Ten reasons McCain lost

Editor’s note: in contacting Scott Migli about the report, I found out it’s available from the Wilson Research Strategies website here.

Sure, I’m a bit behind the curve on this one but then I didn’t have all this polling data Scott Migli of Wilson Research Strategies shared with us during our luncheon session last Saturday after the Maryland Republican Party Fall Convention.

Scott Migli of Wilson Research Strategies discusses what caused John McCain's numbers (shown in red on the chart) to plummet during a luncheon session for the Maryland Republican Party last Saturday.

Migli’s presentation broke the GOP loss down into ten points. What I’m going to do here is give readers my impression on whether I felt the reason was correct and maybe the flaw in the strategy.

  • This was a winnable race after the convention. Failure on the economy cost McCain and Republicans.

John McCain did not leave the Senate after he was nominated, unlike Bob Dole in 1996. Because he was still in the Senate, I think he could have taken some time out as the underdog and introduced his agenda in advance of the election in order to look proactive and like a leader. Certainly he would have better spent his time in Washington off the campaign trail talking about the bailout introducing some alternatives instead.

  • We didn‘t put the mistakes of the past behind us fast enough and McCain wound up tied to them.

In illustrating this point, Migli used two pieces of data: the right track/wrong track numbers and President Bush’s approval/disapproval ratings. The Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) succeeded greatly in painting McCain as “McSame” or “Bush III” and McCain did run a fairly defensive campaign.

  • McCain‘s failures on the economy killed him. A floundering embrace of a big government solution only hastened his demise.

Many say that had McCain voted against the bailout he may have won the election; after all another polling result Migli showed was a CBS News poll from early October showing 51% of Americans were against the bailout and just 31% supported it. This also goes with the next point.

  • McCain failed to draw a distinction of fundamental ideological vision with Obama.

Again, voting no on the bailout would have helped him draw a distinction – Lord knows John McCain couldn’t seem to gain any traction during his debates with Barack Obama. And while we thought that Barack Obama was very liberal (based on his voting record) he successfully connected with less-informed (because they read or watch the drive-by media) voters as a moderate – 55% of voters thought his philosophy was “about right” while just 40% thought Obama was “too liberal”. The best Democrat of modern times on that score was Bill Clinton in 1992, who had 56% of voters convinced he was “just right” and he won too.

  • Go Negative is not a winning strategy in and of itself. We have to give voters a reason to vote for us.

To an extent this is true, but many on the conservative side thought McCain was being TOO restrained against his Senate colleague and other Democrats. There was so much material the pajamas media and conservative commentators had come up with to engage Barack Obama on – not just his associations with Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or the dozens of “present” votes in the Illinois Senate, but directly tying him in with the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fiasco as a huge recipient of campaign cash from those groups. We kept waiting on McCain to name the names we knew helped cause the subprime mortgage crisis but once he did it was barely in passing. And when you compare spending $300 billion we didn’t have to buy “bad mortgages” to “a tax cut for 95% of Americans” that was no contest.

  • At the Congressional level a bad year was made worse by bad apples, poor candidates, and out-of-touch incumbents.

There were a number of examples Migli used in his presentation – Tim Walberg in Michigan, Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Bill Sali of Idaho, and Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado were all perceived as “out of touch” or hostile to their districts, while Rick Renzi of Arizona, Vito Fosselli of New York (neither of whom ran for re-election), Tom Feeney of Florida, and Ted Stevens of Alaska were tarred by scandal.

On a local level, it seemed that Wayne Gilchrest was out of touch with his district – until he lost his primary, then it became time to avenge the defeat by sinking Andy Harris’s campaign. Suddenly he was all over campaigning for Frank Kratovil.  The Democrats also did well in playing up the perceived arrogance of Andy Harris. It actually caused a possible violation of the next point.

  • America remains a center-right country: when Republicans stick to conservative principles we win.

The First District was an exception to this rule to some extent, but it’s worth pointing out that Frank Kratovil only won by a plurality and not a majority. Had Georgia’s electoral rules providing for a runoff if no candidate gets a majority of the vote been in place in Maryland and a runoff occurred without Libertarian challenger Richard James Davis, the conservatives coming back home to Harris and the lack of Barack Obama on the ballot to dampen the heavy minority turnout may have shown a turnaround in the numbers.

On the other hand, conservative voters knew John McCain was a latecomer to the principles of low taxation, did not stand foursquare on the immigration issue with them, and talked openly about fighting climate change. None of these were winning positions with conservatives, who have long memories.

  • On key issues a conservative position still wins. We dont need to abandon our principles, we need to stand by them.

Migli showed a number of slides on various issues bearing this out, but that’s simply intuitive based on the point above. Unfortunately, for the most part GOP candidates don’t seem to run on those principles unless they come from safe GOP districts.

We need to face a couple facts in this respect. Try as we might, conservatives will rarely get newspaper endorsements nor will they be given a fair shake in coverage. And especially in this area, the inside the Beltway crowd will do its best to mold the GOP into a Democrat-lite loyal opposition party. A candidate needs to know these things going in.

  • We have to get “out of Iraq” and have bigger vision. As long as we are arguing about Iraq, we are losing.

Welcome to the drive-by media. Successes in Iraq (such as the surge) were belittled and failures (like Abu Gharab) were magnified to such a point that public opinion became negative. And woe to the person who reminded people that it was Islamofascists who executed the 9/11 attacks, and that “you’re either with us or you’re against us” in the overall fight. Democrats successfully created the perception of the overall war as simply an invasion and portrayed our troops as those sticking their noses into an Iraqi civil war.

Well, guess what folks. Just in time for the 2012 campaign, we’re going to be out of Iraq. And it wasn’t Obama who made that country safe – but it is Obama’s doing if the terrorists successfully bide their time until we leave and remake that country into a caliphate.

  • In the long term we need a “50 State Strategy”, not a “50% + 1” Strategy.

I said this not too long ago – Howard Dean did much more damage to the conservative movement as DNC head than he ever would have as President. He’s the one who vowed a 50 state strategy and it paid off for Obama and the Democrats. We ceded way too much to Obama in this campaign, abandoning several states with a month to go in the faint hope to swing other states which turned out to support Obama anyway. The point Migli made is valid – by not fighting everywhere and engaging in at least a token rear guard action in certain areas we allowed Democrats to concentrate on “purple” states and swing them their way.

While some may fault the Maryland GOP for not picking the best candidates in several Congressional districts or giving them a lot of monetary support, the fact is that we at least filled the ballot in all eight Congressional districts and no Democrat got a completely free ride. Unfortunately, it’s very tough to get an entrenched Democrat incumbent to debate on the issues since they know intuitively the point above about conservative positions winning. (Living in Ohio’s Ninth District for most of my political life, we always asked the longtime Democrat incumbent Marcy Kaptur to debate the Republican candidate and were always rebuffed. Chicken. It would be worth charging admission just to see her debate Joe the Plumber, who lives in that very same district.) In looking at this critically, it’s almost like we need Barry Goldwater circa 1964 to run in those districts in the next couple cycles, except a little more in their face about it.

Since I don’t hold the copyright to the original data and don’t know if WRS wants all of it used for public consumption, I’m going to defer for the time being on a link despite the fact I have a copy of the original on my personal computer for reference. If I secure permission I’ll amend the post accordingly.

The study has been linked at the top of the page.

More on the bailout – what’s next?

This may seem like Bill Wilson and Americans for Limited Government week on my site, but it just so happens they have some very good input on the pressing issue of the moment. Let me start out with Wilson’s take on the GOP opposition to the bailout. I was tempted to use it as a postscript to yesterday’s interview but decided to have it here as part of a standalone post.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson praised Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), David Vitter (R-LA) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) for their efforts to oppose the $15 billion bailout package for the Big Three automakers.

There is a growing consensus in the Republican caucus against the bill. Top Capitol Hill sources suggest that the votes simply are not there to get the $15 billion in emergency loans to Ford, Chrysler and GM passed before year’s end.

“It’s about time that the Senate stood against the bailout madness that has permeated Washington this year,” said Wilson in a statement.  “These Senators are heroes for fighting against this bill.”

“The American taxpayer cannot and must not be forced to perpetuate the mismanagement of the Big Three by financing failure. There is no excuse for putting taxpayers on the hook for keeping failed companies afloat that could much better be reorganized under normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy,” Wilson added.

Under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, companies have the ability to broadly restructure the scope of operations, redo labor contracts, and otherwise scale back in order to emerge from bankruptcy with a profitable business model.

“Everything that Congress says it is attempting to do, to create a deal to reorganize these companies, to return them to profitability, is precisely the purpose of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The $15 billion bailout is just a reason not to go into Chapter 11. In fact, the real intention is to perpetuate bad management and Big Labor excesses at taxpayer expense,” said Wilson.

Wilson also suggested that a “structured” bankruptcy deal that has been floated in the media is just another excuse not to reopen labor contracts, “The Senators shilling for this bailout will stop at nothing to prevent normal Chapter 11 proceedings from occurring, because then the labor contracts would have to be reopened, management might be fired, etc.”

“Anything else that is being put forth by the companies or by Congress is just spin to mask this truth,” added Wilson.

The automakers have suggested that American consumers will not want to buy cars from companies undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. “That is just false,” responded Wilson. “The people are not buying the cars now, which is why they’re in this mess.”

Wilson believes that without bankruptcy, the companies are doomed to failure. “The real question everyone should be asking is, ‘Who is going to want to invest in a company that has to beg the government for loans that cannot be paid back every few months just to keep up its excessive operations?’ If these companies really are in that much trouble, then bankruptcy is their only option,” said Wilson.

“The American people owe a debt of gratitude to Senators Ensign, Coburn, DeMint, Vitter and Shelby for their courageous, principled stand. Any Senator who votes for this bailout will have to answer to their constituents and history for their destructive action,” Wilson added.

Speaking of Senator DeMint, the good Senator from South Carolina had a five-word answer about what may happen if the bailout is passed. And he has a great point.

Today it was learned that the number of people who applied for first-time unemployment benefits “unexpectedly” soared to their highest level in 26 years. Over half a million people applied for benefits last week, which may not sound like a whole lot until you realize that number exceeds the population of the entire Eastern Shore of Maryland where these words are written. Even more telling, that number exceeds the total membership of the United Auto Workers as of 2007, at least according to this Reuters story. And that UAW number is surely not increasing since that date.

So the essence of this bailout is that one group of workers who happen to have a large labor union (which contributes heavily to majority Democrats) backing them would be helped at the overall expense of the rest of us, more of whom joined the rolls of the unemployed last week than the number of workers helped. As I argued earlier this week as well, there’s a number of automakers who employ Americans who won’t get the help and actually could be harmed by any additional regulations put in force by the federal government.

Meanwhile, the overall “official” unemployment figure of 6.7% is probably half that found in the building industry. With the subprime mortgage crisis demolishing the housing market times are tough in my chosen field. When I moved to the Eastern Shore four years ago, I worked on little but condominium projects because there was a large demand to get in on the housing boom, particularly in this resort area. That ceased around the end of 2006 and I haven’t worked on one since. Fortunately, other projects have taken up the slack but the work comes in slowly.

One of the linchpins of Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan is an “investment” in infrastructure, which reminds me of the Works Progress Administration of Franklin Roosevelt’s era. It’s argued that this effort would help the construction field – and on a temporary basis it just might – but where would the money come from to fund these efforts except from the private sector? To logically follow the money, one couldn’t help but notice that Fedzilla’s gain would have to come from someplace, and that pot would be the cash successful people use to invest and (wait for it) develop buildings!

It appears that robbing Peter to pay Paul has become the new bailout plan in Washington, and the redistribution continues on its merry path.