Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
GAMING OUT MCCAIN'S IMPROBABLE WIN.
As I said in August in a Baltimore Sun column, I still think John McCain is the Republicans' best bet to keep the White House in 2008. Though I sometimes disagree with David Broder, he's right about the lure of a McCain-Mike Huckabee ticket. Without repeating my reasons for believing McCain is the most electable Republican, let me switch to a discussion of the possible scenario for how McCain could pull the nomination rabbit out of the hat:
1. Huckabee wins Iowa, thereby sinking Mitt Romney's robotic, pandering candidacy.
2. Giuliani's late start in iconoclastic New Hampshire (he's just going up with television ads there) is simply too little, too late, permitting McCain, who of course did amazingly well there in 2000, to surge there in a way that Huckabee the southern preacher cannot in such a Catholic (38 percent) state. Rudy or Romney finishes second behind McCain, with Huckabee falling to third or fourth, taking the steam out of his Iowa win.
3. The long wait until February 5 -- three weeks in primary world is like an Ice Age now -- gives the "McCain comeback" story time to germinate. Suddenly, Giuliani's all-in, Florida-dependent, early February strategy looks like the blunder it is.
4. Meanwhile, in South Carolina, all the to-the-rescue work and fence-mending that McCain and his deputy, John Weaver, completed in 2004 with President Bush and Karl Rove finally pays off in South Carolina, where the Warren Tompkins establishment wing of the GOP, realizing that Romney can't win, alligns with the McCain-favoring Lindsey Graham wing to deliver the Palmetto State for McCain.
5. By February 5, McCain-Huckabee, or perhaps McCain-Romney if that is the price paid for South Carolina, has gained the momentum … and Rudy starts trying on new dresses for his Tuesday night speech in Minneapolis next summer.
I realize there's a lot of "if's" in there, but this GOP race is so exciting and wide open right now, is it really that unbelievable a scenario? After all, McCain was about as "dead" by November 2007 as Kerry was in November 2003.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (13)
Tom, what a lame article. We need the best candidate not your opinions of who is best.
I want a conservative who has a history of success. Nothing you've said here is objective. It is subjective however which makes me suspicious of everything you write.
Posted by: Scott R. | December 3, 2007 12:11 PM
After all, McCain was about as "dead" by November 2008 as Kerry was in November 2004.
I'm trying to figure out what that means. McCain "was" dead next year, compared to Kerry after he lost the election? What?
And shouldn't the Michigan primary on January 15 be in that timeline?
Posted by: dbomp | December 3, 2007 12:26 PM
dbomp, I assume those year numbers were typos for "2007" and "2003."
Posted by: Haggai | December 3, 2007 12:29 PM
McCain is still old and looking older by the month.
I have little doubt that a 65 year old McCain would be tough in '08, but not this McCain.
Plus, even with Huck on his ticket, fundamentalists can't stand McCain, and quite a few moneycons also hate him.
Posted by: Buford P. Stinkleberry | December 3, 2007 12:48 PM
There are a lot of "ifs" in there, and I'm not inclined to give all them to Schaller's theory - the "omeback energy for McCain does not strike me as strong enough, for one thing, and I also think Giuliani and Romney both have potential success in their strategies that's not credited here. In which case I'd say Huckabee wins Iowa, McCain maybe does win New Hampshire... but Giuliani's firewall in South Carolina and Florida actually works. Roney wins Michigan. Take that scenario, with all the mess it suggests... and the Republicans could really damage one another for months, with no clear winner by convention time.
Posted by: weboy | December 3, 2007 12:50 PM
Well, one of my longstanding fears has been that McCain would win the GOP nomination, select a batshit crazy theocrat as a running mate, and then kick the bucket in his first term.
Posted by: latts | December 3, 2007 1:03 PM
weboy, that's all possible, but a fight to the finish has never happened in the modern era.
The bandwagon effect is amplified by the media, so I just don't think that could happen. Could always be a first, thoug.
Posted by: Buford P. Stinkleberry | December 3, 2007 1:20 PM
Oddly enough, I don't think the Baltimore Sun article is at the current link: goldtalk.com/forum/showthread.php
I discuss the Broder joke here. He may have passed along a Huck lie.
Posted by: TLB | December 3, 2007 1:39 PM
I agree with this, and in fact I'll raise it a notch: McCain only needs a strong second to Romney in NH for this strategy to work. Then the narrative will essentially be the same: Mitt only squeaked out a win, McCain is surging, etc.
Posted by: ANM | December 3, 2007 2:50 PM
Then the narrative will essentially be the same: Mitt only squeaked out a win, McCain is surging, etc.
Similar to the Tsongas-Clinton results of 1992. Massachusetts politicians get little bump out of winning NH.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano | December 3, 2007 3:30 PM
McCain is (sometimes, barely) palatable to all the Republican constituencies--militarists, theocons, Wall Street, moderates (if they still exist). This is hardly a fanciful scenario. McCain is following the Kerry 04 script--let the front-runners tear each other apart and pick up the pieces. It's his best chance and it just might work.
Posted by: danimal | December 3, 2007 3:57 PM
Put me down as someone who thinks that the person picked as a running mate is at best completely irrelevant to a candidate's chances of winning the election, and at worst is a huge liability.
So McCain-Huckabee may be as viable as McCain-Smith or McCain-Jones.
But a McCain-Cheney ticket would be a big loser.
Posted by: Jinchi | December 3, 2007 5:08 PM
Very interesting and I think possible formula for McCain to win. Though, if I were him I would not choose any of the other candidates for VP, I'd choose a female strong southern state conservative.
He still has to beat Hillary
Posted by: D | December 4, 2007 12:01 PM