Good Wednesday morning Fellow Seekers,
The big political trends favor Democrats in countless ways that would have almost unthinkable a few years ago when Karl Rove could talk, with some credibility, about his vision of a permanent Republican majority. At the moment, one contrary factor should worry Dems very much: John McCain’s proven appeal to independent voters.
Writing this as McCain has just been declared the Florida primary winner, with reporters buzzing about rumors that Rudy Giuliani will drop out of the race today and endorse McCain, it’s hard to resist the impression that McCain is pulling into a commanding lead in his quest for the Republican nomination.
Now, with all due skepticism about polls taken in January about a theoretical matchup in November, one fact leaps out from trial matchup polls being taken around the country: McCain is by far the only Republican that matches up favorably against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. He doesn’t just match up favorably, he runs ahead. And he runs ahead of them in states — including Minnesota — that are part of the Democratic base in the Electoral College.
First, some national numbers: An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken a week ago, matched McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Giuliani against both Obama and Clinton.
Clinton beats Romney 52-36, beats Huckabee 50-41, beats Giuliani 52-37 and loses to McCain 46-44. Sure, that’s well within the margin for error, but you get the idea.
Obama leads Romney 48-35; destroys Huckabee 55-33, trounces Giuliani 54-34. Obama and McCain are tied at 42-42.
I don’t have enough state-by-state data to go too crazy on this, but, as you know, the presidency is won state-by-state and really in a small number of swing states. The nightmare for either party is the possibility that the other party will nominate someone who takes states from your base and turns them into competitive states.
Now take Minnesota, which has gone for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election since 1972, the longest streak of any state (I’m finessing the District of Columbia there). Sure, it’s been close in some recent cycles. But most recently, it’s been blue-ing back up, big time. (Don’t tell Mark Kennedy, he knows.)
In a poll released a week ago by Survey USA (it’s Twin Cities client is KSTP), 550 registered Minnesota voters were given a choice between the two leading Dems and the four leading Repubs.
Clinton crushed Giuliani and Romney (both by 51-40) and Huckabee by 50-42. But McCain beat Clinton among these Minnesotans by 49-45.
Obama did even better against Giuliani (52-36) and Romney (55-36!) and infinitesimally worse against Huckabee (beating him by 49-42). But McCain ran ahead of Obama by 49-42.
My friend Eric Ostermeier of the excellent blog Smart Politics has been onto this pattern for a while. I don’t have enough other swing state trial heats handy to generalize, but the other Eric did a month ago and wrote, based on Dec. 13-15 polling:
In Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, Washington, and Oregon. Matchup polls were conducted of McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Of the 16 possible matchups in these battleground states, McCain performed the best among the four Republicans in 13 of them…
McCain tied or bested the Democrats in exactly half of these matchups: leading Obama by 9 points in Minnesota, by 9 points in Ohio, and by 11 points in New Mexico, and leading Clinton by 7 points in Wisconsin, by 3 points in New Mexico, by 1 point in Iowa, and tying Clinton in both Ohio and Oregon.
Clearly, based on current polling, McCain is the Republican with the best shot at winning in November.
And bear in mind, McCain, is the most steadfast supporter of the Iraq war in the field. This is his signature issue position. He has talked about the possibility that U.S. troops might be in Iraq for a hundred years. He accuses those who favor a phased withdrawal of waving the white flag of surrender to Al Qaida.
Personally, I don’t believe that the support for McCain among swing voters reflects support for the war. It seems clear to me that McCain attracts some of his support — as Paul Wellstone did — from people who disagree with him on a number of issues but respect him because he seems to be expressing his true convictions. There’s political gold in them thar hills.
As I said above and say again, it would be foolish to make too much of trial heat polls 10 months before election day. But I find myself contemplating the possibility that in January of 2009, we will swear in both a Congress with increased Democratic majorities, elected on pledges to end the war, and a president with a fresh four-year mandate and as deep a commitment to continuing the mission in Iraq as the current occupant of the Oval Office possesses — and one more possession in common with the current occupant. A veto pen.
Parliamentary system anyone?
It’s amusing what the supposed desire for “change” turns into when American voters are presented with the actual candidates.
“Senator Hothead” McCain is an intemperate, debilitated, corporate-militarist conservative who couldn’t possibly get his low energy brain out of the cold war era. A compromised figure of the past, savings and loan scandals and all. He freely and cheerfully admits he has no understanding of economics and thinks American military power should be even more freely used. The last foolish cheerleader of the exhausted American Empire.
He supported the invasion of Iraq as soon as he heard about it, and has cravenly renounced any actual “independent” stances he ever took on tax cuts and fiscal prudence to kowtow to the Tax Cuts for Growth loons. He’s a crazed conservative on social issues and will destroy the federal courts for another 30 years. His campaign is reportedly being funded by corporate lobbyists.
Americans are too dumb to understand that when a party has become unmoored from any sense whatever, that electing a president from that party will not redress the problem. The Repub party is made up of neocons (who McCain agrees with utterly), Theocons (whom McCain will and must placate) and gub’mint hatin’ tax cutters (whom McCain must kowtow to). These are the elements of the Repub party as constituted today, the exact elements that gave us the Bush misrule.
There is absolutely nothing McCain could do (or would wish to) to counter these factions. So President McCain woukd mean more of the policies of Bushco, except that McCain will actually be making the disastrous decisions, not Cheney. So that will be your “change”, American fools—the same rocky path to nowhere that we currently are on, but with a much older, crankier chuckwagon cook. YeeHa, little doggies!
I may be kidding myself, but I think that McCain may be peaking.
We’ve all heard the love stories about his relationship to the press corps — he’s pretty well gotten a free ride (and publicity) so far.
He’s got a lot more to lose when the press (and the DFL) take a closer look at what he’s really saying. Is Minnesota really ready for Phil Gramm economics? Strong support for George Bush on Iraq?
I think that the support has been mostly for John McCain the war hero, not John McCain the candidate. Hopefully this will change.
I’m waiting for the Republicans to protest the banning of elephant rides (Dorothy Kersten, where are you?).
Make that katherine kersten (I’ll send Dorothy back to Oz ;-).
Parthian wrote: It’s amusing what the supposed desire for “change” turns into when American voters are presented with the actual candidates.
Exactly. Remember that these results take in the quality (or lack thereof) of the alternatives.
If you dont think so, Ask yourself how John Kerry ever managed to lose to W in 2004.
Talking with a left leaning friend of mine last Saturday, he allowed as how if the choice were between Clinton and McCain he would go with McCain. If it were between Obama and McCain, he said he would have a problem.
Though often at odds, we found ourselves in agreement.
Doesn’t know much about Johnny Mac, does he.
PK, I assume you’re responding to John’s friend. The choice probably doesn’t have as much to do with knowledge about McCain as much as it does simply paying attention to the Clintons.
I don’t see how anyone (who isn’t delusional) could consider themselves ‘left leaning’ and even consider choosing McCain over either Clinton or Obama.
Just take a look at the voting records.
Of course, John doesn’t make it clear whether the friend considers himself left leaning, or whether the label is John’s.
PK, you need to stir out and meet more people. Last summer I talked with a very intelligent and poltically attentive young lady who was having trouble deciding between Obama and Romney. Obviously their politics are very different but she was trying to decided based on their character and their ability to lead.
As Eric noted, McCain gets huge praise for honesty above party. For some large group of people this trumps the individual above party of the Clintons. Obviously Obama is a different story and I don’t know how ‘indpendents’ would choose between the two.
You state the problem nicely.
The question is not whether there exist people who might be uncertain about choosing between a Democrat who is thoroughly on the left and a Republican who is equally far to the right,
but where choosing on the basis of vague qualities like leadership ability without considering where we will be led to will get us.