Autopsy on the McCain Campaign
At the start of this election cycle, no one should have expected a Republican victory. With an unpopular war, corruption within the GOP, and a generally unhappy electorate, there was no reason to expect that McCain or any other Republican would be able to win the White House in 2008. Yet, its very difficult to lay blame for last night’s defeat on anyone other than John McCain and Sarah Palin. The fact that McCain stayed as close as he did, for as long as he did, despite running as poor a campaign as he did, speaks of a fundamental weakness of Obama.
Perhaps the biggest mistake of this campaign cycle was made by Republican voters when they chose an old Washington insider to confront the platform of youth and change. But that alone should not have doomed the party. Had he made the right moves, McCain should still have been able to win this election. Unfortunately, a number of errors on his part led to defeat instead:
1) “I don’t understand the economy” - This reflect just how poor of a campaigner John McCain is. Why any politician would admit that they are clueless about a major issue is beyond me. Exit polls confirmed that the economy was the top issue.
2) Not using the “Wright” issue - McCain had no hesitation about using either William Ayers or Tony Rezko against Obama, so why didn’t he attack him for - willingly - attending a clearly Anti-American church for 20 years?
3) “Country First” - This is one you really don’t here about, but I personally believe that McCain’s choice to make service and sacrifice a primary theme of his campaign was a mistake. You do not go to a war-weary public that is suffering from a deep economic crisis to ask them to give even more. Contrast Obama’s message of hope and change with McCain’s primary theme.
4) Dropping the economic ball, again -Even after McCain admitted a lack of knowledge or experience on the economy, he still could have comeback had he picked a running mate who could have covered for his flaws, or else announced a team of respected advisors who would craft his economic policy. Instead, he failed to use either Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney in any large capacity, while naming a VP who had little - if any - experience on this critical issue.
5) Palin -Am I a little biased? Yes. Undeniably. Not only do I believe that Romney should have been the VP, but I also believe that McCain would have won if he had picked Mitt. But personal loyalty aside, with the exception of exciting the base - which could have been done by any number of Republicans, including Mitt - can anyone name me a single benefit provided by Palin? She failed to bring Hillary supporters to the ticket, she added no additional experience or expertise to the ticket, and was zero help in any state. In fact, poll after poll has shown that, not only did the vast majority of voters believe Palin to be unqualified, but in some areas, she actually had a NEGATIVE approval rating.
I can’t honestly say that any of that surprises me, but if the McCain campaign wants to know why it lost, it needs only to look in the mirror.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
I agree with most of your analysis, except for Palin. She was a definite plus for McCain. Without her, he would not have gotten the base vote that he did. Her negative approval ratings? Come on now! As a Republican YOU should know that such ratings are the result of constant POUNDING by a fearful leftist media. With such negative press, I’m surprised she wasn’t asassinated!
November 5th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
just because she excited the base does not make her a net plus, or the best option.
Romney could have excited the GOP base, so could a number of others. What is different is that they could also have added experience and additional states to McCain’s ticket.
Palin was unable to do either.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Andrew, Palin detracted from the moderate and Rockefeller republicans, which is one of the reasons McCain lost.
Aside from her “base” appeal, what did she really offer? She was a gimmick at best and is why there was such an outcry fro amongst republicans.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
mega dittos! you’re right on. and yeah, mccain should have picked mitt… SIGH. and now we’ve got the #1 liberal in the senate running america and being “senator government” all over again.
please hurry, 2012.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I agree with everything except Palin. It can hardly be Palin’s fault when she was brought in at the last minute and then muzzled by the campaign when she clearly excited the base and people wanted to hear her. The media’s response was a complete embarrassment, but they have not a clue, they clearly favored Obama. I have no idea why McCain won the primaries, I wanted Mitt and yes I believe he would have won. The Republican heirarchy wanted McCain but his “base” hated him even though we voted for him. 20% supposedly bolted and that gave the edge to Obama. Everyone and their dog voted so McCain had every opportunity but the problem was him.
GOOD ARTICLE! Best I have read on “what happened”.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I completely agree with you Matthew, including about Palin. I don’t dislike her and in fact, she seems like a wonderful Governor of Alaska… BUT… she was not the best choice for VP!! We all here of course, think Romney should’ve been the pick but there are even others that would’ve helped more than Palin did… Jindal even…
Anyway, it’s frustrating to me. I will now support President Obama (come January)… not because I think he’ll do a great job but because I love my country and I respect the OFFICE of the Presidency so I will support him. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope he succeeds. I want our country to be safe!
It should’ve been Mitt!!
Let’s rally for Mitt in 2012!!
November 6th, 2008 at 5:23 am
It is ridiculous to say anything but positive comments about Palin. She excited the base like no other politician. We had almost equal amount of republican turnout as we had in 2004 with a very popular (among republicans) sitting president. Palin is the cause of that impressive turnout which unfortunately was not enough. No one could have accomplished that, not even Romney. Do you guys remember the kinds of turnouts we were getting in the primaries, compared to the democrats? It would have been a disaster, a landslide.
Ms Palin brought real reform to the ticket as someone who challenged a corrupt political machine.
She was a leader on energy independance which McCain hardly made use of, the one issue we had such a clear advantage over Obama.
She is a leader in the Prolife movement in a way no other politician can be.
These were all important contributions she brought to the ticket. But VP candidates do not win elections. The problem with the McCain-Palin ticket was not the the bottom of the ticket but the top. Romney would have done better? How would it have looked when McCain started attacking Wall Street instead of where the real blame was, Washington. McCain-Romney would have been a big missmatch. Again, not because of Romney, but because of McCain. His campaign was all over the place, he never had a concrete message. The point of bringing up Bill Ayers should have been of painting a picture of left wing radicalism. Rev. Wright fit in that piture as well, which McCain did not bring up.
And as much as we talk about the media coverage of Obama, where was the opposition research from McCain? The news about Obama wanting to bankrupt the Coal industry should have been covered by the Media. But where was McCain opposition research? That interview took place in January. It was not a secret, why didnt the McCain people know about it?
There was a problem witht he McCain-Palin ticket and it was not Palin, it was McCain.
The question is not if McCain-Romney would have done better, because that still keeps the biggest problem of the ticket.
The question is what if it had been Romney-Palin?
That would have been an exciting ticket of 2 proven reformers. Palin would have bridged the differences that Evangelicals had with Romney. They could have attacked the bailout. They could have blamed this crisis in the corrupt democratic congress. Told the american people these democrats in 2 short years have almost bankrupt the country and now they want the White House, too?
Romney-Palin would have used Ayers and Wright to pain a picture of readicalism.
That would have been a winning ticket.
So dont tell me about the problems that Palin might have brought to the tiket when the top of the ticket was so defectie to start with.
I get the feeling that if McCain wasnt running, he would hae done as Colin Powel and endorsed Obama.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:07 am
I’m sorry Miguel, But your argument for Palin doesn’t hold any water.
Impressive Turnout? The overall national popular vote is LESS than what Bush vs Kerry got in 2004. McCain/Palin have a lower popular vote than Kerry/Edwards did 4 years ago. Also a 7 point loss is a landslide. Palin has cost us Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia which are all states that have not been in Democrat hands in over 40 years!!! The idea that Palin is a net plus is only supported by the “base” while the rest of America, which happens to be a majority, hate her or think she is vastly unprepared to be part of the highest office in the land.
Republicans have to wake up and realize that Palin is dead to the world for the next 8 years at a minimum. The future is Romney/Jindal.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Sed I hope your right about Palin being gone from the national political stage forever.
She really took advantage and did lots of shopping to the expense of the GOP>$20,000+ spent on clothes for TODD. That is abuse and she has a history of abuse of power in Alaska.
She did not know that Africa was a continent.
We need smart leaders with high ethical standards that are interested in serving our country and not interested in taking from our country.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Miguel- A McCain/ Romney ticket would have been on message. Romney as the nominee or the VP would have been sharing his economic knowledge and know how and that would have been the message and theme of the campaign. Instead of being the Democratic party of WE CAN, the Republicans would have been the party of WE CAN FIX THIS. That is or would have been a much more powerful message to all of those voters who still aren’t exactly sure what OBAMA will do.