That’s the question elected officials, political observers, and voters are asking about the Republican Party. Traditionally, the incumbent president or the party’s presidential candidate is the designated leader of the party. But in 2008, the two Republicans in this role have been unable to rally their political allies to their will.
George W. Bush is a lame duck president, arguably since his party lost control of Congress in 2006. His approval numbers were already at record lows before the economic crisis, which came down on him and his party like a ton of bricks. A recent poll by ABC News and the Washington Post put his disapproval ratings at a record 70 percent. The same poll finds that 25 percent think the president deserves the most blame for the economic crisis.
GOP presidential nominee John McCain has a very different problem. He has made his political reputation, rightly and wrongly, based on his willingness to buck his party’s leadership and the conservative base, on issues ranging from immigration to the environment to confirmation of judicial nominees. His problem is that he has burned his bridges with the base that it’s difficult for some of the party faithful to get excited about his campaign.
Perhaps the most telling sign of the lack of political capital Bush and McCain with regard to influencing congressional Republicans is the fact that they could not get more than one third of House Republicans to vote in favor of the bill, compared to two thirds of House Democrats who supported it. Another telling statistic about Bush and McCain’s diminished influence in their own congressional delegations, pointed out by Politico’s Jonathan Martin: only 4 out of a combined 23 House Republicans from Texas and Arizona voted for the bailout, and they were all from Texas.
While congressional leaders from both parties came together fairly quickly to try and come up with a solution to the crisis, when McCain called for his joint White House photo op with Obama he may have overly politicized the process and potentially helped to derail negotiations.
After the House vote failed, Congressional Republicans held a press conference to denounce a partisan speech given by Nancy Pelosi on the House floor, and said that she was responsible for the failure to pass the bill.
But voters aren’t buying the spin. According to the ABC/Post poll, 44 percent think that congressional Republicans are responsible for failing to pass the bailout legislation, compared to just 21 percent who blame the Democrats and 17 percent who blame both parties. But voters in general are in a sour mood with Congress. A recent CBS poll put congressional approval ratings at only 15 percent. There is a real and tangible feeling of “Throw the Bums Out” and I think a lot of incumbents up for reelection, particularly in the House, will be sweating bullets on Election Day.
Yes, Democrats have been running Congress for more than 18 months now, so some of the pressures of incumbency might be on them. However, I think perceptions with the voters are hardening, if not solidified, that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress for most of the last 8 years, and that most of, if not all, the events that led up to this moment of economic crisis happened on their watch.
If McCain loses the election and more GOP incumbents are ousted in the House and Senate, look for another round of circular firing squads and potential changes in their congressional leadership. The vacuum in leadership will force new faces to step up and take over, probably from outside Washington. Keep an eye on who is posturing or making noise to be the GOP frontrunner for 2012. I expect it to begin immediately after the current election is over. My guess is we will be hearing and seeing a lot more of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty. From the Congress, look for 2012 buzz coming from Rep. Eric Cantor, Sen. John Thune, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Marc Ambinder made a post on this subject worth reading, and the title effectively frames the Republicans’ dilemma right now: “Republicans Are Free Agents Now.”
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Road to 270: A Look at the Map Five Weeks Before the Election
This is the first in a series I will be doing every week from now until Election Day. The following map shows the race as it stands right now, and divides the 50 states into three categories: McCain (Red), Obama (Blue), and Swing (Yellow).
I’ve allocated states for John McCain and Barack Obama based on traditional and current voting trends and demographics. As always, the swing states – by my count, the 16 states which can go in favor of either candidate on Election Day – will determine which candidate wins the White House in November. The magic number of Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency is 270, hence the title of this entry.
A brief observation about the 16 swing states in this year’s race: many of them are perennially up for grabs in presidential elections, among them three of the biggest prizes up for grabs: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Their importance cannot be overestimated: two of these states have ultimately decided the winner of the last two presidential elections.
But what makes this year unusual is that the GOP is forced to play defense in three states that have been reliably Republican for decades: North Carolina, which hasn’t gone to a Democrat since Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign; and Virginia and Indiana, which were last won by Lyndon Johnson during his 1964 landslide victory. John Kerry made an attempt to pick up Virginia and North Carolina (the home state of his running mate John Edwards) four years ago, but ultimately gave up when poll numbers showed both states to be out of reach.
Montana is also a remote possibility as a swing state, although recent polls have the state leaning toward McCain. But the Democrats have had a bit of a resurgence at the state level in recent years. Historically, Bill Clinton won the state back in 1992, but he had help from Ross Perot, who siphoned off votes that might have otherwise gone to the incumbent president George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush routed Al Gore and John Kerry in Montana by 25 and 20 points respectively in his two presidential campaigns.
With the exception of these four states, the swing state map is virtually identical to 2004. In contrast, there are no solidly Democratic states (i.e. Massachusetts, Washington) that are up for grabs the way that Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and (to a lesser degree) Montana are now.
Based on recent trends and analysis, here’s what the map would look like if the election were held the week of September 29:
Barack Obama would win the election 291-247, with a majority of the swing states breaking in his favor. There are two reasons for this argument: first, James Carville’s famous line from the 1992 Clinton campaign “It’s the economy, stupid,”, second, the McCain campaign’s dizzying and near perpetual tailspin which began with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on September 15, which shifted the focus of the campaign from lipstick on a pig and national security – considered John McCain’s strong subject – to the economy, a subject which polls show voters prefer the Democrats.
McCain’s downward spiral has gotten progressively worse with his decision to suspend his campaign, essentially drawing against Barack Obama during the first presidential debate which helped to solidify the Democrat’s standing in the national and state polls, the failure of Congress to pass a bailout package in the House of Representatives, and the Dow Jones industrial average taking a record 777 point nosedive after the bill’s collapse.
McCain would narrowly win Florida and Ohio, two states out of the big three up for grabs that both went for George W. Bush in the last two elections. But Obama would compensate for those losses by winning Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia – worth a combined 32 Electoral College votes, almost enough to offset the combined loss of Ohio and Florida’s 47 Electoral College votes - while retaining all of the other states John Kerry won in 2004.
It's a pretty safe bet that one of these states will push Obama or McCain past the 270 threshold to win the White House. If I had to pick one, based on the 2006 elections, I'd choose Virginia. It was the Webb-Allen Senate race that in the end gave the Democrats control of the U.S. Senate, and it was also the last race to be decided.
Ohio would be very close again, and the political terrain might shift in Obama’s favor compared to 2004 because of Democratic gains in the state during 2006 and because of the focus on the economy, particularly in a manufacturing state like Ohio which has been hit hard by outsourcing and unemployment. It wouldn’t be enough right now to flip to the Obama side, but McCain and the Republicans would have to spend a lot of time and money defending it, because without Ohio it would be virtually impossible for McCain to win the race.
McCain’s best chance at picking up a Kerry swing state from 2004 at this point is New Hampshire. Given the strong libertarian and independent streak in their electorate, and the fact that McCain won two critical victories in their primary in 2000 and 2008, that it is the most Republican-leaning state in New England, and that it was one of only three states (along with Iowa and New Mexico) that flipped parties between 2000 and 2004, don’t be surprised if you see him there a few times between now and November.
One thing working against him is recent political trends. When the Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006, one of the geographic areas where they made a significant amount of gains was in New England, where several incumbent moderate Republicans in the House (Nancy Johnson, Charlie Bass, etc.) and the Senate (Lincoln Chafee) were ousted. Now, there is only one House Republican from New England: Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is facing a tough re-election fight.
As I said in a previous post, unless John McCain or some outside event can fundamentally shake the dynamic of the race away from Obama’s favor, it will become increasingly difficult to stop his momentum and of perceptions of undecided voters from hardening. A lot can change in a day or even a few weeks, as we’ve seen during the month of September, but time is running out for the McCain campaign.
His best hopes are either that Obama does disastrously in the final two presidential debates, or that some enterprising reporter unearths an October surprise that will damage his candidacy that could push just enough swing voters in McCain’s direction. But given that no reporter, or any opposition researcher from the Hillary Clinton campaign for that matter, was able to find a silver bullet to stop the Obama juggernaut, this is not a strategy I would plan the final weeks of a presidential campaign around.
I’ve allocated states for John McCain and Barack Obama based on traditional and current voting trends and demographics. As always, the swing states – by my count, the 16 states which can go in favor of either candidate on Election Day – will determine which candidate wins the White House in November. The magic number of Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency is 270, hence the title of this entry.
A brief observation about the 16 swing states in this year’s race: many of them are perennially up for grabs in presidential elections, among them three of the biggest prizes up for grabs: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Their importance cannot be overestimated: two of these states have ultimately decided the winner of the last two presidential elections.
But what makes this year unusual is that the GOP is forced to play defense in three states that have been reliably Republican for decades: North Carolina, which hasn’t gone to a Democrat since Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign; and Virginia and Indiana, which were last won by Lyndon Johnson during his 1964 landslide victory. John Kerry made an attempt to pick up Virginia and North Carolina (the home state of his running mate John Edwards) four years ago, but ultimately gave up when poll numbers showed both states to be out of reach.
Montana is also a remote possibility as a swing state, although recent polls have the state leaning toward McCain. But the Democrats have had a bit of a resurgence at the state level in recent years. Historically, Bill Clinton won the state back in 1992, but he had help from Ross Perot, who siphoned off votes that might have otherwise gone to the incumbent president George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush routed Al Gore and John Kerry in Montana by 25 and 20 points respectively in his two presidential campaigns.
With the exception of these four states, the swing state map is virtually identical to 2004. In contrast, there are no solidly Democratic states (i.e. Massachusetts, Washington) that are up for grabs the way that Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and (to a lesser degree) Montana are now.
Based on recent trends and analysis, here’s what the map would look like if the election were held the week of September 29:
Barack Obama would win the election 291-247, with a majority of the swing states breaking in his favor. There are two reasons for this argument: first, James Carville’s famous line from the 1992 Clinton campaign “It’s the economy, stupid,”, second, the McCain campaign’s dizzying and near perpetual tailspin which began with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on September 15, which shifted the focus of the campaign from lipstick on a pig and national security – considered John McCain’s strong subject – to the economy, a subject which polls show voters prefer the Democrats.
McCain’s downward spiral has gotten progressively worse with his decision to suspend his campaign, essentially drawing against Barack Obama during the first presidential debate which helped to solidify the Democrat’s standing in the national and state polls, the failure of Congress to pass a bailout package in the House of Representatives, and the Dow Jones industrial average taking a record 777 point nosedive after the bill’s collapse.
McCain would narrowly win Florida and Ohio, two states out of the big three up for grabs that both went for George W. Bush in the last two elections. But Obama would compensate for those losses by winning Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia – worth a combined 32 Electoral College votes, almost enough to offset the combined loss of Ohio and Florida’s 47 Electoral College votes - while retaining all of the other states John Kerry won in 2004.
It's a pretty safe bet that one of these states will push Obama or McCain past the 270 threshold to win the White House. If I had to pick one, based on the 2006 elections, I'd choose Virginia. It was the Webb-Allen Senate race that in the end gave the Democrats control of the U.S. Senate, and it was also the last race to be decided.
Ohio would be very close again, and the political terrain might shift in Obama’s favor compared to 2004 because of Democratic gains in the state during 2006 and because of the focus on the economy, particularly in a manufacturing state like Ohio which has been hit hard by outsourcing and unemployment. It wouldn’t be enough right now to flip to the Obama side, but McCain and the Republicans would have to spend a lot of time and money defending it, because without Ohio it would be virtually impossible for McCain to win the race.
McCain’s best chance at picking up a Kerry swing state from 2004 at this point is New Hampshire. Given the strong libertarian and independent streak in their electorate, and the fact that McCain won two critical victories in their primary in 2000 and 2008, that it is the most Republican-leaning state in New England, and that it was one of only three states (along with Iowa and New Mexico) that flipped parties between 2000 and 2004, don’t be surprised if you see him there a few times between now and November.
One thing working against him is recent political trends. When the Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006, one of the geographic areas where they made a significant amount of gains was in New England, where several incumbent moderate Republicans in the House (Nancy Johnson, Charlie Bass, etc.) and the Senate (Lincoln Chafee) were ousted. Now, there is only one House Republican from New England: Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is facing a tough re-election fight.
As I said in a previous post, unless John McCain or some outside event can fundamentally shake the dynamic of the race away from Obama’s favor, it will become increasingly difficult to stop his momentum and of perceptions of undecided voters from hardening. A lot can change in a day or even a few weeks, as we’ve seen during the month of September, but time is running out for the McCain campaign.
His best hopes are either that Obama does disastrously in the final two presidential debates, or that some enterprising reporter unearths an October surprise that will damage his candidacy that could push just enough swing voters in McCain’s direction. But given that no reporter, or any opposition researcher from the Hillary Clinton campaign for that matter, was able to find a silver bullet to stop the Obama juggernaut, this is not a strategy I would plan the final weeks of a presidential campaign around.
Sarah Palin's VP Debate Crash Course
Sarah Palin practicing for the VP debate with McCain aide Randy Schuenemann
Image courtesy of the McCain campaign, via Politico.
Republicans are probably not going to find too much comfort in reading stories like these in the Wall Street Journal. The whole thing is worth taking the time to read but these excerpts stand out:
The McCain campaign moved its top officials inside Gov. Sarah Palin's operation Sunday to prepare for what is certain to be the most important event of her vice-presidential campaign: her debate on Thursday with Democrat Joe Biden.
...
The moves follow several shaky performances by Gov. Palin last week and come amid concern and grumbling from Republicans, and even a few queries from her husband, Todd Palin, according to campaign operatives and Republican officials.
...
Meanwhile, the more experienced advisers assigned to her by the McCain campaign are accustomed to working with seasoned candidates, not someone "completely green on the national stage," one strategist said. Several Republican backers have griped that the campaign has put the candidate in difficult situations, from sitting for high-profile television interviews to popping into meetings with foreign leaders, some of whom made sexist remarks, said several officials.
...Amid the heavy scrutiny in a close campaign, Gov. Palin is under considerable pressure to make Thursday's debate a "game changer," advisers said. The campaign is sending in Sen. McCain's debate coach, Brett O'Donnell, to help with her preparation, advisers said. Though he always was expected to help out after Sen. McCain's debate Friday in Oxford, Miss., Mr. O'Donnell now needs to "undo" much of her previous debate prep, which has resulted in occasional "rote" responses, one adviser said.
As if the thought of Sarah Palin going one-on-one with Joe Biden for 90 minutes before millions of television viewers weren't nerve-wracking enough, it turns out that CBS may have more embarrassing Palin responses from the Katie Couric interview it will air in the days leading up to the VP debate later this week. The key detail, from this story by Politico's Jonathan Martin:
Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.Now it looks like McCain's people need to give her a crash course on national security, Supreme Court history and constitutional law, and the economy. They will be in the unenviable position of going into the debate hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
Update: The McCain campaign released the photo of Palin practicing for the debate with McCain foreign policy aide Randy Schuenemann after I posted this, so I've added it retroactively.
Also, the New York Times has a story on Palin's debate prep. The following graphs are worth noting:
Ms. Palin has traveled with a briefing team since Sept. 10. Two people close to the campaign, addressing her difficulties, said she had been stuffed with facts as if preparing for an oral exam and had become nervous and unnatural in the few interviews.
Advisers said she was a diligent worker and was frequently up until the small hours of the morning in her hotel room trying to cram as much information as possible before the debate.
I know there's no way anyone can ever be absolutely 100 percent prepared for a nationally televised debate, but is it feasible to think that late night cram sessions are going to help her at this point? This is the vice presidency of the United States that's at stake, not a college midterm.
While both campaigns are playing the expectations game and raising or lowering the bars for the two candidates, Politico has this interesting study of Palin's past debate performances. In essence: she can hold her own and Democrats would be foolish to think she's a pushover just because she's been a disaster in two out of the three nationally televised interviews she's done since being tapped as McCain's running mate.
The conventional wisdom and expectations are in Joe Biden's favor, but as numerous articles have pointed out, he needs to avoid appearing condescending or indignant whenever Palin makes a mistake. A note from the only other vice presidential debate with a female candidate: George H.W. Bush ran into a mild backlash after an exchange he had with Geraldine Ferraro during the 1984 campaign.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Requiem for a Dream
Photo courtesy: New York Times
“Disconnect and self-destruct one bullet at a time."
- A Perfect Circle, "The Outsider"
September 15 is celebrated as Independence Day in many Latin American countries, but in U.S. political history that day might be remembered as the beginning of the end of John McCain’s presidential ambitions.
The collapse of Lehman Brothers, and the federal government bailouts of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae completely changed the dynamic and narrative of the campaign. While mock outrage over lipstick on a pig and real issues of national security – McCain’s strong point – had been driving the media cycle and coverage, the biggest financial crisis since 1929 completely changed the playing field. And John McCain blew it.
“The fundamentals of our economy are strong,” McCain said at a campaign event the same day that the markets were going haywire. This was manna from heaven for the Democrats, who proceeded to hammer McCain mercilessly over the comment. His subsequent reversal did little to undo the minimal political damage caused by the original comment.
His decision to “suspend” his campaign will probably leave voters at large with a very unfavorable impression of him. David Letterman did him no favors either, brutally eviscerating him after finding out that McCain canceled an appearance on the Late Show – not to go back to Washington and work on the legislative bailout package as he originally claimed – but to do an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric.
“Hey Senator, can I give you a ride home?” Letterman facetiously asked as the show took the live in-house CBS feed of McCain getting ready for the interview with Couric. This may well go down in history as a late night campaign moment, potentially up with Bill Clinton playing saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show back in 1992.
Given the influence of late night comics at reaching the electorate who may not get their dose of politics from hard news programs like the NBC Nightly News or 60 Minutes, having someone with Letterman’s influence and reach taking him out to the woodshed on a semi-regular basis won’t do McCain any favors.
Letterman continued his comedic assault on McCain a day later. “Here's how it works: you don't come to see me? You don't come to see me? Well, we might not see you on Inauguration Day,” he said.
Sarah Palin’s disastrous interview with Katie Couric only served to reaffirm doubts among her critics, raise them among her supporters and the punditocracy about her qualifications to be vice president, or step in and take over for McCain in case of an emergency. Her responses to legitimate questions from Couric were a series of talking points incoherently sequenced together to make something she hoped resembled a sentence. The McCain campaign will keep her as far away from the press as possible after the vice presidential debate.
The only upside from that interview is that it has effectively set the bar so low for the vice presidential debate that it will probably be considered a success for her just for showing up and taking questions. Joe Biden doesn’t even have to attack her – all he needs to do is look and act like the elder statesman he is in answering questions, not make any gaffes, and let her dig herself into a hole before a nationally televised audience of millions.
But perhaps the biggest jumping the shark moment in this two week self-implosion was McCain boldly proposing to postpone the first presidential debate and reschedule the vice presidential debate – having been agreed to by both campaigns and the debate commission long before – unless Congress passed a bailout package.
McCain effectively boxed himself into a corner that left him with no good options. If he didn’t show up, he would effectively give Barack Obama 90 minutes of free uncontested airtime to millions of voters and anger potential voters in Mississippi, where Ole Miss had already spent more than $5 million in setting up for the debate. If he reversed himself and did show up – with or without a package ready to go – he would look like he backed down from a threat he couldn’t carry out.
During the debate, McCain said “If you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.” To phrase it using those terms: McCain aimed a gun at these debates, threatened to pull the trigger if Congress didn’t pass a bill, and backed down. The fact that his campaign had produced web ads proclaiming McCain won the debate, which were released before it even took place, shows McCain took the pulling the trigger option about as seriously as most political observers take Ralph Nader now.
There are five more weeks and three more debates to go between now and Election Day, and we’ve already seen how much the dynamic can change in the course of one day or one event. McCain and his surrogates (Rick Davis, Steve Schmidt, Carly Fiorina, Douglas Holtz-Eakin) have been misfiring on nearly all cylinders during the last two weeks. Unless McCain is able to fundamentally shift the dynamics of the race in his favor, or some outside event does it for him, he will spend the rest of the campaign watching his presidential ambitions slipping away.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Ann Coulter Endorses Hillary Clinton Over John McCain
Is the right truly this despondent over John McCain potentially being their nominee or is this just another stunt on her part to get attention? In related news, hell has frozen over.
By E&P Staff
Published: February 01, 2008 10:25 AM ET
NEW YORK We know the far right is upset with John McCain as nominee but this is really going pretty far: Ann Coulter on Fox News asserting that if he gets the GOP nomination she would not only "vote for" Hillary, she would "campaign for her if it's McCain."
She said on Hannity & Colmes last night that Clinton "is more conservative than he is" and adds that in that scenario "she will be our girl." As president she would be "stronger in the war on terrorism" and would not pull the troops out of Iraq, pointing out that she jumped to her feet at the State of Union speech when President Bush said the surge was working (and Obama did not).
Hannity says, looking back to 2003: "McCain supported the war." Coulter points out: "So did Hillary."
Alan Colmes says Hillary would say "no" to Coulter's offer to campaign for her.
But Coulter goes on: "Hillary is absolutely more conservative" and moreover "she lies less than John McCain. And she's smarter than John McCain so when she lies she knows it....John McCain is not only bad for Republicans he is also bad for the country." Hannity doesn't agree.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Mr. Self Destruct
Rudy, we hardly knew ye... (Photo courtesy New York Times)
Here's the writeup on the Florida primary from the New York Times:
This information is somewhat dated, since multiple news organizations have confirmed that Giuliani will drop out of the race and endorse McCain in Los Angeles tomorrow before the CNN/LA Times/Politico debate at the Reagan Library. Whether this will be a significant boost or not for McCain remains to be seen, although Huckabee's continued presence in the campaign hurts Mitt Romney more than Giuliani's did to McCain.
McCain Defeats Romney in Florida Vote MIAMI — Senator John McCain defeated Mitt Romney on Tuesday to win the delegate-rich Florida primary, solidifying his transformation to the Republican front-runner and dealing a devastating blow to the presidential hopes of Rudolph W. Giuliani.
Republican officials said after Mr. Giuliani’s distant third-place finish that he was likely to endorse Mr. McCain, possibly as early as Wednesday in California. They said the two candidates’ staffs were discussing the logistics of an endorsement.
According to the most recently available exit poll data from Florida, Huckabee took 259,703 votes in the GOP primary. Romney lost to McCain by just over 95,000 votes, so Huckabee may well have played spoiler to Romney in this race, since they are both fishing in the same electoral pond for social and religious conservatives. Huckabee will probably concentrate his limited resources on social conservatives in midwestern and southern states like Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee on Super Tuesday next week. Whether he will play spoiler to Romney again remains to be seen, since Romney has more resources and needs to be competitive against McCain in bigger and more expensive states like California and New York.
Also worth reading is the NYT's post-mortem on the Giuliani campaign, which I suspect will be the subject of books, dissertations, and theses for years to come.
Update: The Los Angeles Times has this interesting note on Giuliani's campaign based on the latest campaign finance reports filed with the FEC.
Giuliani's $50-million delegate
The failed campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani can claim one distinction: the worst bang for the buck of any delegate winner in presidential politics history.
The former New York mayor, who dropped his Republican bid for the presidency this week, disclosed Thursday in a filing with the Federal Election Commission that he raised $58.5 million and spent $48.8 million in 2007.
With his donors' money, Giuliani captured a single national delegate, in Nevada. At that rate, it would have taken close to $60 billion in spending to capture the 1,191 delegates needed to win the nomination.
Dan Morain
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Requiem for a Dream
Photo from Reuters.
In what was probably the worst-kept secret in Washington, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was semi-quietly setting up a campaign operation to run for president again in 2008.
The problem with McCain is that he has tried to be all things to all people for so long, and under a glaring national spotlight in an energized electorate, it's all coming out into the open.
While in 2000, he ran on an image of being a maverick willing to buck his own party. Eight years later, he's running as the establishment candidate, trying to create a sense of inevitability with a political machine featuring some of the biggest GOP operatives and elected officials signing on to support him.
About a week ago, The Hill came out with a front page bombshell that McCain had been thinking about switching over to the Democrats in spring of 2001, and had made overtures to then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.). After Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.) defected and gave Democrats control of the Senate, discussions about possible defections with McCain and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) ended.
Following on the Hill's lead, MyDD posted its bombshell from an interview with Sen. John Kerry: that McCain's people approached him about getting on the 2004 ticket as his running mate.
The McCain campaign has denied both stories, but the fact that they're coming on the record from three Washington insiders in Democratic circles is not good for McCain. If it had been anonymous sources, McCain could be more dismissive, but given that two of his fellow senators are making the claims gives them a certain amount of gravitas, regardless of how accurate they may be or not.
While McCain may not be trusted by some elements of the Republican base, both of these stories could torpedo any hope he had of winning the nomination. Only in a hyper-accelerated campaign season on steroids such as this year is raising $12.5 million in the first quarter considered NOT good enough.
The news cycle has not been kind to Senator McCain. Between his back-and-forth with the media at large and CNN's Michael Ware over the coverage of the war in Iraq, followed by his visit/photo-op at a Baghdad market, the last thing he needed were two articles that raised questions about his commitment to his party. If the allegations are accurate, the implications - that he was a crass, calculating politician willing to say or do anything for his own benefit - would be devastating to his presidential ambitions.
It's still early - things could change and I could be proven wrong - but I have a feeling that McCain is not going to be as competitive or significant a force in the campaign this year as he was in 2000. His time has come and gone, and he will not be the next president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)