Is it better to be lucky or good?

There were plenty of political obituaries written for John McCain eight months ago, when his campaign was struggling to make payroll, the senator’s top aides quit, and he could no longer afford a campaign bus, which all looks rather amusing in hindsight, given that he’s now the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

So, how’d he turn this around? Ross Douthat makes the case that McCain got really lucky.

[M]uch of what’s happened to make McCain the presumptive nominee has been luck, pure and simple. He was lucky, to begin with, that George W. Bush lacked an heir apparent – no Jeb, no Condi, no Dick Cheney – who could unite the movement establishment against him.

He was lucky that Mitt Romney was a Mormon. He was lucky that Fred Thompson, a candidate who might have succeeded in rallying both social and economic conservatives against his various heresies, was out-campaigned by Mike Huckabee, whose appeal was ultimately too sectarian to make him a threat. He was lucky that Rudy Giuliani ran an inutterably lousy campaign. (More on this anon.) He was lucky that Mike Huckabee won Iowa; lucky that the media basically treated that win as a McCain victory (though obviously his skill in cultivating the press made a big difference, in that case and many others); lucky, as David Freddoso suggests, that Huckabee decided to campaign in New Hampshire and (taking my foolish advice) Michigan instead of going straight to South Carolina; lucky that Giuliani decided not to campaign in New Hampshire after Christmas; and lucky, finally, that Fred Thompson decided to go all in against Huckabee in South Carolina, thus delivering McCain the Palmetto State and with it Florida.

And he was lucky, above all, that his strongest challenger was a guy that almost nobody liked — not the media, not his fellow candidates, and not enough of the voters, in the end.

That sounds about right, but I’d add just one more thing.

McCain was really lucky that he tanked in the late spring — before anyone was really paying attention. If you’re reading this, chances are you’re pretty politically engaged and far more informed than the typical voter. But it’s worth noting that when McCain’s campaign was declared a joke back in, say, April, the 2008 presidential race was not at all on the national radar. Americans just weren’t engaged — it was far too early — and they didn’t know and didn’t care that McCain’s campaign was experiencing an embarrassing upheaval.

Consider the national polls, just as a gauge. By the early summer, when the conventional wisdom insisted that McCain stood no chance, he was running second, behind a guy whose campaign was largely vaporware. How’d he do that? That’s just it; McCain didn’t have to do much of anything — the Republican rank and file already knew him, recognized what he brought to the table, and most of them liked him. He didn’t need commercials or the buzz from The Note; he was John McCain, and that was enough. That, plus the undying adulation from reporters covering the campaign, was more than enough to carry him through a “recuperation” period.

From there, it was simply a matter of waiting until everyone else collapsed. Giuliani was a joke candidate, Huckabee was a niche candidate, Thompson was a lazy candidate, and Romney was a Mormon candidate who was moderate-to-liberal up until a few minutes ago. And with that, McCain, through process of elimination, was the last man standing.

Sometimes, it really is better to be lucky than good.

All of us (including McCain) are lucky that there wasn’t a credible terrorist attack during the past year. It might have made Giuliani credible to more Republican voters, and we wouldn’t be saying “goodbye” to him today.

  • Well I guess McCain was good at cultivating reporters. You gotta give him that. I’m sure the Republicans will spin McCain wheel-spinning all those months as some kind of profile in courage, Horatio Alger story. I hope that he and Hillary aren’t such good buddies that she will hesitate to go after him in the election.

    “If you will it, it is no accident.” VI Lenin via Walter Sobcheck via my own faulty memory.

  • Ever since McCain made that comment about wrestling with a pig I can only think of him as a pig. Strange how that works…

  • This was rather predictable. The least objectionable candidate won, and now he’s going to get the tepid support of a party that would almost rather not win. Let’s face it, if McCain wins, he inherits the war, which ain’t gonna be any fun to deal with. They want to hand that soggy bag of crap to the Dems. They know that in four years, all of Bush’s fuckups will be transformed, through the magic of corporate media, into Democratic failures.

    Many of the Republicans want the Dems to take over and fail to solve all the problems Bush made, so that in 2012 they can take the presidency back. They feel that Bill Clinton’s shenanigans made GW Bush viable, so they’re hoping for an ineffective Dem president with ethical issues.

  • It’s luckier to be only slightly flawed then deeply flawed. It’s also lucky to be the recipient of Bush-guilt votes from those Republicans who remember the 2000 primary.

  • Doug…Clinton will wipe the floor with him. You’re just looking at personalities and dislike Clinton. A majority doesn’t want “more wars”, Iraq occupation forever, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, no national healthcare plan, etc. It’s a long list. He’s still a republican and Hillary is a democrat and with this election that is all it takes. No republican will win the WH…your comment is just another way to belittle Clinton and has no basis in reality.

  • He is also lucky that his constituents, the press, stopped covering the war in Iraq. If the war makes the front page again, all bets are off. The MSM continues to spread the news that the surge is working as they ignore any serious analysis. That may not actually be the case and who knows? Perhaps someone will say something that makes it into the 6:00 PM news.

  • My fingers are crossed for a Romney comeback. He would be a much easier candidate to defeat in the general, since the press doesn’t like him, while they adore McCain.

    Regardless, either McCain or Romney would make it easier to keep republican issues-voters at home.

  • I can’t believe no one else has mentioned this, but the biggest stroke of luck for John McCain happened all the way back in November 2006, when Jim Webb defeated the man who would undoubtedly be the Republican front-runner right now had he held onto his senate seat, George Allen. Like Bush before him, Allen was someone who could have united all three ugly facets of the GOP coalition– bible-thumpers, warmongers, and moneywhores. Without Allen, the coalition is split, with Huckabee appealing to the first group, McCain the second, and Romney the third. McCain may be the presumptive frontrunner at this moment, but he still engenders distrust and even outright hatred from factions on the right– factions that would have gladly lined up behind George Allen.

    Frankly, I think we can ALL count ourselves lucky that Webb beat Allen. Our country would be in for a worse disaster than Bush if Allen were slated to win the presidency!

  • @9 You may want to look at the polling before you make a statement like that. Wipe the floor with him? I think the polling is basically tied.

    I actually don’t hate the Clintons – just the way they’ve campaigned this time – so I won’t vote for them. And of all the Repubs, McCain would get the longest look from me.

  • Sounds about right. But McCain was ALSO lucky that George Allen turned out to have more mouth than sense. And that the Republican Party in general was so attached to GWB that no one has been left untainted by his touch – some portions of the Republican Party seem to have a bit of “buyer’s remorse” and might be wondering what might have been had they put McCain in office in the first place, instead of the idiot scion of an arisotcratic family who never accomplished anything on his own.

  • @9 You may want to look at the polling before you make a statement like that. Wipe the floor with him? I think the polling is basically tied.

    No, McCain LEADS both… All luck though, right CB??? Hillary and Obama are lucky they aren’t running against FDR, JFK or Bill Clinton!!!

  • McCain’s biggest stroke of luck is that each party has to nominate *somebody*, and he’s the only one that the majority of Republican voters can at least tolerate even if they have to hold their noses real tight to do it.

    It would be a hoot to have an uncontested presidential election this year (and in some sense I think it will end up that way), but somebody has to be on the ballot for both sides and right now it does look like it will be McCain for the Republicans, for all the good it will do them.

  • You’re just looking at personalities…

    Yeah, because that’s never been decisive in presidential elections, right? bjo, I wish I had your faith in the electorate, and you and others here have actually half-convinced me to hold my nose and vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee. But there’s a reason why “generic Democrat” beats “generic Republican” every cycle, but the Republican usually wins regardless. And it isn’t policy.

  • “He is also lucky that his constituents, the press, stopped covering the war in Iraq.” — Gracious @ 11

    You got it. For all the reconciliation the surge was supposed to provide cover for, the Iraqis have made almost no progress. They can’t even agree on a slightly modified flag without threatening a return to violence — this time, with US weapons. I certainly hope things don’t escalate over there, but if they should, McCain would have a lot of explaining to do.

  • I’d like to see Fred Thompson run in a three way race as an independant. Maybe a revival of the”Bull Moose” party? I think he would find his voice. What do you think, Steve?

    Wayne

  • Dajafi is right. Anyone who thinks that people vote with their heads, rather than their guts, needs to read The Political Brain by Drew Westen. The Dems need to nominate someone who can appeal to people’s hearts. That’s why all the people who bemoan the supposed “lack of substance” in Obama’s campaign are missing the point. All of the Democrats (well, now that would just be “both” of the Dems, not “all”) have virtually the same agenda as far as substance goes (the only substantive difference is not in their current agendas, but in past voting records– namely, The Big One– Hillary’s vote for authorizing the war). Both Hillary and Obama will make much better presidents than McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. The fact that Hillary includes lists of policies in her speeches while Obama uses uplifting rhetoric is a key difference between the two. For too long, Democrats have been counting on the American public to use their heads. Instead, voters like to warm up to a candidate, to feel good about so-and-so as a person. If Gore had been half as impassioned in 2000 as he was in An Inconvenient Truth, the past 7 years would have been worlds better! Instead, he presented himself as a policy wonk, who had so little personality that he had to be told when to smile and what to wear. That doesn’t win people over.

    JFK made America feel good. So, unfortunately, did Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton was decent at it, although he was definitely more of an ambiguous figure in the public eye, a phenomenon that may have stemmed from his reputation as a womanizer. In order to win, our candidate has to be someone who engenders positivity. I am by no means suggesting running an empty suit with a toothy grin– we must always have the substance to back up our forward-thinking rhetoric– but presentation does matter. To believe otherwise is to once again go loping off in November with a 49% loss.

  • In response to stevem, there is a long, long way between now and November– lots of time for us to dig up McCain’s atrocious record and hammer it into people’s minds. If we fight hard enough, we can overcome the disgusting GOP and its willing handmaiden, the mainstream media. It will be tough, but it is possible.

  • I say fund billboards from coast to coast of the McCain-Bush hug — you know the one where McCain looks like he should be wearing a dog collar.

  • If Clinton is the nominee, I hope for the sake of the country she and her surrogates go after McCain with the same intensity–if a higher level of truthfulness–that they’ve shown in fighting Obama’s challenge. She’ll start the race as the underdog, and her conduct in the campaign, as well as whether she sticks to progressive ideals or indulges the usual Clinton instinct for shameless triangulation, likely will determine if, and to what extent, we Obama supporters will back her campaign.

    If she’s the nominee, that is. It ain’t over yet.

  • I hope for the sake of the country she and her surrogates go after McCain with the same intensity–if a higher level of truthfulness–

    That shouldn’t be a problem. Telling the truth abotu McCain is about the most damning thing one could do. Really, some of his stuff (Bomb Bomb Iran? I’m not good at economics? Ugly Chelsea jokes?) you couldn’t make up.

  • After electing Bush twice, the country really does need to feel good about itself again. Obama tells us ‘it’s going to be great’ and Clinton tells us we need to clean up our room.
    Who wouldn’t vote for ‘it’s going to be great’? I just hope that need for instant uplift isn’t as delusional as our need for security against the terrorists was in 2004.

  • Clinton will have a tough time defeating McCain. I’m not saying she can’t, just that it will be a huge challenge. She will not be able to draw on independents the way Obama can. Nor will she bring in moderate Republicans. A Clinton/McCain matchup would be a bloody-knuckled brawl that would probably come down to the wire. Obama, on the other hand will bring independents and possibly even some moderate Republicans looking for something different.

  • Clinton will have a tough time defeating McCain. I’m not saying she can’t, just that it will be a huge challenge. She will not be able to draw on independents the way Obama can. Nor will she bring in moderate Republicans. — Independent thinker, @32

    To be fair, I doubt even Obama will bring in moderate Repubs, if McCain is the nominee. As far as Repubs are concerned, McCain is moderate enough and then some. So, those who want “moderate” will vote for him, because he’s from their party and they won’t have to go through the horror of a crossover.

    Obama’s potential is in bringing in Independents (of Bernie Sanders’ stripe) and the younger generation who, probably, wouldn’t be excited enough to come out and vote for Clinton. But yes; if it’s Clinton, she’ll only have hard-core Dems to support her.

  • I dunno, libra– a lot can happen between now and Election Day. McCain definitely seems elderly in his demeanor on the campaign trail. If Obama harnesses his youthful charisma to make himself seem like a trailblazer (rather than a wet-behind-the-ears upstart,) he has the potential to get moderate Republicans on his bandwagon, with an “out with the old, in with the new” sentiment. It’ll be a tough race; the specifics of the campaign will determine everything.

  • McCain, Clinton and Obama all have their weak spots, but I’d rather have Barak and Hillary’s problems then John’s. The old is not going to go away. The war-weariness is not going to go away. The movement conservative unenthusiasm is probably not going to go away, even if the Great Harlot is the Democratic standardbearer. Maybe a good VP choice makes up for this. Maybe McCain keeps being lucky. Maybe the luck rubs off on the country at large.

  • RON PAUL. The Money Bomb celebrating the amazing Family Values of Dr. Ron and Carol Paul’s 51st Wedding Anniversary has begun. Feb 1st. Join the Fun and help make History. The Mega MAINSTREAM MEDIA is telling you that you must vote for who they want you to vote for aka Mccain or Romney the Counterfeit Conservatives. http://www.ronpaul2008.com Donate $51 dollars to honor 51 one years of marriage and to push for taking the USA back from those who are Destroying the US middle class. Spread the word. God Bless Everyone.

  • Comments are closed.