As the presidential campaign has unfolded, I imagine most Dems have been looking at the Republican field, sizing them up for a general election campaign. Regardless of merit or qualifications, some of these guys would be more formidable than others. Dems, of course, aren’t exactly in a position to influence the outcome — we have our own contest to worry about — but who the GOP chooses as its nominee might be relevant to who the Dems pick as theirs.
Of course, it’s a subjective guessing game. From where I sit, I would worry a lot less if Republicans nominated Fred Thompson (too much like Bush), Mitt Romney (too much like a Ken doll), Rudy Giuliani (too imbalanced), or Ron Paul (too much like Ron Paul). I worry slightly more about Mike Huckabee, despite his glaring flaws, because he’s likeable and charming. I worry most about John McCain, who is perceived, falsely, as a moderate.
TNR’s Jonathan Chait argued that Hillary Clinton’s success in New Hampshire makes McCain’s rise more likely.
The odds of a Republican presidency suddenly got a lot higher. There’s really only one potential matchup that would give the GOP a better than even chance of winning: John McCain versus Hillary Clinton. McCain is a popular personality who can attract the support of voters who aren’t inclined to support his party. Clinton is an unpopular personality who loses the support of voters who are otherwise inclined to support her party. If she wins the nomination, it will be because she’s a polarizing figure who rallies Democrats as the object of Republican attacks.
Kevin Drum offers the opposite perspective.
There are two things that keep me from being worried about a Clinton vs. McCain matchup. The first is that this simply looks to be a Democratic year. Tick off the reasons: Americans don’t like to keep a single political party in the White House for more than eight years (it’s only happened once in the postwar era). The war in Iraq is unpopular. The economy is sinking. The 9/11 effect has worn off. Conservatives are tired and plainly lack new ideas.
Second, I don’t think McCain is nearly as attractive a candidate as a lot of people think. Again, tick off the reasons: He’s 72 years old. He’s a dead-ender for the war. (Do you think “a million years in Iraq” will play well with moderates in November?) A lot of his independent cred has been shredded over the past couple of years. He’ll get evangelical votes, but he won’t get their enthusiastic support, the way George Bush did. Ditto for nativist votes. He’s got a long, very conservative voting record that’s never really been exposed to a national audience. The Keating Five scandal will get revisited. Press ardor for McCain will likely diminish as his campaign becomes less open, as it’s bound to do.
I’m torn, but I’m leaning in Chait’s direction.
I’m willing to discount all the early polling about hypothetical general election match-ups. If national primary polls are meaningless, and I think they are, then national general election polls are even less helpful.
I’m far more concerned about perceptions. Yes, McCain is old, but he’s a “youthful” 72, and age doesn’t always make a difference (Reagan), particularly when people are afraid. His position on Iraq is ridiculous, and has been for years, but he’s perceived as an authority on military matters**. There’s considerable distaste for him in religious right circles, but I have a hunch the Dobson crowd would get over it fairly quickly if given a chance to vote against Hillary Clinton. The same goes for the Tancredo/Minutemen wing of the far-right.
McCain does have a consistently conservative voting record that most Americans would find distasteful, but since when have American voters cared about voting records? He’ll go on Jon Stewart, crack a few jokes, and a large number of people will just swoon, based on nothing more than personality.
As for the media, as much as I’d love to think their nauseating crush on McCain will fade, I’ve been waiting for that to happen for eight years — and every political reporter I can think of still treats the guy like a folk hero. (I mean that literally — Roger Simon, not too long ago, labeled McCain a “folk hero.”) The scrutiny just never seems to come; news outlets seem to let McCain play by a different set of rules. In contrast, these same professional journalists, driven by animus that I can neither explain nor comprehend, hate Hillary Clinton.
To be sure, there are plenty of risks for Dems in an Obama-McCain or an Edwards-McCain match-up. I envision a debate in which McCain treats either of them as upstart kids who haven’t worked hard enough to earn his respect. I fear a “stature gap,” based on nothing but perceptions.
But Clinton? My biggest fear about her candidacy is her ability to take on McCain. If he’s the GOP nominee, I think Obama may offer a better contrast — the past vs. the future.
Kevin concludes, “I’m not afraid of McCain,” adding, “He’s eminently beatable.” I sincerely wish I could share in his optimism.
How about you?
** This is exactly what I’m talking about: “Despite his push for an indefinite presence in Iraq, McCain somehow had a ‘wide advantage’ yesterday with New Hampshire Republicans who ‘disapproved of the war.'” His position is irrelevant; they just trust him. That’s not encouraging.