There are very few who could meet those criteria, but McCain was the worst of the bunch for a host of reasons. However, there are more things that unify us than separate us. The Dems are really a coalition of interest groups and more divided than we are. We had so many people in the field that McCain could take the nomination with 31% of the vote. The problem lies more with the process than the candidates.
2. McCain lost by getting tied to Bush, and ANY candidate with an R next to his name would have been thus pegged. I doubt any of the choices would have done better, except maybe Romney, since economy was #1 issue - that was one reason I supported Romney.
That was Obama's strategy, i.e., to make this race about a Bush third term. Although he figured it out too late, McCain finally realized that the only way he could win was to make the election a referendum on Obama. The Dems had nominated one of the weakest candidates ever in terms of experience and resume. We still don't know who this guy is. I know that some would like to blame it on the MSM, but McCain should have had ops research people who could go over this guy like a fine toothed comb. Much of the information out there was never used including Obama's belonging to the socialist New Party and the fact that McCain never mentioned Wright in the debates. Even Hillary did that. Imagine if McCain had attended a white racist church for 20 years.
3. I don't think critiquing McCain would help. Given his money disadvantage and the media bias, he ran as good a campaign as you could expect. OTOH, there were serious technology deficiencies on MCCain side and advantages on Obama side that need to be corrected.
McCain ran a terrible campaign. I can personally attest to that having been a volunteer for his campaign in VA makiing telephone calls and handing out sample ballots. The Obama campaign was much more organized and prepared. I can't tell you how many times this campaign resembled the Keystone cops. We didn't have poll watchers or a presence in many places. And there was no cohesive message. Again, Obama, his experience and his associations, should have been the issue and focus from day one. In many respects, the issues were tangential.
And because McCain was the candidate we couldn't go after Obama on immigration issues such as amnesty, drivers licenses, etc. and global warming. Immigration was, and continues to be a big issue in NoVA. Coal is big in SW VA. And McCain has a difficult time in debating. He is not quick on his feet. Romney and Huckabee were far superior and so are Giuliani and Hunter who would have mopped the floor with Obama. And McCain's supposed advantage with Latinos was a myth.
4. I dont think the Maverick status hurt him. Obama’s left-liberalism was enough to make me a committed and active supporter
If you believe the exit polls, only 80% of conservatives supported him. Bush drew 62 million votes in 2004. McCain will be lucky to draw 57 million. And it remains to be seen in the number who voted yesterday will top the 121 million who voted in 2004. It would be interesting to find out what the Rep turnout numbers were.
McCain was using the Sarkozy strategy of running against his own party. I don't think it worked very well when it comes to getting out the base to vote for you. Hell, I would have supported Giuliani over McCain if it meant winning. I really disliked McCain because of his stance on immigration. I am totallly convinced that an amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen. A group of us spent a total of four days each in SC and FL trailing the McCain campaign in the primaries demonstrating against him. Yet here I was yesterday standing in the rain handing out sample McCain ballots. I may not have voted for President if Palin had not been selected.
5. There is one Republican above all who is responsible for this loss: President Bush. Bush did good things and bad things, but in the end his popularity was the drag on the ticket that pulled all the Rs down. I dont recall the Dems running against a third GOP term in 1988 like they did here. For good reason.
There is no doubt that Bush was/is a disappointment. I voted for him twice. I won't recite the issues, which I am sure you know. However, I don't hold Bush responsible for the loss. I blame our primary process that produced McCain, the housing meltdown, and McCain the deeply flawed candidate. McCain could still have won if he had from the very beginning made the election a referendum on Obama. It would have been dirty and nasty with the other side calling us racists and bigots, but it would have been effective.
Thanks for cogent response.
Maybe I am giving too much of a pass to McCain’s campaign, it seems his maverick and war hero status gave us some biographical advantages, and he seemed to get good mileage out of much financial disadvantage, but in the end it didnt help much. Honestly, I expected him to do worse in terms of campaign and even debates than he did; especially #3, I felt he was better than Bush was in debates (alas, Obama was better than the previous Dems too).
I still wonder if you think another candidate could do better though. Romney/Palin might have done better based on your comments wrt campaign and message, and money too.
20/20 hindsight.
“And McCain’s supposed advantage with Latinos was a myth.”
Obama ran some very dirty ads in spanish and it worked.
“A group of us spent a total of four days each in SC and FL trailing the McCain campaign in the primaries demonstrating against him. Yet here I was yesterday standing in the rain handing out sample McCain ballots. I may not have voted for President if Palin had not been selected.”
You BETCHA! I know where you are coming from, so let me thank you for your valiant effort in supporting the flawed but far superior candidate against Obama.