Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

GOP 2008: The McCain Coalition [Karl]

At RCP, Jay Cost addresses the argument that Sen. John McCain’s victories in the early states have been due to the conservative vote being split among many candidates.  After a brief primer on “social choice” theory and crunching the exit poll numbers, Cost concludes:

…I do not think one can argue that McCain’s wins have been dependent on a divided field. Independents, moderates, and Bush disapprovers have certainly formed the backbone of McCain’s voting coalition. However, McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy’s base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright – but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.

I think the Romney supporters are on better empirical ground to argue that their candidate’s problem has been that Bush supporters and strong conservatives simply have not made up a sufficiently large share of the vote – and that “true” Republicans need to “wake up.” Accordingly, their goal should be to turn out more of their voters. Maybe they will be able to do this in California today.

Perhaps, though it seems to me that the total number of Bush supporters and strong conservatives is finite, to put it mildly.  I would still argue that Romney’s problem — or a major one of several — is that he is unable to thin McCain’s support among those who self-identify as “somewhat conservative” for reasons I have already beaten to death, but which Romney seems disinclined to address.

22 Replies to “GOP 2008: The McCain Coalition [Karl]”

  1. B Moe says:

    In other words, the moderate middle has become overwhelmingly populist. We are fucked.

  2. Mikey NTH says:

    The moderate middle swings in the middle, and always has. Sometimes left of center, sometimes right of center. Nothing is permanent in electoral politics – nothing. It is all built on shifting public opinion. To say that we are screwed is folly, B Moe. Presidential politics does not play to the extremes and never has, no matter how loud those at the extreme ends of the spectrum carry on, and insisting that the extreme be catered to is a recipe for losing political power.

    As an example, I will point to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid: they have catered to the desires of the extreme wing of the Democrats, have not been able to achieve anything, and are now finding themselves under attack from within. The focus is on the presidential race, but the congressional elections are going to be very interesting.

  3. Our Paul says:

    Mikey NTH:

    Don’t think you got it quite right. Mr. Reid is under attack from the more liberal component of the Democratic party. The poor dears actually think that if they committed a crime, it is not the business of Congress to grant pardons to the telecoms. Imagine that, those freaking nuts actually think that the President and his minions have to obey the law!

    As for mother Nancy, why she actually insisted on Friday legislative sessions. No wonder some are ticked off at her!!!

  4. JD says:

    Our Paul – Just because they have delusions does not make them real.

  5. Education Guy says:

    The poor dears actually think that if they committed a crime, it is not the business of Congress to grant pardons to the telecoms.

    Pardons? Wow, it’s almost as if you have absolutely no idea what it is you are talking about. You poor dear.

  6. B Moe says:

    The middle is shifting, MikeyNTH, which means what was once extreme on the left isn’t so much anymore, and what was once the right base is slowly becoming marginalized as extreme. The moonbats slow take over of the Democrats is chasing what were once established Democrats to the Republicans. Like the neocons, for instance, which are now painted as extreme rightwing. It may be a simple pendulum swing as you say, but it seems more significant to me

  7. Mikey NTH says:

    If you look over the political history of the Twentieth Century, the pendulum swings back and forth in the middle. Taking to Occam’s Razor, I predict that what we are seeing is the same thing.
    It looks worse from where you stand because you’re in it, but that is true for everyone at everytime.

  8. Mikey NTH says:

    I said: “As an example, I will point to Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid: they have catered to the desires of the extreme wing of the Democrats, have not been able to achieve anything, and are now finding themselves under attack from within.”

    OurPaul said: “Don’t think you got it quite right. Mr. Reid is under attack from the more liberal component of the Democratic party.”

    Am I missing something here? O.P. just denied what I said and then confirmed it. I think.

  9. B Moe says:

    “If you look over the political history of the Twentieth Century, the pendulum swings back and forth in the middle.”

    I am certainly no expert on early 20th century American history, but I am having a hard time believing Hillary Clinton or John McCain would have been considered centrist at the onset.

  10. Mikey NTH says:

    They aren’t extremes, that’s for sure. They have pretty much royally ticked off the extreme wings of their parties with their apostasy.

  11. Brainster says:

    Both Patrick Ruffini and I ran the numbers in Florida based on the exit polling and found that if Huckabee were not in the race, his supporters would have broken about 44-33 for McCain over Romney with the remainder either voting for Giuliani or not voting at all. Seems non-intuitive, I admit, but Romney did attack Huck in Iowa, and there may be some resentment that the CC candidate was considered unacceptable while the acceptable candidate according to the drive-along media was a Mormon.

  12. B Moe says:

    But would they have been considered centrist in the early 1900s? That is the point I am trying to make. What is considered centrist has shifted drastically in the past several decades.

  13. Karl says:

    Brainster,

    It never seemed counter-intuitive to me. McCain has done well with evangelicals, and those that support Huck obviously are comfy with — or do not care about — Huck’s positions on immigration, global warming, etc. They are ripe for Mac, which is why Mac has played nice with Huck.

  14. Jeff G. says:

    Classical liberalism: now the “extreme” right wing, by your own reckoning, Mikey. Sure, no shift at all. Nothing to see here.

    Carry on, comrades!

  15. Mikey NTH says:

    Whatever, Jeff.

  16. happyfeet says:

    I’m scared.

  17. happyfeet says:

    The horizon come tomorrow is sort of bleak and ominous really. That’s sort of just the deal. Climate change hasn’t been an issue in these primaries, but that’s what people are voting on today. Cap and trade. Air. Who are these people?

  18. Jeff G. says:

    The “extremes”. Like, you know, those people who vote on ideological principle and Constitutional fealty, rather than the promise of “change” and “hope” and “Maverick” “outsiderism” (a mantle picked up by a guy who’s been in the Senate so long he’s left an ass print on a seat in the commissary, just adjacent to the Taco bar).

    Watching “party” Republicans bash Reaganism and cast as “extreme” those people in “their” party who are actually invested in the ideas of classical liberalism (rather than the Hannity-esque boosterism of party uber alles) is a sad thing.

    But, you know. Sometimes you have to burn down a village to save it. Even if it takes a village to burn one down in the first place.

  19. Carin says:

    How can you say Nancy! did get anything done? Besides running the most ethical Congress EVA!, she upscaled the WH dining hall. BRIE. Imagine that!

    But, someone explain to me what is this “apostasy” the “extreme right” is guilty of? The right hasn’t gotten more extreme. It’s the middle that’s become squishy. We’re fucked.

  20. happyfeet says:

    When people say they’re scared you’re opposed to say reassuring things even if they’re vapid and meaningless. Am I the only one that saw Cloverfield? Sheesh.

  21. psycho... says:

    Welcome, quasi-Reaganites and almost-libertarians, to the ever-growing world beyond the bounds of societal acceptability.

    I always liked you guys.

    (You’ve been here for a long time.)

  22. Carlo says:

    I think whoever wins nothing will change to the government. All of them dreaming and have one goal “to serve the nation”, I think people will decide who is worth for the position.

Comments are closed.