Why McCain Can't Win
Jeff Alworth
As we slog through the seemingly unending mire of the Democratic primaries, a meme has taken hold: the longer Obama battles Clinton, the more likely it is that McCain will win the election. Nonsense. McCain is a weak candidate in a year when Republicans are running against their own party. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be a Democrat in the White House come January. Take heart, ye who have suffered under Republicans for too long: change is coming. Here's why McCain can't win.
1. The economy
In 2004, the war and terror dominated people's priorities. When asked, 42% identified it as their number one concern. The economy was important, but substantially less so--only 26% thought it was the burning issue. In 2008, those numbers are reversed; 37% cite the economy, and only 29% cite Iraq and terror. Add the 20% who cite health care and gas prices as the paramount issues, and you have 57% of the public worried about pocketbook issues. McCain's response? A lame summer holiday from the gas tax, more privatization as the cure for health care, and making Bush's tax cuts permanent. His argument that cutting government waste can make up for lost revenues is poignant for being so wrong--and it's hardly convincing. McCain has said he doesn't understand or care about the economy. That ignorance will be fatal.
2. Women
Women vote in greater numbers than men and they typically lean toward Democrats. In 2000, women voted in favor of Gore 54-43%. And though they were a larger bloc in '04 (54-46%), women voted almost evenly for Bush and Kerry. Bush managed to swing this by appealing to evangelical women and the so-called "security moms." It is difficult to imagine a repeat of that pattern in 2008. Even if Hillary isn't the nominee, her election has brought a large number of women into the process. The issues this year are economic, not security, and the evangelical coalition is weakening, leaving women without a compelling reason to cross over from their natural allegiance. In current polling, Obama enjoys a 13-point advantage over women against McCain, and Hillary a 14-point lead.
3. Democratic demographic shift
Even before this primary process, which has been a remarkable tool for bringing in Democratic voters, there was a huge shift in party identification. Four years ago, Dems had only a slight advantage, with a 33-29% edge. Last year, when Pew polled people again, that advantage had swollen to 50-35%. And if the primaries so far have been any measure, the GOP are not winning the crossover battle nor the turnout battle, and Dems will consolidate this lead at election time.
First of all, let's start with intensity. Take a couple of battleground states from back when the GOP race was still competitive. In New Hampshire, roughly 52,000 more people voted Democratic than GOP. In Missouri, a whopping 235,000 more turned out to vote Democratic than Republican--and that's in a state that voted for Bush by a 7-point margin. The pattern repeats itself even in states like Alabama (2004 result, Bush by 26%) where total votes on the Dem side were only 23,000 fewer than the GOP out of 1.1 million cast.
And the numbers of crossover voters isn't even close. In New Hampshire--the state that twice made McCain--125,000 independents voted Dem while only 86,000 voted GOP. In Missouri, 180,000 indies voted Dem, and only 135,000 voted GOP.
4. Splintering coalitions
The factions that kept Bush in
the White House are not going to elect to put John McCain there. Bush's most reliable voters were Christian evangelicals. He picked up 61% of frequent church-goers, and won 79%
of evangelical voters. Even more importantly, these were the
foot-soldiers who got out the vote and gave Bush the largest total in
American history. McCain has never been appealing to evangelicals, and
his John Hagee debacle
demonstrates how out of touch with this constituency he is. He may
still win a majority of these votes, but in a year not animated by
social issues, they won't be his free labor source and far fewer will
show up to vote. (There's reason to believe he's got a closet full of skeletons that will further erode this faction.)
While Democrats don't understand why Republicans chafe at McCain's "maverick" ways, it's clear that his stand on immigration and campaign finance have put him in poor stead with two other reliable constituencies. These will further dampen the intensity of the base, a beleaguered lot who aren't excited about the election in the first place.
5. McCain's faults
The press loves to talk about what "flawed" candidates Obama and Clinton are, but the negatives for McCain are worse. For starters, he's 72, and that bothers more than a quarter of voters. In a year of change, a dinosaur is not the horse the GOP should be riding. His tendency toward anger, should it flare up in the debates again, will exacerbate fears about his age. Comics are already ridiculing his age, and if he turns into a cranky old guy, he could become a caricature by November.
And there are more substantive faults, too. His squeaky-clean image will be badly tarnished when more people learn about his history of marital infidelity and corruption. Cindy McCain earlier this year fiercely scolded Michelle Obama, but her history with John makes her a bigger liability:
McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money.
Cindy is, moreover, the heiress to a beer distributorship, and her money and family connections helped launch McCain's political career. He has kept his finances separate from hers, but in the general election, her wealth will become a major factor. What was the relationship between a powerful senator and a wealthy family? The calls for Cindy to release her tax records have begun, and they will only intensify.
Finally, there's the issue of corruption. McCain's history with the Keating 5 may be old history, but it will be brandished like a club whenever the GOP try to smear Democrats. There may be further evidence of double dealing; a recent example in Harper's Magazine, which detailed the money and people behind McCain's Reform Institute. And these kinds of stories will only increase in frequency.
6. The 45% barrier
All of these lead to a situation we can already document. Despite having the field to himself, with no scrutiny whatsoever, and a heated, poll-denting battle between Obama and Clinton, McCain still can't break 45% in the polls. These are McCain's salad days, before America hears about the scandals, starts thinking about his age, watches him melt down in debates, and sees constant attacks from the right and left. If he can't break 45% now, when exactly is he going to?
McCain is this year's Bob Dole, a loyal soldier the GOP have honored by nominating as their candidate. And he will surely suffer Dole's fate in November.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:18 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
A great rundown, Jeff. I'd put #5 right up top, though, and frame it a little differently:
McCain is not merely old -- my grandfather was old at 94, but was intelligent and knew the limits of his abilities. McCain appears to be bordering on senility, and is unaware of it. We've seen only little flashes thus far, because McCain has not yet had to endure a difficult campaign, and has not yet had much media scrutiny on him.
But when you have to have Joe Lieberman lean over and remind you whether Sunni or Shiite Moslems control Iran, you're in trouble. So many of his responses seem like he's trying to recall the talking points his staff briefed him on -- not reflecting a true or up-to-date understanding of what's going on.
He will simply melt down once real competition, and the media coverage that comes with it, comes his way. I don't think it will take long, either -- might be better if it happens in September when more people are watching, so I'm not too concerned about the Democratic race dragging on.
My friend Sara says that Bush proved that "anyone can win." But Bush, as much as it's hard to admit, has a certain affable quality during a campaign -- and an ability to turn his ignorance into a humorous moment -- that played in his favor. McCain, no matter how many times he says "my friends," doesn't have that quality.
The guy doesn't scare me one bit. Except for the part where I thought he seemed like a halfway reasonable candidate in 2000...boy, was I ever wrong.
Apr 28, '08
More fundamentally, it does not appear that McCain is proposing any serious solutions to the extraordinary problems facing our Nation.
Apr 28, '08
Jeff,
Well you didn't convince me. I'll vote McCain over either Clinton or Obama.
Apr 28, '08
I agree with Jeff, unless the Forces That Be foment another "Pearl Harbor" that stokes the forces of militarism and faux-patriotism.
Apr 28, '08
I'm still scared he has a chance. People still think he's a "maverick." Ugh.
1:00 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Randy, 39 million people voted for Dole, too. You'll have some company.
Apr 28, '08
In truth either of the Dem candidates would beat McCain. The fundamental realities of the ruin the Repubs have wrought make him unelectable. Especially once a Dem. candidate is chosen.
1:32 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Revolting as the thought may be, I think there's still a 50-50 chance McCain wins the presidency, unless whoever wins the Democratic nomination is going to be willing to seriously hammer McCain on policy and credibility questions. Relying on demographic shifts to fill in for persuasion won't win the election.
MyDD's EV polls -- based on state-by-state polling -- showed McCain ahead of both potential Democrats in head-to-head races until recently, when they show a couple states moving into Clinton's column. A lot can change between now and the Democratic convention -- and 4 November -- but it can change in either direction.
I certainly can't get my head around what has ever made McCain an attractive candidate to anyone, but then I wasn't exactly entertained by the stories of George W. Bush's wastrel years running failed oil companies and snorting coke before he was elected president, either. The appeal is lost on me.
Apr 28, '08
Great post. I mostly agree with you, but here are some countervailing trends:
Now I'm not arguing the merits of McCain's position, because academically we know that his tax cuts skew towards the wealthy and his gas tax holiday is misguided. But in terms of how things sound to the average voter, the Democrat is going to have a hard time gaining traction against someone who is proposing bigger tax cuts and lower gas prices. One thing we know: voters across America believe tax cuts are a wonderful thing, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
Women. McCain is going to lose the women's vote, the question is whether there are enough "security moms" to keep it close. I'd like to think those voters have learned a lesson, but I thought they would have learned before 2004 as well. The campaign will have lots of Bin Laden and 9/11 imagery. Does it stil resonate?
Demographics. Since Obama is the all-but-certain nominee, the question is whether young voters will turn out. They have so far, but we've been jilted at that altar before. After months of negative campaigning from both sides and a barrage of attacks on Obama in the general, will young idealists still turn out? Or will they text each other about the broken state of American politics?
Splintering coalitions. The GOP has some problems, but so do we. We all assume the Obama/Clinton factions will come home after the primary, but if Clinton wins then African Americans are going to stay home. Will the same be true of the older, working-class Dems who support Clinton?
McCain's faults. Sure, he has them. And Obama will have to contend with racist whites who won't vote for a black man, especially one named "Hussein". What is that number for Obama, 10-20% of voters? And a whole lot of them are Democrats. My guess is that the racist vote outnumbers the ethical vote every time.
During the day, Jeff, I agree with your analysis. But in the dark of night, listening to the rain and wind shake my Portland bungalow, I fear the worst.
2:01 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
During the day, Jeff, I agree with your analysis. But in the dark of night, listening to the rain and wind shake my Portland bungalow, I fear the worst.
That's why I posted this. Have faith!
As to you points, Miles. On the economy, we'll have to see what the polls say once we have a nominee. But the Dems do have pretty developed plans--go to their web pages.
Security moms aren't keeping it close. Unless terror comes back onto the front burner, nothing in the polls suggests a rally to McCain.
I really don't buy the splintering coalitions argument against the Dems. Everyone's running to them, not away from them. The backers of the losing nominee will line up behind the winner (Obama) at the first attack ad. The fear you have there is irrational.
And finally--and this is a big one--the Democrat is not winning the racist vote. The southern strategy has pandered to racists long enough that no Dem will ever see a vote from the idiots spreading the lies about Obama. They're certainly not voting for Hillary. So give McCain his bigot bloc. It's been solidly GOP since 1968.
Darrel, I'd like to hear you outline McCain's path to victory. Tell me which voters will give him the win. Show your work.
2:16 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
While I agree with much of what Miles says, I'm not sure that I'd make this assumption. I think African-American voters may be just as concerned -- and in many cases, perhaps more concerned -- about the continuation of Bush's economic policies under McCain. There will probably be some falloff of enthusiasm if Obama loses the nomination as well as some rancor over some of the Clinton tactics, but I think that may be the case across the board (as you mention in 3), not simply in the African American community. I certainly don't think there would be a lot of switching to the GOP, as could potentially be the case if Obama wins the nomination.
Still, I won't be surprised if McCain is urged to pick Condi Rice as his running mate by commentators who think that blocks of female and African-American voters would be won over from the Democrats on the basis of identity politics.
Apr 28, '08
I'm still worried about McCain -- he's a war hero and Republicans may be tired of GWB, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for another Republican in November. I'm bracing myself for another down to the wire election.
2:42 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Jeff, I think the whole idea that blocks of voters ("security moms", "soccer dads", "computer programmers who drink Diet Squirt") are a pretty discredited notion of how to predict voting patterns. They're bite-sized, they're great soundbites for TV pundits, but they're so incredibly squishy and fungible that they have to be replaced every election cycle. Not only do people get tired of hearing and using them, but they're unpredictable.
McCain's path to victory? Stay the course. If the Democrats can't find a way to use Iraq against him, he'll keep telling people it's going great for another six months (Friedman Unit) until the election. If it starts to blow up again, he'll blame the Democratic Congress. He'll blame the Democratic Congress for the economy (everything was going fine until after the 2006 elections! --John McCain)
The media loves, loves, loves the guy.
My point in the first comment was, according to (some) state-by-state polls, if the election was held today, McCain would win the electoral college vote against Obama and he'd been doing the same against Clinton until recently. I don't have to break that down into smaller chunks of voters to think that either Democratic candidate isn't going to find the general election a cakewalk (as George Tenet would say).
Personally, I think Clinton or Obama has to be prepared to unload on McCain on the war and the economy -- to shoot him out of the sky, so to speak -- to make sure that there's nothing close about this election, but the last two outings from my party haven't given me a lot of hope that that kind of thing's in the offing. I suspect that they'll play it safe, and try to finesse a few votes here and a few votes there, and that that strategy may just come up short.
Apr 28, '08
"... if Clinton wins then African Americans are going to stay home."
You're right, Darrel, that statement was overly broad. My concern is that a significant number may stay home if they believe that Obama was denied the nomination by the superdelegates based on his race. And the Clinton argument that Obama is "unelectable" seems to have that racial undertone to it.
On the economy, we'll have to see what the polls say once we have a nominee. But the Dems do have pretty developed plans--go to their web pages.
Actually, it was a visit to their web pages after I read your post that got me so dismayed. They're nearly identical, and in addition to middle-class tax cuts they include the following platitudes: fair trade; education, job training, and workforce development; green and renewable energy jobs; increased protection for unions; raising the minimum wage; and from Obama (I'm not kidding) "next generation broadband."
I'm probably missing some things, but overall both Obama and Clinton's economic "plans" are a hodgepodge of various good ideas tied together with a pretty bow. To the average worker in Ohio, which sounds better: job training so that he can get one of those newfangled (but not yet real) "green" jobs? Or lower taxes and lower gas prices that allow him to keep more of what he earns?
And finally--and this is a big one--the Democrat is not winning the racist vote.
Here we genuinely disagree. Democrats in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania are not like Democrats in Oregon. There is a significant older, white, working class segment, and some of those Democrats (not all, but some) won't vote for a black man but may vote for a white woman. They particularly won't vote for a black man who is going to be (unfairly) linked throughout the general election to Rev. Wright.
3:15 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
mccain has no shot against obama. There just aren't enough Republicans to prop him up.
Apr 28, '08
So, Jeff....
Sure, McCain is a weaker electoral prospect than the media presently acknowledge, in a year with a lot of Democratic advantages. And Democrats shouldn't be unduly intimidated.
But you can't possibly mean...literally...McCain can't win. It was a nice rhetorical flourish, but you didn't really mean that. Did you?
4:07 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
although it's been alluded to, i think we have to include #6: 2 excellent Dem candidates. as much as i've grown to dislike Hillary because of her campaign's tactics, she's still lightyears better than McNasty. that choice is a no-brainer. i think Obama is a better choice, of course, but either of them will have a stronger base, more widespread appeal, more money and an electorate who wants a damn change and finally figures out -- it ain't McCain.
not to mention, he'll look ridiculous against them even in a badly run debate.
4:36 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
But you can't possibly mean...literally...McCain can't win.
As metaphysical certainty? No. As a practical matter, yes.
Darrel, women are not a "bite sized" demo. I'm not arguing Penn microtrends here. This is a pretty serious data point; if you wish to dismiss it, fair enough. I find it persuasive.
Apr 28, '08
Miles writes, "4. Splintering coalitions. The GOP has some problems, but so do we. We all assume the Obama/Clinton factions will come home after the primary, but if Clinton wins then African Americans are going to stay home. Will the same be true of the older, working-class Dems who support Clinton?"
This keeps up the mythology, created by the Clinton campaign and the corporate media, that Clinton CAN win. She can't.
But if she did, this country will have deeper problems than a faction staying home at the time of the election. I remember the summer of 1967 very well. That will look like a picnic compared to the general violent uprising that will take place if Clinton steals the nomination.
So, Miles, ever hopeful, no Clinton can't win, and no one in their right mind would hope for that.
Apr 28, '08
A big "if" here is how the nomination battle is resolved. If it is clearly a stolen nomination where Obama has 100-150 of the pledged delegates, which is likely, then not only the AAs but significant other groups will sit it out. The ranking AA congressman Rep. Clyburn was quite firm on that point. That makes Clinton unelectable. No Dem. has won the presidency without overwhelming support from the AA electorate. They won't be rolled on this. It's McCain's for sure then.
Apr 28, '08
As metaphysical certainty? No. As a practical matter, yes.
The U.S. is a country in which almost 20% (feisty independents all!) of the electorate voted for Ross Perot (yes, Ross Perot) in 1992. A country in which three African Americans have been elected as U.S. Senators since reconstruction, two from the same state. A country that, in ten presidential elections beginning in 1968, has generated a Democratic popular vote majority once (Carter's whopping 50.1% in 1976). A country that is about to hear the words "God Bless America? God Damn America!" a million times a week until November. And they are running against an ex-POW.
You know, I like the Portland TrailBlazers. They have great prospects. Until they actually win something, it won't be appropriate to size them up for the rings. I would recommend the same level of restraint for the Democrats' presidential prospects.
Apr 28, '08
The last Democrat to get over 50 percent of the vote was Jimmy Carter in the immediate aftermath of Watergate...you could count Al Gore in 2000, but he didn't have to balls to claim what was his.
Bill Clinton only won in 1992 and 1996 because Ross Perot ran to the right of George H.W. Bush. Perot was also the only one of the three to oppose NAFTA.
Between Obama and Hillary, I think Obama would have a better chance of beating McCain. As I've said for months, nothing would be better for Republican turnout than having Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot, even among lukewarm conservative support for McCain....which lessens every day.
Apr 28, '08
"... if Clinton wins then African Americans are going to stay home."
So, too, will many independents in lieu of "none of the above."
6:30 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Folks, for those of you who keep quoting the results of the past 40 years, recognize that this isn't determinative. (Past performance doesn't guarantee future returns...) In 1968, there were no doubt nay-sayers who were pointing out statistics about the previous 40 years and how Dems were unbeatable. "Dems have won eight of the last ten! Johnson won with 61% of the vote last election!"
I'm suggesting that we quit, for the moment, thinking about 84 or 88 or 00 and look at what's in front of us. Or you can wait until my brilliant prediction is born out. After all, I predicted Hillary would win the nomination last February, didn't I? See?
Apr 28, '08
I won't give you odds, but I would wager that McCain is elected our next president. Rabid progressive support wont get Obama 51% of the vote. McCain should pull more moderates, independents and the conservative voters will turn out in the end. Both Gore & Kerry had a better chance at the presidency than Barack Obama. He peaked too soon and will continue in a gradual decent imperceptible to his strongest supporters.
6:55 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
I'm not sure what you're arguing here, Jeff.
Is it significantly larger than the "men" demo? Are you saying women vote in some sort of monolithic block? I have to differ, because the last I looked, there were a significant number of women voting for GOP candidates, just like there are a significant number of men voting for Democratic candidates. There are significant numbers of women at Obama rallies, and there are are a fair number at McCain rallies.
All I can do is point you to the polls, Jeff. According to Rasmussen, McCain leads Obama by 13 points with white women, and leads Clinton by six points among white women. He leads by even greater margins -- against either candidate -- against white men.
That's not broken down by state or anything, but those are some fairly significant numbers for either candidate. In a reality-based world, you'd think that would be enough to say that there's a distinct possibility that McCain may somehow escape the stink of the Bush years and win the presidency.
If you want to "cling" to some concept that appealing (maybe) to a vaguely-defined ad hoc group is the route to success, go for it. Maybe it'll work this time.
7:17 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Just to make sure one point is clear: It's not that I think McCain should win -- if anything, the Democratic candidates are both too tame for my personal tastes -- but to say that McCain can't win seems, to me, to be ignoring the reality on the ground, which, in the Rasmussen poll from yesterday, shows McCain in more or less a tie with either candidate.
7:27 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Ah Darrel, condescending to the end. Always a pleasure.
Apr 28, '08
Well Jeff, I remember your prediction and I remember telling you that Hillary doesn't wear well...
Do I think McCain is dead in the water? No. Are is chances even? No. That campaign is way off yet and much water will go under the bridge between now and then. How about some more 'terror threat alerts'? It does pay to remember what party is in control and who is running...
Apr 28, '08
Well Jeff, I remember your prediction and I remember telling you that Hillary doesn't wear well...
Do I think McCain is dead in the water? No. Are is chances even? No. That campaign is way off yet and much water will go under the bridge between now and then. How about some more 'terror threat alerts'? It does pay to remember what party is in control and who is running...
8:55 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
there's no Democratic nominee so there's only the barest of campaigns either against McNasty or, more importantly, for the nominee. once we know who the nominee is, the dynamic changes. and it changes in different ways depending on whether it's Obama or whatshername (sorry, that was cheap; points have been deducted). McCain is going to have a lot of nasty, evil people working for him, but Hillary or Obama will have even more, and even more committed, people working for them. i won't be doing a damn thing for Hillary, but i'll be working at the party level and that will mean strong support for her (sigh) and for Novick and Kroger and the rest (yea yea, i know).
but on April 28th, to declare "thus it is" and give up on beating the least lame of the GOP's pathetic platoon of clowns and washouts -- damn, it's way too early to give up on this thing. all the crapola of recent days will pass, and then the Democratic Party in all 50 states (rock on Howard Dean) and the voting colonies (is that what they're called?) will set sight on what matters: kicking McNasty's ancient and corrupt heinie. and kicked said heinie shall be.
8:57 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Condescending? I let you know when I actually get around to condescension.
The Rasmussen poll -- from yesterday -- starts off with this statement:
All the theorizing in the world about how various groups of people should vote against McCain is pointless unless the size of those groups are explicit and they can be counted. You said: "Show your work." Well, there it is. If you want to pretend that McCain has no chance of becoming president, that's fine, but the real-world facts at this time don't back you up. I understand why your only response is to bluster and call me names.
If you think I'm condescending for not buying into your fantasy of Democratic inevitability, that's fine, II could really care less about your opinion.
9:26 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
If you want to "cling" to some concept that appealing (maybe) to a vaguely-defined ad hoc group is the route to success, go for it. Maybe it'll work this time.
and
Condescending? I let you know when I actually get around to condescension.
Are we there yet?
Apr 28, '08
First of all, anyone who believes April polls about November general election results, there is a bridge I would like to sell you!
Second, RIGHT ON Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Apr 28, 2008 6:30:43 PM
What some people forget is that there was a not yet well known 28 year old man 40 years ago named Kevin Phillips. He has since become one of the Republican Party's harshest critics. But back then, he proposed a strategy he wrote about in The Emerging Republican Majority.
Either he or someone else came up with the idea of going after voters (often in small towns or small states) who were "un-black, un-poor, un-young". That struck some people as counter-intuitive. But added to the college students who (I can attest from my own college friends) couldn't see that there was a HUGE difference in where Richard Nixon or Hubert Humphrey would take the country, it made a big difference in the result. There was a major 3rd party candidate that year, George Wallace. The popular vote difference between Nixon and Humphrey was something less than 520,000. I remember how long it took to find out who had won the first presidential election we had actually voted in.
9:44 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
In answer to your question, state tracking polls in April are unpersuasive.
The reason I'm no longer engaging the discussion is because we have (yet again) descended into a discussion wherein the intention is to obscure meaning, not arrive at it. I have no idea how we get here, and I'm happy to take credit it. But the descent is irritating, and unworthy of either ouf our time. I actually gave six reasons why McCain can't win. You are unpersuaded. Time will tell.
9:51 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Jeff, those don't seem any more condescending than
I didn't take first remark from you as you doing something in a haughty manner or as if it was beneath you -- which is the definition of "condescension." But then, as someone who was once an English Literature major, I know the actual meaning of the word and can distinguish it from "sarcasm." Condescend literally means to act as though you are on a higher plane than others, and to treat them as lesser than yourself, in that you must "descend" from your orbit to mingle with the riff-raff.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I believe. If I was truly condescending, I wouldn't bother to respond.
You know what would be condescending? Trying to ignore the fact that your theory has some problems when faced with alternative facts by posting nonsensical one-line "ripostes" rather than trying to patch it up. Pretending that it's all about how mean someone is to you.
10:12 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Darrel, look, I would actually love to debate this with you. As I said, I find the manner confounding--it seems like we get further from meaning, not nearer. I'm happy to take credit for the misunderstanding.
But just so you can see it from my side, this passage comes off to me as enormously condescending:
But then, as someone who was once an English Literature major, I know the actual meaning of the word and can distinguish it from "sarcasm." Condescend literally means to act as though you are on a higher plane than others, and to treat them as lesser than yourself, in that you must "descend" from your orbit to mingle with the riff-raff.
To assume that I'm too half-witted to know the meaning to the words I use--hearing that, it's hard not to think you're being condescended to. I am not so thin-skinned as to be devastated by a superior argument, but it feels like we're actually in a pissing fight--which is tiring and irritating. It's likely that if we were sitting face-to-face with a couple of beers between us, this would be an enjoyable discussion. I'm finding it less so in this context, however..
11:02 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
April is the cruelest month.
And then Al Gore went on to become president.
11:50 p.m.
Apr 28, '08
Darrel's last line provides a perfect segue into my question:
Anyone want to handicap the state of play on Republican voter suppression and voting machine manipulation?
I think that on the first count matters may be improved in Ohio given official turnover. I am not sure how they stand in Florida. I don't have a general sense whether offices controlling elections have shifted one way or another in general, or in big swing states.
My impression is that some states have moved away from electronic machines, and the answer to part 1 also influences what their use might mean.
But given what happened in 2000, where abuse of power over elections stole the election over a popular vote victory for Gore, and 2004, where such abuse may have cost Kerry Ohio and thus an electoral college victory despite a popular loss, if enough states are close again, this could be part of a McCain path to victory.
That said, thanks for the post, Jeff, which I take not as a reason for complacency but as a reason to be cheerful while working hard to make our own luck, as the saying goes. It helps motivation to have good reasons to think we might win if we do the right things.
Apr 29, '08
TJ, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPb7Gs_irWJk&refer=home
Apr 29, '08
Chuck Butcher said: "How about some more 'terror threat alerts'? It does pay to remember what party is in control and who is running..." That's the wild card. These bastards are capable of anything, so while I think Jeff's analysis is superb, the 'unknown knowns' (tnx Rummy!) are still out there. Cheers and thanks Jeff!
Apr 29, '08
I think Mr. McCain has mental stability issues; I think his 5.5 years of torture in a POW camp severely crippled his emotional and mental health.
In addition, he is indeed a war monger, and we don't need a war monger in the presidency!
Apr 29, '08
Imagine the upcoming presidential between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. Just visualize what that is going to look like and how either of the Democrats will talk circles around him. McCain unscripted and even sometimes scripted is prone to make comments that leave voters scratching their heads. Plus he has the task of defending the indefensible; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, the economy, the republican Supreme Court, the dollar, the debt, religious pandering, republican corruption etc, etc ........ he's just going to offer more of the same and that is not what the voters are looking for no matter who is selling it.
At this point McCain has gotten nothing but fluff PR from the press since the primaries and of course the Democrats will need to work hard to overcome the chicken-hawk- homo-erotic-maverick-man-crush on McCain by the traditional media and pundits; but I think once placed in a situation of a side by side comparison between McCain and 'the candidate to be named later,' the flaws of John Sidney McCain III and the reality of a McCain Presidency will be clearly visible to the voters and his popularity will plummet and a Democrat will be President in '08.
Apr 29, '08
Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but this analysis is simply foolishness and a guy saying things the way he WANTS them to be rather than the way they really are. The analysis conveniently ignores the fact that Barack Obama, the likely Dem nominee can't win with most whites and will likely be devastated in the southern states - particularly the swing states like Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky where all polls show him in SERIOUS trouble. Then there's the senior voters who likely will flock to the Arizona Senator BECAUSE of his age, not in spite of it, when compared to the callow Obama. And why do the Hispanics consistently dislike the junior senator from Illinois? Perhaps something to do with the age-old grudge-match between Latinos and African-Americans? Race isn't just between white and black, people. And in the irony of ironies, the fact that McCain is resoundingly criticized for being too soft on immigration may play well in his appeal to this important voting block.
Additionally, Senator McCain is no Bob Dole. Senator Dole wasn't ahead in Florida by double-digits, he didn't win Alabama by even 10 points (a poll out today shows McCain winning that state by nearly 20 points), etc, etc.
And his debate meltdown? Hmmmm. I wonder how a 71 year old highly seasoned war veteran will look when standing toe-to-toe with a 46-year old, indulged golden boy who's had the silver spoon in his mouth his whole life.
Let's face it: John McCain will be our 44th President.
11:17 a.m.
Apr 29, '08
What?! Silver spoon! That's the best joke I've heard in a long time. Barack Obama is the son of a man who was once a goat herder and a domestic servant and a woman who went on to raise him a single mother. He attended good schools only because of scholarships and the help of his grandparents. Any money that he now has he has been earned...through book sales and a good old fashioned salary.
John McCain is the son of a wealthy admiral and now has his wife's milllions and millions at his disposal.
Who has the silver spooon?
Apr 29, '08
Why McCain can win:
1) Use of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 Vote Fraud Techniques like: a) easily switched electronic voting machines b) secretive vote tabulation fraud c) lack of voting machines in democratic neighborhoods e) purging of probable democratic voters in swing counties
2) Conservative media propaganda excuses for McCain's victory a) America wasn't quite ready for a black president b) America wasn't quite ready for a woman president c) Hillary-Obama fighting turned away Dem voters d) something to do with Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or McKinney e) Osama bin Laden's latest video timed for the election
Apr 29, '08
Imagine the upcoming presidential between McCain and either Clinton or Obama. Just visualize what that is going to look like and how either of the Democrats will talk circles around him.
Totally! It will be just like when Al Gore talked circles around GWB in 2000. And when Kerry talked circles around GWB in 2004. Can you believe the GOP put that joker up against our candidates? Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha!
Apr 29, '08
Kristin,
You wouldn't expect facts to get in the way of good old Republican framing, would you?
We all know the Congress is full of rich Democrats and salt of the earth cloth-coat Republicans.
11:57 a.m.
Apr 29, '08
Steve, let's look at your wishful thinking.
The analysis conveniently ignores the fact that Barack Obama, the likely Dem nominee can't win with most whites and will likely be devastated in the southern states - particularly the swing states like Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky where all polls show him in SERIOUS trouble.
Of course, you have made the same mistake so many pundits are making--conflating the primary and general. Obama has lost some working-class whites in some states (but not all--see Wisconsin, Virginia, Delaware, etc.) to Hillary, but these are Dem voters. When you look at general election numbers, Obama actually does better than Clinton, trailing McCain by seven points, 50-43%. Hillary trails 51-42%. Among white women, Obama is tied, and Hillary has a slight advantage. And of course, among blacks, both Clinton and Obama would score 85% or higher. (These are numbers from Pew's 3/27 poll that I linked above.)
Of the Southern states you cite, only Florida is a swing state. You could argue Virginia has become a swing state for Obama. But a Democrat doesn't have to win any Southern state to win the election. The Dem needs some combination of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa to win. Some other potential pick-ups include Missouri (Obama) and Arkansas (Clinton). If the Dem picks up just some of these, it becomes an easy win--without a single southern state, including Florida. (Go here to fiddle with the numbers.)
I haven't seen a poll on Hispanics, which may be a strength for McCain, but don't mistake primary for general election results--Hillary-voting Hispanics are more likely Obama voters than McCain voters. Why do people always have trouble with this math? Do you think that the 90% of black voters, having shunned Clinton in the primary, would vote McCain? Primaries and generals are different.
I wonder how a 71 year old highly seasoned war veteran will look when standing toe-to-toe with a 46-year old, indulged golden boy who's had the silver spoon in his mouth his whole life.
You don't have to wonder--look at how he did in the debates against Republicans. He was testy and verged on meltdown. (And Kristin's right to ridicule your ignorance of Obama's background, which was lower middle-class. Quit watching Fox and do a little research and you'd know that.)
11:58 a.m.
Apr 29, '08
Tom,
You're right, you're right, I know you're right. Those silly "facts." I always forget that Republicans don't have much of a taste for them. Thanks for the reminder.
Apr 29, '08
But a Democrat doesn't have to win any Southern state to win the election.
I think Jeff is right and well supported on this specific point, and it's an important one. Thomas Schaller's excellent Whistling Past Dixie has a complete analysis.
Apr 29, '08
A Democrat recently upset a Republican for the house seat vacated by Dennis Hastert, in a highly Republican district. Another Democrat recently upset a Republican for the house seat of the man who replaced retiring Trent Lott, in another highly Republican district. Meanwhile, the only currently held Democratic Senate seat that the Republicans have a legitimate shot of winning has widened to double digits in the polls. All of this shows that the fundamentals are with the Democratic Party.
The primary battle has exposed the cultural pitfalls Obama has to manuever in the general election, and it is better that he more fully be aware of them than not (this was always my fear, and the silver lining of the Wright controversy and "Bitter" controveries are that the campaign knows these pitfalls.) But, simply put, Obama is probably the next president.
Apr 29, '08
miles,
about your dark-of-night fears, i couldn't have put it better myself: when i think rationally and logically about the head-to-head matchups in the general, either hillary or obama seem like a shoe-in (shoo-in?) over mccain. but we were so damn close in 00 and 04, and now with this idiot rev. wright running around and crowing and only making things worse, i have that sinking feeling in my gut that maybe, just maybe, america is not ready to elect a black man president, and the fact that he is such an infinitely superior candidate to mccain won't mean a damn thing in the end.
mccain is such an easy target it's pathetic. i think our best shot is hammering him for all we're worth as the crusty, crotchety, foul-tempered borderline senile dinosaur that he actually is. the general in november has got to be low-down and ugly for us to win it. in the end, if this election is about mccain, if the dem (in fairness to hillary's ridiculous longshot chance) can define our idiot republican opponent, then it's ours. i still think that's likely. if not, then all bets are off, and i foresee an ever-darkening future with yet another goddamn moron at the helm of the floundering good ship stars 'n' stripes.
Apr 29, '08
McCain can't when because he is just not well liked.... http://www.liesaboutobama.net