The Candidates
Featured Archives
I know that I say this after every debate of the GOP field, but the reaction of the Granite State crowd surveyed by Frank Luntz was compelling. As seen post-debate on Fox News, a room full of New Hampshire Republicans began the night with nary a McCainiac in their ranks, and ended the night stopping just short of collectively shouting, “Go, John, Go!” The same crowd, incidentally, expressed much disappointment with national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. What gives?
This development may be less mysterious than it initially seems. Rudy has a knack for disappointing debate performances in a multi-candidate field, probably because his good-humored persona doesn’t dominate the room. Rudy’s more like a wry New Yorker, grinning and thinking of the next one-liner when a question is posed to him. This would probably be highly effective in a two-person debate, but not when every single-digit type is pounding their fist and puffing out their chest, trying to look presidential. Further, McCain is far more conservative than most conservatives give the man credit for, and upon hearing his actual views, and not the views that many Republicans have grafted onto him ever since the South Carolina primary in 2000, it is understandable that conservatives would be willing to give the man a second look. And while this may seem obvious to political junkies like us, folks who don’t spend every waking second refreshing R4′08, i.e., the bulk of Americans, still have an unrealistic caricature of McCain embedded in their political psyche that will only be removed with greater exposure to the actual Arizona senator. But McCain is almost bankrupt, and without a functioning campaign, it’s difficult to see how he hangs on until most voters start paying attention this winter.
If McCain does decide to go for broke and hope that disaffected conservatives will return to the real McCain at the eleventh hour, here’s what he should do. First, McCain should spend the next four months visiting every nook and cranny of New Hampshire, a northern state that is more secular than religious, more Roman Catholic and Mainline Protestant than Evangelical, more fiscally conservative than not, and that has an affinity for mavericks of all stripes. If McCain can reintroduce himself to New Hampshire voters in a favorable light, he has a chance of scoring a major upset in the nation’s first primary. That will mean that after New Hampshire, Romney, the likely winner of Iowa, and McCain would each have a contest under their respective belts, while Rudy and Thompson would have no such victories. McCain’s next step would be to win Michigan, a Midwestern state that responds well to Republicans like McCain, with his understated cultural conservatism and domestic pragmatism. A one-two-punch against the rest of the field in New Hampshire and Michigan could do major damage to one or more of the frontrunners. Romney will probably snag LDS-heavy Wyoming and Nevada, but if McCain can build up enough momentum, he may be able to win South Carolina, the supposed Thompson firewall, or Florida, Rudy’s firewall. That could propel McCain into Super Duper Tuesday, where he could do very well in states like California and Illinois. And all this from a man who is politically as good as dead.
What we politicos have to remember is that the average voter remains disengaged in this race. Romney is still the guy that looks like Ward Cleaver. Rudy is still America’s Mayor. McCain is still a Democrat with an “R” next to his name. And so on. Those perceptions won’t change until the bulk of America starts paying attention. As Frank Luntz demonstrated tonight, when voters do tune in, preconceived notions can change overnight. That gives McCain one more reason to stay in the game for at least a little while longer.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
We will see if he can raise any money… but I highly doubt he can come back. He doesn’t have any organization!
September 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
DaveG, I have a question for you. As I’ve stated before, I am a New Hampshire guy. I noticed one line you have in there. You said that New Hampshire is a northern state that is more secular than religious. That is definitely true. New Hampshire is one of the more secular states in the country. You seem to imply in your post that McCain would do better in New Hampshire than he would in other states because New Hampshire is more secular. To me this reveals something about McCain. Even though New Hampshire as a whole is secular, I do not consider myself to be secular. I am not an Evangelical, but I am a very conservative practicing Catholic. Even though McCain has stated that he is pro-life and has voted that way, does the fact that you think he would do better in a secular state than a religious state an indication that religious people (whether they be Evangelicals or conservative Catholics) would be better off picking a different candidate than McCain?
September 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Can I just say one thing: YECH regarding Fred Thompson. Can somebody tell me why anybody would vote for him? Why didn’t he go to work when every body else did? So he could make a dramatic entrance? I find him unpalatable. I hope everybody else has enough commonsense not to vote for him. I keep hearing all this flap about him, flap that JUST ESCAPES ME!
September 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
If McCain was our nominee I’d enthusiastically support him in the general. He uniquely among this field has military and foreign policy experience. He’s the only guy that can step up and be Commander and Cheif on the first day without hand holding.
If it wasn’t for campaign finance/immigration I’d be supporting him in the primary.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
This was by far the strongest debate for McCain.He looked and sounded like the McCain of 2000.
To use an old saying”the reports of your death seem to be premature”.
There is still life in the old soldier.Hefinnally got the message on immigration and is great on controlling spending and defense and foreign policy. McCain could turn out to be the Comeback Kid of 2008.
I would definately back him enthusiastically if he won the nomination, though he is not my first choice. But, after tonite, he has moved up to second choice on my list.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Nevada and Wyoming are relatively heavily Mormon. In each state there is less than 10% LDS which means if you want to be accurate you would say that the states are heavily Catholic or Evangelical since there are far more non-Mormons than Mormons.
I do think that having a relatively higher % of Mormons does help Romney in that people are less likely to have biases against Mormons.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
connor,
I’m glad to see you hold some of your fellow republicans like myself in such high regard. Remind me to ignore your comments on anything further.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Since we never got a clear explanation of why McCain should be dropped to sixth in the rankings here, maybe he can be moved back up without much ado. He’s at the very worst tied with Huckabee, in my opinion, with a much more realistic chance of being elevated if the first tier candidates stumble. There never was any justification for dropping him quite this far.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:14 am
No.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:32 am
I agree with McCain on the main issue of this campaign- we have got to win in Iraq, there can be no defeat. However, McCain is not the man to who can best lead this country. Ironically, it is Mitt Romney who got thrown the hardest question at tonight’s debate and scathing criticism for a bad remark he made to defend his sons for not serving in the military. Mitt, like many of the other candidates, simply does not realize how important the outcome of the surge is to their candidacy, or if they do, they don’t want to put all of their cards on it in case it fails, but if it fails, you can hand the presidency to the democrats in 2008. There is not enough time to come up with a different strategy to fix this thing unless we just go in and take over the country.
However, that question and criticism from Riss smells an awful lot like a set up on the part of Fox news. It was meant to make Romney look bad and it did. But he will bounce back. He is the best communciator, the most optimistic, the most energetic and the most intelligent of the candidates. But he needs to learn not to be so defensive of his family in his remarks.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Rudy and Huckabee were building up McCain because he is the Anti-Thompson. With McCain in, he and Thompson will divide the grandpa vote. That’s the only conclusion I could get from this. Why on earth would Huckabee give a mini speech praising McCain’s honor? And why would Giuliani waste part of his 30 seconds to say that he would support McCain if he wasn’t running? These 2 are the most threatened by Thompson. They want McCain in the race so he can grab some of the elderly vote that will otherwise go to Thompson. When McCain hit rock bottom Thompson got ahead of Rudy. hmmm
September 6th, 2007 at 12:52 am
On another subject, FOX attempted to destroy Romney tonight but failed miserably. Brit Hume seemed a little frustrated that Romney kept hitting all the curve balls out of the park. The question about him wanting to get out of Iraq before Hillary was a last act of desperation. Rudy should get better propagandists to watch his back. The FOX crowd overreached and everybody could tell.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:56 am
If Mitt had a way to blame his gaffe on an overreaction on behalf of his sons, he might wiggle out of the problem more easily. Unfortunately, the implication is that, instead of hitting the issue head on and risking offense to the questioner, he made something of a joke out of it, and in the process allowed himself to belittle military service – playing into the impression that he doesn’t quite walk the walk on war, and that he’ll say anything to close a deal.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:02 am
No – they built up McCain not because he’s the anti-Fred, but because, as DaveG’s analysis helps to show, McCain is the anti-Mitt, especially in NH. Well, actually, that’s being a bit cynical: I think Huck and Rudy built up McCain because, actually, they really do think he’s a great American. But it also works out that if Huck and Rudy can’t quite make in in anti-NY, anti-Southern NH, McCain with his track record in NH can help keep Romney’s early primary steamroller strategy from working.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:18 am
CK MacLeod, you may have a point about the anti Mitt thing in New Hampshire. I just have trouble imagining many people switching between McCain and Romney. Their styles and background are completely different.
McCain did not do well tonight. He insisted that the surge is working, etc.. without even knowing what Petraeus will say. His answer about why he didn’t sign the no new taxes pledge was also weak.
He did came across as very old though. He can give Thompson a run for his money because McCain is more articulate, served in the military, etc..
September 6th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Actually, Argamenon, the impressions I’ve gotten of other observers’ reactions, and my own reaction, are very different from yours regarding McCain’s performance. McCain has formed his independent impressions on Iraq, and also knows what Petraeus is going to say (or asserts that he does). His answer on the pledge can also be seen as reinforcing his stands-on-his-own-two-feet approach to leadership.
It’s true that McCain and Romney have very different styles, but it’s possible for different styles to appeal to the same person. McCain and Romney throw each other’s strengths and weaknesses into relief. It’s very possible at least in theory for a voter, esp. an NH Republican voter, to date Mitt but marry John, or vice versa.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:32 am
If McCain doesn’t Drop out by the next debate, Fred will show him how a real debate is done. Then McCain won’t have any choice. I really don’t know why anyone would run for President three times and then go into debt to stay in the race. It just seems the antithesis of conservative values, but then McCain is a major pork-barrel spender, isn’t he?
September 6th, 2007 at 7:16 am
august,
McCain is one of the most anti-pork guys in Congress!!
If McCain can hit his stride again (he made a good start last nite)he could take New Hamshire and South Carolina, sink Thompson and Romneys candidacies and have a good chance to beat Rudy for the nomination.
He is right on spending ,defense, guns,gays,and abortion and has a much more distinguished record than Thompson in the Senate.He also has some credibility with the Hispanic vote. If McCain haden’t flubed up on immigration ( he now is taking the winning position), Thompson wouldn’t even be in this race!
September 6th, 2007 at 7:50 am
I think you’re overestimating the ignorance of the American people on the 2008 election. I’m the biggest electorate-basher around here, but even I don’t think that voters only think of McCain as “some RINO” — and that’s the extent of their knowledge about him.
McCain’s got some admirable qualities about him, but people feel like he’s too old, too unreliable, and past his prime. His moment has come and gone. Also, he’s aligned himself too closely to Bush on many issues. The issues that’s he been a “maverick” on lately were on the official party line!
September 6th, 2007 at 9:00 am
McCain made himself look really, really good last night. Period. lets wait and see. (VP maybe?)
September 6th, 2007 at 9:09 am
I think, KT, that *that* may be blowing things out of proportion.
I wasn’t that impressed with McCain last night, myself, spare for a couple of moments, which is typical of a McCain debate performance for me.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Fox was the big loser last night. They did more of a hit-piece than a debate. They have a strong prejudice that’s been evident throughout the campaign and they stacked the deck. In the long run it won’t matter. Heavy manipulation is something most voters can see through, but in the short run, it is really annoying. Nothing changed last night except that Fox’s attempt to abort Fred’s candidacy might have a negative impact on any bump he would have otherwise gotten from his announcement. Apparently, nobody in this country knows how to run one of these things.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:07 am
LTG, good idea to have different name for different location. Now we all can know why I may ended up making mistakes here (multi-posts, for instance).
Anyway, I am amazed with some of the folks here, believing that McCain has made the complete comeback after one night. As has been pointed out before, you need the money to raise your national id. That is not something McCain lacked. All he needs is enough to have some office space and to be able to travel, which he has. McCain never was out of the race. His polls numbers until the past month has him going neck to neck with Mitt. He is still the frontrunner. I dunno why everyone has written him off. However, it is not as much of his stances as it is with his methods that people are having problem with. It is hard to forgive someone who called you an idiot rather than to try to help you understand why a bill (Immigration reformation) is necessary. He also tried to ram this bill through without the opportunity for others to review and debate on it. Finally, he gave up too much when he tried to compromise. 50-50 is the furthermost you should go, and this bill is like 30 to 70 in favor of Democrats. He is a great man, but he needs to treat us all with respect. If he only does that, then he will do well in this campaign.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Huckabee & Rudy tried to bury McCain with kindness. I think that it may have backfired to some extent. Regardless, McCain is seriously lacking in funds and organization. Furthermore, McCain sill has a job in the Senate to do. He’s not 100% free to campaign long & hard like Romney or even Rudy.
There is fluid support which comes and goes as the wind, and there is hard support that donates and volunteers. At this point, I think McCain may get a small bounce of fluid support from all this.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:32 am
A small bounce of fluid? I think there are some people over in the other party who are true experts on that one.
The idea that FOX would want to sabotage Fred’s candidacy is even more laughable.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:59 am
CK,
You haven’t noticed that Fox is biased toward Rudy? Barnes also has a bias toward McCain. The debate opened by giving everybody an invitation to trash Fred. You don’t call that sabotage? On the night that he announces his candidacy? The only threats right now to Rudy’s nomination are Mitt and Fred and last night Fox did their best to take both of them out. You probably think that the guy in the diner who attacked Romney because his sons didn’t volunteer for military service just happened to be there that night. And you probably think that Cameron stumbled across him by accident and had no idea what he was going to say. This is but one of many examples last night of Fox in action. I called Fox the loser because they used up credibility capital. What’s really laughable is that you would stick up for their journalistic integrity after last night’s performance.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Hello, all-
As always, from the new-media publisher who “finds much to admire about Senator McCain’s candidacy”: some observations…
1) Obviously, I would answer an emphatic yes to the subject line question. There were some good points made throughout the thread, which I wanted to mention:
Per Clarence’s question on religion – I don’t want to speak for Dave. My own answer to the question is the fact that McCain ran against the religious right in 2000. Other socially conservative groups, religious or otherwise, don’t like him because they feel that his role in McCain-Feingold damaged their ability to influence debates (which is ironic, given that his positions on the issues important to them are very similar.)
2) I absolutely agree with comment #7 CK McLeod, who notes that McCain has been unjustly relegated not only behind Huck but also behind Newt! He certainly warrants being ahead of Newt, who isn’t going to run (and if there was even the slightest chance, it’s now been extinguished by Fred’s official entrance.) So I think that he should be moved back to 4th, ahead of Huck (no disrespect to Huck, but McCain is still ahead of him in polls.)
Per August 29 of 73 – this is McCain’s second – not third – run for president.
19) KT – per VP
I doubt that McCain would accept the offer. He would be too old to run for president after potentially two terms, obviously. He’d have to give up his Senate seat and have his successor replaced by a Democratic governor. But most importantly, he’s not, personality-wise, well-suited to serving as VP and subordinating his own views to the President. It would be far more likely that he would accept serving as either Secretary of State or Defense.
Thoughts are welcome.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am
SGS, did you mean to write that McCain is the frontrunner? You surely didn’t mean that.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Or did you mean *a* frontrunner?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Again, I reiterate that the idea that Fox would want to sabotage Fred is laughable. Through Hannity’s interviews, in particular, Fox played a crucial role in launching Fred. Chris Wallace’s Sunday interview also helped.
In case you didn’t notice, many if not all of the candidates got difficult questions. Rudy was put on the spot about his shall-we-say checkered personal life. Mitt was majorly zingered regarding his sons. Paul was rather explicitly accused of taking his marching orders from Al Qaeda. McCain was forced to defend his unpopular immigration stance.
It should also be noted that every difficult question is an opportunity as much a challenge. Even the opening round on Fred got the inevitable absent-Fred jokes out of the way, and also fully established Fred as a presence (if an absent one).
September 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
[...] Is A McCain Comeback Still Possible? [...]
September 6th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“Even though McCain has stated that he is pro-life and has voted that way, does the fact that you think he would do better in a secular state than a religious state an indication that religious people (whether they be Evangelicals or conservative Catholics) would be better off picking a different candidate than McCain?”
No. McCain is an Episcopalian from the West. This is a distinctly different animal than, say, a Southern Baptist from a mega-church in Alabama. For regional, denominational, and cultural reasons, McCain will always treat his faith as a private matter. Consequently, a secular state like New Hampshire, where religion is also culturally a private matter, and where there are more Episcopalians than Southern Baptists, will find it easier to culturally identify with McCain than, say, Mike Huckabee. None of that means, though, that McCain is a godless heathen, or that voters disinclined to support godless heathens should also be disinclined to support McCain. All that it does mean is that McCain compartmentalizes his faith in a way that is more similar to Granite Staters than Palmetto Staters, which is why Granite Staters are comfortable voting for him.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
DaveG, thank you for clarifying. That is a very good explanation.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I just scrolled up and saw what The Tower said in response to my statement. First of all, I don’t really remember McCain criticizing the religious right in 2000, but I wasn’t following the race as closely then as I am now. I don’t doubt that it’s true though.
Many pro-lifers do oppose McCain because of his position on campaign finance reform. I think this is a big mistake. Having less money in politics may inhibit pro-life groups from getting their message out, but it also inhibits pro-choice groups. Secular positions such as being pro-choice or pro-gay rights are disproportionately held, VERY disproportionately so, by wealthier and higher educated Americans. I think limiting money in politics, if it helps anybody, would actually help those on the conservative side of these social issues more than it would help secularists because secularists tend to be wealthier than social conservatives. I realize this flies in the face of the conventional wisdom in conservative circles, but I do think it’s true.
Having said that, I think it’s reasonable to oppose campaign finance reform on free speech or libertarian grounds, but opposing campaign finance reform because it would hurt the pro-life movement is a red herring in my opinion.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Hello, Clarence-
Just to clarify what happened in 2000:
McCain had made it a point to contrast his politics with those of the religious right, saying something to the effect that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc. were “agents of intolerance”. He also described the GOP as the “party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan; not that of Falwell, Robertson and Bob Jones.” (Those weren’t the exact words he used but that’s the gist of it.) One of the effects of this position, was that McCain won in Michigan and in the New England primaries.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:15 am
The Tower, that does make me wonder about McCain then. McCain claims to be pro-life, but if he was really passionate about that issue,you would think he would like guys like Falwell and Robertson, not dislike them. I’ve always wondered if McCain could actually care less about abortion, but he goes along with it since it is the position of the party and he represents Arizona, a conservative state. One of our senators is like that too. I’ve always thought Senator Gregg could care less about abortion, but he just goes along with it since it’s the Republican position. To be fair, I’m sure many pro-life Republicans just kind of go along with fiscal conservatism to fit into the party even if they could actually care less about economic issues. It may be rare to find someone who is equally passionate about both.
I do not consider myself as being a follower of Robertson, Falwell, or Bob Jones because I am a Catholic and not a Fundamental Protestant. Even though I’m not “one of them”, I consider myself aligned with them because I share their views on abortion and most social issues, and I do not like the idea of putting them down. Why doesn’t McCain attack the feminazis or something instead? I don’t recall him after badmouthing Eleanor Smeal or Kate Michelman or anyone like that.
Finally, I realize Bob Jones doesn’t like Catholicism and calls it a cult. Robertson and Falwell are not keen on Catholicism either. You know what? I don’t care. My feelings are not hurt. I could care less what they think of my religion just as they could care less what I think of Fundamentalism. All I care about is that they share my views on social issues. I would rather have a pro-life Fundamental Protestant who hates Catholics than have a practicing Catholic who is pro-choice. Regardless of one’s feelings about McCain on campaign finance or immigration, the fact that he would attack Jerry Falwell but not attack Kate Michelman speaks volumes and is not lost on many conservatives. If a McCain supporter can provide me with any documentation of him attacking a feminazi, I will take back what I said.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
LTG, my language does not have any article, so yes, I always do get it screwed up. He is “a” frontrunner, as in one of 4 (or 5 depending on how well Huckabee does with his organization and fund raisings), not “the” frontrunner, as in Matrix’s “THE” One.