycle, McCain had every opportunity going to play the traditional repub front-runner role; he was a classic candidate for that job, and we see how well he handled that for most of the cycle. And while I get that technically his now almost certain nomination qualifies as a tremendous comeback, in my book he’s pretty certainly a default winner, the beneficiary of a truly God awful field that fractured the Repub electorate to the extent that McCain could win NH and SC without even winning a plurality from his own party.
Now I’ll concede that Fl was a solid victory—but, still, the fact remains—to me at least—that beating Willard 36-31 simply doesn’t qualify a man for the electoral hall of fame. McCain’s about to stop being the insurgent comeback kid again and be forced to reclaim the mantle of presumptive nominee. He’ll do so without much money and with much of his base truly antagonistic toward him. Now, sure, his fundraising will get going, no question—but again, the man simply isn’t well equipped to run as an establishment figure. He’ll no doubt try and continue to paint himself as an underdog against HRC or BHC—but I don’t see that meme sticking. I think the media spin, particularly if its HRC v. McCain, will be battle of two titans. No way is Johnny Mac the little engine that could.
He’s never won before. He’s never had to undergo the vetting and scrutiny of being the nominee. I recognize the media worships the ground he walks on. But I’d still argue that things change in an general election—he’s not going to be able to be as formal or as accessible; his model doesn’t really translate at all to running a truly national campaign for nine months.
- Don't be overly worried yet over McCain's poll numbers
I know folks are worried about the polls that show McCain doing well, at times beating both HRC and BHC in national and state races. Don’t get me wrong—I’d rather run against Romney. But those poll numbers don’t scare me yet for a few reasons. First, the numbers simply aren’t that scary. Second, while I recognize the correlation is tricky, the primary results don’t suggest McCain running away from any Dem even in bright red states (more on this later). Third, I think name recognition is a factor in these polls, which helps McCain. Fourth, there’s a lag in favorability impressions—that is, I don’t think folks have really seen the 2008 Johnny Mac, They think he’s still the 2000 version. This model looks pasty and old, subject to being done in by a stiff wind; he’s got a weirdly creepy crooked smile, says "my friends" as much as Rudy says 9/11, and frankly looks angry a decent amount of the time as he talks about being in Iraq for 100 years. I think folks also continue to labor under the misimpression that Mac is moderate. Now that’s partially the MSM—but again, Mac’s not had to run a general before. His positions are going to be defined—and if the Dem nominee can’t do that, we’re not winning anyway. I bet lots of folks think he’s pro choice, for instance.
The overall point here is that I see nothing about the 2008 McCain that would leave someone who’s expecting this mythic 2000 straight talking maverick pleasantly surprised. In that sense, the MSM’s crush may hurt McCain—I think folks who aren’t paying attention yet have sky high expectations of the man, that he simply won’t be able to meet.
- Consequences of Base Problems
McCain’s problems with his base are well documented and I won’t go into them much here. Mostly, that’s because I do believe that most Repubs will eventually fall in line. But the thing is, everyone here seems so petrified that McCain will crush Hillary in particularl, and maybe even BHO, amongst independents. The problem with having a segment of your right flank hating you is you’ve got to spend the necessary time pandering to them—something Bush didn’t have to worry about in 2004. The McCain who babbles on and on about the surge, staying in Iraq forever, his pro-life credentials and how he’s really just as anti-immigrant as your next right wing wacko isn’t nearly as appealing to the indies, who by and large are leaning Dem in greater numbers since ’04. Which brings us to--
- Immigration
This is a huge Trojan Horse for Mac IMHO. I think this is an issue that the Repubs are serious about, particularly those on the far right who might already distrust McCain. So Mac can either A) go back to his amnesty/path to citizenship position and risk alienating that segment or B) stick with his newer, more virulently anti-immigration position and run the risk of alienating Hispanic swing voters who, mark my words, are going to TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT in what I see as the major new battlegrounds: NM, NV and CO. Additionally, the mere fact of the position change and nuances takes away from the straight talk image and opens up the flip flop charge.
- Iraq
I’ll save for another diary my thoughts as to whether BO or HRC is the preferable candidate against Mac (suffice it to say for now I think both can and will beat him, but that both would bring particular strengths and weaknesses to the race)—but against either of them, if the Dem nominee is in anyway competent politically (and I feel pretty confident that either HRC or BHO are), I don’t see McCain winning this fight. He’s not where the country is. The way I see it, if the nominee is Obama, the Iraq issue takes McCain’s experience off the table—all Obama’s frame needs to be is "John, your experience has led you to conclude that this war was a good idea from the start, and that we ought to be in Iraq for 100 years. We don’t need any more of that kind of experience." With Hillary, obviously the contrast of being opposed from the beginning is off the table, so the debate isn’t so much about judgment, but despite the folks I see here trying to say that HRC and Mac’s positions are the same, they’re not even in the same ballpark. And HRC is where the country is. Not to mention that I do think that in terms of "looking like a CIC," HRC right this second stands up to McCain a little bit better.
Don’t take this the wrong way, I say this as a dude knowing something about how men size up other men. A fear I have (though Obama can easily neutralize it if he’s ready) is A) the whole war hero thing and B) the prospect of some "go away little boy and let the serious people run the war" moment in a debate. Because they’re both men, I think McCain’s war service becomes more of a contrast with Obama. With Hillary, I think that contrast becomes a little more irrelevant. I think people inherently recognize that as a woman in that generation, Hillary wouldn’t have had the opportunity to serve on the battlefield even had she wanted to—it doesn’t make McCain any less of a war hero, but I think people won’t think about the contrast as much. They’ll just inherently accept that HRC comes from a different perspective.
In any case, I don’t see how any national ticket running on staying in Iraq indefinitely and still trying to say the whole thing was always a good idea and we’d do it all over again knowing what we know now is a winner.
- The Economy
It’s going to be the issue, and McCain’s not good on it, as he was kind enough to admit on camera. Now sure, he’ll get his briefings and policy people, but unless he’s talking about spending, it’s just not his natural comfort zone. It’s not how he relates to people—he makes his connections more on the basis of sacrifice, service, etc—not an "I understand the problems of the middle class." I think BHO has a significantly greater grasp and ability to relate on these issues, and HRC is on an entirely different level. This issue being front and center inherently favors the democratic nominee in a big way. Folks aren’t interested in making the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% permanent right this second. Even democratic nominees who lose—see Kerry, John—win by significant numbers amongst voters who list the economy as their top issue.
- Enthusiasm disparity and evidence of independent preferences from the primaries.
The table below shows raw vote totals for most of the completed contests:
*IA: HRC: 63,800, BHO: 83, 600, MAC: 14, 820
*NH: HRC: 112, 251, BHO: 104, 772; MAC 88, 465
*SC: HRC: 141, 128, BHO: 295, 091, MAC: 147, 283
*MI: HRC: 328, 151, BHO: N/A, MAC: 257, 251
*FL: HRC: 856, 944, BHO: 567, 930, MAC: 693, 425
Note: The IA raw vote numbers are extrapolated and I know they may not be 100% accurate. I’m also not bothering to try and extrapolate raw vote totals from NV—clearly, both HRC and BHO crushed McCain in terms of raw vote total there. This table clearly demonstrates that, as far as primaries go, McCain loses the raw vote contest to the democratic leader by considerable margins in every state, even those where there was no competitive democratic contest. This is of limited value, I realize, in trying to project the general, but I do think the evidence of an enthusiasm disparity is clear.
The table below extrapolates, from exit polling data, the raw vote totals amongst independents for the three states where both parties had truly competitive contests.
*IA: HRC: 7480, BHO: 18, 040, MAC: 3408
*NH: HRC: 38, 747, BHO: 51, 246, MAC: 34, 244
*SC: HRC: 31, 694, BHO: 51, 198, MAC: 33, 642
Again, the data is limited. But I do think its notable given the rampant concern on here about how strongly independents prefer McCain over the Dem frontrunners. In the first two states, McCain loses amongst independents to both Hillary and Barack; and in South Carolina, a state where McCain won his party’s primary, and where Hillary suffered a devastatingly large defeat, McCain still barely edged out HRC in raw independent votes, and clearly was crushed by Barack. Take it for what its worth—but the independent love affair w/ McCain clearly isn’t evident in this data.
Summing Up (Finally)
So, to sum it up. Obviously nothing’s a guarantee. McCain is probably the toughest nominee we could have gotten out of that awful field. But he’s not coming in to this thing from a position of strength and he’s no doubt eminently beatable. The folks on here who are categorically saying things like "McCain slaughters one or both of HRC/BHO" with no supporting evidence either aren’t dealing in reality or are seeing what they want to see based on their primary preferences.