Being There
It strikes me that we've already seen this year's election, whether it's Clinton-McCain or Obama-McCain. Remember how it went last time?
Clinton-McCain: Last time around, it was called Bush-Kerry. We nominated--almost by accident--a guy just because he offered some kind of consensus, even though no one particularly liked him. Who in the GOP likes McCain? They've grudgingly realized that every single guy they had on stage was a joke other than him. On the other side, our nominee may be someone so polarizing that people on both sides are saying that she can't possibly win...except this year she's got a fairly powerful rationale behind her candidacy, and she's got more money. Put a popular Democrat with the wind at her back up against an unpopular Republican and you might not get the broadest victory possible, but you'll quite probably get a victory.
Obama-McCain: This one's more obvious. The Republicans are about to nominate an old man whose party is in the process of failing us quite obviously and quite catastrophically, and the Democrats may be about to nominate an optimistic young man who wants to reverse course. That's '92, and that's game, set and match with or without a third-party spoiler. (I never believed the "spoiler" idiocy in the first place--when an incumbent gets less than forty percent of the vote, it's not because the vote was split, it's because an overwhelming majority of the country wanted the White House to change hands, and that protest vote was never, ever going to come home to the incumbent.)
In any event, there's precedent for either matchup, and it's quite doable either way. It's not exactly a gimme, because any candidate can botch his or her chances by running the wrong campaign for the season (like how Gore refused to run as Clinton's heir and allowed Bush to make it a personality contest), but I think they both have better instincts than that.
McCain maintains a veneer of credibility that the GOP would lack with Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson as its standard bearer, but he doesn't do much else. No one's excited about the guy. His strength upon independents depends, like Giuliani's, on vague impressions that he's going to dispel with every word that comes out of his mouth--he's an old man, and virtually every position he holds is an unpopular one. I'm not unduly afraid of facing him, whoever we have.
Categories
Politics0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Being There.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.epenthesis.org/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4775
I agree, especially with regards to McCain's unpopular positions.
He wants the US to hang around another 50+ years in Iraq, and has all but promised voters that, if elected, he'll attack (if not invade) Iran.
Any thoughts on potential running-mate scenarios?
McCain-Huckabee. Scary in several ways--putting a genuine religious fanatic (Bush is a phony) very close to the presidency, making a viable bid for Arkansas, adding some much-needed youth, vigor and optimism to a pretty dour ticket. And the national bench for the GOP is shallow; I can't think of an argument against him.
Obama-Sebelius. She may have sucked giving the SOTU rebuttal, but few people are better positioned to back him up in just about every sense: the same milquetoast "change" message without backup, the same bipartisan appeal, her own demographic card to play, and a whole region that she'd make viable for Democrats. She'd have to learn to speak with a little passion, but it's easier to fake the charisma than it is to replicate any of the points in her favor with someone else.
Clinton-Vilsack. She's too cautious to go with someone other than a white guy (maybe Richardson, though that idea scares the daylights out of me), she's too cautious to go with anyone with maverick tendencies, and she's too cautious to go with someone who doesn't represent a swing state. I don't disagree with any of this reasoning--caution serves Hillary well. I'd put Clark on her short list, but where's he been for the last four years?