Rasmussen reports just released a new poll with the following results:
McCain 51%
Clinton 41%
McCain 49%
Obama 42%
It is quite clear that Senator John McCain has been the primary beneficiary of the slugfest between Obama and Clinton. The Wright controversy not only helped Hillary Clinton but seemed to give John McCain a push as well. Lest the GOP become complacent, this new poll is a daily tracking poll, which are notoriously volatile. It is entirely impossible that McCain’s lead could evaporate overnight. Of course, the real test of John McCain’s strength will ultimately be revealed when he finally goes head to head with the winner of the Democratic Primary.
While Obama was explaining his relationship with a racist and segregationist and Hillary was whining for the DNC to ignore their own rules, John McCain was in Iraq looking Presidential. That plays well to Middle America, even if he cannot keep straight where the Sunnis and Shiites reside. It is a good thing that Joe Lieberman was traveling with him.
In order to compete in the fall, John McCain must develop coherent messages on the economy and healthcare. The recent progress in Iraq actually works against him since Iraq, for the most part, is no longer front-page news every day. That diminishes John McCain’s greatest strength, which is ability to handle the war. More and more, this election is looking as though it will be about pocket book issues, which generally (although not all the time) favors the Democratic candidate in a general election.
Clearly, John McCain benefits from a protracted Democratic battle and Rasmussen’s new poll is evidence of that fact. However, John McCain must begin to build on this advantage and increase his profile by offering solutions on issues like the economy and healthcare that will clearly be a contrast to the solutions being offered by Obama and Clinton which are nothing more than an ode to socialism. If McCain fails to clearly articulate solutions on these issues, he will lose in the fall, no matter how strong he is on defense issues.
March 21st, 2008 at 6:45 am
Another interesting development is that a recent poll (on the Politico.com I believe) states that about 20% of both Clinton and Obama supporters state that if their candidate looses, they will vote for McCain. While I have no delusions that will hold until October, if that number even falls to 5%, then Dems are in trouble. I think that number will depend on how bitter the convention is. You can almost bank that if Clinton somehow pulls the nomination off, her supporters are going to be pissed.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:27 am
The war will continue to work toward John McCain’s advantage in two ways. First, the Dem base will be less motivated as media coverage diminishes and the war is finally recognized as successful. Secondly, the Dem candidates appear irrevocably linked to a “withdraw immediately” position which is a loser to swing voters.
He does need to start talking about the economy although I don’t think anything he has to say about it will be covered in the news. The news cycles are all about Hillary Obama.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:31 am
BTM, the Clinton-Obama ticket is the way out for the Dems. If Obama himself will embrace this ticket, one convention speech will bring his enthusiastic supporters on board. I don’t see today’s grief as necessarily permanent. I am sorry that Obama’s troubles got out so early, and sorry that knuckleheads like Limbaugh are promoting their stronger candidate. I dread the Clinton-Obama ticket.
March 21st, 2008 at 7:51 am
McCain, I respectfully disagree. Even if the war is a success, it will not be framed that way by the media. It will be ignored and pocketbook issues will continue to be pushed forward.
Although not an exactly perfect comparison, this reminds somewhat of 1992. Bush was obviously the choice as Commander-In-Chief but had tin ear in regards to the economy. We know how that turned out.
I agree with you that a Clinton-Obama ticket would be the way out. However, if Obama thinks there is a good chance that Hillary would lose or if there is simply too much acrimony (that is unlikely, they will kiss and make up) to pair them, then Obama may decide to wait for the 2012 election. If he loses as a VEEP in the fall, Obama would lose his viability in future elections. How many losing VEEP candidates have gone on to be elected President in a future election. There may be a couple but I cannot think of any off the top of my head.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:00 am
The thing that sunk Bush Sr. is that Conservatives were always suspicious of him going clear back to 1976. He is the one who called supply-side economics “voodoo economics.” So, we were always suspicous that he wasn’t really one of us after all. Then the whole “read my lips, no new taxes” thing happened, and that is what killed him. Many many Conservatives decided they would rather try their luck with Perot then with someone who betrayed them and confirmed that he was not a Conservative.
I could see something similar going on here. If the conservatives can be persuaded that McCain is good enough, that will help him out. If they think he is just another RINO or weak-spined liberal, they may just stay home. It also helps that there is no real viable 3rd party candidate this time either (not that Perot was really “viable”). I’m stil not sure what I’m going to do, I may be forced to pick the lesser of 3 evils again, I’m just tired of that dance.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
Obama has gift wrapped the conservatives and Reagan Democrat’s to McCain. The Reagan Dems will only hold if Obama is the nominee.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
It’s March. How many times has the candidate leading in March won the nomination?
McCain will have to defend a crumbling Iraq policy that even Petreaus now admits isn’t working, and this week we are getting reports that the Sunnis are ready to turn back against the Americans. McCain doesn’t seem to know the difference between Sunni & Shiite. And, there’s the economy.
Let’s talk about where things stand in September.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
MDefl,
We’re five years in with no exit strategy, the war isn’t a success.
Remember the predictions? Greeted as liberators? Weeks not months? $50-60 billion in costs? Iraq oil revenues would pay for reconstruction? We’d be greeted as liberators? Iraq will quickly march to Democracy?
Five years now, longer than any war in the history of the United States save the revolutionary and Vietnam wars, and more costly than any war except WWII.
And even you are still saying “if the war is a success”
March 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Just curious, are we still at “war” with Iraq? I think the war ended years ago. We are fighting terrorists, not a war. You cannot easily compare the actions here with any other war we have been involved in our history. I’m not disputing your main premise, I’m just saying . . .
March 21st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
BTM, We are acting as the civil authority holding Iraq together and keeping the Sunnis and the Shiites from killing one another.
There’s no single definition of “the terrorists” in Iraq, you’ve got a dozen or more groups fighting us and each other.
Bush promised us 15 months ago that the surge would be temporary, and that the Iraqis must make political process. Well, the Iraqis haven’t made political progress, the surge troops are still there, and nobody in this administration has any strategy other than “stay for 100 years”
And let us remember, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 weren’t in Iraq until we invaded. And even now, their leadership resides in Pakistan. Over 6 1/2 years after Al Qaeda attacked the United States their leader continues to release taped messages while in Iraq while the GOP nominee doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia.
And folks think Rev. Wright’s sermons are the greatest issue facing this nation. Sigh……….
March 21st, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“BTM, We are acting as the civil authority holding Iraq together and keeping the Sunnis and the Shiites from killing one another.”
Bob, is your position that preventing killing is a bad thing?
The rest of your comment is ancient history that we can leave for historians to ponder from ivory towers. You will agree that the most important consideration now is what we do going forward. Do you object to winning?
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 am
MCCAIN, preventing killing isn’t a bad thing, but it’s not worth the cost in U.S. lives and dollars.
I’m curious though, why aren’t you there?
Are you also going to argue that the U.S. should deploy forces to Sudan, Tibet, Gaza, and any of the two dozen other regional conflicts around the world to prevent killing?
Do you object to winning
Define “winning”. How will we know when we’ve won?
March 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 am
The 100 years thing is so disingenuous I’m kinda sick of hearing it. McCain never said that we would be at war for 100 years, just that we would have to have some kind of presence there for a long time. We still have troops in Germany and Korea and its been near 70 years for Germany. Bob, surely you don’t advocate just handing Iraq over to Iran do you? Thas is what will happen if Obama gets his way.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
MCCAIN, preventing killing isn’t a bad thing, but it’s not worth the cost in U.S. lives and dollars.
You might be right, but to make that statement requires that you put a value on the 2 million lives that Saddam is responsible for killing, and make a guess about how much killing he would have done in the future. Have you considered the opportunity cost?
I’m curious though, why aren’t you there?
Why are you curious? Do you feel the fact that Bob isn’t there invalidates your anti-war opinion? Why should anyone listen to an armchair general like Bob? Your next bit of liberal subterfuge will be to ask why I have not “sent” my children, as if parents in western civilization can overrule individual free-will. In my case, I first drugged them and then moved their hand up and down to sign the voluntary enlistment papers. Getting them on the airplane was easy since I told them the destination was Hawaii.
Are you also going to argue that the U.S. should deploy forces to Sudan, Tibet, Gaza, and any of the two dozen other regional conflicts around the world to prevent killing?
Gosh no. We have our hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Should we have the resources later, however, the correct moral action is to help democratize the world wherever the chances of success are high. That is because democracies do not war with one another. The faster that democracies spread, the faster we will permanently end war on earth. You can agree with that fact, but I can’t take your idea to invade China seriously.
Define “winning�. How will we know when we’ve won?
A democratized Iraq that serves as both a base to spread democracy in the middle east, and a beacon for neighbors to emulate. Historians will judge that success or failure in perhaps 50 years. More immediately, less than 2 million dead in 15 years would be more successful than the prior 15.
How do you measure success, Bob?
June 21st, 2009 at 8:04 am
I lost any respect that I may have had for John McCain during the presidential election. There are two principal reasons that I will never be able to take him seriously as a person of integrity. First, his cynical choice of Palin as his running mate. And second, his use of outright lies and fear tactics as a way to get the less intelligent among us to vote for him. John McCain should just keep his mouth shut and retire.