TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
19.01.2008
The Party of ... McCain?

For weeks, we've marveled at the GOP field's stubborn refusal to winnow itself. With John McCain's victory tonight, we've finally achieved that belated winnowing. In one quick burst, McCain has effectively knocked Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani from the race: Huckabee because it's not clear where he wins if he can't do it in as demographically favorable a state as South Carolina. (Fifty-nine percent of voters today were evangelicals; Huckabee only won them by a 40-27 margin over McCain.) Rudy because it's hard to see why anyone would prefer him to McCain going forward; both appeal to moderate, security-minded Republicans and McCain is the only one who hasn't been a disaster of late. And Thompson's finished--as if it needed to be said--because even he'd conceded this was his last chance to reverse a debilitating six-month slide. (One interesting sidenote: Huckabee's under-performance among evangelicals probably had something to do with the 15 percent of them Thompson picked off. I have a feeling that won't be Fred's last gift to McCain in this race...)

This is clearly a McCain-Romney race going forward. Romney has the money and may still be the establishment choice over McCain, who's widely disliked in elite GOP circles. The benefit of the latter will be, among other things, to dampen the fundraising boost McCain should receive from South Carolina.

On the other hand, McCain will have obvious momentum heading into Florida. He'll also have a strong electability argument. Prior to tonight, the pundits were mostly down on McCain for depending so heavily on the support of independents. After tonight's good-enough showing among party regulars (a first-place tie with Huckabee, each with 30 percent of GOP voters; well ahead of Romney's and Thompson's 16 percent each), what had been perceived as a liability will suddenly become a huge advantage: This guy not only appeals to Republicans, but to the swing voters who'll decide the general election. Don't underestimate the power of that argument in a party fearing annihilation in November.

For Romney, the mandate going forward is simple: Finish second (or at worst a very close third) in Florida ten days from now. If Romney loses there not only to McCain but also to Huckabee--Huck no longer has a shot at the nomination, but he will continue to command a loyal evangelical base, which makes him a player in a multi-candidate field--it's hard to see how he slows McCain's momentum and dents his aura of inevitability. If, on the other hand, Romney can finish a strong second or better, he'll have the money and establishment support to go one-on-one with McCain in the 20-state-extravaganza that is February 5.

Assuming that happens, the Republican race may come down to a single, fascinating question: Exactly how much do loyal Republicans and the GOP establishment dislike John McCain? Answer that and you'll have your nominee.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru points out that McCain lost conservatives by seven points to Huckabee tonight. True enough. But if you break down the results more finely, you see that he won voters who self-identify as "somewhat conservative" (35 percent of the vote) by a respectable 32-28 margin, while losing "very conservative" voters by a 38-19 margin. I assume much of the latter was driven by conservative evangelicals, whom we already knew favored Huckabee.  

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:26 PM with 20 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

blackton said:

Imagine a party nominating a candidate who appeals to a large amount of independents just in order to win an election. The Democrats can simply not imagine such a prospect. No we have the give the finger to every Reagan Democrat and independent out there. No reaching out to the middle for us by nominating an inspirational candidate who has shown he can win independents. No we will nominate the candidate who appeals to the base because as we are aware from President Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. how we always win with the base. Oh well, a one term President McCain, with a Dem congress I can live with. In 2012 we can finally get past this generation of Dem baby boomers and nominate a candidate who can make a difference.

January 19, 2008 9:44 PM

henderstock said:

"Oh well, a one term President McCain, with a Dem congress I can live with. In 2012 we can finally get past this generation of Dem baby boomers and nominate a candidate who can make a difference."

Pretty much my feelings, blackton, but I'm no giving up yet.  The McCain Supreme Court is far too horrible to let through the gate.  He says he doesn't like torture, but I doubt that it is highest on his priorities.  Remember, his own base hates him irrationally, so, to get elected, he'd have to sell what's left of his soul.  

January 19, 2008 10:28 PM

drdannyu said:

henderstock, you nailed my concern.  A McCain presidency I can take, so long as there's a Democratic Congress (both chambers, if you please).  But let's all hope Stevens and Ginsburg stay in fighting form, if that happens.

January 19, 2008 10:34 PM

yukon said:

Romney is completely, absolutely finished.  He will never win a two or three man race.  He tops out at 30 percent, while McCain (and the others) will pull the rest.

90% chance it's McCain

5% chance it's Giuliani (he needs to win Florida)

5% chance somebody else (probably at a brokered convention)

January 20, 2008 12:05 AM

yukon said:

Blackton, it is amazing how the Dems are so obstinate.  The GOP considers guys like Rudy and McCain, while the Dems would prefer Bush to a moderate like Lieberman or Bob Graham.  It took 12 years in the wilderness to nominate Bill Clinton, I guess it will take at least four more years for the Dems to get realistic again.

January 20, 2008 12:08 AM

mjhollerich said:

At the risk of just being repetitive, I heartily agree with blackton.  The one way the Democrats can lose this election is by sacrificing the middle and playing to THEIR base.  And the one Republican candidate who can appeal to the middle is McCain.  Clinton is hopelessly polarizing, a divider not a uniter, and her nomination is a recipe for defeat.

January 20, 2008 3:36 AM

aeromonas said:

I get where you guys are coming from, but I don't completely share your concerns.  I don't like HRC.  I'd rather Obama were the nominee.  Besides thinking he'd make a better Pres than Clinton, I think he's the stronger general election candidate--against MOST GOP contenders.  But I"m not so sure that holds up against McCain.  

January 20, 2008 6:33 AM

stanmvp48 said:

"Pretty much my feelings, blackton, but I'm no giving up yet.  The McCain Supreme Court is far too horrible to let through the gate."

Wasn't he one of the centrist group of Senators which would oppose cloture if Bush nominated a far rightist?  I suspect that if he takes office with a Dem Congress and Iraq  still f--ed up; that he would nominate a moderate for a Court Vacancy.  Possibly wishful thinking.  

Incidentally, who would a Democratic McCain be?  I honestly have to say that Lieberman has gone too far and he is more like a Democratic Chafee or Snowe or at least Giuliani.  From the past, Moynihan.  Hard to imagine him being nominated.  

January 20, 2008 8:21 AM

bhunziker said:

I'm also not ready to give up yet.  The Democratic candidate enjoys enormous structural advantages (money, enthusiasm, voter identification, desire for change, etc) no matter who they are.  If the economy is in a recession (or even coming out of one - it takes a while to notice), unemployment ticks up to 6-7%, gas remains over $3/gallon, and Bush doesn't move above 40%, even Hillary can win.

That said, it's enormously frustrating that this is even a question!  This election should already be a done deal.  The Democratic candidate should win with 55% and carry 40 states, taking 6-7 new senators and 20 more representatives with them to Washington.  It should be a realignment election of historic proportions, not unlike 1932.  That Hillary Clinton, as much as I respect her (I'm not a Hillary hater), might single-handedly prevent that from occurring is disheartening.

I blame Al Gore for this, who could have made this happen. He must have never wanted to be president, because it's absolute nonsense to think that he can do more to combat global warming by making movies than as the most powerful man in the world.

January 20, 2008 8:59 AM

sdemuth said:

I have seen a McCain vs Clinton matchup in November as a nightmare for months.  I thought McCain had killed himself outright, this summer, and was relieved by that.  The cat came back - good for him, bad for me.

But this analysis that makes Clinton the captive the Democratic base, where what we need is a centrist confuses the hell out of me.  The Clintons' close association with the Democratic Leadership Council, and the whole of Bill Clinton's presidency are paeans to centering away from the far left of the Democratic party.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton.  I think McCain beats her in the general election, and I distrust her political temperament deeply, but certainly not because she's a left wing looney.  From a policy perspective, I think she can appeal to the center as well as anyone.  It's her personality that will put Democrats at risk if she's nominated.

January 20, 2008 9:12 AM

henderstock said:

"Wasn't he one of the centrist group of Senators which would oppose cloture if Bush nominated a far rightist?"

That so-called Gang of Fourteen was a fraud.  Bush did nominate a doctrinaire right-winger---two, in fact---and didn't even get a filibuster, obviating the need for cloture.  The irony is that many Republicans in South Carolina consider McCain and Graham traitors, though they accomplished their goal:  rolling the Democrats.

January 20, 2008 9:30 AM

guptatomic1 said:

McCain is for me, too, the one Republican I most fear, and the only one I think I could live with.  What I don't understand is the analysis that Obama stands so much the better chance against him than HRC.  McCain v. Obama only serves to highlight all of Obama's weaknesses:  youth, inexperience, untested by fire.  I really doubt Obama can win there.  But McCain v. Clinton would be a very interesting match-up, imo.

First of all, you would never know it reading this magazine, but the economy is well on its way to the gutter, which sets up a really interesting dynamic:  which economically successful President do you most emulate, Bill or Ron?  Then too, my understanding is that HRC and McCain have a good working relationship -- there's some story about their getting smashed together in Lithuania or Latvia somewhere, and McCain's being impressed at how well she could hold her liquor.  [On the other hand, from all I can tell, he's been dismissive of Obama from the start.]  The point being, I think McCain, both out of that, and out of his own image as a Straight Talker would be much more reluctant to go after "Hillary the evil bra-burning lesbian" than most other Republicans, and there might be real debate on some of the issues -- a debate, I might add, which the Democratic candidate -- ANY Democratic candidate (yes, even Kucinich) -- would win handily.  Besides, McCain is going to have a lot of problems rallying his own base around.

Final word, I'm not saying I absolutely believe she can win, but I do think she'll stand a better chance against McCain than Obama would, and I don't understand this Kool-Aid CW that has it the other way around.

January 20, 2008 11:35 AM

teplukhin2you said:

It's The Economy, Shtoopid, vs. National Security. The former would heavily favor OurSide, the latter would (slightly) favor McCain. My money's on OurSide. Iraq is at best a wash for McCain because the voters by and large checked out on this issue over a year ago. We're facing a world of trouble on the economic front. For an exhausted nation, the home front comes first.

January 20, 2008 11:50 AM

ChanRobt said:

In a way, it matters less who the Republican nominee is than who is the Democrat.  

Obama is a likable and admirable human being and engenders a certain affection even from people who don't agree with him.

Hillary is unlikable, and despite being a grind who does her homework, not an admirable human being.  It is all to easy to loathe her.  She brings out the opposition side bigtime behind almost anyone to stop Hillary.

Republicans would much prefer to run against her than Obama.

January 20, 2008 1:06 PM

mjhollerich said:

Interesting and contrasting assessments here.  I concede that Hillary, in and of herself (and her partner -- they must be spoken of in the plural), is/are not the left-wing of the Democratic Party -- DLC, triangulation, etc. -- but she, even more than her partner, inspires and energizes opposition like no one this side of W.  We can debate the fairness of this all we want, but I am deeply convinced it's an electoral reality.  I also concede that Obama can look, well, thin, esp in comparison with McCain.  He is by no means a perfect candidate.  My bedrock intuition remains that the country is sick of polarization, the Rovian strategy that has now played itself out, and the middle is key.

January 20, 2008 1:30 PM

mjhollerich said:

Addendum:  surely someone has resurrected that old Onion article, the one with the headline, "Does Hillary Clinton Have What It Takes To Beat the Democrats in 2008?"

January 20, 2008 1:32 PM

mmathog said:

Why is Huckabee done? Thompson stole Huckabee's S.C. victory...

With Thompson out of the race, can anyone argue that Romney takes away more from Huckabee than he does from McCain?

It's still a 3-man race.

January 20, 2008 2:15 PM

basman said:

Mccain is an old man. He is a mediocre speech giver and a mediocre debater. He is a conservative.. As well as individuals competing against each other, so too are governing philophies and policies and programs. I think Hillary, if she gets the nomination--here's hoping, would smoke McCain. I think that in a general election either Rudy or Romney would be superior, more formidable Republican candidates. It is not often in more recent American history, I need myself to be reminded, that a party wins three consecutive presidential terms. Mind you, have a ticket headed by Obama, and that rarity could well recur.

January 20, 2008 2:59 PM

cspencef said:

One of the tv talkingheads (can't remember who) offered up an off-the-wall theory that Florida just might fall to Huckabee, if he can hang on that long.  If the establishment decides it can't stomach McCain, Romney pumps in his usual $$ and doesn't get in his own way, and Giuliani manages to make enough of a dent to be noticed this time, those three might split the non-evangelibot vote and Huck might just get enough of the Deep-South parts of the Panhandle and North Florida and the megachurch corridor along I-4 to sneak out with a victory.  Then McCain is right back where he was before SC.  It's not likely, but it isn't totally crazy either.  Hey, I'm just grasping for a reason to be hopeful here...

January 20, 2008 5:28 PM

The Stump said:

This e-mail just came in over the transom from the Thompson campaign: "Today I have withdrawn my

January 22, 2008 2:34 PM