The Divided GOP

Patrick Ruffini, on the state of the race:

Despite the different actors and alliances in different states, we are beginning to see the real dividing lines of this campaign. It’s the battle of the moderates (McCain), metro conservatives (Romney), and rural conservatives (Huckabee). Stripped of all other hangers-on (Fred, and increasingly, Rudy), nationwide this divide seems to work out to about 40-40-20, or 35-40-25. Conservatives ought to be winning this battle, but Huckabee’s lock on the rural vote (just 16% of the vote in Charleston County, btw) will prevent any kind of clear two-man race before February 5th. Every day that Huckabee’s nice guy act is allowed to continue is a gift to John McCain — and he knows it.

Mitt Romney is fast becoming the candidate of conservatives in the suburbs and the exurbs. In Michigan, he dominated Oakland and Macomb counties with 46% of the vote in a multi-candidate field. In Nevada, he won most convincingly in Clark County. In Iowa, he did better in Des Moines than elsewhere in the state.

The Romney and McCain coalitions also overlap. They represent two different sides of the establishment coin, with McCain representing an older, mainline establishment — the Republican Party of Gerry Ford, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole — and Romney representing the brasher, post-Reagan establishment that was built on the tax issue and whose alliance with modern-day Huckabee voters allowed them to take control of the party in 1994.

Read the whole thing. Ruffini's analysis implies that in the long run, McCain may need some version of the alliance with Huckabee that keeps being bandied about, because "to start racking up victory margins in the 40s ... he'll need to add votes from the Christian conservative base." The difficulty, of course, is that this would create "an alliance of opposites — of pro-life and pro-choice, of liberal and conservative, of secular and evangelical" behind McCain's candidacy. It would be a deeply peculiar state of affairs: You'd essentially have the party's rightward and leftward factions uniting in a joint insurgency against the "movement" establishment. Handled with great finesse, it could work brilliantly, creating an ecumenical reform coalition within the party and delivering a much-needed jolt of creative destruction to the GOP. But John McCain isn't exactly a finesse politician, and it's just as easy to imagine it blowing up in his face.

Comments

It would be a deeply peculiar state of affairs: You'd essentially have the party's rightward and leftward factions uniting in a joint insurgency against the "movement" establishment. Handled with great finesse, it could work brilliantly, creating an ecumenical reform coalition within the party and delivering a much-needed jolt of creative destruction to the GOP. But John McCain isn't exactly a finesse politician, and it's just as easy to imagine it blowing up in his face.

Yes, but it's also important not to underestimate the ineptitude of that "establishment" itself, or the disdain with which it's viewed by countless GOP voters. I have far less trouble imagining a McCain-Huckabee alliance succeeding in a national election than, say, a Romney-Thompson one.

Posted by John | January 20, 2008 5:08 PM

I agree w/ Ross and Ruffini.
Romney should be framed as another patrician practitioner of Crony Capitalism, a doppelganger of Al Checchi, the Democratic Establishment candidate of pension-raiding fame who tried to buy California, and failed.
Vin Weber and other Washington Insiders are lined up behind Romney - but so is Fox, Limbaugh and the rest of Talk Radio. The reactionary supporters of Romney undermine his middle-of-the-road persona: "Really, I'm more Ruckelshaus than Rumsfeld."
Fortunately for McCain, Limbaugh will keep on the attack, driving moderates, independents, minorities, and everyone who isn't an Angry White Male into McCain's camp.
I also agree w/ Ross that McCain could blow it; as he gets close to the crown, his ego could take him down.

Posted by fougasseu | January 20, 2008 5:09 PM

I hope Huckabee realizes that McCain is not what the GOP needs. He doesn't support a Marriage Protection Ammendment. He doesn't appreciate the spiritual roots of this nation. Moreover McCain doens't know the first thing about the economy. He is a one note tune - War. He isn't really qualified to addres the other great concerns of this country- i.e. social, economic, and immigration issues and cannot be trusted to embrace GOP principles in those areas. Huckabee would be far better to withdraw from the campaign and put his support behind Romney who actually does share his values. This would help ensure the McCain does not get the nomination which many republicans have told me they would rather have Hillary. This would help to truly preserve GOP values.

Posted by V123 | January 20, 2008 6:41 PM

Hard to understand any Republican who would prefer Hillary to McCain or indeed much of anybody. She's ideologically opposed to GOP principles, ethically compromised and an implacable foe

One problem with McCain-Huckabee fusion is that it could be so easily attacked as cynical -- like John Randolph of Roanoke attacking the Adams-Clay fusion of 1824 as "the coalition of Blifil and Black George -- the Puritan and the Blackleg."

Not to mention that Huckabee's welfare state populism almost puts him in a tie heat with Hillary in my estimation.

Posted by Ned | January 20, 2008 8:01 PM

It is interesting how little the Republicans are paying attention to the Senate and House election.

The Republicans are spending their time worrying about nominating a presidential candidates. But no matter who they nominate, many Congressional candidates will have to run the other way. A Romney or Huckabee nomination would easily hand the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and total control of both Congress and the White House.

In the long run, the real question is how long can the Republicans remain relevant considering that demographic changes in the U.S. will overwhelm the republicans and make the Democratic Party, the one, dominate political party.

Posted by superdestroyer | January 20, 2008 8:56 PM

There is nothing "liberal" or "leftward" about McCain. He's a conservative Republican in all of his positions: pro-life, pro-war, pro-business. If being pro-torture and pro-theocracy is what passes for conservatism there days, God help us all.

Posted by Mike | January 20, 2008 9:10 PM

Exactly right, Mike. The anti-McCain hysteria among the Lymbaugh types is the height of absurdity. But don't forget to include being pro-deportation as one of the position that apparently defines conservatism ...

Posted by John | January 20, 2008 10:28 PM

McCain/Thompson in '08 - This country for old men!

You heard it here first.

Posted by Mark in Houston | January 20, 2008 10:39 PM

Deep down, Ned, in your deepest heart o heats, do you think Romney is any more conservative than Hillary? Do you think he actually gives a damn about any conservative ideal?

As for McCain, at this point do you think he cares about anything other than war? What are the conservative principles he's truly committed to, other than wilding in the MidEast?

Posted by Little Boots | January 20, 2008 11:00 PM

McCain's generally been a fiscal-restraint person. He supported Phil Gramm's run at one time and opposed tax cuts because spending was increasing at the same time. Excepting 2001 he's generally scored well with "National Tax Limitation Committee" and often scores high with "Americans for Tax Reform." From 1993 to 2003 he received "0%" from Planned Parenthood. His scores with "National Right to Life" aren't as exceptional, but are usually above 70%. (He did poorly with them from 1999-2001 though)

Posted by Thomas R | January 21, 2008 2:41 AM

McCain occasionally wanders off the resevation, but has an impressive 82.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Over time, ewcept for a handful of diehards, Republicans will support McCain along with a fair of number of independents and some conservative Democrats. He is, also, more likeable and electable in a national election than Romney.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 21, 2008 8:32 AM

The big story to come out of Saturday's elections was Mitt Romney's fourth in South Carolina . It should be remembered that he invested a small fortune in winning South Carolina and only abandoned ship a couple of days before election day to fly off to Nevada . Whilst Nevada is slightly more meaningful than Wyoming for Romney naturally the media will not pay a huge ammount of attention to it because it did not take much to win it . Even before one vote was cast anyone with a grain of sense knew that Romney would carry the western states of Utah , Idaho , Wyoming , Nevada and Montana because of the huge influece of the Mormons .

What South Carolina is saying is that Mitt Romney will not carry one Southern State including Florida which is his best chance . How can a man who does not carry one Southern State win the Republican nomination let alone go on and win the General Election ?

Posted by Andrew Price | January 21, 2008 9:15 AM

McCain occasionally wanders off the resevation, but has an impressive 82.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Over time, ewcept for a handful of diehards, Republicans will support McCain along with a fair of number of independents and some conservative Democrats. He is, also, more likeable and electable in a national election than Romney.

A question for McCain supporters: What is different about McCain in 2000 and McCain in 2008, other than his age?

Posted by SavageView | January 21, 2008 9:28 AM

SavageView, other than more years of experience one sees very little difference in McCain since 2000. He has reinforced his reputation for integrity by taking unpopular stands on the Iraq War and immigration. Also, in a recent interview with the WSJ editorial board he showed more economic savvy, economics being an area in which he has a thin background.

BTW, on the issue of McCain's age, I can remember the days of Konrad Adenauer, a superb leader of free Germany into his late eighties during the height of the Cold War period.

Frankly, my only real concern about McCain is that he could go wobbly on Supreme Court appointments and come up with some milquetoast or vague centrists, though this is why, perhaps, one of the reasons he appeals to independents.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 21, 2008 12:33 PM

What is different about McCain in 2000 and McCain in 2008, other than his age?

Nothing much. But why should that matter? I thought in 2000 that McCain would be a much better president than Bush. Given how low the bar has been set, it's hard to feel especially prescient in having been vindicated in that belief. But the comic excesses of the GOP "establishment" have now sickened me to such a point that I would /never/ vote for the candidate they fawn over as one of their "own". The extent to which McCain has been a bug in the ear of these corrupt, fraudulent morons makes him only that much more attractive to those of us who would like to see American conservatism save itself, and who hold out hope that this can be done without a /complete/ implosion of the GOP and another decades-long stretch of Democratic rule.

Posted by John | January 21, 2008 12:37 PM

I have said for some time now that Romney would struggle to win southern and moderate states in the primaries, regardless of the fortune he spent on advertsing. And there is a laundry list of reasons why, ranging from his transparent pandering, to his lack of true genuineness when he speaks. These are the same states that I think McCain wins easily in a general election, and remains the reason why he is the most electable. Let's face it, this is going to be a tough election for the GOP, and I believe we must put forth our best candidate in order to win--and that man is McCain. For all the criticisms of his record, in reality he is grounded in conservative principles that should be enough for GOPers to give him their support.

Posted by Publius | January 21, 2008 12:53 PM

I agree with Publius: "...we must put forth our best candidate in order to win - and that man is McCain."
The DEMS will be ratcheting up their "NO THIRD TERM" message against the Clintons, and Romney, as the front man for the Bush family, will be vulnerable to the same message.
Romney and Clinton - NO THIRD TERMS.
Both the Bush family and the Clinton family have had great success plundering America via Crony Capitalism, time for them to step away from the trough.

Posted by fougasseu | January 21, 2008 12:59 PM

Ross Douthat wants to move the Republican Party left. This is what he means by "delivering a much needed jolt of creative destruction to the GOP".
He often speaks of McCain, and especially Huckabee, as fighting against the conservative intellectual establishment. First of all, I wish it were true that most of the conservative establishment was against these two. But the National Review has been more positive towards McCain than the candidate they formally endorsed(Romney), and The Weekly Standard's favorite candidate appears to be Mike Huckabee.
Secondly, while there is a degree of opposition to McCain and Huckabee within the conservative establishment, they are the favorite GOP candidates of liberal establishment types. Douthat doesn't mention this, or why he thinks it is a good thing(Douthat continues, pretty implausibly, to identify himself as a conservative. He is still a conservative like Gary Wills and Michael Lind are still conservatives).
In response to some of the claims made in posts here about McCain:

- McCain did not simply oppose Bush's tax cuts on fiscal grounds. Here is one statement from him on why he opposed them: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle class Americans who need tax relief".

- Among the GOP base, taking a "strong stand" on Iraq is not unpopular. In fact, had he not done so, McCain would have had no chance in the primaries.

- Many people who support McCain use his record before 2000, when it was largely conservative, to support the post-2000 McCain, when it has not been consistently conservative. Now, he's conservative when necessary for continued political viability.

- As far as being Pro-Life, McCain supported Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and said while running in 2000: "I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women." Oh, but now he says he wants it overturned.

Ross will continue to talk of "change", "reform" the "conservative establishment", etc., but what he really wants is a more liberal Republican Party.

Posted by notamarxist | January 21, 2008 2:57 PM

I don't see why McCain needs an alliance with Huckabee in order to start getting numbers in the 40s. He just needs Giuliani to drop out, as most Giuliani voters would probably go to McCain and "Giuliani + McCain" adds up to something like 40-45% in most national polls. That's why McCain has to make sure that Giuliani is crushed so badly in Florida that he drops out before Super Tuesday.

Posted by Chris S. | January 21, 2008 3:59 PM

I agree with Chris S., crushing Giuliani makes McCain virtually unstoppable. McCain's comeback, if it occurs, will be the greatest comeback in American political history, surpassing Richard Nixon's. I can't believe he can defeat the GOP Establishment, but if he does, it will force a major realignment of the GOP.
How can someone so hated by Ailes, Hannity, Limbaugh, George Bush, the Romney camp, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, James Dobson...the list of reactionaries is almost endless.
It could happen, it's hard to believe, but it could happen.

Posted by fougasseu | January 21, 2008 7:55 PM