| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Media Wet Dream Continues - McCain/Kerry Ticket A Winner! | |
| 2004-05-28 | |
| Uh, don’t ya mean Kerry/McCain? Where are the damn editors? Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry holds an eight-point lead over President George W. Bush among registered voters in the latest CBS News poll, 49% to 41%, but one of the names currently bandied about as a running mate for him - Republican Sen. John McCain - gives Kerry an even larger edge when added to the ticket. Think this will make Kerry bite? I give it 50 / 50 odds now. McCain has continued to face questions about joining his fellow Vietnam veteran Kerry on a ticket, What’s an article on Kerry without the obligatory Vietnam veteran reference? despite having insisted that he is not interested in doing so. America’s voters, meanwhile, do have interest in such a bi-partisan slate: a hypothetical Kerry/McCain pairing holds a 14-point advantage over President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, nearly double the 8-point lead Kerry has alone over Bush. KERRY & McCAIN VS. BUSH & CHENEY: CHOICE IN NOVEMBERThe Kerry/McCain ticket draws 15% of Republican voters while keeping the same level of support among Democrats - 80% - that Kerry enjoys alone. Interesting. However, the addition of McCain brings many more veterans to the Democratic camp: tested one-on-one against Bush, Kerry loses to Bush among veterans, 54% to 41%. With Kerry and McCain together, the two tickets split the veteran vote. Upon futher thought, it’s not interesting, it’s obvious - it has to be the personal appeal, because McCain, although he’s Or you’re not paying attention: Kerry is Dukakis on stilts and a better haircut. Views of McCain Among those voters who have an opinion or know of John McCain, opinions of the Senator are overwhelmingly favorable. 46% say they have a favorable view of McCain, while just 9% are unfavorable. I’d think more people would know about McCain; he loves the camera more than Chuck Schumer! Independents hold the most favorable views. Republican voters, meanwhile, are more likely than Democrats to view the Senator in a negative light: 16% of them do, compared to just 4% of Democrats and 8% of Independents. Moreover, the Republican McCain has far higher favorable ratings than the Vice-Presidential nominee on the GOP side, Dick Cheney. The Vice-President elicits more negative than positive opinions from those familiar with him and, like the President, his negative ratings are up from last month. Despite four years in office, however, Cheney remains unknown to, or elicits no opinion from, more than one-third of voters. Adding one of John Kerry’s former nomination rivals to the Democratic ticket, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, also helps Kerry, though to a lesser extent than does McCain. Edwards’ name has also been mentioned by many as a potential running mate, and a Kerry/Edwards ticket would give the Democrats a ten-point margin over the incumbent Republicans, 50% to 40% -- a slight gain for Kerry on his eight-point one-on-one lead over Bush. I wouldn’t waste my time on Gephardt, he’s as exciting as Warren ’The Walking Casket’ Christopher. Why not Richardson? He’s the dark horse and also helps with votes out west. KERRY & EDWARDS VS. BUSH & CHENEY: CHOICE IN NOVEMBER (Registered voters)The Kerry/ Edwards slate holds Democrats and draws a few more conservatives and Independents while dropping a bit with liberals. The Edwards addition also closes the gap with veterans. They don’t mention liberal support with the Kerry/McCain ticket; does that put McCain to the left of Edwards in their eyes? Any takes on this & the likelihood of Kerry/McCain becoming reality?
| |
| Posted by:Raj |
| #17 "In a way, I kind of regret that McCain lost the Republican nomination in 2000. If he had been president, Fallujah would now be a smoking hole in the ground, as would some of the the other Saddamite cities that have been killing GI's on a regular basis for about a year now. Being a straight shooter he would have told it like it is - that the interrogating hardened terrorists is not something one can be politically-correct about." Lol, ZF!! McCain--a "straight shooter"?! (but I understand how you have come away with that perspective on McCain. He's smooth). FYI: The men who actually served with McCain in Nam hate his guts for betraying their buddies to the enemy and cutting deals with the VC to save his ass. Heard it from the guys themselves. They were all in agreement. McCain, it seems, has spent the rest of his life since then, covering it up. Which is why he is . . . the way he is. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-05-28 8:23:11 PM |
| #16 I've reached the point where I'm amused about how "things would be better with 'X' as president, Fallujah would be a smoking hole in the ground by now!" after seeing the way the press has acted. And I wonder, if given the Double Standard, they're right. If a couple soldiers abuse prisoners while Bush is President, it's reason for the DoD to resign. If it turns out Kerry shot _South_ Vietnamese soldiers and civilians, it means he has the expertise to win the war. If it turns out he agitated on behalf of the North, and advocated the abandonment of the South, it means he's the guy to bring us peace and end the war. Kerry is paradoxically the guy for people who want to bomb Fallujah flat and the people who want to pull out of Iraq and let the Saddam Fedayeen take control. And given the Pravda-on-the-Hudson Press and the Pravda-in-Atlanta news networks, he can get away with holding both of these positions. Maybe by adding McCain to the ticket, he could hold even more positions than that. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-05-28 5:16:15 PM |
| #15 ZF: McCain's one major weakness (ego is not a weakness per se among politicians, it's usually an entry-level requirement!) is that he desperately seeks the approval of the media/opinion elite. I suspect that if he'd been president on 9/11, he would have done more of what the NYT wanted: consulted allies, worked through multinational agencies like the UN, given the inspectors more time, etc. In other words, he'd probably have been less assertive and decisive than W. Now Gore, of course, would have been worse still. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-05-28 4:31:13 PM |
| #14 ZF: I'd like to believe that you are right about McCain's strong battlefield tactics. Nevertheless, one cannot forget the countervailing force of both Foggy Bottom and the media. Fighting the traditional war is well nigh impossible these days. Wretchard has a great post on this today. Anyway, I think the good Senator from Arizona would be more hamstrung than you might believe. |
| Posted by: remote man 2004-05-28 4:20:25 PM |
| #13 Fox showed this this morning...McCain was on one of the late, late night talk shows. He was again asked about it. I can't remember the exact words of his reply but it went somewhat like "I was in a dark hole, out of it for 6 years. Why would I want to return to one?" |
| Posted by: AF Lady 2004-05-28 4:12:48 PM |
| #12 yeah right, Bush-Hillary. Talk about watching your back! Return of the official food taster... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-28 4:12:00 PM |
| #11 Interesting spin here: Despite four years in office, however, Cheney remains unknown to, or elicits no opinion from, more than one-third of voters. I'll bet they expected strong negatives on Cheney due to the Dreaded Halliburton Connection. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-05-28 3:55:56 PM |
| #10 In a way, I kind of regret that McCain lost the Republican nomination in 2000. If he had been president, Fallujah would now be a smoking hole in the ground, as would some of the the other Saddamite cities that have been killing GI's on a regular basis for about a year now. Being a straight shooter he would have told it like it is - that the interrogating hardened terrorists is not something one can be politically-correct about. I can't see McCain carrying out what GWB did in Fallujah, fighting, pausing, fighting and then pausing again. GWB's moves in Iraq are a lot like LBJ's Rolling Thunder bombing campaign in North Vietnam - by repeatedly calling bombing halts, Lyndon Johnson convinced the Vietnamese communists that he did not have the will to win, that he was too morally weak to defeat them. And so North Vietnam prolonged the war for another five years, resulting a dishonorable American withdrawal in 1972. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-28 3:31:20 PM |
| #9 Zhang Fei - points taken, I'll adjust my odds accordingly (like, 0.1%). |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-05-28 3:28:43 PM |
| #8 McCain isn't going to become the Democratic VP candidate. Period. And it's got nothing to do with loyalty - McCain is simply too conservative for the Democratic Party. Why would McCain risk his cushy Senate for a worthless VP post where he has no chance of doing anything that furthers his conservative agenda? McCain has no chance of ever being nominated as the Democratic candidate, which is the usual reason that people take VP slots. He can still run in 2008 for the Republican nomination, but not if he takes a VP slot with Kerry. McCain is much more hardcore than Bush about national security - unlike Bush, he has no problem with killing the enemy - at all (note that 30 years on, he still refers to Vietnamese communists as g**ks). If McCain had gotten the Republican nomination, we would probably be in Iran, and possibly North Korea as well. How does that square with Kerry's positions? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-28 3:05:46 PM |
| #7 Hillary would guarantee a Bush loss. Nice idea, but a total nonstarter. McCain will never get on a ticket with a guy who called his fellow vets murderers and war criminals. Not a chance in hell... But as an earlier poster said, this mini-boomlet of publicity hurts Kerry in the end, because he'll go with someone much less exciting. |
| Posted by: RMcLeod 2004-05-28 2:49:55 PM |
| #6 As stupid and unappetizing as this may sound, Bush should counter by asking Hillary to take Cheney's place. It puts her right where she wants to be - running in 08. Plus Bush is the boss and not Cheney. So why should Hillary have any more clout than breaking ties in the Senate (which is the weakest part of the promotion). |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-05-28 2:19:50 PM |
| #5 'Hawk: Point taken. I still think there's a "dream candidate" effect going on here, though perhaps to a lesser degree than there might be for someone who's never run before. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-05-28 1:56:37 PM |
| #4 Did you ever see that picture of Richardson, while being grilled the Grand Wizard of the senate, sucking his finger like a four year old caught stealing cookies? Pretty funny. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-28 1:49:28 PM |
| #3 McCain is different from Clark - McCain's already been around once, people have heard him before. I agree, though, that he aint interested being anybody's VEEP. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-28 1:44:20 PM |
| #2 One thing you're seeing here is the "dream candidate" effect. McCain isn't running, and so he hasn't taken positions and campaigned. Therefore, people don't know what he's about, so they tend to imbue him with all the qualities of their personal ideal candidate. If he were to jump in--and I don't see McCain crossing party lines to play second banana to the Frenchman; there's not enough space in the cabin of that 757 campaign plane to hold both egos!--as soon as he opened his mouth and people learned more about him, many would realize that he's not their ideal,* and support would fall off rapidly. Remember All this McCainMania will have one significant effect on the campaign, though. Since the press has spent so much ink and time building up McCain, whoever Kerry ends up with will invariably end up looking diminished in comparison. *--If McCain has to reverse his position on issues in order to get the nomination--remember, kids, McCain is pro-life, and no one, but no one, gets nominated in the Democratic party without being pro-abortion--he'll fall even farther, as he'll end up disillusioning those people who know him and like him for what he is now. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-05-28 1:06:25 PM |
| #1 John Kerry holds an eight-point lead over President George W. Bush among registered voters in the latest CBS News poll, 49% to 41% And which groups helped with this poll? I'll wait for a FoxNews poll before believing CronicBullShit. |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-05-28 12:51:35 PM |