Why John McCain Will (Likely) Be President
February 19th, 2008I recently came to the conclusion that, barring a handful of improbable events occurring, John McCain will be the next President of the United States.
How did I make this analysis? I examined the current political landscape of the United States, electoral tendencies and the candidates themselves to determine whether or not the conventional wisdom around College campuses, in the political parties and on television talkshows (namely that the race is the Democrats’ to lose) was accurate or not. I did not merely inspect the lengthy, nuanced subtleties of the 2008 race for the Presidency but also took into consideration the brutal, coarse realities of American politics and came away with cause for concern, because John McCain is formidable in ways no other Republican would be and both remaining Democratic candidates have a long, uphill climb ahead of them if they are to ever reach the Presidency as anything but visitors. This is because of the nature of this nation and because of their individual merits and failures.
The way I often introduce this topic is by asking, When was the last time a Northern Democrat was elected President of the United States? and the answer is John F. Kennedy. That is because the re-alignment of the South that occurred after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act solidified the South for the Republican Party and the South is generally unwilling to vote for Northern liberals for President, as any look at the electoral results for President in any race since 1964 will show. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton face a significant hurdle that every Northern Democrat faces when he runs for President: they are unlikely to win any Southern state but Florida, and even that is a great challenge that I’m not sure either is up for. Whether or not they recognize this Southern crisis (though I imagine they and their advisors would) or whether or not Liberals in general recognize it as reality is not a concern of mine. I recognize it as reality, and the South’s refusal to vote for Northern Democrats has been proven time and time again. It is clear, to me, that the Democratic Party cedes the South and almost the entire Midwest, Great Plains and Mountain States to any general Republican.
Some have argued to me, “Hillary has Arkansas!” and I don’t think that’s the case. She was never particularly popular in Arkansas as the First Lady of that state and the distance in years between her time there and now, as well as the gap between New York and The Natural State, is overwhelmingly against her. The other Southern, conservative states are unlikely to go for her as well because they don’t go for Democrats very often, never for Northern Democrats and almost certainly not for a woman. A similar cynicism applies to Barack Obama, who, I’ve been told, has a fighting chance because of the amount of black voters in these Southern states but the truth is that black voters are always at, above or just below 90% for the Democrats and there aren’t enough black voters in Georgia to turn that state into a Democratic state against a Republican with a Northern Democrat running against him. That’s true without even mentioning the racism that still very much exists in the South and would ensure Republican victories in Dixie all night every night. The truth is that the Republican Party is about a lock to win everything considered “The South” and all those states in the “center” of the country that the Republicans usually do win.
However, losing the entire South and most of “the core” is not what has caused me to believe that the Democrats are likely to lose the election, although it is a significant red flag and challenge. I believe they will lose the election in larger part because John McCain is a perfect Republican candidate at the perfect time against, I think, perfect opponents. Democrats will have to focus on retaining their base states and taking a couple of swing states to win the Presidency; if the Democrats win, it will be a squeaker as I don’t see their two current candidates cutting into Republican lands, for reasons I’ve detailed earlier. That means they will have to win states like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, perhaps New Mexico, but here we encounter a significant problem only, previously, hinted at. Compare Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s ability to win Republican states with what will be McCain’s ability to win Democratic states and the Democratic Party has big problems on its hands.
Why can McCain win Blue States? Many reasons. First, John McCain can run as an agent of change, since he is not in the Administration and has often been at odds with Bush. That is crucial to understand, as he robs the Democratic Party of its greatest-though-flawed-drive-in-2004-and-likely-still-strongest-motivator today. If McCain can provide the public what it wants (”conservatism”) while giving it a break from the Bush Administration (”change”) he can floor the Democrats. I believe that he can do both, and will. Further to the point is that independents and Democrats generally respect the Senator from Arizona because he is considered an independent, fair thinker. He is a consensus candidate, a man who can generate enthusiasm from both parties, who has no demographic challenges ahead of him in certain Democratic states because Democratic states have shown, time and time again, that they will vote for a Republican if a mediocre Democrat is running, or one that is far too “liberal”.
Specifically, I think of Michael Dukakis, George McGovern and Adlai Stevenson versus George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon and Ike Eisenhower. I think of states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and purple states like Iowa, New Mexico. I look at Hillary Clinton as a candidate who does not have the appeal of her husband, regionally or personally, and while the “Clinton Machine” is strong it was not the Clinton machine that got Bill Clinton elected in Kentucky, the Dakotas and several Southern states. It was a lousy economic situation, a weak President and the charisma and talent of Clinton himself who is a far better politician than his wife even if she’d be a better President. Obama, on the other hand, is a guy who I think would have his lunch eaten by John McCain, who would expose him like Bush exposed Dukakis, like Nixon exposed McGovern, like Stevenson exposed himself: as an “egghead” by traditional standards who speaks in platitudes and votes “liberal”. People forget that Dukakis was creaming George H.W. Bush in the summer and once the Republican attack machine grabbed hold of him, “The Duke” was obliterated. I see the same fate for Obama. I see them obliterating his middle name (”Hussein”) and his last name, his “liberal” voting record (they have already started to talk about his), his youth and inexperience, his platitudes. Obama has a demonstrated problem attracting middle-class, working-class voters, and let’s be clear: the national electorate is not the same in any way shape or form as the Democratic primary electorate. Primary voters have nominated John Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter (twice, and he won once by fluke), McGovern, Humphrey. Many of these men were great men, with bright ideas, but they were all candidates who could be written off as weak, too liberal or both, without any regional appeal.
Some say, “Obama would simply fight back against the Republicans, unlike Dukakis and, say, John Kerry,” but I don’t see that as viable option. Obama’s strength is as the candidate of hope, right? How would that look when he becomes a pitbull against the Republicans? Besides, Democrats have long demonstrated themselves incapable of defeating Republicans solidly, and the last time we won an advertising war, at painting our opponents the way we want to paint them so as to damage their electoral chances was 1964 with the famous Daisy Ad. Until Democrats prove that they can swing with the electoral heavyweights, it must be assumed that the Republican Attack Machine is stronger than the Democratic Whimper Factory. That’s another reason McCain will (likely) win: they know how to play this game, and Democrats are woeful amateurs in the last quarter century.
So how can the Democrats win? you ask, because you refuse to say that they will lose. They can win one way and one way only: by successfully painting John McCain as an extension of George W. Bush, and to do that (which is a tricky proposition) they will have to wrap their fists around McCain’s infamous “100 years in Iraq” comment and hit him in the kidneys until they’ve given way and he has bled to death. There is very little way around it, otherwise, because he is a moderate and an independent as perceived by the public and he is a candidate who will have broad appeal unless he is labelled a warmonger. Unless the Democrats can successfully tear him down (which is difficult because of their historical ineptness and the fact that McCain is a war hero, not to mention the unpredictability of the situation in Iraq which could very well get better and is not all that terrible currently) they will lose because their candidates lack national appeal and will be easily labelled and ridiculed, their organization is not as good as the Republicans, McCain is a strong candidate running at the right time in his party’s history. I think it will be an electoral landslide in favor of McCain and Democrats will be left to wonder why the rest of the nation didn’t buy the platitudes of the Democrats who aren’t Bush, “how could this have happened!“. I will be there to point out that McCain isn’t Bush, either, and Americans like Republican government, overall.