the presidential race

I think that we shall see in the next few days that John McCain will lose this race, if we wish to reduce all of this to horserace journalism. At this point, trailing by 5 points in the polls and after Labor Day, a presidential race is normally set. Now, it may be that Governor Sarah Palin is a game changer and we will see a convention bounce that makes the race competitive, but I'm skeptical for several reasons.

First, John McCain is almost a default candidate this go-around. Those are harsh words, but compare him to other Republican candidates over the last sixty years. He is only the third sitting Senator nominated at the top of the ticket; the other two are of course Goldwater and Dole. Goldwater and Dole faced a popular incumbent, and Dole's candidacy was in no small part due to his "next in line" status, a status shared with McCain. In contrast, W was nominated almost by acclimation at the start of the process, at least in Iowa. Yes, McCain put up a challenge in New Hampshire, but after losing in South Carolina, his candidacy, like that of every other rival to the Texas Governor, was soon over. Likewise, Ronald Reagan entered 1980 as the presumptive nominee, due to his strong run in 1976 (a run that fatally wounded the Ford candidacy), and the 1980 challenge by GHW Bush got him on the ballot as VP, though not past Reagan. Jerry Ford wasn't a Senator; he was an accidental nominee, and without the Nixon resignation, it's hard to imagine that VP Ford would have bested Reagan. If Spiro Agnew had survived as VP (the "Spiro of '76"), it is equally hard to imagine that he would bave beaten Reagan. Agnew does fit into our mold though as a governor. Nixon picked him because he was unknown and could possibly bring in an otherwise Democratic state in the 1968 election (he did not-Humphrey carried Maryland).

To continue the point, Nixon had been a Senator, but it was his position as VP that made him the nominee in 1960 & 68. His strongest rivals were governors-Romney, Rockefeller, & Reagan. Eisenhower easily won the nomination over Senator Bob Taft in the 1950's; Governor Tom Dewey ("the little man on the wedding cake") was nominated in 1944 & 48. And that is far enough back to make the point that Republicans are reluctant to nominate Senators except when a Governor, such as Rockefeller in 1964, appears too flawed.

So, how did McCain win? He was next in line, which helps a Republican candidate; many Republicans thought that they owed him the nomination, and he had been running for eight years by the 2008 race. His opponents all had some great problem for a significant number of Republicans. Rudy Giuliani was only a serious candidate in his mind; he was far too liberal for most Republicans. Mitt Romney won the hearts of business Republicans and the Republican media establishment-Rush Limbaugh for example-but the evangelicals could not get past his Mormonism and the conservatives doubted his sincerity. They suspected at heart, he was really a moderate. Mike Huckabee, another Governor, was loaded with faith and an amiable and engaging personality, but unlike W Bush or Reagan, Huckabee never learned to talk about faith in an abstract way. Huckabee wears his faith on his sleeve, and leaves no doubt about the evangelical nature of his beliefs. Reagan and W learned how to talk about faith without sounding evangelical or alienating the non-evangelical conservatives. Too, Huckabee seemed to hint an old school populism, perhaps still popular in the south, but not enough seen in modern Republicans. Huckabee did manage to quash the candidacy of Senator Sam Brownback, another possible evangelical hopeful (conservative Catholic, but still hopeful of evangelical support) before the Iowa Caucuses even started. Another hopeful, Governor Tommy Thompson, who had the credentials to be considered seriously, was out by the end of the Iowa Straw Poll; he seemed to be at the Straw Poll in order to say goodbye. Fred Thompson, who might have been a serious candidate, had frittered away any chance he had in Iowa by ingnoring the Straw Poll. Thus, raising then finding a serious contender to McCain, the Iowa Caucuses picked between unlikely candidates.

In 2000, when McCain ignored the caucuses, George W Bush won the with 41% of the vote; Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer-really, could you imagine any of these three as the nominee?-took a combined 57% and John McCain finished with 5%. In 2008, with hardly any more effort, McCain finished fourth again, but with 13% of the vote and in a virtual tie with third place Fred Thompson. Huckabee, with no evangelical rivals, scooped up their votes, along with the anti-Mitt votes, and won with 34%. Mitt Romney had been the front runner, and outspent Huckabee, but finished with only 25%. McCain's New Hampshire victory would, for all intents, finish off Romney and make McCain the front runner. Romney would drop out by February. McCain finished off Huckabee in South Carolina, though Huckabee would soldier on perhaps in the belief that Thompson's last gasp campaign had cost him South Carolina.

Now quickly contrast that with Barack Obama, who had to fight to the bitter end to win the nomination over Hillary. Barack and Hillary quickly took all the air out of the room for other candidates, much as McCain did to other Republicans, but it may be years before we see two candidates so evenly matched. You don't have to like Barack Obama, but he won the Democratic nomination, and it showed, when as the presumptive nominee he established his lead early in this summer. The point is that the Republican landscape lacked a Governor who could appeal across the broad spectrum and challenge McCain. One wonders whether Sarah Palin would have survived Iowa had she stepped into run. However much the base loves her now, I can't see her getting past Huckabee in Iowa.

Put another way, McCain is more Goldwater in his appeal than Reagan.

The second great problem for McCain is that he long ago wrapped up the Republican base. It seems counter-intuitive because he has so often clashed with evangelicals and with conservatives, but despite, respectively, their doubt about his faith or his views on immigration, he has strongly embraced the Bush view on the importance of fighting on in Iraq. That may not be the most popular idea in the country as a whole, but it binds the conservatives to him, and to a lesser extent the evangelicals. McCain's real hope is that thus far there are still untapped evangelicals to reach-thus, the pick of Palin-in this election, an unlikely hope, but understandable.

Look for a moment at the short lists for McCain: Romney? what did Mitt really bring? Huckabee? perhaps he brings evangelicals but does he bring in any states that McCain would otherwise lose? Rob Portman or John Thune, obscure legislators? McCain went outside the box figuring that none of these gentlemen could help him win. Joe Lieberman: a game changer perhaps but unacceptable to too many Republicans. Palin might hurt him on the experience issue, but she's pretty, personable, conservative and Christian. He recognized that he has trailed all summer and needed to shake things up.

So then, the final point. At the start, I predicted that John McCain has already lost this election and that this will quickly become apparent. At the heart is electoral math. I have tracked it all summer at a number of sites, and McCain has trailed virtually every day; at most, he has peeked into short electoral leads at a couple of sites. He has made inroads; Barack Obama reached a high of hitting between 310 and 320, to a lead in the 270's and 280's, perhaps testifying to the effectiveness of the celebrity and ready to lead ads, but the convention bounce has moved Barack back up. Barack's bounce has already been hit by the selection of Palin last week. As much as both liberal and conservative political professionals liked her speech, people have moved toward her or not prior to her speech. McCain's convention bounce is then, in part, limiting Obama. Where does Sarah Palin really change the electoral map for John McCain, and truthfully, can any VP be expected to swing as many states as McCain needs?

I write these things because several Republican professionals I know have convinced themselves that McCain had tied Obama prior to the Democratic convention, and that with Palin as the game changer, he still has a chance to bounce past Obama/Biden. From a realpolitik perspective, I cannot agree with that; I cannot see Sarah Palin inspiring many people not already committed to McCain. I cannot see McCain winning when he trails in too many states a Republican needs; astonishingly, Barack Obama could win a close race without winning in Ohio (perhaps the reason for skipping Portman-Ohio was not enough)

We shall see though in a few days how well these thoughts hold up. Check back in a week, and we shall look at polls.