Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
Assuming Sen. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pull off one of the most astounding political feats of all-time, the most likely November scenario is for Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain to both win the 2008 presidential election.
More specifically, Obama could win the popular vote by overwhelming McCain in the urban metropolitan areas of this great country. But McCain will win the right combination of suburban and rural states to win the war for the Electoral College.
Obama will no doubt bring progressive metro voters out in droves. His 80, 000-strong rally in Portland, Ore., made great headlines, but they will do no good in helping him win any new delegates. The urban areas in states like Oregon, New York, California, Washington and Massachusetts will only help Obama run up the popular vote score.
In 2004, President George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes compared to Sen. John Kerry’s 251. Let’s use this as a baseline and consider what states will be the new battlegrounds in 2008. Which states will Obama be likely to flip from red to blue ? Which blue states that Democrats normally took for granted will the moderate McCain force the Democrats to spend resources on ?
For starters, Colorado will flip to blue. Of the red western states that Obama could pick off, I would think that Colorado is most likely to switch to blue, although it trended slightly toward the GOP from 2000, when Bush won 50. 8 percent, to 2004, when Bush won with a more comfortable 52. 5 percent. Denver is leaning more to the left every day, however, and should help Obama swing the few percentage points he needs to flip the state. Colorado has nine electors, which would mean an 18-point swing for the Dems, bringing the count to 277 to 260.
Secondly, Pennsylvania will turn red. Three indicators point to McCain winning the Keystone state. First is the fact the state has only barely been held by Democrats, with both Vice President Al Gore and John Kerry winning the state by. 6 and. 8 percent respectively, meaning a moderate Republican could easily peel centrist voters from the liberal Obama. Another indicator is that the largest urban area, Philadelphia, has seen a large population decline. The city, which would be an Obama haven, may have lost as much as 5 percent of its population since 2004. The third indicator that shows Obama weakness in Pennsylvania was his poor performance in the Democratic primary there, where Clinton trounced him by 10 points. With its 21 electoral votes, the loss would be the most devastating for Democrats, even if they pick up Colorado, making the hypothetical count GOP 298 to Dems 239.
Blue states the Democrats will have to spend resources on but which shouldn’t flip red include Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. The red states Republicans will have to fight to keep from flipping blue include Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada. Florida, a state made for John McCain with its high senior and military population, will not be a battleground state during this election cycle.
Even if Pennsylvania doesn’t flip red, Obama will still have to close the 35 point electoral gap, meaning he’ll have to find states valued at around 18 electors to flip. The Democrats would like to pick off Ohio, but if the Democrats want Ohio, they are going to have to give the vice presidential nomination to Clinton, who trounced Obama by a 10-point spread there as well.
I doubt that Obama is going to nickel and dime that gap with states like New Mexico (five electors ) and Nevada (five electors ).
The unknown factor is how much McCain will appeal to moderates and independents in a general election. We know McCain is popular among these groups when pitted against other GOP candidates, but against a Democrat ? If Clinton were the nominee, McCain would be a hard sell, but against Barack Obama (a most liberal senator ) McCain could make inroads, costing Obama the popular vote and any moral victory.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
McCain is No W
Because of President George W. Bush’s low approval ratings, many Democrats and their liberal allies want the next presidential election to be a referendum on Bush’s performance over the past eight years.
The words “ Bush’s third term ” and even “ carbon copy of Bush” have already become commonplace among the second- and third-tier liberal pundits / hacks (and Democrat presidential candidates ) in describing the possibility of a John McCain administration.
Trendy online mag Salon (the Web’s answer to NPR ) proclaims: “ John McCain runs for Bush’s third term. ” On a North Carolina Democratic Web site: “ John McCain offers nothing more than a Bush third term. ” Sen. Barack Obama has even gotten into the action, saying Sen. McCain is determined “ to run for George Bush’s third term. ” You get the point. This stupid, oversimplified talking point is nonsense.
The only person who could legitimately claim to be giving us four more years of Bush administration is Vice President Dick Cheney. And he isn’t running for president last time I checked. Neither is Karl Rove, who I suppose could also legitimately carry the mantle of a “ third ” Bush term. But not McCain.
John McCain is no George W. Bush.
Before we go into the finer points of a comparison / contrast, let me be clear about my position. I am not here to praise John McCain. If we lived in a bizarro world and I had to either cast my vote for McCain or for four more years of Bush, then I would punch Bush on the ballot. I am also not here to defend Bush. (I’ve carried enough water for the president. ) He’s not perfect, but he certainly isn’t the devil incarnate that some of his enemies make him out to be.
Bush and McCain do share some similarities, besides party identification. One of their most egregious similarities is their willingness to work with Democrats to push legislation that really ticks off the conservative base. (Although one would think that Democrats are interested in Republicans who are willing to work across the aisle. )
Bush worked with liberal lion Sen. Ted Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, probably the largest, most expensive, most comprehensive federal education reform act since the creation of the Department of Education. Bush also worked with Democrats like Sen. Blanche Lincoln to give free drugs to seniors, expanding the Medicare entitlement program and taking away personal responsibility and putting it in the hands of the government. Both of these efforts steamed conservative ideologues.
McCain also worked with Democrats in the attempts to pass legislation many conservatives found nauseating. McCain’s work with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass “ campaign finance reform ” was really an assault on free speech and a bill that helped incumbents. McCain’s failed attempts to work with Democrats to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants last year drew the wrath of the A-list of conservative talk radio, from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage, and nearly killed his bid to become the GOP presidential nominee.
So Bush and McCain have both been known to tick off the conservative base to work with Democrats. The similarities primarily end here. How are they different ?
Bush and McCain disagreed harshly on the the war in Iraq. Bush and his top military adviser for the first six years of his administration, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, led the disastrous campaign to try and win the war with a light footprint. Gerard Baker, U. S. editor of the (U. K. ) Times, writes, “ For most of the last three years, John McCain has not missed an opportunity to tell anyone who would listen that the war in Iraq was being mismanaged by the Pentagon, that Donald Rumsfeld was doing a terrible job as Defense Secretary, and that the U. S. needed to recommit itself to winning the war with more troops and a new strategy aimed at defeating the insurgency. ”
After the 2006 GOP defeats, Bush changed from a light footprint to the surge strategy advocated by McCain and others, and the success in Iraq today is a testament to why Bush should have listened to McCain in the first place.
McCain is soft on pro-life / pro-family issues, Bush is soft on environmental issues. Social conservatives especially liked Bush because his pro-life stance was obviously founded in personal convictions about the nature of life. When Bush speaks about the sanctity of life and marriage, he exudes sincerity and real concern. When McCain speaks about limiting abortion, you feel more like he is just trying to take the appropriate political position. Conversely, when McCain talks about things like global warming and caps and trades on carbon emissions, we see a little fire in the old politician. Meanwhile, Bush’s global warming nods have seemed like political scraps to keep the environmentalists at bay.
McCain is not a tax-cut purist. A tax-cut purist believes that lowering the tax rate stimulates the economy, which grows the economy, which ultimately provides more revenue (in terms of absolute dollars ) than if the tax rate was higher. Bush’s tax cuts are embedded in this belief, and have for the most part proven true as the treasury is taking in more loot than ever before, even though the tax rate is lower. (If only we could keep spending in check, we’d be fiscally sounder. ) McCain initially voted against Bush’s tax cuts because he said that the immediate loss in revenue should be offset by lowering spending.
Democrats desperate to win the White House back and who want to run against Bush should remember that Bush managed to put together an electoral college strategy to victory twice. Instead of trying to compare McCain to Bush, they might start thinking if Sen. Obama smells a little too much like Sen. John Kerry or Sen. George McGovern.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
The words “ Bush’s third term ” and even “ carbon copy of Bush” have already become commonplace among the second- and third-tier liberal pundits / hacks (and Democrat presidential candidates ) in describing the possibility of a John McCain administration.
Trendy online mag Salon (the Web’s answer to NPR ) proclaims: “ John McCain runs for Bush’s third term. ” On a North Carolina Democratic Web site: “ John McCain offers nothing more than a Bush third term. ” Sen. Barack Obama has even gotten into the action, saying Sen. McCain is determined “ to run for George Bush’s third term. ” You get the point. This stupid, oversimplified talking point is nonsense.
The only person who could legitimately claim to be giving us four more years of Bush administration is Vice President Dick Cheney. And he isn’t running for president last time I checked. Neither is Karl Rove, who I suppose could also legitimately carry the mantle of a “ third ” Bush term. But not McCain.
John McCain is no George W. Bush.
Before we go into the finer points of a comparison / contrast, let me be clear about my position. I am not here to praise John McCain. If we lived in a bizarro world and I had to either cast my vote for McCain or for four more years of Bush, then I would punch Bush on the ballot. I am also not here to defend Bush. (I’ve carried enough water for the president. ) He’s not perfect, but he certainly isn’t the devil incarnate that some of his enemies make him out to be.
Bush and McCain do share some similarities, besides party identification. One of their most egregious similarities is their willingness to work with Democrats to push legislation that really ticks off the conservative base. (Although one would think that Democrats are interested in Republicans who are willing to work across the aisle. )
Bush worked with liberal lion Sen. Ted Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind, probably the largest, most expensive, most comprehensive federal education reform act since the creation of the Department of Education. Bush also worked with Democrats like Sen. Blanche Lincoln to give free drugs to seniors, expanding the Medicare entitlement program and taking away personal responsibility and putting it in the hands of the government. Both of these efforts steamed conservative ideologues.
McCain also worked with Democrats in the attempts to pass legislation many conservatives found nauseating. McCain’s work with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass “ campaign finance reform ” was really an assault on free speech and a bill that helped incumbents. McCain’s failed attempts to work with Democrats to provide amnesty for illegal immigrants last year drew the wrath of the A-list of conservative talk radio, from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage, and nearly killed his bid to become the GOP presidential nominee.
So Bush and McCain have both been known to tick off the conservative base to work with Democrats. The similarities primarily end here. How are they different ?
Bush and McCain disagreed harshly on the the war in Iraq. Bush and his top military adviser for the first six years of his administration, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, led the disastrous campaign to try and win the war with a light footprint. Gerard Baker, U. S. editor of the (U. K. ) Times, writes, “ For most of the last three years, John McCain has not missed an opportunity to tell anyone who would listen that the war in Iraq was being mismanaged by the Pentagon, that Donald Rumsfeld was doing a terrible job as Defense Secretary, and that the U. S. needed to recommit itself to winning the war with more troops and a new strategy aimed at defeating the insurgency. ”
After the 2006 GOP defeats, Bush changed from a light footprint to the surge strategy advocated by McCain and others, and the success in Iraq today is a testament to why Bush should have listened to McCain in the first place.
McCain is soft on pro-life / pro-family issues, Bush is soft on environmental issues. Social conservatives especially liked Bush because his pro-life stance was obviously founded in personal convictions about the nature of life. When Bush speaks about the sanctity of life and marriage, he exudes sincerity and real concern. When McCain speaks about limiting abortion, you feel more like he is just trying to take the appropriate political position. Conversely, when McCain talks about things like global warming and caps and trades on carbon emissions, we see a little fire in the old politician. Meanwhile, Bush’s global warming nods have seemed like political scraps to keep the environmentalists at bay.
McCain is not a tax-cut purist. A tax-cut purist believes that lowering the tax rate stimulates the economy, which grows the economy, which ultimately provides more revenue (in terms of absolute dollars ) than if the tax rate was higher. Bush’s tax cuts are embedded in this belief, and have for the most part proven true as the treasury is taking in more loot than ever before, even though the tax rate is lower. (If only we could keep spending in check, we’d be fiscally sounder. ) McCain initially voted against Bush’s tax cuts because he said that the immediate loss in revenue should be offset by lowering spending.
Democrats desperate to win the White House back and who want to run against Bush should remember that Bush managed to put together an electoral college strategy to victory twice. Instead of trying to compare McCain to Bush, they might start thinking if Sen. Obama smells a little too much like Sen. John Kerry or Sen. George McGovern.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Hucakbee's VP stock rising
Conventional wisdom suggests Sen. John McCain will not pick former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to be his running mate this summer. Doing so will really tick off two vocal, powerful groups of Republicans: the elite Manhattan / Wall Street crowd, and the conservative punditocracy (led by talk radio and publications like National Review ).
Huckabee was unfairly branded (I speculate by rival Gov. Mitt Romney's operatives in the conservative media ) as proillegal immigration and pro-tax, earning him the ire of flaming pens and talking heads from George Will to Ann Coulter.
As a Huckabee fan, I admit that I would love to see the former Baptist minister on the ticket, but had resigned myself to conventional wisdom, knowing that McCain needs to find a universally liked VP candidate to unite the GOP in November. However, after seeing Huckabee and McCain campaign together and after looking at Huckabee's continued support in the primaries, the conventional wisdom.
Reason No. 1 why McCain will pick Mike: Huckabee pulls evangelicals back into the GOP fold. I estimate that evangelical voters could represent about 30 percent of the Republican rank and file. George W. Bush wouldn't have become president if these people (myself included ) didn't come out to vote - just ask Karl Rove.
This is a real problem for McCain, who has little inherent appeal to evangelical Christians. McCain's faith is personal at best, and perhaps even nonexistent. I have seen some evangelical Christians gravitate to Sen. Barack Obama. This interesting phenomenon is easily explained. Obama right now has the mantle of "compassion," something with serious appeal to benevolent Christians, who sometimes believe government should fill in where the church has failed. President Bush's "compassionate conservatism"coupled with his acknowledgment of Jesus' influence in his life won over evangelicals - and the White House.
Although the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco has slowed Obama down, his strategy of playing up his faith and appearing compassionate has some evangelicals, particularly those who have never liked McCain, thinking about voting for the Democrat. Huckabee as VP brings these evangelicals back into the fold.
Huckabee's evangelical appeal is important because it's not particularly regional. Although evangelical voters are concentrated in the South, they have some strength in every state in the Union. McCain will have no trouble bringing the moderate Republicans and Hawks to vote. The evangelicals Huckabee might bring could represent as much as a five point boost in many critical states.
Proof of Huckabee's appeal to core evangelicals showed up in Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. A withdrawn Huckabee came in second in both states, picking up 12 and 10 percent of the vote, respectively. These voters are evangelical Christians who are sending a message to McCain: Pick our guy, and we'll come out for you.
Reason No. 2 why McCain picks Mike: Huckabee also solidifies the South for McCain. No GOP calculus sends Republicans to Pennsylvania Avenue without southern dominance. With Huckabee on the ticket, McCain can take the fight to the blue states instead of having to worry about defending GOP strongholds. In many ways, Huckabee can hold down the Southern red state fort while McCain forces Obama to spend resources in states like California, where moderate Republicans like McCain have appeal.
Reason No. 3 why McCain picks Mike: Because McCain is truly a maverick. McCain obviously likes Huckabee, enjoys campaigning with him, and they both respect each other. Meanwhile, now that McCain is the nominee, McCain and the conservative pundit class can just barely hold their noses and tolerate each other. Why should McCain try to appease this group ? They did everything they could to deny McCain the nomination, and failed.
While riding a campaign bus in Little Rock, McCain told the gathered press that Huckabee energizes people. I think Huckabee energizes McCain, and the senator is going to decide that he's going to want to keep that charge around when facing Obama this fall.
Huckabee was unfairly branded (I speculate by rival Gov. Mitt Romney's operatives in the conservative media ) as proillegal immigration and pro-tax, earning him the ire of flaming pens and talking heads from George Will to Ann Coulter.
As a Huckabee fan, I admit that I would love to see the former Baptist minister on the ticket, but had resigned myself to conventional wisdom, knowing that McCain needs to find a universally liked VP candidate to unite the GOP in November. However, after seeing Huckabee and McCain campaign together and after looking at Huckabee's continued support in the primaries, the conventional wisdom.
Reason No. 1 why McCain will pick Mike: Huckabee pulls evangelicals back into the GOP fold. I estimate that evangelical voters could represent about 30 percent of the Republican rank and file. George W. Bush wouldn't have become president if these people (myself included ) didn't come out to vote - just ask Karl Rove.
This is a real problem for McCain, who has little inherent appeal to evangelical Christians. McCain's faith is personal at best, and perhaps even nonexistent. I have seen some evangelical Christians gravitate to Sen. Barack Obama. This interesting phenomenon is easily explained. Obama right now has the mantle of "compassion," something with serious appeal to benevolent Christians, who sometimes believe government should fill in where the church has failed. President Bush's "compassionate conservatism"coupled with his acknowledgment of Jesus' influence in his life won over evangelicals - and the White House.
Although the Rev. Jeremiah Wright fiasco has slowed Obama down, his strategy of playing up his faith and appearing compassionate has some evangelicals, particularly those who have never liked McCain, thinking about voting for the Democrat. Huckabee as VP brings these evangelicals back into the fold.
Huckabee's evangelical appeal is important because it's not particularly regional. Although evangelical voters are concentrated in the South, they have some strength in every state in the Union. McCain will have no trouble bringing the moderate Republicans and Hawks to vote. The evangelicals Huckabee might bring could represent as much as a five point boost in many critical states.
Proof of Huckabee's appeal to core evangelicals showed up in Tuesday's primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. A withdrawn Huckabee came in second in both states, picking up 12 and 10 percent of the vote, respectively. These voters are evangelical Christians who are sending a message to McCain: Pick our guy, and we'll come out for you.
Reason No. 2 why McCain picks Mike: Huckabee also solidifies the South for McCain. No GOP calculus sends Republicans to Pennsylvania Avenue without southern dominance. With Huckabee on the ticket, McCain can take the fight to the blue states instead of having to worry about defending GOP strongholds. In many ways, Huckabee can hold down the Southern red state fort while McCain forces Obama to spend resources in states like California, where moderate Republicans like McCain have appeal.
Reason No. 3 why McCain picks Mike: Because McCain is truly a maverick. McCain obviously likes Huckabee, enjoys campaigning with him, and they both respect each other. Meanwhile, now that McCain is the nominee, McCain and the conservative pundit class can just barely hold their noses and tolerate each other. Why should McCain try to appease this group ? They did everything they could to deny McCain the nomination, and failed.
While riding a campaign bus in Little Rock, McCain told the gathered press that Huckabee energizes people. I think Huckabee energizes McCain, and the senator is going to decide that he's going to want to keep that charge around when facing Obama this fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
