McCain/Jindal 2008

fred1451

Banned
McCain is a war hero, a maverick and this often plays to strength, for example, he's in favor of a strong defense but against a gravy train for large contractors. . .

So, why was he unpopular with movement conservatives / proto- Tea Party crowd?

(and Dole picking Kemp in '96 didn't really have this business of balancing the ticket, nor really Bush picking Cheney)
This is a guess based on my personal feelings, but, it might of had something to do with the fact as a Maverick he seemed to be fighting a personal vendetta against Bush, I heard because he thought he had been cheated out of the nomination in 2000, but what ever it was, he basically fought GWB over everything he tried to do from the Military to Tax Cuts.

McCain had, at least in my opinion 5 problems, 3 internal, 2 external, and pretty much any of them could have pretty much cost him the election, together? He had no chance.

The Internal
1) As you pointed out, he was a maverick, he often sided with democrats over republicans. Except of course the years in which he stood for election, in which case he swerved so hard to the right I'm surprised he wasn't in a neck brace. So he was viewed by the conservative base as a RINO, not a Maverick.

2) The theme of his Election Campaign could be summed up as "I can get things done with the Democrats." Which is not what the conservative base of the party wanted. (More ,"We want someone who will stomp the Dems into the mud and then piss on them.")

3) The nature of his election to the nomination, where in some states with open primaries, Democrats voted in Republican primaries and helped him win the state over more acceptable 'conservative' candidates. The view that he had been shoved down the conservatives throat didn't help with warm fuzzy feelings for him.

The Externals were:

1) George Bush's Third Term: On the surface it was ridiculous, John McCain had spent the last 8 years fighting just about everything that GWB had tried to do, yet he really didn't fight the charge so it stuck. In this one area I thought he was the best choice for a candidate, but by itself it wasn't going to win him the election.

2) Barrack Obama: You had a young, handsome, articulate, passionate candidate, promising everything to everybody, and a catchy slogan. Add in he would end up being the first black president, he had a catchy campaign slogan, and 110% support by the majority of the mainstream press and he would have been hard to beat by just about anyone Republican running that year, for the man who up to the time was probably one of the least popular with his own base there was no chance.

I'm surprised it was as close as it was. If Obama had any real experience in governing it probably would have been a landslide, he could have possibly run the table.
 
Last edited:
So, why was he unpopular with movement conservatives / proto- Tea Party crowd?

Because he's never been a movement conservative or part of the Tea Party crowd? Sometimes quite obviously so? Like, obviously so if you know anything at all about John McCain?
 
What big texture items did movement conservatives object to regarding John?

And by big texture I mean the reason Pres. Ford lost the '76 general election was that he had pardoned Nixon and the economy wasn't doing great. Those are the kind of issues the majority of voters focus on.

John supported the surge in Iraq in 2006 which was perceived as successful. I might question this perception, but in '08 this was perceived as being successful.

The only thing I can think of is when Romney suspended his campaign in '08 and was trying to graciously throw his support to John, he (Romney) was booed at C-PAC(?), and maybe somehow this perception morphed into reality. That's the only thing I can think of.
 
What big texture items did movement conservatives object to regarding John?

And by big texture I mean the reason Pres. Ford lost the '76 general election was that he had pardoned Nixon and the economy wasn't doing great. Those are the kind of issues the majority of voters focus on.

John supported the surge in Iraq in 2006 which was perceived as successful. I might question this perception, but in '08 this was perceived as being successful.

The only thing I can think of is when Romney suspended his campaign in '08 and was trying to graciously throw his support to John, he (Romney) was booed at C-PAC(?), and maybe somehow this perception morphed into reality. That's the only thing I can think of.

Conservatives distrusted McCain because...

- his '00 campaign was openly directed towards attracting independents and Democrats;

- he loudly backed campaign finance reform, which was anathema to the GOP establishment;

- he swung wildly to the left during Bush's first term, opposing the Bush tax cuts, and co-sponsoring virtually the entire Democratic agenda of the time including a Patient's Bill of Rights, Cap and Trade legislation, and background checks on guns;

- there are very credible reports that he seriously considered switching parties in 2001 (many of his closest political advisors at the time, including John Weaver and Marshall Whitmann did);

- and even post-2004, when he moved back to the right and tried to repair relations with the GOP establishment, he became the most prominent backer of immigration reform, a cause that was anathema to the GOP base.

For all these reasons, McCain wasn't trusted as a true believer. Because the reality is, he probably isn't. Sure he's mostly conservative, but he's largely animated by a few key issues (defense, deficit spending) and driven by a mix of contingency, emotion, and political obligations on the rest. The GOP backed him as the only remotely electable option that year, but they weren't happy about it.
 
McCain was screwed either way, his more moderate/democrat vote drawing campaign as the tea party was being born was enough for most of the base to nog care enough to get fired up believe he was a sacrificial candidate(I think the RNC believes this also), Palin or otherwise. Best case Scenario is Jindal is more groomed as the GOP heir apparent for a seemingly more winnable 2012.
 
Conservatives distrusted McCain because...

- his '00 campaign was openly directed towards attracting independents and Democrats;

- he loudly backed campaign finance reform, which was anathema to the GOP establishment;

- he swung wildly to the left during Bush's first term, opposing the Bush tax cuts, and co-sponsoring virtually the entire Democratic agenda of the time including a Patient's Bill of Rights, Cap and Trade legislation, and background checks on guns;

- there are very credible reports that he seriously considered switching parties in 2001 (many of his closest political advisors at the time, including John Weaver and Marshall Whitmann did);

- and even post-2004, when he moved back to the right and tried to repair relations with the GOP establishment, he became the most prominent backer of immigration reform, a cause that was anathema to the GOP base.

For all these reasons, McCain wasn't trusted as a true believer. Because the reality is, he probably isn't. Sure he's mostly conservative, but he's largely animated by a few key issues (defense, deficit spending) and driven by a mix of contingency, emotion, and political obligations on the rest. The GOP backed him as the only remotely electable option that year, but they weren't happy about it.
I'll go with the Bush tax cuts and immigration as big texture issues dogging John. although the tax cuts deserve a footnote since they occurred during wartime and with three(?) separate tax cut bills, yeah, arguably Bush went to the well one time too many.

And a lot of it might just be length in office and accumulated negatives, which might be a big reason both parties have nominated relatively inexperienced persons in recent years. And I count both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama as relatively inexperienced when first elected.
 
My first thoughts were that Jindal could like Palin be a bridge to skeptical social conservatives and therefore the election result would be the same as OTL. Then it occurred to me might there be a number of racists who would not vote for a ticket with someone of Indian decent. I know Vice Presidential candidates usually don't have that kind of impact but there could be a number of hard core racists who want an all White ticket.
 
1) George Bush's Third Term: On the surface it was ridiculous, John McCain had spent the last 8 years fighting just about everything that GWB had tried to do, yet he really didn't fight the charge so it stuck. In this one area I thought he was the best choice for a candidate, but by itself it wasn't going to win him the election.

2) Barrack Obama: You had a young, handsome, articulate, passionate candidate, promising everything to everybody, and a catchy slogan. Add in he would end up being the first black president, he had a catchy campaign slogan, and 110% support by the majority of the mainstream press and he would have been hard to beat by just about anyone Republican running that year, for the man who up to the time was probably one of the least popular with his own base there was no chance.

I'm surprised it was as close as it was. If Obama had any real experience in governing it probably would have been a landslide, he could have possibly run the table.

The problem is McCain refused to hit Obama hard for the entirety of the campaign and then completely flubbed his response to the economic crisis while the whole GOP was tarred and feathered collectively for the credit crisis.

The credit crisis in the end turned what in mid September 2008 was a 50/50 election into a near landslide. The media helped along the way by refusing to really vet Obama or ask hard questions.

You know the one thing that hurt Obama in 2008? When Hillary's team started hitting him hard on his background and not being ready to be President. But, she did it too late and McCain refused to really question Obama's fitness for the position.
 
McCain's problem was not that he "flubbed his response to the economic crisis ." What made his defeat inevitable was the crisis itself, not his response to it.

Allen Lichtman in his *Keys to the White House* listed eight presidential elections held in recession years since 1860: 1876, 1884, 1896, 1920, 1932, 1960, 1980, and 1992. (He was writing before 2008 of course.) In *every one* of the eight elections, the party holding the White House lost the popular vote (though it did just barely manage to win the electoral vote in 1876 under very controversial circumstances...). To be sure, some of the races were close, but if Nixon almost won in 1960 despite the recession, that was because it was a very mild recession. Note that it doesn't matter that the party's candidate has his differences with the president--Bryan was certainly no supporter of Cleveland, yet after the depression of 1893-96 the voters wanted a different *party* in the White House, not just a different president.

There is just no record of the party in the White House surviving an election-year economic crisis like that of 2008. (OTOH, I don't buy the argument that it's surprising that Obama didn't do better than he did or that Hillary Clinton would necessarily have done better. With the decline in the importance of "swing voters", American politics has become so polarized that a 1964 or 1984-style landslide is almost inconceivable. Under those circumstances, Obama's 7.2 percent victory margin is about what one might have expected, and was comfortable enough.)
 
Top