OK, folks, can we please be adults and talk about what no one wants to say?
The way this is all setting up, John McCain is the worst nightmare for the Democratic party. Why? I'll tell you.
First, let's talk about the possible Democratic nominee. If Obama is nominated....do you see him winning a single southern state? Do you think he has a chance in Virginia? Tennessee? Alabama? Florida?
There is a significant non-zero percentage of people that 1) may have voted for a Democrat in the past and 2) will not vote for a black person. I'm not sure what that percentage is - 3%? 5% - but it's out there.
I think there is a small, but still non-zero, percentage of those people if Hillary is nominated. 2-3%?
So - the Republicans can nominate anyone - me, a banana peel - and I think they start with a base of 100 electoral votes.
In the rest of the swing states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, McCain's modertation will be viewed as an asset. A moderate Republican like him will play much better in Pennsylvania than someone lke Romney or Thompson. See Rick Santorum, 2006.
In summary, if the Democrats nominate Hillary or Barack, it seems the South is lined up again with the R presidential candidate. Now that the South is lined up, the Republicans need a candidate to appeal to the independents of the nation, and McCain is that person. I think McCain is a winner in November barring any major slipups or a third-party entry from the right.
13 comments:
Finally-a politics post from Eric! I agree totally with you about McCain. I'm crossing my fingers for Huckabee, personally. But, I think that Romney has the best chance now for the nomination and Nevada proved that point pretty clearly. McCain (R-AZ) and had an awful showing. And realize that he won SC with only about half of the votes he got in 2000 (when he lost). Nobody is excited about McCain-he's the lesser of 5 evils. And he's OLD.
With money, Romney can campaign anywhere. While McCain could get a majority of independent votes in a general election (esp against Hill), he will have trouble in the primaries with fund raising and might poop out before even winning the nomination. How about Newt in a brokered convention?
On to the democrats, I think the past 2 weeks has shown why we are not ready for a black president. How can we have a candidate that nobody can criticize for fear of being labeled a "racist"? Point out that he used drugs, hasn't been "vetted", or is an idealist, and you are somehow making a veiled attack on his race. Bullshit. Bush and Clinton were both criticized for drug use-no implied racism there. If he can't stand up to scrutiny without his advisors and the media jumping in to defend him, then we aren't there yet. Hillary will be the nominee.
I'm calling the R race today (ok, I actually did it on Thursday, and have witnesses). Mitt will be the nominee. With the exception of SC, he has finished 1 or 2 and has money to burn (and is willing to do it).
Onto the Dems. I believe this one is going to Hillary. It pains me to say that (would someone please tell Bill to shut the f*&% up already). Nevada really hurt Barrack. With a strong showing in SC, he could gain some ground back, but Hillary has a well oiled machine behind her. Either way, the South is lost in the general election. There are plenty of core R's that would vote for anyone BUT a Clinton, and they will come out in droves.
So its Hillary vs Mitt vs Bloomberg. Yes, I predict he enters if its these two. He becomes the alternative candidate for "change" and makes a run (he too has money to burn).
I'm sorry, Laura, I don't mean to pick on you, but your points make me laugh - not in a way that you are wrong, but that's it's so funny to hear it coming from the other end of the aisle.
For instance:
"How can we have a candidate that nobody can criticize for fear of being labeled a "racist"?"
Hmmm.... subsititue "issue" for "candidate" and you know see how the Republicans have felt for the past 20 years.
Affirmative Action? You're against? You're racist.
Social Security? You want to change it? Then you must be for killing old people.
It's a bit of schatenfreud here to watch some Democrats whine about this.
And:
"If he can't stand up to scrutiny without his advisors and the media jumping in to defend him, then we aren't there yet."
Like a Fox News debate. I think it was McCain who said "if these guys won't stand up to Fox News, how can you expect them to stand up to Al-Qaida?"
About 10-15 years ago, Rush made a statement about the media and its impact on the parties. The constant bias against Republicans in the media over the past 20-30 years or so has forced the Republicans to hone their massage, 1) making it clear, and 2) getting it through the first round of superficial media attacks. He was right. The media bias forced the Republicans to make sure their arguments were logically sound.
The Democrats have never had that scrutiny. Never. The media (for the most part) plays along with their lines and issues.
Now, one Democrat (Obama) is seen getting a free pass, and other Democrats are appalled. Again, I just sit back and chuckle.
Don:
About Romney...something about him makes my skin crawl. It's not the Mormonism - I swear. It's that he's ...fake? pre-packaged? It's very tough to get behind someone where you don't know his true beliefs.
And about Bloomberg? If he enters, the Republicanwins. Period. You think the anti-Hillary vote will be divided? Pschaw. It's the Democrat vote - the pro- and anti-Hillary vote that will be divided with a Bloomberg run, paving the way for a Republican win in November.
As long as it is not Huckabee.
Heard an interesting stat on Morning Joe today. According to Joe, McCain has not won amongst R's in any state so far.
I agree with you on Mitt. There is something about him. Too polished? Too hard core?
Which brings me to the 3 way race. I don't think Bloomberg splits the anti-hillary core, but is the motivation to get out the vote the same if there are 3 choices? B might change the dynamics of voter turn out of the anti-H core, especially if the R choice is Mitt. How do the R's get excited about those choices?
Don:
Are you really that naive?
"How do the R's get excited about those choices?"
Um, if Hillary is on the ballot, that's enough. If Hillary is on the ballot, the right (and all the Republicans) will get behind ANYONE. C'mon.
A three way race would hurt the R's if the Dem nominee is Obama - then it would be like 1992.....then, Clinton didn't seem so bad, and Bush was a problem....so it didn't seem like a big deal at the time if Clinton was the president.
The Republicans will do ANYTHING to prevent Hillary getting in. This includes holding their nose and voting for McCain (who, by the way, is benefiting immensly from a fractured field.)
Eric, if you're going to be quoting Rush, I won't read this blog anymore. Why would anyone vote Republican after the mess this country is gotten into? Bush was and still remains a joke. You guys better do better this time. McCain is your only hope. Even I might vote for him.
Eric, if the traditional Republican "issues" you raise aren't unfavorable for minorities, then why aren't more blacks voting Republican?
Are they racist? No, in that I don't believe that Republicans are making these policies with the sole intent of suppressing minorities. But, they're clearly not favorable or else more blacks would be Republicans.
Also, you're criticism of the liberal media bias is a thing of the past (if it ever really existed at all). Did John Kerry get a free pass in 2004? All the media did is repeatedly air the false swift boat ads. Did Clinton get a free pass during his impeachment hearings? Absolutely not. Bush has gotten a free pass on freaking everything over the last 8 years and this is stuff way more important than lying about sex with a 20 year old. This isn't to say that the media is conservative, but it is lazy. It repeats the easy shit like a parrot and neglects to follow up on anything that takes any effort or research.
Kermit - I find your logic fascinating.
Tell me what mess you think this country is in under Bush. It certainly is your right to think that.
Now tell me how you would then support McCain - a person who is even more hawkish than Bush?
Are you saying you support Bush on the war but everything else is messed up? Then that would be a McCain stance. Is this yours?
Laura:
"Eric, if the traditional Republican "issues" you raise aren't unfavorable for minorities, then why aren't more blacks voting Republican? "
Well, even if the Republican response is fair, the Democratic response has been more favorable for minorities.
A very simplistic example:
I have 12 cents to give you and Jay.
The Republican would give you 6 cents and Jay 6 cents.
The Democratic plan would give you 7 cents and Jay 5 cents.
Which would you prefer?
Is any plan unfair to you?
"But", you say, "this plan is unfairly fair to Laura - and is unfavorable to Jay".
Well, if we equate "Jay" to White males....yes....and this unfavroableness equates to a significant loss of the white male vote throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Yes, yes, yes, this is overly simplistic. But I think the main point rings true. A plan is not unfair because minorities choose not to take it.
Regarding the media: I totally agree with the last two sentences; however, the question we have to ask ourselves is:
- is this the media's fault, or
- is it our fault, and they are giving us what we ask for?
Hmmm...rereading my last comment.....I hope I made my point. I may have to re-type the analogy in the morning.
McCain isn't a Mormon or a Baptist minister. And he didn't lead us into Iraq on false pretenses. We're there now and somebody, whether it be Democrat or Republican, will need to clean it up.
Do I need to explain the mess we're in? We're in the middle of a civil war in Iraq with insurgents running around blowing everybody up. A country we never should have entered. The stock market is crashing and nobody in the world has faith in our leadership to turn it around. Besides that, a Republican has done a great job in office the past 7 years.
Eric, of course I disagree with your analogy. Only communists give everyone each 6c. In your analogy, (assuming I'm the black person and Jay's the white person) I see Republicans giving me 4c and Jay 8c because Jay probably makes more money than me and is entitled to a larger tax break. The choice is very clear for a person in the lower tax brackets.
Post a Comment