Posted on 05/12/2008 9:49:40 AM PDT by kellynla
Rockefeller vs. Goldwater in 1964. McCarthy vs. LBJ in 1968. Muskie vs. McGovern in 1972. Reagan vs Ford in 1976. Kennedy vs Carter in 1980. Hart vs Mondale in 1984.
As history buffs would know each of the above Presidential primary contests was in varying degree long, expensive, emotive, distracting and a delight to the opposing party which invariably triumphed in November usually by a landslide.
Today Republicans watching the Clinton-Obama slugfest are weeping- tears of joy. In a year in which every indicator points to a Republican disaster of potentially monumental proportions, history offers hope to the GOP.
If we date the modern era from JFK’s assassination and the subsequent cultural –political “blow-up” that was the Sixties our Presidential elections offer some fairly clear and consistent lessons about who wins, who loses, and why.
The first- as described above- is that the party having a truly divisive primary season always loses. Secondly, beginning in 1964 the winning candidate is always from the Sun Belt: Texas (4), California (4), Arkansas (2) and Georgia (1). Third, the Democrats only win when they nominate a Southerner (LBJ, Carter, Clinton) because sons of Dixie “seem” centrist (i.e. not liberal) and electorally they break up the otherwise solid Republican South.
So, what does all of this tell us about 2008? Post Indiana/ North Carolina Barack Obama- short of sticking up a bank or being caught in a love tryst with Britney Spears- joins John McCain as the “presumptive” nominee of his party.
What can we say about this match-up? First, it sure isn’t the one we expected as recently as last fall.
At that time John Mc Cain was broke, his staff unpaid, and even the “Straight Talk Express” had to be downsized to save on gas money. Rudy was topping the polls, Mitt had more money than anyone, and many thought the conservative base might swoon for Fred. McCain? So yesterday.
On the Democratic side the punditocracy had nothing to talk about but what color pantsuit Hillary would wear to her coronation. Her mastermind campaign manager Mark Penn was portraying Hillary as an “above the fray” centrist and saying all would be over by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) at the latest.
Then in a single day in Iowa two men from nowhere- Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama- blew sky high both the conventional wisdom and the prospects of the frontrunners.
Huckabee ruined Romney’s “early state” strategy by splitting off evangelicals from the rest of the conservative base and opening the door for McCain to win lightning victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina over a divided opposition to his right which then exposed the winless Guiliani’s “late state” strategy for the monumental political gaffe that it was. Absent Huckabee, McCain simply had no credible path to the nomination.
In a similar act of divide and conquer Obama brilliantly exploited Hillary’s premature move to the center particularly on Iraq- the absolute hot button issue for the left wing Democratic base. In doing so he won the hearts and minds of Move On.org, the Daily Kos, and the liberal national media- all of whom decided that Obama was indeed “The One we have been waiting for”.
So, how does McCain vs. Obama stack up with our three-pronged test for victory in November?
Obama is the clear loser on all three counts:
A. It is his party that has had a divisive primary season for the ages, and the blood-letting isn’t over yet;
B. Obama is not from the Sun Belt while McCain- like the victors in the last eleven Presidential elections -- is and
C. Obama is not a Southerner -- unless you count the South Side of Chicago as Dixieland.
Other exogenous factors tend to support this analysis. In two critical states polls show McCain besting Obama in Ohio, and by double digits in Florida. More generically the slice of the electorate variously described as white, Catholic, blue collar, union, non-college [formerly called Reagan Democrats] has not warmed to Obama and will likely tilt to McCain in significant numbers.
Politics is changeable, and precedents are made to be broken, but in a year that began with Republicans in a collective state of clinical depression recent developments have given the GOP at least a glimmer of “hope they can believe in”.
I agree and I hope so.
Obama’s other problem is that he is a left wing radical with dodgy characters in his background.
A lot of blue states will be in play this year. I see no way Obama wins unless McCain is a disaster of a candidate and the economy implodes.
This is important to note, that it will probably be a close election.
And McCain has about 200 electoral votes in his back pocket already. There are a number of states, mostly in the plains and Rocky Mountain area, where the Dems. have no chance this year. No way Billary/Obama carry Nebraska, the Dakotas, Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. Add up these solid red states and McCain has a very strong base to start from.
If Dems. win this election it will be very close. Mc Cain though may have a solid victory if Obama and his liberalism turn off swing voters in swing states.
So we got: Nixon, Ford, and Bush.
Liberals all.
McCains choice for Veep will be a deciding factor.
Important factors not considered are:
1) The popularity of the President,
2) Whether the country is in a war and how the war is going,
3) Which party has held the White House and for how long, and
4) the economy.
By these measures, the Republican candidate will lose in 2008.
The "Conservative Revolution" under Reagan (who enabled big government and open borders) and then Gingrich (replete with politicians who were more concerned with Beltway perks than charting a new course), was the closest we're ever going to come to a conservative government. Conservatism is something that sounds good in theory but will never be a reality, so long as politicians are politicians.
And after 20 years of waiting, arguing and hoping, I would agree with the "realists" that I might as well vote for McCain (if I bother), although he's not much different from the candidates on the other side (and why I think he'll ultimately lose to a more charismatic Obama-- the election will come down to personalities, not clearly articulated differences in political doctrines). The American public is rightly disillusioned with political critters. Europe got over it by the Romantic Era. Government will not get off our backs or live up to 18th C ideals of progress and freedom. I say let's make the most of it and focus on getting ready for the next life.
The upshot is that no political party or candidate can expect me to get exited or lift a finger for them ever again. Government is not going to make us a better society in this life; neither conservatism nor liberlaism is going to give us utopeia on earth.
It's all temporary; the endless arguing over fictional differences in politicians is innane; and I'm over it.
During a war the electorate tends to support the party currently in power. That's a reason why Bush won 2004.
and how the war is going,
The war is going decidedly better than 2004-2006. Perception may be worse than reality, but it's no way comparable to the pre-surge situation.
4) the economy.
Is getting better again.
1) The popularity of the President,
You forget the popularity of Congress, which is even worse. Kristol had it right. A Dem Congress victory 2006 will ensure McCain 2008.
I think that would probably help his chances.
Unless enough conservatives decide to stay home and teach the RNC a lesson (which worked so well in 06!)...McCain NEEDS to be smart here and pick an excellent conservative for his VP - I know that VPs do not sway a normal election, but we’re not in a ‘normal’ election!
Well then, we have nothing to worry about....Ummm, do we?
It's important not to forget that the Republican disaster has already happened--we nominated a democrat as our standard bearer.
America has already lost this election. So let's not confuse just electing a president who puts a "R" by his name with accomplishing anything in particular.
I understand that the article is a 'horserace' article. But it does matter which horses are in the runnning. If all the horses are terrible, it doesn't matter too much who wins.
That's not what happened in '06. I was a party official then and I know what turnout was and where it was from.
We had a great turnout in conservative precincts in '06--almost unprecedentedly high for an off-year election. That's just a fact. In fact, high conservative turnout (all by itself) was responsible for preventing a bad year from turning into an all-out disaster in Congress. It would have been MUCH worse had conservatives stayed home.
What happened in 2006 is the independents went D in a big way.
So don't fall for the post-election RINO/Old Media propaganda. They know it's false. Now you do. Stop repeating falsehoods.
To what end?
McCain will give us strangling regulations over the myth .. hell out right LIE which is Global Warming.
McCain will give us AMNESTY and in 20 years they will not be voting for LESS government.
McCain will nominate and replace 3 Liberal Supreme Court Justices... with LIBERALS.
McCain will give us “Gas Holidays”, “Price Controls” and print MORE money!
McCain will give bailouts to banks who made bad loans and handouts to those who live in houses they cannot truly afford.
McCain will move the party further and further to the left, marginalizing any hope of conservatives winning back Congress.
McCain will give us Nationalized Health care to “out triangulate” the Democrats.
McCain will continue to assault and abridge the first amendment.
McCain will, in short, do everything that Obama or Hillary will do, only somehow “conservatism” will be blamed and the pundants will declare that he (McCain) is just too conservative yet.
So why exactly should limited government, moral conservatives be happy with this?
I am not.
I will be happy when McCain is REJECTED by the electorate and we sweep Congress in 2010 and nominate a Conservative, Fiscal and Social, in 2012.
THAT will make me happy...
What happened in 2006 is the independents went D in a big way.”
Thank you. I get so tired of the Rino’s blaming the rest of us when they lose. I voted, but was told by many people it was my fault the Good Ship Rino lost in 2006. Now they've nominated a gigantic goober, an enemy of conservatism and want us to swallow more castor oil.
Yea, but those times, the Republicans actually had a trustworthy candidate (or at least we thought so). With McKennedy, we can bet on whether he’ll start an amnesty bill or a CO2 bill first. He’s a snake.
Whom should Sen. McCain choose, for his running-mate? I think that, since he’s a westerner who has been a U.S. senator and representative, he should balance the ticket by choosing a conservative who has been a governor from a state that is in the eastern half of the U.S. John Ashcroft would be the perfect choice. I know that Ashcroft ran for re-election to the U.S. Senate and lost to a dead man, but, since then, he got four years of experience, as the U.S. attorney general. That experience would help, if he was McCain’s running-mate.
If McCain wins the election, whom should he nominate for some cabinet positions? I think that he should nominate these people: Secretary of State, Dirk Kempthorne; Sec. of Treasury, John Hoeven; Sec. of Defense, Mel Martinez; Sec. of Homeland Security, Asa Hutchison; Attorney General, John Sweeney; Sec. of the Interior, Richard Pombo; Secretary of Agriculture, Frank Keating; and Chief of Staff, Newt Gingrich.
As one would expect, this thread is bringing out all the “let’s elect Obama” kooks.
“As one would expect, this thread is bringing out all the “let’s elect Obama” kooks”
yea...I’ve gotten to where I don’t even pay any attention to ‘em anymore...LOL
McCain will still lose if his message doesn’t start appealing to conservatives.
They’d happily consign us to two or three more liberal Supreme Court appointments based solely on the hope that it will cause a knee-jerk conservative revolution the next time around.
Even if it did, we’d still be stuck with those justices, and Roe v Wade and a host of other garbage would be cemented for another generation.
Some bad choices for cabinet you offer here, from a conservative point of view. McCain ought to be balanced by solid conservatives. Some will say that my choices are too idealistic and have no chance with McCain, but I think in the Foreign Policy/Defense area we could get some good men like:
Pawlenty or Palin - Veep
Hunter or Lieberman (yes yes) - Defense
Hunter - Homeland Security (no chance however)
Bolton - State
Fred Thompson - Attorney General
IMO Martinez and Gingrich shouldn’t be anywhere near the WH.
If it wasn’t for me really not wanting Obama to win...I’d be happy to see McCain lose.
This election stinks for conservatives and libertarians (that want to back a viable candidate).
I’m afraid you’re right.
Reagan, though my hero as a leader, is the one politician in my lifetime who both cut-n-ran from the middle east, fueling our current troubles with UBL, and also signed full-fledged Amnesty for illegals.
But few FReepers will admit as much.
Goldwater was an electoral and idealistic political disaster, though I would’ve voted for him.
The question is, as always, how fast we get to hell in a handbasket....quicker on the left than the right.
Rassmussan gives Obama 200 and McCain 190 leaners. There are 12 battleground states that will decide the election. HIllary won 7 of them, including the four biggest: Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Penn.
“This election stinks for conservatives”
and have been for the past 20 years...
You are absolutely right. For those who are not going to vote this year and are hoping the Dems win and make a mess of things so that a conservative gets back in the whitehouse in 2012 will probably get what they want. The only problem is that we may no longer have a country left by then, or at least it will be SUCH a mess that it will take years to recover. I would rather not let that happen at all.
I’m voting against the “D” just like I’ve been doing since Reagan who is the last candidate I actually campaigned for.
History may give hope to Republicans, but John McCain does not.
You said that McCain’s cabinet should have conservatives, but you said that he should nominate Lieberman, someone who usually votes liberally.
According to www.vote-smart.org, these are some of Sen. Mel Martinez’s latest ratings, from some famous interest groups: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 100%; Gun Owners of America, 100%; English First, 100%; Americans for Tax Reform, 95%; American Conservative Union, 84%; Americans for Democratic Action, 20%; AFL-CIO, 16%; ACLU, 14%; and NARAL, 0%. These facts prove that he’s conservative and is well-qualified to be a cabinet member.
Me, too. I just wish there was a GOP candidate who I could be enthusiastic for.
Right. But Lieberman is excellent on Defense/Foreign Policy. The SecDef has to be good in his area. If he is kept away from domestic issues it is another benefit for America.
Can anyone believe those who have lost the most in this war and continue to pay a huge price will ever vote for an empty suit like Obama?
I have the greatest respect for our military and the families of our service men and women. They will vote for the person that will support our troops 100%, McCain is that man. There is not enough crazies to elect Obama.
Do not become discouraged, God is in control.
More true blue conservatives need to “step up to the plate” and start running for public office on the local, state and federal levels. And we need conservatives to get elected to governorships so we have a better field to choose from for POTUS.
And we all need to do all we can to encourage, campaign and elect those conservatives. Until then, the situation is not going to improve very much.
What defines a "true blue" conservative?
As I put it, in 2006 the Reagan Democrats looked at both parties, saw no difference, and went home. The stench of corruption, as much of a media creation as it was, turned them off. Without some real failings on the part of Republicans, this would never have happened.
Our great hope is that McCain gets to the convention and says, “Just kidding, my friends.”
If there are two or three picks on the Supreme Court in a McCain presidency, you’ll get the same results.
If you say so.
In my dotage, I look back fondly on my early days on FR, when we were all united against the Horror of Clinton. It seemed like this was a place for real insight and effort (Rathergate). But lately the bile outweighs the brilliance. But still I check in daily... it’s where I get my news. Old habits is hard ta break, dadgum it...
...or if Bob Barr gets 5 to 10% of the vote.
Damn the Repubs for open primaries that spawned this nominee and damn the dems for being so far to the left that they are not a viable alternative.
I believe that he will use that choice as yet another opportunity to tell the conservatives in his party to p!$$ up a rope.
(which worked so well in 06!)...
They aren’t called the stupid party for nothing. Apparantly it takes about 40 years of wandering in the wilderness for that party to wake up and come home to conservatism.
You might be a genius. Great post.
Mc Cain though may have a solid victory if Obama and his liberalism turn off swing voters in swing states.
Not if he has Huckabee as VP, IMHO.
Huckabee puts no state into play that is in the swing state column. He is also the clone of McCain on issues conservatives despise: Open borders? Check. Global warming? Check. Thinking his judgement and feelings should substitute for the law? Check.
Of course, he might bring in the pro-life, pro-gun demographic who hates Mormons and thinks Catholics are second-class Christians.
Especially if Obama puts a Mormon (Harry Reid?) or mildly pro-life Catholic (Bob Casey, Jr.?) on the ticket.
“And McCain has about 200 electoral votes in his back pocket already. There are a number of states, mostly in the plains and Rocky Mountain area, where the Dems. have no chance this year. No way Billary/Obama carry Nebraska, the Dakotas, Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. Add up these solid red states and McCain has a very strong base to start from.”
But the Dems have a strong base too. about 200 votes. The northeast and CA and IL are locked down, MD and DE. as usual, a midwest battleground.
The one bright sign is that if Barack is really unelectable in WV, TN, KY, it also means we will win AR, MO and have advantage in OH. Another is a poll that had Mccain up 25% in FL.
Then we have PA. If McCain can put PA and MI and NH on our side.
McCain’s #1 problem is that the base is not enthused and Obama’s is. There is a big difference from prior years, in terms of the campaigns and its effectiveness.
“McCain will give us strangling regulations over the myth .. hell out right LIE which is Global Warming.”
TRUE.
“McCain will give us AMNESTY and in 20 years they will not be voting for LESS government.”
MAYBE. I dont think it will get to his desk. he’ll be no worse than Bush.
“McCain will nominate and replace 3 Liberal Supreme Court Justices... with LIBERALS.”
FALSE. McCain will be solid on judges and his Wake Forest U. speech hits the nail on the head on it. He is for Alito and Roberts type
“McCain will give us “Gas Holidays”, “Price Controls” and print MORE money!”
FALSE. He is anti-ethanol and price controls; tax cuts are never bad.
“McCain will give bailouts to banks who made bad loans and handouts to those who live in houses they cannot truly afford.”
MOSTLY FALSE. He will not go as far as the Democrats have alrady gone on bailouts and has resisted the earmark and porkbarrel culture and promises to veto more of the same.
“McCain will move the party further and further to the left, marginalizing any hope of conservatives winning back Congress.”
FALSE. It is known he is a moderate, but he doesnt pull people with him. What he will do is STOP A NATIONAL SLIDE TO THE LEFT. If Obama won, the gop
“McCain will give us Nationalized Health care to “out triangulate” the Democrats.”
FALSE. His health care proposal is very free-market. Get educated and read it.
“McCain will continue to assault and abridge the first amendment.”
Nothing new proposed by him that does that.
“McCain will, in short, do everything that Obama or Hillary will do, “
NOT EVEN CLOSE TO TRUE!!
McCain got over 90% from ClubforGrowth on fiscal ratings in last session. Obama got a 1% godawful rating.
“only somehow “conservatism” will be blamed and the pundants will declare that he (McCain) is just too conservative yet.”
If the media can do that, then how much WORSE will it be when the far-left socialist Obama is deemed the greatest politician ever.
“I will be happy when McCain is REJECTED by the electorate and we sweep Congress in 2010 and nominate a Conservative, Fiscal and Social, in 2012.”
Put down the crack pipe. Obama wins and the left wins for a generation.
http://no-bama.blogspot.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.