How McCain lost it in October

The conventional wisdom still maintains that John McCain was the best the GOP had to offer, and on paper the case is very strong because of polling during the Spring. This never really translated into reality. McCain the maverick simply could not be a standard-bearer. The two roles are intrinsically opposed. He's played the opposition for so long, often to his own party, that he's never developed or adopted any kind of governing philosophy beyond the next issue of the Weekly Standard.

All in all, the GOP should at least review the mechanics of its primary system (Democrats, too). That a man like McCain, who could never garner serious majorities until late in the game, was given the nomination shows the system is deeply flawed. Too, the open primary should be given a second look. I can see its advantage in testing candidates' cross-over appeal, but the party itself should have a larger say. That way the candidate, having secured the base, can begin to genuinely appeal to the center.

In fact, the idea of Iowa and New Hampshire picking our candidates has got to go. I like that we give small states a say, but let us add a few more, like Alaska or Connecticutt, or South Dakota. Perhaps we could have a system of primary days that allow the smaller states to go first (say 12 of them), which helps dark horses, followed by large states, and no candidate could get a majority until the last day of voting.

Why didn't McCain spend the MONTHS he had between the nomination and the covention vetting and then choosing a VP candidate? By all accounts, Palin was a last minute, hurried, pick.

Why didn't McCain spend the MONTHS he had between the nomination and the convention focusing his record as a Senator bucking the Bush Administration? Why not go "Maverick" from the get go, especially after Obama made Bush=McCain the thrust of his campaign?

Instead, he was erratic, impulsive, and completely lacking in a theme. Obama created a theme (Change), and stuck with it no matter what.

McCain went from War Hero, to Maverick, the Populist, to Reformer, to Change Agent, to Ready to Lead, and so on and so on... I don't think anyone, even today, can say what the theme of the McCain campaign was at it's core.

Better yet, why not have regional primaries. Break the nation into 4-6 regions, and have the primaries over the course of 8-12 weeks, or perhaps less. Rotate the order so each region gets to lead off in turn. Or maybe consider a national primary, all on the same day?

Why must the system drag on so long? Why must some states always go first?

RJohnson:

I think the argument against regional primaries is that it favors candidates with lots of political connections and money because advertising then becomes paramount.

How about a series of small-scale regional primaries in select congressional districts (chosen by lot) followed a month or so later by large regional primaries? That would get things done quicker yet still allow for "retail politics".

A very revealing passage about the Democrat reaction to Palin:

"Sen. McCain soon did the unexpected, picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. The Obama campaign watched her rousing performance at the Republican convention and focus groups assembled to test the voter reaction. Obama advisers couldn't believe what they were hearing. "Sarah Palin is one of us" was an oft-heard refrain. "She can help John McCain shake up Washington" was another common theme. On his weekly strategy call with Democratic senators after the Republican convention in early September, Obama Chief of Staff Jim Messina began, "Let me walk you through this week's events." He was cut off by angry senators calling for a more aggressive response to the Republican running-mate pick: "Go after Palin." "Define Palin." "Make the race about Palin." Mr. Messina was startled by the new nervousness in the party ranks.'

That explains quite a lot about the MSM's reatment of Palin--especially on the covers of grocery store check-out mags. Jann Wenner stood out as one of the Obama-allied smear-mongers.

My radical thought is that no one be allowed to advertise before the first primary. This election drags on way longer then necessary.

McCain lost when he went manic about the bailout. Obama rightly declined to stop campaigning, saying in essence he could walk and chew gum at the same time. Both candidated(wrongly) ultimately supported the bailout, but McCain acted like a panicky buffoon. Obama may not have done much there, but the crisis didn't call for McCain's "maverick" act, which really did look erratic. From there out, McCain's vibe was panic and turmoil, Obama exuded calm and cool.

"Sen. McCain's dramatic moves and sometimes-uneven temperament and Sen. Obama's more analytical reaction and calm vibe"

I think this kind of sentiment shows that things were already lost. Obama's "analytical reaction" was simply to have no significant reaction...he was still "analyzing". (Perhaps that was the correct response, but it isn't as if all his analyzing ever produced an interesting suggestion.) His calm vibe was evinced by him doing NOTHING. Let's call things as they are: McCain's effort to do something failed, and failure is condemned much more than apathy. That's more or less why people are apathetic.

McCain didn't lose this election in October, he lost it many years ago. He lost it when he decided to be "maverick" and never adopt a real conservative philosophy of governance, and instead just wing it.

The talk about how Obama seemed "thoughtful" is hilarious. He had nothing to say, becuase he had nothing to say. And that was because it takes a few days to get focus group work done to tell you what wording to use and how to project non-controversial "calm".

Like Clinton, Obama could not campaign from his head or heart, because his campaign and personna and image are all fiction... they are inventions.

His "thoughtful" was a deception and he obviously fooled you all.

Journalism is the "first draft" of history. Rod, the story from WSJ is interesting, but it's TOO early to say what caused the defeat or to attribute it to McCain's behavior during the financial crisis. There will be more accounts and more reports and I think it is premature to conclude anything.

Frankly, I think the idea of an "erratic McCain during the economic meltdown" is nothing more than an Obama campaign narrative. Voters bought it thanks to B.O.s "amen corner" in the media. I admired McCain's gutsiness and efforts to dig around for solutions during the crisis. Obama, by contrast, seemed a little too ponderous and deliberate for my tastes. Our President-elect's behavior reminds us of Herbert Hoover's style. McCain's was more like FDR's.

Whatever anyone on this blog thinks ... the stock market spoke LOUD and CLEAR TODAY: the gravest, most depressing post-election DROP in the stock market in the history of the country.

Judging by the stock market today, one might say that the "Obama depression" began today.

"There will be more accounts and more reports and I think it is premature to conclude anything."

I agree with this. For example, McCain's numbers seemed to begin a downward trajectory *before* the campaign 'suspension' fiasco (Although David Letterman nailed that stunt to the wall). The best one could say is that McCain could never recover after that. In the remaining days, most of his problems were pretty-much self-inflicted.

"Judging by the stock market today, one might say that the "Obama depression" began today."

Well, I can see how some would spin it that way. Others might spin it that the market woke up this morning and realized that the GOP was still in control for another 76 days.

Time will tell, Reaganite. We know what the GOP and conservative economic policy has done to this nation in the past 14+ years. My guess is that it will take at least that long to repair the damage of trickle-down economics of Reaganism coupled with the spend-on-credit fiscal plans our current President has advocated throughout his tenure.

Bush erased in one year a surplus that it took Clinton eight years to build. As anyone with any sense knows, it is easier to destroy than to build. So I would say, by 2020 we should know whether or not the policies set in place by Obama in the coming years have borne fruit.

Maybe by then God will bring the Republicans out of the wilderness.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/11/sarah-palin-didnt-know-that-africa-is-a-continent.html

Reaganite...

Need it actually be pointed out that Reagan both believed in the private sector and individual enterprise, and the nation prospered at it's nurturing, but Obama has absolutely no faith in individuals and believes solely in centralized redistribution?

So, while Obama may speak Reagan-sounding details, his belief in those ideas and in the principles does not exist.

GWB kept a low profile during the heyday of the economic crisis while a consensus developed (heavily pushed by surrogates like Paulson) and was criticized for being detached. Obama kept a low profile during the heyday of the crisis while the Congress reached a consensus without the leader of the the majority party and he is hailed as being smooth, calm, measured and "analytical". WTF? Can someone please tell me about some "analysis" that Obama provided while he was projecting a "calm vibe".

It would sure be nice if someone could use the same criteria to judge Obama, McCain, and Bush. (or Fox and MSNBC for that matter).