McCain's Streak of Luck ... and Good Planning
Matt Welch | January 19, 2008, 9:47pm
John McCain's victory tonight, which finally ripped the eight-year-old South Carolina monkey off his back, is the culmination of a whole season's worth of remarkable good luck for a campaign that was declared dead more times last summer than Abe Vigoda. Much of the campaign's once-wishful sounding dominoes fell almost perfectly into place:
1) Mitt Romney, McCain's chief early-state-strategy rival, was knocked off of his front-runner's perch in Iowa by an out-of-nowhere revolt from a candidate not named Giuliani. 2) That candidate, Mike Huckabee, caused the GOP establishment to rear up on its hind legs, let out a mighty hiss, and start looking for an "electable" alternative. 3) The Romney defeat, combined with McCain's natural talents at door-to-door campaigning in independent-heavy New Hampshire, led to a repeat of his 2000 victory there. 4) McCain's early poor polling, plus his personal friendships with other candidates, basically gave him a free ride in terms of criticism from the contenders. 5) Giuliani's late-state strategy, as predicted but not guaranteed, caused his early national lead to evaporate, and led to routine humiliations in early primaries by Ron Paul. 6) Paul's libertarian revolt, while exceeding most expectations, nevertheless failed to take a serious bite out of McCain's support among independents. 7) McCain's friend Fred Thompson, who entered the race when it looked like McCain was going nowhere, failed to catch fire, and fizzled in the very state he was supposed to take: South Carolina. He looks set to drop out and back his old campaign finance reform buddy.
So, it's mostly all broken right for McCain. But not everything -- Romney has pivoted pretty quickly into an opportunistically delegate-scarfing strategy, and he beat McCain in Michigan. Florida, which McCain and everyone else has identified as the kingmaking state, is currently a threefour-way tie. Guiliani's late-state strategy might yet pay off on Super Tuesday. And McCain has longstanding deficits in money, organization, and love from the GOP base. This race is still wide, wide open ... and interesting.
Eric Dondero | January 20, 2008, 6:15am | #
Okay, every one of you here needs to take a gander at the Web's number one political junkie site for Republicans - Race42008.com Big article this morning: "It's Over, McCain has won."
The thread is already up to 400 posts.
Of the 400, not a single mention of Ron Paul. The regular Republicans are completely ignoring him.
His 13%, tied to 2nd place showing in Nevada has not phased them in the least.
Not good news for me either, because the story line has shifted from Romney's huge NV win to McCain, McCain, McCain.
Ironically, most of the posters are now saying that Rudy Giuliani is the only one who can head McCain off. They're saying that the only chance left to stop McCain is Florida with Rudy.
I don't agree of course. Mitt has more delegates than anyone else in the field. Ironically, Mitt seems to deal better than anyone else in Western States. NV and WY completely rejected McCain.
I suspect that would carry over to delegate rich California.
But, and I hate myself for saying this, only one Economic Conservative candidate can remain standing.
Rudy and Mitt need to cut a deal. If they don't, we're stuck with McCain.
From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | January 20, 2008, 2:37pm | #
The Primary is still open on the Republican side. I think McCain has the best shot, but he will still have to deal with the brokered convention.
Hillary Clinton vs John McCain:
Sure, Hillary may not be liked, but she'll win. The two campaigns represent the old school divide and conquer strategy. Hillary will be looking to the soccer moms and McCain wll be looking to the nascar dads. Interesting thing, for every white woman I've met that will vote for Hillary for the sake of being a woman, I know another white woman that won't just because she's a woman.
Problem is two fold: Hillary's Record isn't that different from GWs. So she can say she's "responsible" about the war to promote democracy at gunpoint. She can actually boast being tougher on immigration than McCain. She'll talk about how the government can provide healthcare coverage for the poor and the uninsured. She'll talk about how the government needs to stop jobs from going overseas and make things fair for the Middle Class.
McCain will talk about how he's been in government for 25 years. He's the only one with the foreign policy to save us from unbathed towelheads. He'll mumble on and on about some sort of half baked market solution to healthcare in which most of the electorate won't have time to understand inbetween flipping to their favorite tv shows.McCain will also see how fickle his friends in specific media outlets really are. Of Course CNN is routing for him, he's too liberal for his own party. Wait until he gets the nomination and the gloves come off. He's not a looker, he's doesn't have anything new to say, and he's not offering me money from the government. He's not gonna win.
Neither candidate appeals to young people, not that they'll vote. McCain will be ultimately hurt by the fact that the Republican Party is fracturing, isn't raising enough money, and they'll be facing the political machine which got Clinton re-elected during a huge correction to the Republican's Favor. Simply because McCain won't be able to change the dynamic of this election and force Clinton to compete by new standards.
If Hillary is really worried about the likability factor, all she has to do is pick Obama as her running mate. A Hillary/Obama ticket, McCain/ Other wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
The real story of this election is how the internet has played a huge role. The average person is afforded a bigger role in the process. Where as in the past you needed to know somebody to really get involved, now grass roots is making a difference. Now you can meet up with anyone via the internet and distribute flyers in your precinct. You will see direct mail budgets shrink in future campaigns. You're going to continue to see that primaries in the future will be broken up and fractured.
People in states that used to not make a difference will suddenly find themselves with a more concrete opportunity to change the electorate. The Money will follow as ratings will boost when they promote the hype of later state's primaries. State and local gov will also promote the new trend hoping to soak up some of the money state's like Iowa and New Hampshire take for granted every four years. The Traditional Media is not going to be able to compete with an unregulated media. Now you can just email or text your friends.
The average voter average is younger in this election and that trend is going to continue downward for the next few election cycles. As the internet continues to revolutionize our lives and allow for revolutionary networking, you're going to see more and more "Fringe" candidates raise money and compete on a national level.
alisa | January 21, 2008, 10:02am | #
About this consequentialist business --
let's take a concrete example.
A. Some people oppose a minimum wage hike because it will cause unemployment and contribute to poverty.
B. Some people oppose the minimum wage, period, because it interferes with the rights of workers and employers to voluntarily agree on a price for labor.
A utilitarian or consequentialist would take position A, but not B. I tend to think this diminishes the importance of individual freedoms, which is why I'm not a strict utilitarian. But arguing, as some libertarians do, that social concerns like A are irrelevant, misses the fact that there are dangers besides the loss of liberty. When someone comes to you and says that the challenge of the present is to end extreme poverty, do you say, "Sorry, not interested"? Or do you say, "Yes, and libertarian policies are the best way to achieve that"?
I don't think Steven Horwitz was advocating communism or fascism, and neither am I. This is just a plea for pragmatism; too few people are even aware that individual rights are valuable.
Friedman wasn't saying that a free society doesn't work, only that there will always be political forces seeking to overturn it. He was more than willing to argue that the free market could reduce racism and poverty, improve education and national security, in addition to the intrinsic value it gives to human freedom.
