On McCain's Voting Coalition

Real Clear Politics HorseRaceBlog ^ | February 05, 2008 | By Jay Cost

[GVnana]

February 05, 2008

On McCain's Voting Coalition

An argument being proffered by Romney supporters is that McCain's victories in the early states have been due to the conservative vote being split among many candidates... I would like to toss in my two cents, as this sort of matter is up my alley.

Excerpt:

Let's dig into the exit polls from New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida to see exactly whether this claim bears out.

Excerpt:

McCain, for his part, won many more anti-Bush voters than Romney did. This could make a big difference.

Excerpt:

I re-ran these calculations dividing the electorate into four ideological groups: liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative...Once again, I found that McCain wins all three states.

.Excerpt

If anything, voters might break more heavily to McCain than my baseline model implies. According to the latest Pew poll, Huckabee voters have a +36% favorable rating of McCain, but a -4% rating of Romney.

McCain has done what most winning candidates do: win his base by large margins while stealing plenty of voters from the other guy's base. McCain does not win conservatives or Bush supporters outright - but he has done well enough with them that he could probably win New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida in a head-to-head match up.

Excerpt:

So, McCain has been building a voting coalition that can trump the coalitions of other candidates - but not by much. If the anti-McCain forces could have turned out more of their voters in the other states, they might have won.

[GVnana]

Continued: "I think the Romney supporters are on better empirical ground to argue that their candidate's problem has been that Bush supporters and strong conservatives simply have not made up a sufficiently large share of the vote - and that "true" Republicans need to "wake up." Accordingly, their goal should be to turn out more of their voters. Maybe they will be able to do this in California today."

My comment: This article is very long. My apologies for the numerous edits.

[Darkwolf377]

Huckabee voters have a +36% favorable rating of McCain, but a -4% rating of Romney.

I'm not surprised.

[MNJohnnie]

Intresting Frank Lutz focus group. Made up of “Moderates”. Most are supporting Obama. When asked if any would support McCain NONE of them said they would cross over.

McCain is being nominated by people who have NO intention of voting for him in the General Election

[elizabetty]

I'm not surprised.

And I bet all of them can tell you Mitt's religion but less than half can tell you McCain's.

[HardStarboard]

>>>I'm not surprised.<<<

Neither am I!! The Huck has been snuggling up to McCain since New Hampshire and attempting to discredit Romney. Why would anyone be suprised that Hucksters lean heavily to McCain...

Th party has lost its way....is there a conservative leader out there anywhere? McCain is a travesty....

[GVnana]

And I bet all of them can tell you Mitt's religion but less than half can tell you McCain's.

As I was reminded recently, "The Republican party used to be the party of religious freedom."

[2ndDivisionVet]

IIRC, McCain was an Episcopalian; naturally, since most senior military officers, such as his father and grandfather (both ranking admirals) have always been in that denomination, since the time of Geo. Washington.
He recently changed to Baptist, as I understand it.

[GVnana]

Hmm. I heard he was a Presbyterian.

[Jeff Chandler]

Episcopelican

[GVnana]

My mother used to call us, “fallen Catholics.”

[Salvation]

Interesting, isn’t it?

[bpjam]

That part of the focus group was a no-brainer for me since I already knew that McVain would get ZERO votes from ‘moderates’ once there was a tried and true liberal in the race.

But wasn’t it hilarious when Luntz asked Hannity’s question to that room full of dunces to name a single Obama accomplishment?? One guy says ‘bipartisan ethics reform’, as if Obama had anything to do with it (and if it wasn’t just a watered down version of the one the GOP tried to pass two years ago that Reid blocked before the election). Just rich that those people sat there stammering and ultimately unconcerned that there was no ‘there’ there.

[Fishtalk]

If I have learned nothing else this year it’s that those states who somehow got their primaries in early have waaaaaaaay more influence than their politics, population and prevailing idealogy warrant.

New Hampshire? Iowa? Michigan?

Which is not to necessarily cast aspersions on those states save New Hampshire which is really a little state full of weirdos. But the truth is that ANY state out ahead of the curve ball with its primaries matters greatly and carries way more influence than deserved.

Hey, heh, just ask the Rudy G campaign.

I’ll allow as this year was a bit exceptional perhaps in that the world knew that Hillary was running and the media was chomping at the bit. Barack Obama and John McCain came out of nowhere and before we could blink these two candidates, one a lightweight and one despised by a large portion of his own party, in that order, leaped to the fore of the national media that they did not deserve. That “aw shucks” guy Huckabee too got more scrutiny than deserved.

And before we knew it, the vast majority of us Americans who barely had a chance to pay attention, are facing nominations for our country’s presidency based on the votes of maybe five states.

IF McCain gets the nomination it will be more about timing than anything. For given enough time Republicans would not nominate this guy.

Well hell I don’t know the answer. I’ve just made the realization.

Me and Rudy G.

[dforest]

I think McCain has joined Al Gores’s Church of Global Warming.

The taxpayers get to put money into the plate.

[codercpc]

I am a long time Conservative Freeper, and I am voting for McCain. I am not an "uninvolved niave" voter, that most Freepers claim that I am. I am not a "liberal", I am not even all that "moderate". I am a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, fiscal, and most importantly, pro-security Conservative!

McCain was not my first choice, and I wish he wasn't old, and somewhat cranky, but given my choices he has my vote.

I have done my best to not knock any of the candidates, because I will support whoever wins the nomination in the end.

In the end my vote goes down to two things. He is not Romney or Huck. My problems with Romney are TRUST!!!! I find him to be a panderer, and I am not sure I believe his recent conversions. I know 100% I would never have even considered him 5-10 years ago, so why would I choose him now. Besides his words, what proof is there that he has changed? With McCain, I know I could have voted for him 5-10 years ago, and although I have reservations now, they are not out weighed by the fact that at least I believe him, something I can not say about Romney.

As for Huck, I have huge problems with his foreign policy, and some of his fiscal history, so he also will not get my vote.

All I am doing is asking Freepers to think about who they are insulting (long time Freepers like myself) when they automatically give that knee jerk reaction of if we are not with you, we are against you. I have principled reasons for voting for who I am. I assume you do too. I won't question your sanity, if you don't question mine.

And for all of those out there that are slamming McCain on abortion, and gun votes. They may not be perfect, but in the case of abortion, John McCain has voted pro life his entire career, with the exception of stem cell research (which Romney sometimes agrees with). NARAL gave him a 0%, that doesn't seem prochoice to me. For guns, there was the horrendous "gun show loophole" that McCain backed, but he has voted consistently against the AWB (Can Romney say the same?) and also voted against the Brady Bill (which Romney was in strong favor of, again in the past, don't know how he feels today).

I am not trying to change anyones vote, I am just saying that please be respectful of others opinions.

Rant over!

[1curiousmind]

“My problems with Romney are TRUST!!!!”

___________________

That’s really what this boils down to...which candidate do we mistrust more. While I’m supporting Romney, George Bush has taught me never to fully trust a politician.

The bottom line for me is that I would rather put what little trust I have in someone who has been steadily moving right. McCain, for the past decade has been going the other direction.

I believe that if he wins the nomination, the message will be that the conservative movement is either dead or impotent.

If Romney wins, it will only be because conservatives stood up and took back the party. I know others disagree, but that’s how I see it.

[syriacus]

Vote John McCain
When you care enough to shiv America's best.

[codercpc]

If Romney wins, it will only be because conservatives stood up and took back the party

Thank you for your kind response, but that last line is kind of what I was getting too. Conservatives can, and are backing McCain, for their own reasons. For you to say, "it will only be because conservatives stood up" is a fallacy. I am a conservative, and I am backing McCain, not because Romney may not be conservative enough (only time will tell that), but because although conservatives may not like what McCain has done in the past, we just might "trust" him more.

No offense to you meant, at all, I respect your faith in Romney, I just hope others will respect my faith in McCain to see us through these tough times.