Why McCain Lost

American Thinker ^ | November 05, 2008 | Jewish Odysseus

[neverdem]

John McCain's incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn't deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn't fair.

John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.

The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.

Conservatives must understand McCain's candidacy in its full context: McCain's nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects -- the Media/Political Left's project, and McCain's own.

McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist "hive"-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering "state party activists" to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as "the anti-Republican Republican." And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?

McCain's own project planned to draw massive numbers of "moderate" Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain's uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate.

Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.

With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain's strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the "risky," even "ideological" choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about "lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama."

Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain's nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.

History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama's campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.

With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a "checkmate" position since March -- no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain "who knew his place" and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.

Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush's previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch -- his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it.  He choked.  And everyone forgot about Obama's horrendous response to Russia's Georgia invasion just a month earlier.

At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek's Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is "worth maybe 15 points" in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way -- he'd need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?

- 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama's "bitter clingers" comment

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright's incendiary sermons.

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!)

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's plan to "bankrupt" the US coal industry. (and where was McCain's research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?!  Simply inexcusable.) 

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama's "price of arugula" comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made. 

 - 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign's many tough arguments against Obama -- he could have just quoted Hillary!

That was McCain's (and our) downfall: You can't bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn't a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain's tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, "most liberal senator," etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from "bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign," even though Hillary had...Why not?

It wouldn't have looked moderate enough.

So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since...Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?

First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn't, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic.
Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place -- or don't place -- on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled "The Great Communicator." This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan's successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive's acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.

Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican's have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best "poor" in communications. As the 1960's Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, "public policy" think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.

The author blogs at jewishodysseus.blogspot.com.  

[El Sordo]

Innerestin’

[Kevmo]

He lost because he didn’t fight for the win. There was enough material here on FR to bury Obama in scandal until 2020.

[GerardKempf]

Did you ever think that this lady was so unprepared to begin with that there was little hope but to at least let her try
They had held her back for a reason and it’s apparent that she could only read from a teleprompter and not on her own (even her rallies she spoke off the teleprompter) Don’t get me wrong I love Sarah, but it’s because of her feisty demeanor and yes, her looks.

[Richard Kimball]

Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch --

I've been thinking about this a lot. Guys, McCain would have been a disaster as President. That's not to say Obama won't be. McCain didn't appear confused, erratic, and out of touch, he WAS confused, erratic and out of touch. McCain was 71, and we heard over and over that his ground game was nil, that the organization was non-existent, and he spent weeks in PA and no time in Florida, when Florida was at risk and PA was hopeless.

Sarah was the only sign of life in the entire campaign, and right now the Republicans do not act like they want to be elected. I think secretly a lot of them are more satisfied with Democrats running the show.

[VOA]

“
Why McCain Lost
“

IMHO...
1. Alienating needed allies, e.g.,
Called the core base of the party that he is a nominal member of
“Racists” for oppossing him on AMNESTY for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

2. Failure to DIRECTLY tell the world what an empty suit his opponent is.
(I can only gather that McCain suspected he couldn’t win and would
behave himself so his remaining years in the US Senate are sedate ones.)

3. Poor Timing...
Didn’t simply let Palin be Palin from the start of her tour of duty.

To paraphrase Glenn Beck from his radio show today...it’s amazing
that 55 MILLION people bothered to vote for McCain with all his negatives.

[Tramonto]

I don’t think voters cared about the scandals. All they wanted was to rip off the rich.

Obama supporters want communism.

[danamco]

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.htm

[wardaddy]

GOP did not turnout

just look at the numbers in solid R states

meanwhile Dem support was strong

[Zman516]

...plus the rampant RAT voter fraud.

[wardaddy]

I don’t think fraud ...a possibility yes mae this election happen.

Obama beat Mccain almost like Reagan beat Carter in popular votes and 5-6 times how bad Bush beat Kerry.

Obama won on the white vote and low GOP turnout.

[vamoose]

What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy "fundamentally strong"? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke?

If you look at the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, you will find that the shift in voter sentiment was very much impacted by the Sept. 15 & 24 events. (Rasmussen's tracking poll had the least amount of fluctuation and got the final result correct.) The last time McCain led was Sept 17, two days after his "fundamentally sound" comment, because Rasmussen takes 3 days to fully reflect reaction to a given event. The last day McCain polled better than 47% was Sept. 23. The last day Obama polled less than 50% was Sept. 25. These numbers show it was his initial response ("fundamentally sound") to the revelation of deep economic problems that put McCain in a hole that he wasn't able to climb out of. 4 days after the "suspending his campaign" thing, Rasmussen had McCain down by 6. McCain could never help himself in the debates and it was all over.

Economic issues aren't McCain's strong suit, and worse, he is blind to this weakness within himself. Consequently, he didn't feel the need to seek the advice of advisers who were knowledgeable about conservative, free market economics. Cutting taxes and eliminating earmarks aren't the answer to all of our economic problems. If he had taken the time to read and understand Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics at some point in his senate career, he would have been equipped to debunk Obama's economic BS and make a compelling case for his own economic plan.

Ultimately, McCain lost because he is McCain. It is bad enough that Obama won, but even worse that Johnny now returns to the senate where he may well prevent the coalescing of an effective opposition party.

[neverdem]

GOP did not turnout

I think you're correct. I checked NY numbers. GOP was about 500,000 shy of registration, although rat turnout was about 800,000 shy of registration, those numbers probably include more chicanery and folks who are registered for just their primaries. The latter are the original "Operation Chaos" voters; they never vote in the general election for rats in NY.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

It's an interactive map with no advertizing that I saw. I scanned it as well as I could twice. It links to state results broken down by county, at least for NY. I'd be surprised if they didn't do all states that way.

[durasell]

Republicans can’t make the same mistake the Dems made following the first Bush election. That mistake is simply stated: We’re right, it’s the process that’s wrong.

If you don’t admit, analyze and accept mistakes, then you’ll keep making the same mistakes.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link. It should be posted if it’s not!

[Jack Hammer]

John McCain lost his bid for the presidency because America has quite plainly lost its collective mind.

[neverdem]

Republicans can’t make the same mistake the Dems made following the first Bush election. That mistake is simply stated: We’re right, it’s the process that’s wrong.

If you don’t admit, analyze and accept mistakes, then you’ll keep making the same mistakes.

I want an accurate postmortem. Would you care to elaborate on the specific mistakes the GOP made?

[durasell]

A) They ran an older guy who based his entire campaign on “the past.” As I wrote previously, he did everything he could to alienate young voters except yell at them to keep off his lawn.

B) Mac had to fight a front war/campaign — against Bush and against Obama.

C)They didn’t present Mac as a technician. What people want is a “technician” — someone who will cast a cold eye on the situation and solve the problems.

D)He dithered on the economy. Every secretary and messenger on Wall Street knew there were problems last year or 18 months ago. I have no idea what possessed him to say the economy was “fundamentally strong.” Then to rush back to DC for photo ops was just naive.

There’s more, a lot more.

[durasell]

E) He never went into the “lion’s den.” I don’t believe I ever saw him face a hostile audience. Joe the Plumber was actually a plus for Obama.

Look, it’s very simple. We live in a very marketing savvy culture. No successful product, President’s included, can be sold based on the past. At every step of the way Mac was presented as an expert on the past and non-starter on the future. Look at typical tv ads, every product tells you what it will do for you in the future, not what it’s done for you in the past.

Note: None of this has much to do with the reality of who Mac is or his potential as President

[fabian]

going door to door for McCain in Henderson Nevada, I had the pleasure of meeting retired general Kempf who was a friend and knows McCain well. He served with him in Vietnam. He told us that the problem was that John has a hot temper and what he has done is supress it to some degree. That makes him weaker than we needed him to be in confronting Obama in the debates. He did his best for sure, but our problem was that we had not the strongest candidate. We had better close off the primaries to anyone other than republicans or this is going to repeat itself again and we will not have an America, eventually.

[neverdem]

Thanks for the feedback. There's a reason that conservatives are called reactionaries. IMHO, the left has to make a complete mess before the right is called in for a time out, but not a correction. We have disasters waiting in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all ignored for all intents and purposes in the campaign.