GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll on the 2008 presidential race seems to highlight just how apparently weak a John McCain candidacy would be in the general election.
A month ago, SurveyUSA’s 50-state electoral polling surprised us all by showing John McCain defeating John Edwards by a margin of only 272 to 266 electoral votes, which is only one electoral vote more than the margin that Bush won in 2000.? To illustrate just how fragile McCain’s lead over Edwards is in this polling, take Minnesota for instance.? In SurveyUSA’s poll, McCain wins Minnesota and its 10 electoral votes by a margin of only 45% to 44%.? Should anything go wrong in Minnesota, with a few thousand swingvotes going the opposite way, Edwards would win the state and thus the Presidency by 276 to 262 electoral votes.
Or, take even a state as small as Maine.? In SurveyUSA’s polling, McCain leads Edwards in this state by only 44% to 43%.? Should Maine just happen to slip into Edwards’ column, it and its 4 electoral votes would give Edwards the Presidency by a 270 to 268 electoral votes–a tiny margin, but one that puts a Democrat in the White House all the same.
Were it not for this and other polls that show John McCain bleeding his “moderate/independent” support by the buckets full in the wake of his attempts at repositioning himself as the “common sense conservative,” this latest NBC/WSJ Poll might seem like a fluke.? But there is just too much established evidence at this point to ignore the fact that there is something about a John Edwards candidacy that puts McCain seriously at risk.
In this new NBC/WSJ survey, Edwards leads McCain by a margin of 43% to 41%.? Obviously, two things immediately come to mind: A). Edwards’ victory is still very much within the margin of error; and B). Poll results just less than two years out from the election are subject to great changes and fluctuations as campaigns progress.? However, this poll and others like it can not be merely tossed aside and dismissed–these polls pose a serious, serious problem to the very basic core reasoning of a McCain candidacy.? For the past many months, and years even, McCain has had as much presidential support amongst Republican voters because they think he can win.? Were it not for his perceived electoral power, McCain would be a nobody in terms of the presidential election–he would simply be a much older and feebler version of Chuck Hagel.? The fact that John Edwards, someone with nowhere near the experience and qualifications of John McCain, can win at this point, considering that McCain is already at or near 100% name recognition and has very little wiggle room to change/develop opinions, is detrimental to the very fundamental logic of McCain’s run for the White House.
As we here have been predicting for weeks now, ever since the monumental change of dynamics created by the Democrats’ Senate takeover, McCain as a minority member is now stuck between a rock and a hard place.? He has to, on the one hand, try to appease the same conservatives and Republicans he’s been infuriating for the past decade, but by doing so bleeds moderate/crossover support.? On the other hand, he has to retain his image as a moderate, but by doing so bleeds conservative/GOP support.? The major problem with this teeter-totter strategy is that as he flips back and forth, constantly trying to appease both ends of the political spectrum, he’s not actually making headway with either side.? He’s only damaging his relationship with each side by constantly running back and forth to appease each one’s opposite side.
Where once McCain was the GOP’s “Ace,” now McCain is beginning to become a liability.? For someone so immensely unpopular amongst grassroots conservative America, who also happens to be losing serious ground in the general election matchups, I just don’t see how McCain winds up with the nomination when all is said and done.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Edwards also has opened up a 20-point lead among likely Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa: http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2006/12/14/news/local/doc4580f3627bdb2640736155.txt
Edwards 36%
Clinton 16%
Obama 13%
Vilsack 9%
Kerry 6%
Biden 5%
The notion that Hillary and Obama are the front-runners is a media-driven myth — Edwards has a huge lead where it matters. Watch for the other Dems to start taking potshots at him, but his positive, “sunshiney” image could make that a dangerous prospect.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:48 am
“The notion that Hillary and Obama are the front-runners is a media-driven myth.”
Mike: Very good analysis. I think you’re absolutely right on Obama, and most porbably right on Hillary, although there have been, and still are, at least some objective facts that would support front-runner status for Her. On the GOP side, I think your analysis applies with equal cogency to John McCain’s “front-runner” status.
The real problem here is that “front-runner” status has typically been bestowed by Journalists, Pundits, and assorted “Wise Men” of Washington stroking their chin and tugging their ear. No one calls them to task and demands that they back up their opinion by pointing to facts-on-the-ground. This largely unsupported opinion is then flogged in the MSM and very soon becomes the “Conventional Wisdom”.
Here, I think we should all remember Deroy Murdock’s recent quote: “The oddest thing about the conventional wisdom may be its almost bulletproof imperviousness to the facts.” This should become the slogan of the political blogosphere.
Finally, fairness demand that I give at least a tip-o’the-hat to Chris Matthews. I have become increasingly disenchanted with Mr. Matthews over the last couple of years, but the other evening on “Hardball”, while not actually redeeming himnself in my view, at least he got it right for once: He started off a comment by referring to John McCain as the “front-runner”. No sooner were the words out of his mouth, however, when he caught himself and corrected his statement, saying (I paraphrase): “and Giuliani. McCain and Giuliani that is. With all the polls you have to consider those two as at least co-frontrunners.” We shall of course see how long this new burst of reality holds.
My ultimate conclusion: Run Rudy Run!
December 14th, 2006 at 10:04 am
It’s a good analysis, but also worth noting in the SurveyUSA polling that SC, NC, FL, KY, WI, MI, NY, CT, and HI are within the error margin in a hypothetical McCain-Edwards matchup, turning a slight nudge McCain’s direction into a blowout in SUSA. With Edwards-Giuliani, ME, MN, IL, MI, OH, VA, SC, and NM are within the error margin for Giuliani, which would make a much closer race.
I’m a G-man myself (a GREAT nickname for Giuliani supporters, if I may say so myself), but still think McCain is difficult for a Dem to beat.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Sean,
G-Man is an awesome moniker for Rudy supporters! I might start referring to myself as such.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Once more with more feeling this time, “Polls this early mean precious little, if anything.”
And this from a man who detests McCain.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Mike, I love to see polls from Iowa, but that poll was taken in October before Obama reversed course and said he would consider a run for the Presidency. I’d love to see an Iowan poll that was done after this latest round of Obamamania!.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Good point, HeavyM. I would suspect that Obama has gained some ground, probably forcing Hillary into third place. Most national polls now put Obama in the upper teens — that might be a good bet for where he’s at in Iowa as well.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
It does seem like it will be a Hill/Obama race if national polls hold up in Iowa. Here’s the latest NBC and ABC News results:
Hillary - 37%
Obama - 18%
Edwards - 14%
Kerry - 11%
Hillary - 39%
Obama - 17%
Edwards - 12%
Gore - 10%
December 14th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
HeavyM,
Could you shoot me an email at kavon_w_nikrad@yahoo.com? I wish to ask you a quick question.
Thanks,
Kavon W. Nikrad
Founder/Editor Race 4 2008
December 14th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
If Hillary gets wiped out in Iowa, she loses the front-runner status. More likely to be an Edwards/Obama race after that.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
New poll in Iowa hs Edwards up 36-16 over Hillary. The Iowa result is frankly shocking. It shows a fundamental issue with Clinton’s campaign- people do not like her. This will be a severe handicap since the Iowa caucuses more than even the NH primary are personal, retail political events. If she loses to Edwards( not Vilsak who can be written off as a favorite son) and loses significantly the invincibility crumbles. Remember how well Senator Connolly did. Most dollars per vote of any candidate in presidential politics.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
I think the man to beat is going to be Huckabee (of all people). Mike Huckabee is the only sane conservative in the race besides Brownback. I don’t count Gingrich as sane. Giuliani consorted with his mistress while his son was in the same house (besides being Pro-Abortion and Pro Gay Rights) McCain had a terrible history with his first wife and cannot be trusted in any way by the conservatives. He’ll get into the Oval Office and be a “maverick independent” on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and a true conservative only on Tuesday and Thursday.
Romney, besides being a Mormon (which 50% of evangelicals are allergic to), was strongly gay rights and even supported Gay Pride Day and Parades! Is this what we want in the White House??
And let’s face it (no pun intended), no one with a mug like Tommy Thompson could ever win the Presidency in the TV age (especially against Obama or Edwards!).
Who does that leave for conservatives? True conservatives who don’t want a pro-gay rights, pro-abortion “independent” who again talks conservative but never gets the agenda passed?
GOVERNOR Mike Huckabee! Surprise! And let’s not forget the Governor/Senator trend for President. Only Pataki and Thompson were Governors. And one is too liberal and one not fit for TV. Huckabee has ZERO BAGGAGE and did a great job in Arkansas after the Clinton debacle.
Who better to run against Billary if that couple gets the nomination?!?!
Read this from the Washington Post insider page:
A cursory look at the current Republican field reveals that neither of the two frontrunners — Arizona Sen. John McCain and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — is likely to emerge as the favorite son for social conservatives. Romney’s record on social issues is something less than consistent, and many social conservatives remain skeptical about McCain as a result of his race against President George W. Bush in 2000. Who among the remaining candidates can fill this niche? Brownback and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee seem best positioned — though neither has done much to impress over the past year. Brownback has done little in terms of travel or fundraising to indicate he is serious about the race. Huckabee has traveled relentlessly around the country but not yet put into place any sort of campaign infrastructure either nationally or in early voting states.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/11/the_fix_talks_back_3.html
IT’S HUCKABEE IN ‘O8!
December 14th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Except Huckabee may have just as many problems with the Fi-Cons as the others will have with the So-Cons.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Umm. As you’re own link notes, Huckabee isn’t the only governor…Romney is a governor. And while Huckabee is mildly charismatic, Romney is pure central casting for this “tv age” of yours. And 0 baggage? Your friend Mike must have learned a few tricks from slick Willy, since he seems to love pardoning mass murderers and raising taxes. The fact that people are seriously talking about Huckabee as the only conservative in the race, confirms my fears that these days, most people ONLY consider social issues in conservatism. Because everywhere else, the Huckster is about as liberal as they come. Makes a guy want to support Giuliani just to stick a thumb in the eye of people who want to put social conservatism above all else.
December 14th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Well I for one think it’s time the So-Cons rule instead of the Fi-Cons, who are phonies anyhow, giving us the biggest budget deficit in history. When you add in the war ($100 billion) and the money “borrowed from the Social Security Trust, the real deficit is $529 billion. That’s not fiscal conservatism.
If we’re never going to get a true fiscal conservative, I say we at least get a true social conservative in the White House.
I agree Romney is prettier than Huckabee and a damn sight better to look at than Thompson (and that they all are Governors), but Romney’s Pro-Gay Rights past and the Mormon past of polygamy will soon be a big hill to climb with GOP Primary voters.
Truth is Tancredo or Hunter are the only full conservatives, but they are a joke, like Al Sharpton running for the RAT nomination.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
The social conservatives HAVE been running the show. Not even Bush’s biggest supporters claim he’s anything but a fiscal liberal. Bush barely even claimed to be a fiscal conservative with his “compassionate conservative” schtick. I for one think it’s about time we get a real conservative, both fiscally and socially. And if I had to choose, assuming both had a reasonable view of judges, I’d pick the fiscal conservative hands down.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Matt, I agree completely. The reason we have really lost ground is not just because of Iraq but because we have lost our fi-con roots. Huckabee is a Bush Republican and that is a sure loser in 08. I-Like-Mike, the so-cons have been in power for 6 years now and it destroyed our majority. I am not saying we should abandon or social conservatism, but a so-con like Huckabee is the last thing the doctor would order for us at this point. And if Giuliani appoints a Scalia to the court that would have a more positive socially conservative effect on the whole country than a So-con platform that appoints O’Connor/Kennedy/Souter/Miers/etc.. I-Like-Mike, i think you are losing the forest for the trees in writing off every candidate who does not rival Bush in social conservatism.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
The more I hear from Huckabee supporters, the more I’m convinced they care only for social conservatism and nothing for fiscal matters. This social conservative wants someone who can represent more than a single wing of the GOP.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
If you don’t like budget deficits, “I Like Mike!” you better steer clear of Huckabee. Unless you like higher taxes to pay for those deficits, that is. Then by all means, support the guy all you want.
Giuliani and Romney are hands down, by far the greatest fiscal conservatives in this race.
And I didn’t realize it was a socially conservative stance to discriminate against homosexuals…. which is the only thing Mitt
has fought against and seems to be a crime in your eyes. He has consistently been against gay marriage and even against civil unions and has a quite eloquent defense of a FMA.
December 14th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Guiliani is the biggest fi-con phony of them all. He left NYC with $42 billion in debt! And that was before 9-11.
And I don’t see how Guiliani is going to explain away his living with 2 gay friends for years, after his wife kicked him out of the Gracie Mansion for bringing his mistress there for canoodling while his son was home.
Then there’s the Bernie Kerik scandal, which has gotten worse recently. Guiliani has baggage and lots of skeletons we New Yorkers know about that the nation does not!
December 14th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
I Like Mike:
Actually, in my opinion, Rudy Giuliani is the most accomplished and proven fi-con of them all, with the record and experience to back it up. I like Huckabee too, but as long as the West Memphis Three remain unpardoned, I will never even consider voting for Huckabee in the primaries. Huckabee pardons real murderers and leaves innocents on death row, and that I cannot accept. In my view, that’s 100 times worse than having an affair and/or getting divorced.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
…Rudy Giuliani is the most accomplished and proven fi-con of them all, with the record and experience to back it up…
Now surely that’s exagerating things a tad. On first glance, the deficit in NYC increased during Giuliani’s tenure, whereas Romney has a track record of saving companies, the Olympics, and his state from the brink of bankrupcy.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Giuliani inherited a $2 billion budget deficet and managed to balance the budget while repeatedly cutting taxes, he did so by drastically cutting spending in absolute terms. Spending returned to normal levels when the crisis passed, but there were no deficits until the stock market collapse (where is Wall St. located again?) and terrorist attacks that occurred at the end of his tenure.
And while Rudy did manage to save NYC from the brink of bankrptcy, the same can’t be said of Romney — if anyone “saved” Mass., it was William Weld. Credit where credit’s due.
December 14th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
In total Guiliani rang up billions in bonds to cover that deficit and he did it in such a way as to put the City in $40 billion worth of debt.
Businessweek said in 2001:
“debt has nearly tripled since 1990, from $11.8 billion to $33 billion as of December. In addition, $2.5 billion of debt is still outstanding from Municipal Assistance Corp., the entity created in the 1970s to give the city time to pay its bills. Add in capital lease obligations, and city indebtedness is $40 billion–or $4,800 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to the city comptroller.
Why did New York let its debt grow so during the fat years? Giuliani insists it was sound fiscal management, and that debt maturities were staggered so that just 26.5% comes due over the next five years. If the city had used its surplus to pay down debt, it would be short of cash now and “near bankruptcy,” the mayor says. But critics say New York should have paid more of its rebuilding costs out of its annual budget. That makes sense, given the constant and intense wear and tear on city structures. Also, paying more along the way would have cut interest costs and left more leeway to borrow as a last resort.
Now, the city will likely have to scale back its capital plans. Victims may include desperately needed new classrooms, as well as subway-line extensions and parks. ”
$40 bil in debt is not fiscal conservatism, is just massive “Borrow and Spend”.
AND if Guiliani is nominated it takes the Abortion issue right off the table — as both the Republican and Democrat would be Pro-Abortion! This puts purple states like MO into the BLUE column. There would be a very depressed turnout among the Pro-Life forces in many areas I can tell you that.
Rudy and Pataki are the 2 possible nominees that do this. And that would be ruinous for turning out the base.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Williams Weld may or may not have saved Mass at one point, but Romney surely saved it again. There was a 3 billion dollar deficit when he came into office. That was about 15% of the annual budget. He closed it in one year, without raising taxes, while cutting more then 1.6 billion in spending. He has produced surpluses of 500 million and 700 million respectively in the last two years, again, without raising taxes. In his first year he eliminated more state jobs then any other state in the country. After cutting 1.6 billion that first year, he kept spending increases at about 2% the next two years.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
And Rudy closed a three billion dollar deficit when HE came into office while CUTTING taxes. And he managed 3% annual budget increases throughout his administration. And he did it without driving his negatives up so high he couldn’t get re-elected.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
A couple of Rudy’s budgets actually effected actual net cuts in spending. Not just slowed growth, but actual CUTS. I.e., outlays in Year X were lower in absolute terms than outlays in Year X - 1. Can anyone remember the last time the federal government spent less during one year than it had the year before?
December 14th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Huckabee slightly raised taxes on the rich so that he could DRASTICALLY lower them on the poor and middle classes, who needed the relief. And, when all is said and done, Arkansas has a surplus, which Governor has given BACK TO THE PEOPLE. Call him what you want. His fiscal policy is innovative and sound and so are Romney’s and Giuliani’s. It’s Huckabee’s principled stand on social issues and his helping create a culture of life in Arkansas that has led me believe that he would be much better to lead this country than those whose postitions constantly changes to please their audience. There is nothing is nothing heroic in throwing away your moral convictions and beliefs to fit in or make people happy. Huckabee so far, is the only candidate who I believe has the right qualities to lead our country.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
I agree with Peter that Huckabee is the best candidate. Giuliani only balanced those budgets by BORROWING MASSIVELY.
And because the voters are so uneducated on economics, they didn’t care if they gave their children the bill. The City debt went from $11 billion in the early 90s to $40 billion by the time Giuliani left office!
This is not a good record to run on. What Huckabee did with the taxes in Arkansas will play very well in ‘08, which is going to be a populist year, unlike the previous elections.
Giving relief to the midlle and lower classes and raising the tax slightly on the rich is going to be the best we can hope for in ‘08. Just running on “Tax Cuts” “He’s Too Liberal For (Fill in the Blank)” is not going to cut it anymore.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Whoaaaa there, pilgrims!
I’m sorry, but no. Raising taxes on anyone is NOT the “best” we can hope for in ‘08.
I’m a huge balanced budgets guy. That’s why it was actually Ross Perot who I first supported in the early ’90s before I was a Republican. But there are plenty of GOP executives who have shown us how to balance the budget w/o raising taxes. Like Rudy and Romney. This “tax the rich” talk is just code for those who want the GOP to give up fiscal conservatism even more. If it does, you’d lose tons of voters. I’d be one of them.
And can someone explain to me how “closing the deficit by borrowing” isn’t an oxymoron? I’m not an econ guy, but it seems to me that by definition this would be impossible.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Romney cut total spending his first year as well. He cut 1.6 billion in spending in about a 23 billion dollar initial budget. And Romney only couldn’t get re-elected because people were annoyeded that he was out of state so much over the last year and a half. They’d taken to calling him the “occasional governor”. 15 months ago, Romney was winning against Democratic opponents by huge margins in every poll.
December 15th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
What about a fiscally responsible President who has a balanced budget but a country that’s knee-deep in abortions and gay marriages?
December 17th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
[...] McCain’s slippery downward slide in general election polls in the wake of his repositioning himself in anticipation of a presidential run threatens to cost him any chance at the Republican nomination. McCain’s increasing weakness in the polls has been noticed but not given too much credit in recent weeks. Recent polls showing McCain almost tying, or even losing to Edwards, both in SurveyUSA’s 50-state electoral polling and a recent NBC/WSJ Poll, were the last major bellwethers to raise eyebrows. But the latest Newsweek Poll bodes even worse for McCain–he loses to Hillary Rodham by a terrifying 7 point margin (50-43%), and leads Barack Obama by a mere 2 points (43-45%). (Romney also loses to Hillary, but this means practically nothing with name recognition taken into account.) [...]
December 17th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Have you heard of 911? That is why Giuliani will win. No president is going to change the abortion laws of the country. A supreme court justice or two might.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am
subject
NBC/WSJ Poll: McCain Would Lose to Edwards