TV judge holds workshop at East
2008 homecomings
Area H.S. football: Week 8
Home > Blogs > Campaigns Don't Count > Archives > 2007 > November > 30 > Entry
McCain-Huckabee the Ticket?
David Broder and E.J. Dionne had the same reaction to the last Republican debate: that McCain and Huckabee were impressive, even statesmanlike, and that others were petty and off-putting. Broder spoke for his colleague when he referred to “Guiliani and Romney, whose mutual contempt is as palpable as it is persuasive.”
I don’t watch these debates. Nobody has told me I have to, and I find them really, really boring.
I gather that Huckabee and McCain actually said some nice things about immigrants, shaming the other two for trying to out Tancredo Tancredo (as Tancredo said).
For purposes of this blog, the point to pause over is Broder’s insistence that
“If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009, it’s pretty clear what it would do. It would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee…. From everything I have heard on the campaign trail, it’s obvious that they are the pair who have earned the widest respect.”
Let’s proceed, for the sake of argument, on the premise that these are the best two guys and the ones with the most appeal to moderates and non-Republicans.
The theory animating this blog offers no reason to believe they are any more electable than anybody else.
It is perhaps worth noting that a lot of people thought that the Republicans were blowing it in 2000, when they rejected McCain — who seemed obviously to have more appeal to independents than Bush. Similarly, polls, conventional wisdom and Gerald Ford suggested that the Republicans were blowing it in 1980 by going with the hard-edged conservative Ronald Reagan, rather than the soft-edged moderate Howard Baker.
It’s also worth noting that Broder points to nothing in history that suggests the greater electability of his guys.
Still, there is something commonsensical and, therefore, appealing about the notion that the way to win elections is to go with the most likable guys, the candidates with most appeal to the non-partisan voters who swing elections.
If that assumption is wrong, what’s wrong with it? Where does common sense break down?
It breaks down because every candidacy has its weaknesses.
To the degree that, in the general election, McCain and Huckabee suggest the case for them is that they are not the kinds of harsh conservatives that (allegedly) the country is turning against, they will look they are just parting from Bush because he has done so badly. And if even the Republicans are implicitly admitting that Bush has done so badly, then the case for punishing the Republicans is strong. If a party could avoid being punished for its mistakes by simply changing directions, then that party is not much motivated to avoid mistakes.
Put another way: Swing voters want to be able to pass judgment on a presidency. Voting for the same party is not a very satisfying way.
Anyway, McCain has angered an awful lot of Republicans with various positions. Whatever he picks up at the center, he might lose in enthusiasm, if not votes, on the right.
And, after all, McCain is a guy who was seen as the frontrunner at the beginning of the primary season and whose campaign was then widely seen as having collapsed. What does that say about how great a candidate he is?
As for Huckabee, there is simply no reason on earth to believe that vice presidential candidates matter.
All the above is really not to say that McCain is peculiarly weak, only that he has both strengths and weakness, like the others. What will matter in end is not the personal appeal of the nominee.
Permalink | | Categories: '80 race, 2008 presidential race
