Does McCain Have a Ceiling? (II)

Maybe not. Daniel Larison unpacks that new CNN poll showing McCain bursting out to a national lead:

When asked how they would feel after the nomination of each candidate, 31% said they would be enthusiastic about McCain, 46% would be satisfied, 18% would be dissatisfied and only 5% would be upset. It seems as if that 5% is overwhelmingly concentrated in conservative media outlets and activists in their audiences. For Huckabee, the numbers are revealing: 20/52/20/7. Only 7% would be upset with the huckster, whom we have been assured would rend the coalition to bits. For Giuliani the numbers are similar: 21/49/21/8. Romney understandably generates the least enthusiasm and satisfaction put together (14/50) and the highest dissatisfied + upset number (27/6). The choice of many movement conservatives, the champion of the three-legged stool, Romney apparently rallies the GOP less effectively than any of the others. These numbers have obviously changed since November and could always change back (Romney and Giuliani have lost ground in generating an enthusiastic response), but if you were designing the GOP ticket with party unity and enthusiasm as your only criteria you would, bizarrely, be pushed towards selecting McCain or Huckabee. The last one of the four you would select would be Romney. This intuitively makes sense to me, since I think Romney is awful, but it really calls into question the judgement that he is the most “viable” in the field.

Now, one could argue that many voters in a national poll won't have been paying close attention to the race, so the fact that McCain and Huckabee are both anathema to many people in the conservative movement - and the reasons why they're so hated - haven't registered with most Republican voters. On the other hand, the respondents been playing close enough attention to have turned away from Romney and Rudy, and if these numbers do reflect at least semi-informed judgment on the part of the GOP electorate, it makes the "Romney's Long March" scenario look a lot less plausible. It also makes it seem as though the McCain camp should be rooting for Romney to stay viable and Huckabee to fade, rather than the reverse, since Huck seems to have the broader base of potential national support if the race drags on toward spring.

Comments

the "real conservatives" should realize that McCain is their best chance at keeping the WH and they should shut up and support him.

Posted by Peter from Dover NH | January 12, 2008 12:34 PM

The 'real conservatives' have savaged McCain for years due to his not being real conservative on all they hold dear - Immigration, Campaign Finance, Tax Cuts, Supporting W's War Plan.

The 'Values Party' has one supreme value.
Winning.

And he can't.

Expect his "keep our troops in Iraq for 50 or 100 years" to be played a million times.

Posted by El | January 12, 2008 12:58 PM

I hope the GOP throws Mccain under the bus the first chance they get in this campaign and then throws it in reverse to back over him a couple hundred times.

I didn't vote for Mccain in the NH primary and I won't vote for him in the general.

My loathing for Mccain is almost equal to my loathing to Hillary and I'm not alone amongst republicans in feeling this way.

Mccain is a sure way to give the white house to the commie dems in 2008.

Posted by Alan in NH | January 12, 2008 2:08 PM

John McCain has bolted from the party's Washington establishment enough times to lack the conservative media endorsements he rightfully deserves.

Immigration – McCain simply supported Bush’s plan…If you supported Bush you should have no problem with McCain. They both get credit for tackling the issue & both have now endorsed enforcement first.

Campaign Finance, - We already had an un-constitutional campaign finance regulations before McCain/Feingold.

Tax Cuts, - McCain merely wanted them on-budget. This is basic small government fiscal conservatism. He’s a dedicated pork-buster & budget hawk, giving credibility to republicans smaller government message after years of Bush big government spending.

The War – McCain is by far the most honorable & experienced politician on foreign policy and defense issues. The recent WSJ op-ed with Lieberman shows his premonition and solid judgment on the war.

McCain IS the 2000 version of Teddy Roosevelt. He will cement the republicans as a popular, centrist governing majority.

And I’m not even a very big fan (sincerely)

Posted by Fitz | January 12, 2008 2:56 PM

I worry about McCain losing his head over foreign relation issues (Foreign Affairs is what he is running on). He is a hot head and has grown up with"war" as his teething ring. I wonder if he can see all the issues clearly.

"Quick to anger even as a toddler, McCain used to hold his breath until he passed out when thwarted. After bouncing from school to school in the tradition of a child of a military family, McCain was sent to high school at the elite Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia. There, his temper remained short and repeated discipline appeared wasted on him. "I thank God every day there weren't drugs around when I was growing up," he told Jonathan Alter of Newsweek. Despite his best efforts, McCain graduated from Episcopal High in 1954.

Miltary Men must do their work, but that is not necessarily the work of the President of the United States who has to be strong, balanced and calm.

Posted by Wendy | January 12, 2008 3:02 PM

Let's get know John McCain better:

"After graduation McCain went off to follow the family trade at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. However, the storied disciplinary effect of military school had little effect on the rambunctious young man. He continued to push the buttons and limits of his superiors, accumulating an impressive number of demerits for small infractions and barely squeaking by academically to graduate in the bottom five of his class in 1958. Even after being accepted to train as a naval aviator, McCain was irrepressible and irresponsible, ditching one airplane into Corpus Christi Bay and flying another so low in Spain that he managed to cut power lines and deprive part of the country of electricity for a time. For all his wild behavior, though, McCain also displayed a strength of character beyond his years. He refused to participate in hazing rituals at Annapolis, for instance, later explaining to Alter, "I just thought it had become too demeaning." Instead, he did not suffer bullies gladly, defending underclassmen and other victims alike in his typical bellicose fashion.

As a young navy pilot, McCain was in his element. "I enjoyed shooting rockets and dropping bombs and shooting off guns," he recalled to Esquire's Charles P. Pierce. "Nobody in their right mind wouldn't enjoy that. . . . You're a young, single guy, and you go out and you fly for a couple of weeks, then you come in for a week and carouse. . . . Nobody deserves to get paid for that." He gave up the single part of the equation in 1965, when he married Carol Shepp and adopted her two children (the couple later had a child of their own, too), but the lure of adventure was more difficult to abandon. So McCain volunteered for service in Vietnam."

Posted by Wendy | January 12, 2008 3:09 PM

Wendy

I appreciate the info. This particular blog usually goes in for discussion rather than posting limited source material.

Links would look better.

Most of the comments on this particular post seem (suspiciously) to be people trying (vainly) to knock McCain down. Usually discussion is better substantiated.

For the record...

Multiple Presidents have had both tempers and precocious childhoods, trouble in high school(!???)& exciting jobs in their early adulthood (??!!?)

The man is arguably America’s most popular politician and a Senate veteran.

How is this information disqualifying?

They called Regan a Cowboy too.

Posted by Fitz | January 12, 2008 3:27 PM

"McCain was irrepressible and irresponsible, ditching one airplane into Corpus Christi Bay and flying another so low in Spain that he managed to cut power lines and deprive part of the country of electricity for a time."

Nice - he was doing his best Teddy Rosevelt even back then!!! Straight up SanWan Hill!!!

"Remember the Main!!!!!!"

Posted by Fitz | January 12, 2008 3:36 PM

Wendy, McCain sowed some wild oats as a young man. However, if you read his autobiography the six- years as one of the bravest in North Vietnam, the solidity of his second marriage, and his experience as a leading senator have proved that he has matured well. He's not as bright as Romney, though bright enough and rather well experienced.

The only serious concern with McCain is that he could go wobbly and find some innocuous centrists as nominees for the Supreme Court.

Like Fitz, I'm far from enamored of McCain, though he is capable in the long run of uniting the Republican coalition and attracting sufficient independents to win a general election.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 12, 2008 3:38 PM

Well, we've heard from the 5% of people that would be upset if McCain were nominated on this list.

I just want to point out that I'm one of the 6% that would be upset if Romney were nominated.

The candidates can't say it because they don't want to offend, but for those of us paying attention to the whole race, Mitt Romney must be recognized as a dishonest man and his campaign doubly so.

McCain sees it. The Huckster sees it. Thompson sees it. All the media except those with spouses on Romney's campaign (Fox News commentator) or members of conservative publications that have already endorsed him (Fox News commentators, especially those that work for National Review) see it.

If the GOP nominates a man with so little moral fiber they should be punished with a Democratic landslide in November and that's an outcome I would gladly endorse with my vote.

Posted by Justin | January 12, 2008 3:49 PM

All the candidates have their imperfections, but I think Romney's have been grossly exaggerated more than those of any other candidate. I think if most people who claim they already know the "real Romney" truly got to know him, they would feel a lot softer towards this man. I can understand others supporting McCain or Thompson, but don't follow like blind sheep after a one-point-of-view stereotype. Give Romney a chance - spend some time looking at the virtues and I think you would come to believe in him as a good president.

Posted by ehjane | January 12, 2008 4:42 PM

The CNN poll also showed Hillary opening up a massive lead.

I would be hesitant to take this poll as gospel when Rasmussen shows a tight race. The CNN poll is interesting because its results are so new, but until it's confirmed by, say, another poll, I would hold off on close analyses of its component numbers.

Posted by DivGuy | January 12, 2008 8:17 PM

If someone were to ask me ten years from now what is the thing you most remember about the 2000 presidential election I would have to say it was the way Mccain behaved in the debates.

I cannot count the number of times Mccain has made snide remarks to the other candidates and then sat there snickering and laughing like a little child. Two examples can be seen in last Saturday nights debate when he called Romney the "candidate of change" and then sat there laughing and smiling like a jackass although no one in the audience seemed to think it was quite that funny. Then later he said to ron Paul "we'll really miss you ron" when the topic of Paul being excluded from the next debate was brought up.

The image of Mccain acting like such a jackass has been imprinted in my mind and i think to myself "Is this the guy we want or need to be president?" The answer of course is no.

Posted by PD | January 13, 2008 8:30 AM

Is anyone going to point out that McCain is too old for the job? Calm down....I'm 63. I know "old". The last 4 years of Ronald Reagan were a nightmare, if you've forgotten. Watch McCain...he walks old, talks old, looks old, and sometimes seems "a beat behind". No thank you. Besides, like the others (except for "Quarantine-the-Homos-Huckabee"), they're same old, same old. Obama is the only one who represents real change...and that is the perception worldwide. And we need the world to perceive that the Reign of Terror of Bush is over.

Posted by Kary | January 13, 2008 10:56 AM

The rank and file may or may not be entirely indoctrinated to hate McCain over immigration, but they've got no reason to object to Huckabee. Only the Wall Street money he challenges and their pet Christian Right leaders who he'll supplant if he wins hate him.

Posted by aleks | January 13, 2008 11:52 AM

I have to wholeheartedly agree with PD that McCain's snide and angry side would be devastating to American foreign policy. The moment that sealed the deal for me against McCain was when he referred to President Ahmadinejad as a "little twerp" on the Imus show. How does this differ from Hugo Chavez referring to Bush as the devil? It's contemptible behavior in either case, but would be fatal for any numer of Americans, as Iran can mobilize their proxies in Iraq to murder American soldiers. If you are in favor of war with Iran, vote McCain.

Posted by Chuck D. | January 13, 2008 12:39 PM

I agree with you Chuck...although I am a republican and strongly believe America must be tough with it's enemies I am not looking fo rus to start another war and mccain, more than any other candidate running, is likely to start a war with Iran.

He's pretty much a single issue canddiate. He's got his foreign policy experience and nothing else. I do get the impression that he is an angry old man with something to prove to the world and he would use Iran to do it.

As far as not having a reason for not liking Huckabee. I am a social conservative but do not like him because his thinly disguised attacks on Mitt Romney's faith. The way I see it Romney has lived just as decent a life as Huckabee. He's remained faithful to his wife for 40 years, has raised five sons, and values the traditional American family. They are currently doing an invetigation in NH to see who was behind the anti-mormon push polls up there and I would not be surprised to find out it was huckabee.

No on Mccain. No on Huckabee.

Posted by Alex | January 13, 2008 1:12 PM

goods points, Wendy. I think that these temperamental shortcomings will become more widely exposed as the presidential campaign endures(if he's the nominee). He will tire of the same, hollow stupid questions, fire off a not-so eloquent response to his opponent if he doens't like what or how they may have said something during a debate.
Did you guys see him call Hannity and Colmes 'jerks" the other day after the debate? He was joking, but you could tell he really wasn't. He meant it. Sure, i appreciated it, but that's for me to say, not him.

He is looking old, too. I just can't see him going at this rate for another 8 months.

He also does seem to have an affinity for destruction and empire. 100 years in Iraq, the joking about bombing Iran.

All in all, not what we need right now. Of course, if Hillary is the other choice then i would seriously consider voting republican for the 1st time in my life. She if winning votes through sympathy, not admiration. What a sad state of affairs.

Posted by dave | January 13, 2008 1:59 PM

I won't vote for the establishmentarian, Thumpabiblebee, under any circumstances.

Posted by goof houlihan | January 13, 2008 2:51 PM

McCain is the worst GOP candidate. He might be the best at exciting college kids. He may even be the most electable Republican.

But what will his first question be of prospective SCOTUS nominees? Not "are you an originalist," but "Don't you agree that campaign finance reforms more ambitious than the ones we've passed are constitutional?" Very few judges who like speech regulation also think Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided. I expect Sandra Day O'Connors to be appointed by a Pres McCain. All the other candidates would be better on judges.

Also, McCain blames greedy corporations for high gas and pharma prices. Usually Hillary Clinton avoids such rhetorical excess. Is there anything besides the Iraq war on which McCain isn't an angry Progressive? [Progressive like LaFollette, TR, Woodrow Wilson...] He's corrosive to the Reagan coalition, which is still a winning one.

Oh, AlekS. Don't forget that Huckabee fought for reduced tuition rates for illegal aliens to go to state universities. And all the other well-publicized non-conservative positions he is sticking by.

Posted by gyrd | January 13, 2008 5:34 PM

Small point: I don't think it helps when postings talk about hating candidates. I know there's a lot of posturing, but "hate"?
We have an amazingly diverse field, and we can resolve this without destroying any hope of coming together in the end and winning in November. Huckabee seems to spawn the most vicious comments.
I suspect he is going to be quite influential at the end of all this - hating what he stands for sounds like a very dumb strategy, let alone despicable behavior toward a real patriot. And "hating" McCain? A guy who was a POW? Insane.

Posted by fougasseau | January 13, 2008 6:03 PM

John McCain is old, yes, but nearly 45 million Americans-- many of whom are regular voters-- are 65+ years old. Another 25% of the total pop. are 45-64. I doubt these crowds view the inexperience of candidates like Obama and Romney as assets, especially given the volatility of the Middle East, and Iraq and Iran in particular... As for the concern that McCain will nominate Sandra Day O'Connor style justices, first off, his web site proudly touts his pro-life stance, and secondly, what makes you so sure Romney would nominate another Scalito? He ran, both for senate and governor, as a pro-choice candidate. McCain, by contrast, has never changed his position.

Indeed, I can't figure out why so many virulently attack McCain and read him out of conservatism, when he seems basically identical or to the right of Dubya on all the issues. Without further clarification, one can only conclude that McCain's sponsorship of campaign finance legislation has angered the GOP apparatus so much that it is willing to back a loser against a guy who would otherwise make the perfect candidate. This election may turn out to be a referendum of sorts on the party system-- how powerful is it, really, when the man responsible for weakening it is likely to be the next president? Shame on National Review, by the way, for siding with the GOP establishment against conservatism's best hope-- the editors' choice of Romney over McCain strongly signals that they value demagoguery on immigration over a consistent pro-life message.

Posted by MD | January 13, 2008 6:39 PM

MD -- Shame on NR for endorsing demagoguery!

Me -- MD seems like the perfect McCain supporter. If you don't think lawbreakers should get ahead in line past law respecters, you're an anti-hispanic hate monger. "Conservatism's best hope" my foot.

In response to a more reasonable point, I'm not sure that Romney won't endorse an O'Connor. But I am sure that McCain will.

Yes, McCain has a consistent record on abortion. He has always tried to get his party to avoid the issue. He has always protested "I'm against abortion, but we can't overturn Roe tomorrow because we'd have to put women in jail, and the country isn't ready for that!" He calls out the religious right's leaders in the GOP as the agents of intollerance who have taken over his once proud party. And in the last resort, he begrudgingly casts pro-life votes out of political necessity in the AZ GOP, without speaking on behalf of the bills which he 'supports.'

Living in Mass during Romney's gubernatorial run, the Boston Globe wouldn't stop reminding me that he was a closet pro-lifer. Now that Romney is trying to win the GOP nomination, the Globe can't stop reminding us that he's a closet pro-choicer. The hidden consistency? The Globe hates Romney.

Romney has been pro-life before and after his MA office holding, but not during. He's very flexible. The hidden consistency? Romney repays his investors every time. He made it to office on a promise, on which he delivered, to be effectively pro-choice. If he gets to be the nominee, he'll have done so with a promise to the right, to be tougher on immigration than have Bush/McCain/Huckabee, and to appoint orignialist judges.

McCain/Giuliani say they've always supported conservative judges, but they won't say Roe was wrong. Romney has. While Romney has changed his positions, he's never betrayed his investors.

It's precisely the consistency of McCain and Giuliani assures me that their SCOTUS picks will support Roe vs Wade. McCain has tried and tried to mend fences with the right, but he still says pro-lifers want to jail desperate women. Giuliani has abandoned lots of liberal positions, and trips all over himself to say he likes Bush's Court picks, but he won't say Roe was wrong. Their silence on judges is deafening. It's deliberate, and tells us the nature of their nominees.

With Romney, I think we've got a pretty good chance of originalist nominees to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Gyrd | January 13, 2008 7:33 PM

MD -- Why do people say that McCain isn't conservative? He's basically identical or to the right of Bush.

Me -- It helps to remember the obvious point that lots of people don't think Bush is that conservative. Immigration is a biggie. That he wanted Gonzales and Miers on SCOTUS is another sign that his priorities are questionable from a conservative point of view. To the right of Bush? Sometimes -- on spending and troop numbers in Iraq. Other times to the left of Bush -- on taxing, and holding detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Again, when he blames high gas prices on greedy oil companies, in an attempt to win Kucinich voters, that is to the left of most in the GOP, including Bush, who is no conservative's gold-standard for right thinking.

Posted by Gyrd | January 13, 2008 7:40 PM

This is a change election and no one on the R side offers it to the middle.

A GOP campaign slogan "More of the Same" or "Stay the Course" ensures a Dem landslide.

Posted by El | January 14, 2008 11:07 AM

Gyrd, sounds like you're a fellow Mass-hole-- as such, you should be all the more concerned about electing Romney POTUS given that he was a virtual no-show during his last two years in office here. (Nonetheless, I wish he had run again for governor because his successor is about to do some serious damage here.)

My point about McCain being identical or to the right of Dubya was that the GOP is being inconsistent-- Dubya was considered the darling of the GOP establishment, while McCain is being read out of the GOP, AND the conservative movement.

The two were not always in lock-step by the way, and I would argue, should not be. The conservative movement should not wholeheartedly embrace business interests, as the GOP does. The movement should be a lot more circumspect, more firmly rooted in reality, values, faith, family, those institutions that truly matter and stand the test of time, and are often needed to temper baser impulses. For instance, the conservative movement should oppose the expansion of the gaming industry, while the GOP seems to have cashed in on it (viz., Abramoff).

McCain adopts a reasonable approach to hot-button policy issues. Any candidate who comes out, guns blazing, for jailing women who have abortions or rounding up 12 million illegals and separating them from their US-born children, will be branded an evil demon, just as Gingrich was in '97. One has to exercise prudence. Dubya, "the compassionate conservative," understood this. McCain understands this. K. Lopez has a piece in today's NRO about why Santorum won't support McCain-- and it makes my case. McCain was not ardent enough in his support for conservative causes. But look where Santorum is now... In order to make change, we need power, which means we can't take rash steps that will likely derail our best candidates-- who are not only running against other candidates, but most importantly, against the mainstream media and its successful record of distorting candidates.

Posted by MD | January 14, 2008 4:37 PM

lzxsn paylo efylsbhgq hbznwk emsg sdqbo bwxgpe

Posted by hwbmxrsq tzlpumx | June 17, 2008 3:16 PM

lzxsn paylo efylsbhgq hbznwk emsg sdqbo bwxgpe

Posted by hwbmxrsq tzlpumx | June 17, 2008 3:19 PM

lzxsn paylo efylsbhgq hbznwk emsg sdqbo bwxgpe

Posted by hwbmxrsq tzlpumx | June 17, 2008 3:19 PM

lzytcs vjbeakwzy qvrky jksvd wcuil flsq fyevn

Posted by pgtloqnsy nbsjpoc | June 17, 2008 3:21 PM

lzytcs vjbeakwzy qvrky jksvd wcuil flsq fyevn

Posted by pgtloqnsy nbsjpoc | June 17, 2008 3:21 PM