Redstate

Then click on the "map" link that has 10-15 state polls in it, including all of those 3 (McCain better in OH, Giuliani in MO, I don't recall FL).

It's not just who can win KS, but if KS is a 9-point margin, then AR, LA, WV, VA, and MO might be big problems. Also there is a close house race in KS (and 2 or so in AZ) so blowouts at the top would help Rs in their congressional races.

And yes I agree McCain should be ahead in AZ, although I'm not sure Romney would be the most competitive in MA or Thompson in TN. But McCain has seen his approval slump in AZ (presumably due to immigration reform), so to see them pop back up to a 2-1 approval margin is a big shift. It probably indicates that his new understanding about needing to have Enforcement First is muting all but the most fanatical opposition on that issue.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Your comment that if McCain is leading KS by a ton, he should help in other states, is defeated by showing that Rudy is doing better in MO. Your logic states that McCain should be the leader in MO by the biggest margin as well.

My point was not meant to be as snappy as it was, but that I would focus on the battelground states to show McCain is the best candidate.

I do feel that conservatives need to get on board with one of either Thompson, Romney or McCain, before it is too late, and either Rudy or Huck win.

have you even clicked on the map? It has 10-15 states. Rudy does better in CA, NY, and MO. McCain does better in the other dozen or so. It's worth a look. They have different states.

Personally from my understanding of states, I would expect McCain to overperform in states with high I populations: OR, ME, NH, MT, WA, and other parts of the West sans CA.

I would expect Rudy to overperform in the Northeast: NY, NJ, CT, RI, PA and perhaps MI as well as I suspect FL.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I usually use RCP for my polling data. I looked at Rasmussens site, and could not find the map. RCP does not have that map either. I am not a paying member to Rasmussen, so that may be why I do not have that option shown.

I linked to this map in the original post. I note that the McCain campaign did put this together, but the polls are cited on the map so you can look them up if you'd like to. It is a helpful compilation.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I missed what was right in front of my nose. I like how McCain did that, really good idea on his part. I went to Survey USA, to see if there were any more recent polls, and I noticed that the poll results that McCain used, only had 4 Republicans for head-to-head matchups- They used McCain, Rudy, Mitt, and Huckabee. They did not include Thompson in the november polls. The last included Fred in the October polls. I would have liked to see where Fred stood compared to either Rudy or Rudy in the latest polls. Also, Mitt did not lead in any state against Hillary, and did worse than Rudy or McCain. Some of that is probably due to name recognition, but that does not look too good.

I agree with your summation. I would add that almost every poll I've see that includes Thompson shows him doing almost identical to Romney. I think both have low name ID outside IA, NH, and their home states. Thus, the polls are picking up Hillary vs. Generic R, which looks pretty bad overall.

That's why I back away from comparing Rudy or McCain to them right now. But comparing Rudy to McCain seems safe since both have national name ID. And as the map shows, McCain is winning that argument right now which may surprise some people. That's why I wrote the story.

Bottom line to me is that a generic R is losing to a relatively unpopular D. Thus, either Rs need to win back some overall support (good idea, but hard to do) or nominate someone who can win over people in spite of the R. Rudy and McCain can both claim to do that, but McCain does it better so far.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

And on something else. The map poll shows Rudy doing better in CA and NY, but both Rudy and JMac lose those states huge anyway.

Rudy does better in MO, but the numbers show Rudy leads Clinton by 1 point and McCain trails her by 1 point in the comparison. Not a resounding advantage to Rudy.

One point - Adam did not say that McCain winning by a ton in KS would carry over to other states. He said that winning by a ton in KS would help the GOP down-ticket races in KS. And that a narrow margin in KS bodes poorly in other states. The reason is that we expect, even in "good years" that we will do better in KS than we do in LA, AR, MO and WV. For example, in 2004, KS went 62-37. MO - 53-46, AR - 54-45, LA - 57-42, WV - 56-43.

So say that our guy is only leading KS say 54-45. If things correlate to 2004, where he would run anywhere from 5 to 9 points behind the KS result, you're looking at trailing in virtually all the other states. That's not good.

Speaking of McCain singing.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"There isn't a man alive who hasn't wanted to boot an infant." - W.C. Fields

That Iran comment was classic McCain unorthodox, gallows, salty humor. It's one of the reasons that I can't help liking him, and it's my sense that more people see that it's a light-hearted comment made to a bunch of fellow vets than a Dr. Strangeloveian comment.

I still believe that if you look at all the Republican contenders and you ask yourself, "Which one is most qualified to be our commander in chief?", the only honest answer is "McCain."

I wasn't following the 1980 campaign. But part of the first landslide was a "Throw Out Carter" vote. Perhaps Reagan added a couple points on top, but I could imagine other Rs winning big in that case. In 1984, of course, Reagan won a mandate on his on successes.

I also note that McCain did "change his tune" on immigration. Here he is in his own words.

And your last thought was my view a month ago. But Thompson didn't catch on. Rudy is still dealing with not making a good decision to run as a pro-choice, anti-Roe candidate and Huckabee is worrying many people that we will have a Bush III candidate. Romney's lead is shrinking in IA and NH. At this point, I'm not sure what to expect. Now, I think McCain is one of four possible winners. That's why I'm trying to make sure he gets coverage and consideration by primary voters who read RS.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

....who can pull the conservative coalition together. My view is that it is Romney. McCain could also do it potentially. Huckabee is a Bush redux, and Giuliani I think has too many skeletons and will turn off too many socons (even though I'd still vote for him).

Thompson could have been the guy, but he's not showing many signs right now. If Mitt Romney were running Thompson's campaign, THAT could be a winner, IMO.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I would prefer McCain to Romney right now but otherwise we agree on the general makeup of the race.

I think McCain's foreign policy experience will match up well against any of the Ds. I think Romney's executive experience will do so similarly.

I think McCain already has Independent support that is hard to get especially when Republican is a bad word to many Is right now. McCain may benefit from this being a bad environment for Rs. Romney would probably be a great fit if this were a neutral environment. That being said, I do think Romney could win the general. I just think it would be harder and the probability would be lower than with McCain as the nominee.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

He must suffer the consequences for it, or we the people will suffer the consequences later when they sneak amnesty through.

That's the only way politicians learn. They are like donkeys. A good whupping is needed to keep them in line.

OTOH, if he does a full back-flip mea culpa on immigration and prove he 'gets it', says no to amnesty and yes to enforcement and attrition, he's back on the horse.

The other candidates changed positions, so can he.

I recommend you listen to Sen. McCain talk on immigration at a townhall in NH and judge for yourself. He is definitely an Enforcement First member. But he does not believe in mass deportation. After securing the border, he would push for a Guest Worker program.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

and I can't believe you don't have a whole string of 5s. What you say is so clear to me, especially your point about "blue state elites". Excellent observations all around.

A very good point well stated. If Giuliani can't pull in California and New York, any idea about choosing him on electibility is out the window.

Just like bs, I agree on the "blue state elites". Most of the beltway conservatives aren't too far on the conservative side, except in a fiscal sense (as important as that is), so it makes sense that they would support him.

I think it would be interesting if 2nd place at the convention got the VP nod automatically. But since that isn't happening, I doubt either of those pairings happen.

I think a McCain/Thompson ticket is possible b/c they have very similar views. But I think McCain/Pawlenty or McCain/Sanford would also be likely.

I really don't know how Huck would choose a VP. Interesting question.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

But do you think 1996 would have been closer (or flipped) if it was war time? and it was not a re-election bid for a relatively popular incumbent?

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I think in 1996 (the same as McCain now), our candidate appeared to be the old, lifetime politician who was out of touch with the younger generation. Their candidate then as now(whether HRC or Obama) appears much younger, more energetic and more in touch with the younger generation.

I think 1996 was actually the easier election for Republicans. Bill was already in trouble at the time and not as popular as he became after the Republicans tried to impeach him. The fact is that we lost with a mediocre candidate (Dole) rather than being beaten by an outstanding candidate (Slick Willie).

John McCain just reminds me too much of Bob Dole. I don't want to risk losing this election because our candidate again appears to be too old for the job.

and I do see the similarities. I just wonder how much the 90s favored a new, young face. If the current GWOT might favor experienced, foreign policy guru and war hero more. Dole was a WWII guy well after their generation had been the main power.

Although McCain looks old (and he does), he is a Vietnam vet. He is older than the Clinton and Bushes but he isn't a WWII era guy.

And as I wrote earlier, I was quite surprised with how much energy he has for his age. And something I did not write on is how receptive and respectful young people were at his townhall meetings. I saw him at two university events where the questions where mostly from the left.

And I remember watching the MSM reporters snicker at each other after a lot of the questions. Those students (who are not known for respecting their elders) were prefacing their questions with comments like "I really respect all you've done for the country" or "Thank you for your service to the nation" and then asking about whatever pet issue they had. I asked the reporters afterwards whether those prefaces were normal. They laughed. They had never seen any other candidate receive that kind of deference or respect from any audience, much less a bunch of young college students.

The reason young people seem to like McCain more than one would expect is because he still presents a post-partisan aura. Young people are left of the general public but they are also the least partisan age group with many independents. Clinton is seen as a partisan as is Bush. McCain is seen as an individual with his own views. No matter how old he is, that sells well with young people.

I don't think young people will be decisive in this election, but the only R who I think would do better among the young is Rudy. He has a celebrity status that can't be beat (and polls back this up so far). So far, Huck does the worst among the young. That is probably b/c the young have the most anti-evangelical voters of any generation right now. The "God's chosen candidate" act is a big turnoff. McCain is religious but not in a way that turns them off.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I'm trying to think about whether or not McCain would actually be worse than Dole. He's an awful candidate with a bad temper and poor policies. And he's just not that likable of an individual. Sure he'll make a good joke with a straight face, but whenever he smiles, I want to run and hide. At least Bob Dole made up for his unelectability with the Pepsi and Viagra commercials.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Sorry I know McCain is older than Thompson, but the comparison in my opinion is better with Thompson. He is already out of gas.

Well, according to this polling, many people in these states don't agree. And McCain might be old but he certainly appears to have more energy. I don't really recall there being much drive behind the Dole campaign in '96.

In 1996 Dole was 73 running against a 50 year old. McCain is 71 - Hillary is 60.

Also, by the time McCain got into federal office it was 1982 - Dole had already been the GOP VP nominee (1976), had been in the Senate for 14 years and had been in Congress for 22. Dole was a product of the pre-Goldwater Republican Party. McCain was just starting a political career in the mid-70s, a time when conservatives had already organized under Goldwater and were a force in the party.

I just don't agree that McCain is Bob Dole II, except that they'll have been about the same age at the time they were nominated.

I think McCain is more like the Jim Jeffords of the Republican party, except, unlike Jeffords, he never formally changed his party registration. He just makes sure that on key votes like the Bush tax cuts, he votes with the Democrats.

The Democrats would be thrilled to have a Ted Kennedy clone on tax policy win the Republican nomination. If there's one thing that the Democrats hate, it's the Republican's advocacy of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. They didn't like it when Reagan cut taxes and didn't like it when Bush cut taxes. So, if I'm an elite member of the Democrat party, I want McCain to win the GOP nomination and make both parties opposed to tax cuts.

Yah, because McCain's 83 from the ACU is virtually the same as Jeffords 29. :rolls eyes:

If you are going to make statements this stupid, please go to Kos, don't stick around here.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I was talking about key votes on key issues. When you get right down to it, tax rate reduction was the centerpiece of Reagan's economic policy and George W. Bush's economic policy.

Both tax cuts resulted in economic prosperity. What the Democrats want is for the Republican party to nominate McCain and basically repudiate Reagan/W Bush economic policy.

I look at the main divide within the Republican party as a divide between the pro-growth wing (Reagan and George W Bush) and the Herbert Hoover wing (George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain).

If I am an elite Democrat, I want the Republicans to nominate Herbert Hoover types. It makes things very easy for Democrats that way.

I say You = Out of your mind.

McCain is many things. But beyond superficial similarities, being similar to Bob Dole isn't one of them.

Anyhow, McCain is my second choice. We'll see how I'll vote when the time comes.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

He's not perfect. And if Mr. Perfect Republican or Mr. Second Coming of Reagan had run, he'd be out. But in the imperfect field, it's balancing good and bad. Here are my comments on these 7:

1) The Ds will nominate a Senator. I think someone with executive experience could use that in a campaign. I think McCain's foreign policy experience as a Senator also matches up well. The Ds are silly for passing on their Governor with Foreign Policy Experience (Richardson). Their mistake.

2) Again, I think this is generally a good point. An outsider would be preferable to an insider. Fortunately again, the Ds are nominating an insider (any of the big 3). McCain has been able to be a "change" candidate despite being a Senator and an insider. His appeal to independents and his breaks from conservative orthodoxy has made him a credible change candidate. Against Hillary any of the Rs would be the "change" candidate.

3) He is old. See above on that discussion.

4) All the major Rs supported McCain-Feingold at the time: Thompson, Romney, Rudy. I did at the time. I think parts of it are problematic now, McCain was unmoved by my questions about it.

5) Yup, McCain guaranteed there was no filibuster against Roberts and Alito. He kept one of the most conservative tools of the Senate and now the Rs are in the minority and still have to ability to filibuster extreme nominees.

6) Did you miss the past 3 months. McCain has repeatedly endorsed the Enforcement First position out of expediency. Listen to him explain his own position and logic.

7) I have heard this too, but I didn't see any of it. And rumors about Huck and Rudy's temperament swirl as well.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

I don't believe that Rudy has any grounds for a temperment argument. He isn't all that much better than McCain on that point. Funny thing is that the attitude gets Rudy praise as a "fighter" but for McCain it gets him scorn as "an angry old man."

Just so you know, I've lived in AZ for over 40 years. (Moved here as a child) McCain was my rep in Congress when he first ran. His temperament is no secret to Repubs in AZ. As an active Republican, I've witnessed McCain closely since the early 80's.

He is a loose cannon. That endears him to some, mostly the Dems and lefties, but it results in many of us not trusting him. He's flip-flopped on immigration. Who knows what he REALLY would do? My experience tells me he would seek to "reach out" to the Dems and provide some form of amnesty. He will NOT call it 'amnesty', however. He will couch it in much more 'humanitarian' or 'practical' terms.

He's flip-flopped on Bush's tax cuts. We voted against them before being for them. That was inexcusable. He admits he is not an economist, so we have to wonder who has his ear at any point. Problems with fiscal policy; heaven only knows what he would believe is necessary with monetary policy.

The Dems and the media will SHRED him if he gets the nomination. They have a lot of ammunition.

Do you know ANYONE under 40 that is excited about McCain? Anyone looking forward to 8 years of McCain. Just what we need, an 80 year old in the White House.

I want someone who will WIN in '08. I wanted someone that offers hope and optimism and reaffirms what an incredible country we live in. One with twinkle in their eye when they talk about our future. Some describe it as Reaganesque; I just believe it is common sense and is in keeping with the history of our great republic.

The Dems offer us nothing but radicals and/or empty suits.

As for Richardson, he has plenty of experience but is not ready for prime time. Have you seen the video of him struggling with the 'gay is genetic or choice' question? Along with having some severe personal issues, he just has no air of being presidential.

--------------------
Vista really sucks!

"Do you know ANYONE under 40 that is excited about McCain? Anyone looking forward to 8 years of McCain. Just what we need, an 80 year old in the White House."

And I am a big time McCain supporting. Again if you want to call him old, watch his Myspace/MTV forum from last night and watch how he relates with young people.

Actually the only people I know who like him are young voters. I also just beat through a bunch of internals to early state polling (Pew/AP) and he generally does best in the younger age brackets. Romney is getting the old vote.

Without going point by point again, the one contradiction in your post is that the things you don't like about McCain are the things that make him the most likely to "WIN" in 2008. It's hard to reconcile those goals sometimes.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Frankly, Reagan isn't even Reagan if you listen to all these "purity" a$$holes.

After all, Reagan signed a REAL Amnesty, appointed Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy to the bench, "cut and ran" in Lebanon, etc.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

family site and all...

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Noted.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

5) Yup, McCain guaranteed there was no filibuster against Roberts and Alito. He kept one of the most conservative tools of the Senate and now the Rs are in the minority and still have to ability to filibuster extreme nominees.

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. The Democrats were filibustering judicial nominees. This went on for two years before the Republicans gained four senate seats in the 2004 election. That's when there was serious consideration by Republican senators of ending the filibusters. McCain said that he opposed the Republican effort to end the filibusters.

The Democrats decided not to filibuster Roberts and Alito. But one possible reason why they decided not to was that, for one, the Republicans had 55 seats, just 5 short of the 60 needed to end debate and shut down a filibuster. Also, given that the Republicans had 55 seats, the Democrats probably thought that there was a chance that maybe 50 Republicans and Veep Chency would vote to end a filibuster if the Dems tried it.

Rather than risk creating a situation where a new precedent could be set for ending debate on a judicial nominee with a simple majority vote, the Democrats decided to let many of the nominees get a vote. The Gang of 14 deal was simply a result of the realization by some Democrats that it was too risky to take a chance on a filibuster given the 55 to 45 balance in the Senate.

When you really look at it, McCain didn't help brake the log jam on Roberts and Alito at all. It was the threats of the other Republicans that scared the Democrats into behaving just a little more responsibly.

Let's face it. McCain told everyone that he would vote with the Democrats to let the Democrats continue filibustering. So, if 5 other Republican senators had done the same thing, the Democrats would have known with certainty that the Republicans didn't have the votes to force an up or down vote. Fortunately, McCain and Lincoln Chafee and maybe Olympia Snowe were the only ones that the Democrats could really count on to vote with them. So the Democrats cut a deal. But with fewer McCains and Chafees and Snowes among the Republicans, we would have been even better off.

McCain does pose electability problems that other Republicans do not have.

There are many independents and moderate Democrats who oppose giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants who used fake Social Security numbers when they were working illegally in the United States.

Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney could use this against the Democrat Senators Clinton and Obama for voting for this provision. But John McCain voted with the Democrats on this issue and it ended up being a very close vote. So, that's one effective issue that we can't use against the Democrats if McCain is the nominee.

On taxation, McCain has taken positions nearly identical to Ted Kennedy, that we shouldn't cut taxes on high marginal income tax rates because this would benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class. If that's the case, how does McCain differentiate himself from the Democrat nominee given that he voted against the 2001 and 2003 tax bills just like Clinton and Edwards did?

We give up too many issues with McCain at the top of the ticket. We need a nominee who doesn't have McCain's baggage on immigration and taxes so that we can contrast our nominee's positions against the Democrat nominee.

vote for the candidate that doesn't confuse the stupid electorate?

McCain - you bring up issues that the vast majority of the country doesn't understand. McCain/Feingold - please they don't care. Gang of 14?

You forget: voting against the Bush tax cuts, voting for anti-torture legislation (against non-torture) and a number of other issues that turn conservatives off.

Your answer is "hold your nose and vote for McCain because the electorate is too stupid to know what he stands for."

Sure, I can live with that.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

Well I won't argue with you on whether your points make sense or not. That's your opinion and I can't change that.

However, aren't all of these candidates flawed? With McCain you know what you are getting, right? You have a body of work that you can evaluate and a voting record of many years. Can you say the same for the rest? I'm not asking you to hold your nose, but take a look at the rest of what he stands for. How much do you really know about the other candidates?

Keeping spending in check, war in Iraq, pro-life, economy, defense are key conservative issues and ones that resonate with the majority of voters. These are the voters we need in the general to beat Hillary (also a key conservative issue).

IMWITHMCCAIN

Practically a good diary in its own right. I will only add that McCain has historically done very well with Independents more than Democrats. That is definitely a plus for electability.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard