The Candidates
Featured Archives
I’m not going to delude myself into thinking that an Obama victory is impossible in the fall. The senator from Illinois leads McCain in the polls still, and if the Arizonan does make a comeback, it will probably be by winning by narrow margins in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Virginia while Obama obliterates McCain in New Jersey, California, Minnesota, and New York. That is to say, a McCain popular vote victory is looking increasingly less likely, even if McCain does ultimately become President Elect.
The big states in the moderate Midwest and the common-sense centrist ethos of the region is all that stands between Obama and the presidency. The American people have otherwise embraced the idea of a Democratic government. Chances are that Democrats will enter 2009 with more than 240 seats in the House, more than 55 seats in the Senate, and the majority of governorships and legislative seats in the states. A botched war, a flailing economy, and an incompetent Republican government has led to a landscape in which the most moderate Republican nominee since 1976 is being beaten in the polls by the most liberal Democratic presidential nominee possibly ever. Having an “R” next to one’s name is toxic this year.
Make no mistake; if Obama wins, he’ll be president for two terms. Very few incumbent presidents actually lose reelection. When they do, it’s almost always because the economy has gotten worse over the president’s first term, or because of a hostile third-party candidate, or both. But Democrats rarely have their own version of TR ‘12 or Perot ‘92 who can divide their party, and as for the economy, it’s got nowhere to go but up over the next four years.
So what’s the silver lining in a two-term President Obama presiding over a heavily Democratic Congress? Simply this: the Republican Party will be set free from the course set for it by George W. Bush. Instead of continuing as a heavy-on-executive-power, Wilsonian, big-government, big-religion entity with a base comprised of a clearinghouse of interest groups that puts FDR’s New Deal coalition to shame, the GOP will be free to embrace the policies and principles that come most natural to the nation’s right-of-center party in the times that we live in and under an Obama presidency. No more will Republicans try to assemble an internally unfriendly and hostile coalition by grafting policies on the party apparatus without regard to political philosophy. No more will there be a gay marriage amendment here and a tax cut there, not because those are the right policies, but because of who those policies will turn out. No more will this party be run as Karl Rove’s cynical photocopy of the FDR coalition.
Instead, the constitution of the Republican Party in response to an Obama presidency will depend largely on which voting blocs are most offended by the course that Barack charts for the Democratic Party. Now that he’s won the nomination, we’re beginning to see just what that course will look like. His true position on Iraq looks like something out of a Madeline Albright mid-summer night’s dream. If you thought George W. Bush was Wilsonian, just wait until Obama the Liberal Internationalist gets going. And as far as spending goes, trust me, Obama has plenty of plans to grow government, and to grow it some more. And remember, it’s not his fault. His faith requires it. After all, what would Jesus do? Speaking of which, Obama’s faith-based initiatives, which actually have a shot at passing now that a Democrat is proposing them, will further blur the line between religion and politics in this country, endangering both.
The thing is, I suspect that a lot of people who support George W. Bush conservatism may actually like an Obama presidency. Michael Gerson couldn’t ask for much more. But what will be interesting will be the reactions of folks like professional contrarian Bill Maher, who voted for Bob Dole in 1996 but who has foamed at the mouth ever since GWB was elected. Perhaps a Democratic president who is also a big-government internationalist busybody who blames all of his policies on Jesus will be just what it takes to send millions of new voters into the GOP to wrest it away from the ancient, dying Bush Base and to give it new life as the empirical, skeptical, secular, prudent, restrained party that it once was — and that it could be again.
Regardless of who wins in the fall, the Republican Party will only rise again once the sword is passed to a new generation of Republicans. Interestingly, an Obama presidency could be just what the doctor ordered for those who want to see a new Republican majority in the near future. As of now, all it takes to be a Democrat is to oppose the policies of George W. Bush. If Obama is elected, it is Obama who will define what it means to be a Democrat and those who don’t like it will infuse the GOP with new blood and help re-define what it means to be a Republican.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Make no mistake; if Obama wins, he’ll be president for two terms. Very few incumbent presidents actually lose reelection. When they do, it’s almost always because the economy has gotten worse over the president’s first term, or because of a hostile third-party candidate, or both. But Democrats rarely have their own version of TR ‘12 or Perot ‘92 who can divide their party, and as for the economy, it’s got nowhere to go but up over the next four years.
Would you quit with this nonsense? “Very few” incumbent presidents? Carter and Bush I both lost re-election — and don’t blame Perot for Bush’s loss — and Bush II barely won. All elections have different circumstances, and there’s absolutely zero evidence that should lead one to believe that Obama would definitely be a two-term president. We’ve had eight years of Republican rule, followed by four abysmal years of Democratic rule, followed by twelve years of Republican rule before — it was Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush. (Remember that? The majority of whom were one-termers.)
July 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Also, if you think that people like me — people that support the Bush Doctrine — are going to like Obama’s liberal internationalism, then you have no understanding of what neo-conservatism is about or why it is diametrically opposed to liberal internationalism.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
obama will push through the biggest tax increase ever, he will fall short of universal healthcare, education will remain the same due to obama’s tension with the teachers union, we will be in iraq years into an obama administration, iran and israel will likely have some sort of confrontation, russia and china will grow in power, interest rates and inflation will increase, gas will still be even more expensive. bottom line, the changes needed will take much more then 4 years, and after promising change change change it will be rather simple to hammer obama as failing in that regard. obama on defense, democrats on defense, are easy targets. it took 2 years for the dems to reverse trends and take back congress after 04. we have 4 to wear obama down. then of course, there is the field of candidates in ‘12. VP nominee romney will be a frontrunner, with jindal being the new star, crist and pawlently making plays for the mccain base, thune making a play for evangelicals, and gen. petraeus as the wild card.
imagine a petraeus/jindal ticket, it would crush obama, and easily take back the white house. the country wants immediate change, obama can’t give them that, and in the end his reign will be shortened because of his platitudes.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Michael Gerson actually wrote an article praising Obama on everything but abortion. I think Gerson is Republican enough that he won’t switch allegiances. That’d be embarrassing if he did.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
i mean, it is taking an extraordinary political environment to get obama to a 5 point edge over mccain. these advantages won’t exist next time. without a bush to kick around, the dems have nothing. dems are horrid at defending there policies, clinton was the only one who could do it with some success, and obama is no where close to clinton on defense. he is easily thrown off, flusterd, arrogant and curt. but some fundamentals we do know: obama wont lower gas prices, obama will raise taxes, and obama will have a weak national security policy. these 3 factors give us a great chance at a 2012 comeback
July 6th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Very few incumbent presidents actually lose reelection.
Bush II (won)
Clinton (won)
Bush I (lost)
Reagan (won)
Carter (lost)
Ford (lost)
Nixon (won)
Johnson (won reelection after a year in office, then declined to run again because he would have lost)
Kennedy (not applicable)
Eisenhower (won)
Truman (see Johnson, above)
Roosevelt (won, won, won)
Hoover (lost)
Coolidge (did not seek renomination)
Harding (not applicable)
Wilson (won)
Taft (lost)
Roosevelt (See Truman, above)
So that’s the 20th century (plus a little), and the score stands at 7-5-6 (win-lose-NA), if you count the number of actual elections (not terms). I’m too lazy to go back all the way, but recent history does not support your statement.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Actually, make that 9-5-6; I forgot FDR’s other two terms. The point still stands.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
>Make no mistake; if Obama wins, he’ll be president for two terms. Very few incumbent presidents actually lose reelection. When they do, it’s almost always because the economy has gotten worse over the president’s first term, or because of a hostile third-party candidate, or both. But Democrats rarely have their own version of TR ‘12 or Perot ‘92 who can divide their party, and as for the economy, it’s got nowhere to go but up over the next four years.
Alex already dealt with the nonsense in the first part of this paragraph, so I’ll just quickly address the equal nonsense in the second part:
1948: Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace
1968: George Wallace
July 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Posts like these that foretell our resurgence are what give me hope. Thanks. I’m starting to accept the probable victory of Obama and a Democratic Congress this fall – but I wholeheartedly believe that the extent of the Dems’ victory this fall will be the extent of the GOP’s victory in 2012 or 2016 (Alex has a point in 1; there’s no reason to assume Obama will serve two terms).
July 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ford never lost his reeelection bid because he was never elected in the first place.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
ICYMI…
This morning, on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer asked Lindsey Graham and John Kerry, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, giving prisoners there a right to challenge their detention in American courts, what they thought should be done with the detainees:
Lindsey Graham: I think we need to look at Guantanamo Bay thru the law of armed conflict lens; not through the criminal lens. They’re not domestic criminals. They’re warriors committed to our destruction. They should be treated under the law of armed conflict. Once you’ve been properly identified to be an enemy combatant, a military threat to the country, then there’s no requirement to release you. If you’ve committed a war crime, I think the military should do the trial in a military commission setting. If you can repatriate people, fine. But, 30 have been released and gone back to the fight. One became a suicide bomber in Iraq. So, I want the military to do the trials, and if you’ve been properly identified to be an enemy combatant, there’s no requirement to let you go. Some of these people are going to die in jail because they’re too dangerous to let go.
John Kerry: I agree with Lindsey in terms of the military component of it. It could have been tried in the field. It could have been tried as combatants where they were. But to have gone through these years at Guantanamo without affording any kind of legitimacy for rights, it really runs against America’s values. We should try people. Try them. Convict them. And if they deserve to be executed on the basis of that finding, then that’s what we should do.
************************************************
Looks like Kerry is now flip-flopping on his support of habeas rights for terrorists captured on foreign soil, while still, schizophrenically, questioning the legitimacy of military tribunals. I’ve been wondering what Obama’s next major reversal would be. Perhaps this is it.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I am glad that if we are sending a republican to a defeat that it is McCain because he is an honorable man. My actual fear is that there are those on the fringes of both parties who will do anything to destroy the other party’s nominee. At this time we do not need a weak president or a country torn asunder that our enemies would certainly seek to exploit.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“as for the economy, it’s got nowhere to go but up over the next four years.”
I wish this were true.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Let’s also remember that, but for WWII, FDR likely would have been unsuccessful in his bid for a third term.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ford never lost his reeelection bid because he was never elected in the first place.
If you want, move Ford to the “not applicable” column. Okay, 9-4-7. That’s still a minority of presidents since 1900 who have won their reelection bids.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Here is how I read this article…
I thought, “silver lining, who wrote this?”
Scrolled down…
“DaveG”.
Hmm…
Oh, I know the answer, “get rid of the Christians”.
Scrolled up… read and confirmed.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
An Obama Presidency (should he get elected) would clear the way for a Jeb Bush candidacy in 2012 or 2016. Jeb’s candidacy could be a “restoration” candidacy that would promise a return to the moral clarity and strong foreign policy and would complete the “trilogy” so to speak of the Bush patriarchy.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
First of all to DaveG, this was a great article and i got the point that you were making here, unlike the majority of the posters on here apparently. But its sad to see that so many people on here are already accepting defeat to Obama and there are still 4 months left! John McCain will win this election and he will serve 2 terms and go down in history as the greatest president in the history of the United States of America, thats what i think. And we need to everything within our power to help McCain get elected b/c 4 years of Barack Obama will have a big impact on all of us in a bad way, and i agree with DaveG, if he’s elected, why take the chance to think that he wont win reelection? So dont sit this election out just so you hope OBama will lose in 2012, b/c if he doesnt, you would of wished you’d done more to support McCain.
Great Post DaveG.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
And let’s take a little closer looks at the re-elections:
Bush II (won)–barely. i know almost only counts in horseshoes, but lets’ not pretend that this re-election was inevitable.
Clinton (won) — probably could not have lost, given how the economy took off. although, if he’d decided to compromise with Republicans — or vice versa — on the budget early on, liberals might have dumped him.
Reagan (won) — the recession of 1982-83 lasts about four months longer, no second term. same if he doesn’t rebound from a terrible first debate performance.
Nixon (won) — probably could not have lost.
Eisenhower (won) — see Nixon.
Truman (see Johnson, above) — if the economy hadn’t softened, ironically, he’d probably have lost.
Roosevelt (won, won, won) — would almost certainly have lost in 1940 but for war in Europe — Rs and Ds were back to equal in party ID at that point.
Wilson (won) — had Charles Evans Hughes known that Hiram Johnson was staying at the same hotel at him during a campaign stop in CA, he probably would have called him. HE did not know, Johnson took it as a snub, and didn’t work for him, and Hughes lost California — and hence the Presidency — by 4,000 votes.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
#18: Greatest President in the history of the U.S.? A prerequisite for that would be having a coherent political philosophy. McCain will never be anything close to that.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Metro,
We’re all entitled to our own opinions, and hopefully you’ll be around in 2016 to see it all for your self.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I had a thought similar to CBL’s (which probably doesn’t happen often):
It’s common to think that the silver lining to a loss will be a purge of the party. The problem is that people might reasonably disagree as to who needs purging. I’ve seen some here who look forward to seeing a more-overtly Christian party. Act-blog dreams of seeing all those who refuse to worship Romney being shipped off to Elba. Some would no doubt like a merger with the Libertarians (on the LP’s terms, of course).
The problem is that running folks off is seldom a good way to win elections.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I don’t want to run people off. I want to bring people in who are repulsed by mixing religion and politics!
July 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Clinton (won) — probably could not have lost, given how the economy took off. although, if he’d decided to compromise with Republicans — or vice versa — on the budget early on, liberals might have dumped him.
IIRC, Clinton got less that 50% of the vote, and Perot (while weaker than in 1992) was still around to take a decent share of the vote. While this election wasn’t close, it was not a clear Clinton mandate either.
July 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“a McCain popular vote victory is looking increasingly less likely”
Are you crazy? How can you say that when Obama has never been over 50%? When Obama reaches and sustains 50+ percent for a week or two then you can say that, but seriously let us not wave the white flag just yet. Reagan was 30% behind Carter, Bush 1 was almost 20% behind Dukakis, and Bush 2 was behind Gore on and off and in fact lost the popular vote.
It will probably take the GOP at least 30 years to regain a majority in Congress. Because the GOP will never defeat enough sitting members, they will have to use a combination of winning back Conservative seats and Democratic retirements.
If Obama is elected, the Congress will work with Obama and Democratic state house majorities to re-draw Congressional districts to favour the Democrats. This is what the GOP congress did.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
#17 JA Pruce,
Jeb Bush?????? If McCain is defeated the GOP will turn populist, not more Conservative. Jeb Bush ain’t populist. I have no idea who it will be, but most certainly it will be someone from outside of DC with a name not related to any political dynasty.
If Obama wins (5-10% chance, I’ll explain later) then that also means the Dems have 60 Senate seats and some obscene majority in Congress.
We will all be on Kevon’s new site, http://www.GOPcivilwar2009.com debating with each other on which direction the party should go.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
It will probably take the GOP at least 30 years to regain a majority in Congress. Because the GOP will never defeat enough sitting members, they will have to use a combination of winning back Conservative seats and Democratic retirements.
If nothing crazy happens, you’re probably right, but it only takes one big blunder to realign the House, and a couple to realign the Senate.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Big S,
You are correct, but last time it took 40 years for the GOP to regain Congress. Liberal Congressman tend to be career Pol’s, while Conservative Congressman tend not to be. Historically the best chances to take congressional seats have been through retirements.
July 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
24. Perot took about 1/3 of his vote from Clinton and 2/3 from Dole in that election, so he’d have won anyway. So no, it wasn’t a mandate, but the larger point is that even some of the Presidents who won twice were far from inevitable winners.
25. I think this is very much incorrect. Part of the reason it too the GOP 40 years to win back Congress from 1952-1994 is that for all but 12 of those years, it controlled the Presidency. That makes it very difficult to build up its congressional majority, as no President has left office with more sitting members than on his first day since Teddy Roosevelt. Plus for much of it, it had de facto control of Congress when Southern Democrats were figured in.
July 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
#29
“I think this is very much incorrect. Part of the reason it too the GOP 40 years to win back Congress from 1952-1994 is that for all but 12 of those years, it controlled the Presidency.”
Sean, didn’t you think that 2012 could be a great comeback year for the R’s in Congress?
July 6th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Bob #26,
Do you honestly think that if Sen. McCain loses that the party faithful will look at his loss as being caused by McCain being too conservative? Do you really think that the base will think that we need to go more moderate or populist? Fair or not, McCain’s defeat (if it happens) will be seen as a rebuke to the moderate/populist wing of the party and there will be a lot of demands to return to the basics.
The likely candidates for 2012 will be: Jeb Bush (although I could see him waiting until 2016), Mitt Romney, George Allen, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Bill Frist, Fred Thompson, Bobby Jindall, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence, Matt Blunt, and Ralph Reed.
July 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Is DaveG a TRB like pseudonym for guest columnists?
July 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
30. 2010.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Is DaveG a TRB like pseudonym for guest columnists?
No, it just depends on which of the voices in my head I listen to on any given day.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Romney/Petraeus in 2012!! That part sounds good to me!
But I’m sure as heck not willing to accept four years of a Socialist President that has no core values that even remotely resemble mine or what is good for this country.
We must fight this guy ‘tooth and nail’ every step of the way and do whatever is necessary to make sure McCain beats him in the Fall. I just hope McCain picks Romney so we have at least a decent chance at doing so. Romney is fully vetted, helps win states, can help with the money needed, beat the crap out of anyone he debates, and be McCain’s spokesperson on complex issues allowing McCain to not attempt to articulate things over his head.
I truly believe that if McCain doesn’t pick Mitt as running mate, it will be for one main reason, and that is that his advisors have told him that Mitt overshadows him and makes everybody wish Mitt was running instead of Johnny Mac. But, this could be a good thing in that they look 4 years down the road for the opportunity to have an amazingly talented and qualified individual with a tremendous amount of energy just waiting to lead in solving our many problems.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
#31–Maybe the tide will turn by 2016, but I would be amazed if another Bush was elected for at least a couple of generations in this country.
I’m interested in your 2012 prospects though as it looks like a bunch of losers with a few exceptions. In this list you’ve included two Senators taken out in 2006. George Allen?!?!…his political career is on life support after his devastating loss in Virginia to Jim Webb. He will have to re-establish himself politically; likely with another term as Governor. Rick Santorum is too ideologically rigid in my opinion to be the Republican nominee. Additionally his bread and butter has been social issues, and by 2012-2016 I think his brand of social conservativism will be an election liability.
Bill Frist and Fred Thompson are dry uninspiring candidates IMO.
Lastly, you’ve mentioned “Blast from the Past, Mr. Indian Casino Lobby, Everything that’s Wrong with the GOP”, Ralph Reed. Count me amongst those Georgians who was very satisfied at his defeat in my home state last year for Lt. Gov.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“The likely candidates for 2012 will be: Jeb Bush (although I could see him waiting until 2016), Mitt Romney, George Allen, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Bill Frist, Fred Thompson, Bobby Jindall, Rudy Giuliani, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence, Matt Blunt, and Ralph Reed.”
Some of these names are very likely for 2012 for the GOP if McCain loses this year to Obama. If McCain wins this year, I think the Dems almost have to win in 2012. No party hardly ever controls the Presidency for longer than 12 years.
Jeb Bush i think might wait til ‘16, but the Bush name might still be tarnished in 2016.
Mitt Romney’s def in it for 2012 (hope he doesn’t get the GOP nod though… Obama will use his flip-flops against him like Bish the incumbent used Kerry’s flip-flops against him. But he’ll be a contender and probably the frontrunner.
Allen might run, but people could still remember “MAKAKA” (you don’t think Obama will use that? lol.)
Newt is too old to run. He’s about 66 now… maybe VP though.
Sanford i def think will run… Southern conservative Governor, outsider candidate.
Frist won’t run… he’s linked too much to the failed GOP Congress.
Thompson will not run again… terrible candidate.
Jindal is in… young minority Republican reformist governor, intelligent, well-educated… I think he wins the GOP nod if enough ppl get beyond his Indian heritage.
Rudy couldn’t win this year and won’t in 2012. I say that as a former Rudy supporter (pre-Iowa).
Santorum. I like him a lot, but he’s way too conservative for the general electorate (at least in his tone… others are just as conservative as Rick, just not as abrasive or arrogant about their ideology as Rick).
Pence could very well run, but rarely has a Congressman won the Presidency. Better VP pick.
Matt Blunt won’t run. He’s gonna lose his Governors seat in MO even if McCain wins MO.
Ralph Reed… While I am a strong Christian social conservative, Reed is just too much for the general electorate (too tied to lobbyists as well… linked to K-street, which the GOP needs to move beyond lest they want another 2006 blowout).
So… out of that list, I only see Romney, Allen (maybe), Sanford, Jindal, and Pence running. I see Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Michael Steele also running.
July 6th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I am sick of all this 2012, 2016 talk. Let’s win this damm thing so we don’t have a “President Obama”
July 6th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oh I agree. Just some thoughts on the future. I think it’s more important at this time to prevent a President Obama.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Let’s have a VP thread, that will get everyone’s head back in the game.
We can tease Aron about Sanford.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
The time to worry about a silver lining in an Obama wins is if he actually wins. The focus right now should be on how to make McCain win. Then the Democrats can worry about what the silver lining of his White House would be.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
#34 A good answer my friend, and GC thinks you are the best!
July 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
It’ll only get worse for McCain when the religous voters he’s counting on figure out that he’s an atheist.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
#43, usc03,
you have it wrong, it is not that he doesn’t believe in God, McCain just doesn’t believe, (like we do) that Obama is God.
July 6th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I read a news story that Obama did walk on water though, but the next day it was reported that it was actaully a broken water-mane in Iowa and in fact the water was a 1/4 inch deep.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
the next bush wont be jeb, it will be his son, George P. Bush. in a few terms, look for P. he will not only have the bush money and connections, the republican base, but also the ability to galvanize the hispanic vote, since he is half-latino.
imagine the irony, the first hispanic president, george bush lolol
July 6th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
david petraeus/jeb bush ticket in 2012
July 6th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
petraeus/bush or petraeus/jindal
petraeus must be drafted, its gotta be like Ike. the best way to beat the new JFK will be the new Eisenhower.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
A Petraeus/Tommy Franks ticket would be pretty intriguing.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Petraeus is no Eisenhower.
July 7th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I believe Petraeus is registered as a Democrat. Wouldn’t vote for him for president, but he is a good man
July 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Yes Mary, Petraeus’ religious gnosticism might not play too well with the Evangelical vote, although it is hard to predict this far out.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:33 am
[...] chances of becoming President. Today it is Stu Rothenberg, yesterday it was our very own DaveG (though an allowance is made for the possibility of a Bush-like EV/PV split in McCain’s [...]
July 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I do not think that picking Mitt Romney is a good pick for the far right conservative evnag base. If you think that James Dobson who does not support either Obama and McCain now, if he picks Mitt that just makes it worse. Why because of the Mormon faith that he has. Yeah, he may help win a state or two and help with moderates and ind but the base. Forget it. Another issues is that alot of people really don’t hate obama. Disagree with his politics all you like but if Clinton had run Bill and her alone like it or not, hate them personally and politicaly. Obama is just not liked for his politics. McCain, needs to focus a lot more on who he is and what he will do, as Huckabee warned, if you try to demonize Obama and not focus on yourself and what you will do, You will lose. Obama like him or not is smart and savy and turns whatever comments says about him around on McCain. So, focus on yourself defend yourself of course but focus in on what you will do how you will do it and have a message that can be promoted well. Thats how McCain will win