My feeling is that the actual voters might just think that whatever the other candidates say about immigration, they probably won’t actually do anything much different from McCain if they actually get into office.

Most politicians in office spend a lot of time going back on their campaign promises.

Amba, the explanation is actually very simple:
1. Before Florida, independents were also allowed to vote
2. In Florida, 20% of those who voted (all overwhelmingly for McCain) call themselves "Independents." They’ve probably reregistered only recently
3. Even with that in mind, he only receives some 1/3 of the votes. That means that 2/3 of Republican voters are against him. Especially conservatives
4. Voters are idiots ("Economy number 1 issue!" "yeah! Lets vote McCain" "Got that right!")

Amazing that last year, people on the center right were saying that the Republican party needed to be more moderate- and then when a more moderate Republican starts gaining momentum, some of those same people are agreeing with the hardcore, far right paleocons who insist on ideological purity and partisan loyalty above all else.
 
20% of people who consider themselves politically independent being motivated to register with the Republican party and vote for a moderately conservative candidate is a bad thing, why? It’s only bad if you’re a hardcore fiscal con who is worried that you’re losing your influence in the party. But guess what? That’s exactly what’s happening, and the fiscal cons deserve it because when their coalition held all the power they blew it. This part of the coalition thought they could take the other parts of the Republican base for granted and they thought they could ignore it when their own candidates sold out on their principles and became corrupt.

That means that 2/3 of Republican voters are against him

No, it means that 2/3 are for someone else (just like more than 2/3 are for someone other than Romney.) And more than half of the voters who went for Huckabee and Giuliani, when you combine those groups, would choose McCain as their second choice.

Amazing that last year, people on the center right were saying that the Republican party needed to be more moderate- and then when a more moderate Republican starts gaining momentum, some of those same people are agreeing with the hardcore, far right paleocons who insist on ideological purity and partisan loyalty above all else.

I know you’re not referring to me, because I’ve made perfectly clear why I think that McCain’s not the right choice from a Republican and even as a normal citizen’s perspective.

It’s all about the economy, stupid! (not calling you stupid, etc.)

Not only that, you’ve also got to be smart if you’re member of a party. Don’t choose someone who risks fracturing the base.

That’s exactly what’s happening, and the fiscal cons deserve it because when their coalition held all the power they blew it. This part of the coalition thought they could take the other parts of the Republican base for granted and they thought they could ignore it when their own candidates sold out on their principles and became corrupt.

What nonsense. These fiscal conservative voters didn’t blow it, the politicians did. They were even more disappointed than you are I bet.

For what it’s worth: the social conservative base is the base which is - in my opinion - ruining the GOP. When people like myself talk about moderation we’re talking less about fiscal affairs and more about the Huckabees of the party who forget that they’re not running for preacher-in-chief, but commander-in-chief.

It’s not about fiscal issues when people say "moderation!" it’s about ludicrous fiscal policies, like amending the constitution and alienating those who have a lifestyle you don’t agree with (from a religious perspective).

That’s what people talk about.

Anyway, he’s good on global warming - mostly - in my opinion, same goes for immigration. And I also like his stance on Iraq, but my major problem is economy. He doesn’t know anything about it, and to me that’s a major problem. Instead of punishing those who demand fiscal restraint and fiscal conservatism in action, I think that socons and others would be wise to remember that soconservative voters, bloggers, etc. aren’t the ones who spent like crazy in Congress.

The demographics had McCain winning in Florida with all groups and most areas. In the pro-military pan handle McCain won. After the Martinez endorsement he won with traditional conservative Cuban-Americans. Florida isn’t the arch-conservative state the pundits want you to believe. Let’s see what happens in Alabama and Mississippi.

For what it’s worth: the social conservative base is the base which is - in my opinion - ruining the GOP.

Look at Crist’s actual(recent) record instead of his past. He’s more popular than George or Jeb Bush and more like George Romney or Bill Milliken.

It’s also interesting to note that Florida has a big military population, and McCain did not do nearly as well as predicted with this group. I don’t know that that is going to mean very much in the long run, though. What are they going to do, vote for Clinton? Obama? Not likely.

But it does reinforce the idea that McCain doesn’t do much to inspire what should be his base…and that’s not good for the general election.

These fiscal conservative voters didn’t blow it, the politicians did. They were even more disappointed than you are I bet.

Yeah, I guess they were quite disappointed when they kept pulling the levers for the same people. That’s the point- they may have privately had a lot of reservations about the way the politicians were going- but they sat back and supported them anyway. They put the power of their own coalition over what was best for party and country and it’s coming back to haunt them, just as it does when a party puts its own power over the good of the country.

When people like myself talk about moderation we’re talking less about fiscal affairs and more about the Huckabees of the party who forget that they’re not running for preacher-in-chief, but commander-in-chief. It’s not about fiscal issues when people say "moderation!" it’s about ludicrous fiscal policies, like amending the constitution and alienating those who have a lifestyle you don’t agree with (from a religious perspective). That’s what people talk about.

Yeah, I know. Because only the OTHER parts of the conservative coalition should have to compromise. I honestly don’t know what’s wrong with people- when I read Michelle Malkin I scratch my head and wonder how it is that my party is no longer the party of grown ups.

No, it means that 2/3 are for someone else (just like more than 2/3 are for someone other than Romney.) And more than half of the voters who went for Huckabee and Giuliani, when you combine those groups, would choose McCain as their second choice.

Ha! We’ll see about that. Why don’t you push Huckabee into dropping out?

The demographics had McCain winning in Florida with all groups and most areas. In the pro-military pan handle McCain won. After the Martinez endorsement he won with traditional conservative Cuban-Americans.

Yeah, wasn’t that the person who’s soft on immigration? And, again, he didn’t win conservatives over.

But it does reinforce the idea that McCain doesn’t do much to inspire what should be his base…and that’s not good for the general election.

Only time will tell of course, but I think you’re right. I think we’ll see a Dem.

Lets hope it’s Clinton: she can get along with Europeans, yet she’s hawkish!

(having said that, if it’s down to McCain - Clinton Americans can’t really go wrong; McCain isn’t the best imo, but he’s not satan either)

Yeah, I guess they were quite disappointed when they kept pulling the levers for the same people. That’s the point- they may have privately had a lot of reservations about the way the politicians were going- but they sat back and supported them anyway. They put the power of their own coalition over what was best for party and country and it’s coming back to haunt them, just as it does when a party puts its own power over the good of the country.

What? Weren’t these the people pushing Reps for fiscal restraint? Weren’t these the porkbusters? Weren’t these… you call them idle? They were highly active!

Yeah, I know. Because only the OTHER parts of the conservative coalition should have to compromise. I honestly don’t know what’s wrong with people- when I read Michelle Malkin I scratch my head and wonder how it is that my party is no longer the party of grown ups.

Factually correct yeah; just as you just said that the fiscal conservatives have to compromise

Ha!

I’m looking at the rhetoric though, and I agree that it’s like that. The real problem is, of course, that McCain can’t inspire the coalition because at least one part of the coalition is way out there (I’m talking about those who refer to McCain as "McShamnesty").

McCain isn’t the best imo, but he’s not satan either

Well, at least you give him that

LOL, best captcha evah…."Kabuki Experience"

What? Weren’t these the people pushing Reps for fiscal restraint? Weren’t these the porkbusters? Weren’t these… you call them idle? They were highly active!

Which people, and when?

"Yeah, I guess they were quite disappointed when they kept pulling the levers for the same people. That’s the point- they may have privately had a lot of reservations about the way the politicians were going- but they sat back and supported them anyway. They put the power of their own coalition over what was best for party and country and it’s coming back to haunt them, just as it does when a party puts its own power over the good of the country"

Okay, Christine. You have me confused here. How is this different from what you are advocating? You say conservatives who are opposed to McCain should vote for him anyway if he is nominated, because he is a better alternative than the Dem. nominee.

Well, a lot of conservatives voted in those Republicans you disagree with because they, too, were better than the alternative…

You say conservatives who are opposed to McCain should vote for him anyway if he is nominated, because he is a better alternative than the Dem. nominee.

No, I’m not. I’m saying they should be willing to support him because he’s with them on 80-90% of the issues. Ever heard of the 80% rule?

There’s a difference between voting for a candidate based on party loyalty (even when that candidate is corrupt) and voting for them based on enough overlap on ideology even though there’s not 100% match.

So, if they believed the Republican candidates were corrupt (I agree, quite a few of them were) then what should they have done? Stay home or vote for the Dem?

Tap: We’re talking about people with power within the party, not just individual voters. What they should have done is had ‘behind the woodshed’ moments so that these politicians would have known on no uncertain terms that the bloggers and pundits wouldn’t carry water for them if they were abandoning ethics and principle.

And BTW, even as a voter it got to the point that I abstained from voting in the congressional elections in ‘06. I wouldn’t vote Dem, but at some point you have to have a shred of integrity and not vote for people who were condoning corruption.

Well, you did just take the voter’s to task a few comments earlier in this thread. :) 

A lot of blogger’s and pundits, by the way, have been quite clear about their opinions on the matter, too. As for the people with power within the party - they were the ones doing it.

There’s a difference between voting for a candidate based on party loyalty (even when that candidate is corrupt) and voting for them based on enough overlap on ideology even though there’s not 100% match.

It’s not about that to many. McCain-Feingold is a real problem for him. In fact, if he hadn’t pushed that one through, I think that someone like Ed Morrissey would’ve endorsed him.

And that’s a major issue for some people.

You can say "yeah, but you agree with 80% of his other policies." Yes, but what if that one is so important to you? If that’s truly, in your eyes, a horrible, horrible law, the equivalent of Roe v. Wade?

Well, I shouldn’t have phrased it as "pulling the levers" I guess, because I intended the comment to refer to the powerbrokers, not the plebians.

And Michael said that too about bloggers and pundits speaking out, but I’ll ask you the same question that he hasn’t answered yet (;-) ): which individuals are you referring to, and when did they begin speaking out?

Christine; I’m not going to answer that question because you can do the googling yourself. I think I even linked to them at the Gazette. Ed Morrissey. Instapundit. NZ Bear. The list truly goes on and on. Why do you think Bush suddenly mentioned earmarks in his state of the union last year and this time again?

If you don’t know that people have been pushing for this, I wonder where you have been.

You can say "yeah, but you agree with 80% of his other policies." Yes, but what if that one is so important to you? If that’s truly, in your eyes, a horrible, horrible law, the equivalent of Roe v. Wade?

Ironic, because you ask that of someone who really does feel that strongly about abortion and yet I’m not a single issue voter like that. I would have voted Giuliani, for example, despite his prochoice stance.

Because in those situations, in spite of how difficult it is, then I really DO feel that you vote for your party because the other is even worse. Because look at it like this: you’re not going to get someone who agrees with you on that one issue either way, so look at other issues instead and decide which candidate is closer to your views in general.

And on Ed Morrissey, you’re probably right and I understand that feeling over that issue. But although he chose to endorse Romney over McCain, do you have any doubt he’ll support McCain if he gets the nomination? Fortunately, he’s one of the grownups still left in the party.

What McCain needs to do is find a VP who will satisfy Morrissey on campaign finance and free speech issues, Malkin on immigration, and Limbaugh on taxes/fiscal policy. And the last two probably won’t be satisfied even if McCain could resurrect Reagan himself and put him on the ticket.

If you don’t know that people have been pushing for this, I wonder where you have been.

Michael: I specifically asked "when" because I think that’s relevant. It’s one thing for people to have begun criticizing AFTER the voters ‘threw the bums out’, it’s another for them to have had the courage of convictions before that happened. And I’m not saying that no one did that (I’m quite sure Ed Morrissey did but I don’t read the others you mentioned), but some of the same people who are so militant about the need for fiscal purity were not quite so outspoken when they should have been.

I would have voted Giuliani, for example, despite his prochoice stance.
Major difference:
1. McCain stands by it, still
2. Giuliani would appoint constructionist judges to the bench, who would probably limit Roe v. Wade

McCain stands by it personally, but he has also pledged (over and over, in fact, having just reiterated it recently) that he’ll also appoint strict constructionist judges. So the concern that he’s going to worry about the legacy of that piece of legislation is unwarranted- at least if you want to equally trust Rudy on his pledge and McCain on his.

Your parallel actually works toward my argument, not yours. In both cases, each man still holds a position personally that bothers certain groups- but pledges to appoint judges who’d interpret faithfully, without consideration of finding someone to support his own preferred view on the issue.

I guess it would be worth asking McCain what he’d do if Congress passed some new legislation which reversed McCain Feingold- would he sign or veto?

Christine. I’m not sure which pundits and bloggers you listen to/read. The conservative sites/shows that I frequent have complained about this for years. "Because in those situations, in spite of how difficult it is, then I really DO feel that you vote for your party because the other is even worse." I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too when you put that statement together with some of your others. My point is, what do you do when your party doesn’t seem to represent you anymore, but the other one is even worse, according to your standards. I still disagree with you and your McCain-80% thing. For one thing, you are looking at his lifetime rating. His rating in recent years is not that high. Which is more representativeof McCain now, his record 12 years ago, his record for the last 4 years, or his overall record? You can make a case for his overall record, but a case can also be made that his recent record more accurately represents what he believes now, and that that is what matters. Also, that rating is composed of thousands of votes, many of them on minor issues, many of them on issues that are not of such importance on a liberal/conservative scale. Some of those votes are far more important than others from the perspective of a conservative or a liberal. That is why I don’t think your 80% mantra is going to be effective with all voters. Of course, it will be enough for many, because when it comes down to it, you only have a few choices. This is where I come back to what you are saying about the fiscally irresponsible politicians of the last few years - you wanted something done about it. WHAT? Was it the voter’s fault? That would imply conservatives not voting for Republicans. Was it the pundits fault? What can we do about that? Was it the parties fault for letting them go astray? What can we do about that?

I hate it when my paragraphs go to never-neverland!

In the end you go to the polls with the candidates you have.

Don Surber has some thoughts there.

His rating in recent years is not that high.

Actually it HAS though. He’s voted with the party 87.7 % in the last session. That’s my point- you only think it hasn’t been because you’ve been listening to people who are so angry over the times that he’s gone against the orthodoxy on sacred cow issues that they can’t even see that it still doesn’t mean he’s a liberal.

Uh, I guess when I capitalize for emphasis I should proofread first. That should have been "Actually it IS though."

No, Christine, I don’t only think. I am not assuming. I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers from. Here is the source I looked at:

http://www.acuratings.org/2006senate.htm

McCain has an overall rating of 82.3%. In 2005 he has an 80% rating for the year. In 2006, he has a 65% rating.

And regardless of his rating,  the issues that he chose to depart ways on were not minor.

Now, why aren’t we discussing the overall ratings of the fiscally irresponsible Republicans that you want to throw out (not that I disagree with you - I don’t like that one bit either!)?

If you shouldn’t throw out those who meet the 80% rule, how many of them qualify for our loyalty?

Tap: I apologize for inferring that you were relying on second hand reports about his record. My 87.7 was from the Wapo voting record stats and it represents his votes during the 110th Congress.

I’m not aware of what his variances are during 2006, are you? I’d be interested to know why it was lower. Frankly, I often found myself disagreeing with the party in recent years, so I suppose that’s why I don’t think of him as an apostate. In fact when you say that we should look at the ratings of the fiscally irresponsible, I’m not sure what good that would do- obviously if the party leadership was putting fiscally irresponsible bills up for vote, then those who have high numbers on the ‘votes with party’ would be the ones I would most want to vote out of office.

In other words, to me the 80% rule isn’t to test party loyalty, it’s to test whether or not I agree with the candidate at least 80% of the time. Because when the party itself drifts from what you believe in, then voting for party loyalists is certainly not going to fix that.

Oops, sorry for the multiple post but meant to also add that I did bring up McCain’s record on voting with the party only because those who oppose him are doing so because they say he’s too far from the party on too many issues. For them it is about party loyalty, and so in that case if that’s what matters to you then you should at least actually know whether or not the person really is loyal on most votes. I see that your figure for 2006 (I’d not seen that before) would explain why they might apply that test and feel that he’d failed it.

We need to find a thread talking about liberal issues, so we can agree on what dastardly fellows they are for a while!: )

LOL, yes, I suspect you and I’d be more than 80% in agreement on that!

Ha - both funny and true!

OK, seriously now though, do you get where I’m going with the ratings and level of agreement?

Because honestly I don’t think that 100% party loyalty is a good thing, at all- particularly when a party holds the majority for too long. There’s too much of a tendency for the agenda itself to get corrupted- and then the powers that be can create a furor among voters for one of the reps or Senators to be labelled a RINO if he’s not going along.

That doesn’t necessarily mean I think that McCain is the purest of the pure, or that his contrarian votes were always reform minded. But in some cases I do think that- and in some of the cases where I disagreed with him I still never felt he was casting votes for political expedience (as I said before that doesn’t make sense to me- yeah, he may enjoy the media attention and the maverick label, but would he risk his career for that?)

At the end of the day I suspect that the backlash against him is really about two things: one, that he did vary from the party on a few key issues that some hold as dogma, and two, that he’s not even sorry for it. My issue with that is that it’s too personal and that no particular issues should be held against anyone to that degree- I mean, don’t you think people go overboard when they say he’s like a Democrat in disguise (or one fellow at NRO said that he dreams at night of insulting conservatives or some such nonsense.)

Oh, I absolutely agree with you that 100% party loyalty is not a good thing. I want someone with principles. It was Republicans lacking in principles that led to many of the current problems they are having. In fact, I’d argue that the 2006 election results were as much about that as they were about anything else. That doesn’t match the media’s meme I know, but quite a few of those bloggers and pundits that you say you didn’t hear complaining predicted it- and predicted it for those reasons.

 I think personal perceptions are a part of the disagreement. You think that those who disapprove of McCain do so because he lacks party loyalty - they would say they disagree with him because he lacks principles - or, at the least, because he just doesn’t agree with them on many of the major issues.

As for the political expedience issue - you think it would be a risk to his career to go against his base on these issues and therefore, he would never do it for the small benefit it would gain him. I think the opposite - it was a small risk for a possibly huge gain - the Presidency.

I think he is nearing the end of his career. I also think there is little he could do that would put his seat in the Senate at risk - he’s an institution at this point and he knows it. Not to mention the incumbant-protection act McCain-Feingold Act.

Let me use a comparison to make my next point. About 4 or 5 years ago Hillary made a hard tack to the right, correct? Every pundit out there, left right or center agreed that this was a strategic move on her part. The assumption was that with her natural leftist ideology she could never win a national election - she needed to move towards the center. Nobody thought she did this because she had a personal revelation and now held new political beliefs - it was political expediency to move away from her base in order to capture more of the center.

I think that this is what McCain has done. The difference is that both parties have been moving to the left for a long time (really, what party would JFK and his policies fit in now?). For some people, this move of his is just too far - he is no longer in accord with them on too many important issues.

And yes, the way he handles himself when questioned has made it personal for a lot of people - he takes it to that level himself. Those that questioned him on the immigration bill were ‘racists’. Look back on every major issue that he has differed with a significant portion on the base on, and see what he said about his constiuents who dared to disagree with him - what did he say about the swiftboaters? What did he say about the fatcat republicans against McCain Feingold?

Whatever you think about those issues and who was right or wrong in each case, the way in which he handles himself does nothing but make enemies - OR make huge fans amongst those on the left. And what impression does this leave on the base?

And it’s not just one or two issues - go to a far right website- I don’t know, Michelle Maklin or somewhere like that. It’s not just campaign finance reform and immigration. They have a whole laundry list of issues…a looong list of issues where they feel that McCain is on the wrong side.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you that 100% party loyalty is not a good thing. I want someone with principles. It was Republicans lacking in principles that led to many of the current problems they are having. In fact, I’d argue that the 2006 election results were as much about that as they were about anything else. That doesn’t match the media’s meme I know, but quite a few of those bloggers and pundits that you say you didn’t hear complaining predicted it- and predicted it for those reasons.

I completely agree with you- at least on the R side, that’s what the 06 elections were about. And again, I’m not arguing that ALL pundits were watercarriers- I can remember people like George Will and Bill Buckley certainly speaking out early on. But a lot of the newer generation people seemed to me to hold out until they could no longer maintain a shred of decency or integrity, and then finally admitting there was a problem.

 I think personal perceptions are a part of the disagreement. You think that those who disapprove of McCain do so because he lacks party loyalty - they would say they disagree with him because he lacks principles - or, at the least, because he just doesn’t agree with them on many of the major issues.

True, but there too I have a problem: the arrogance of saying that theirs is the ‘true conservative position’. I could certainly argue, as a social conservative (I don’t narrowly define myself that way and disagree with a lot of other social cons, but still agree on many issues with them) that abortion should be such a litmus test- but I don’t. I do agree that the party has to have some standard of what it stands for, but it needs to be broader than the way some of these people are defining it. It boils down to this: parties are collections of coalitions who agree on some core issues and then can agree to disagree on a few other things that are of importance to some of the subgroups. You have to respect those differences; you can’t have one group crying foul when one of the other groups uses a litmus test but then they do the same thing. And on abortion, for example, the fiscal cons expect the socons to accept even candidates who don’t abide by the party’s platform- yet they’ll call someone a traitor if they don’t tow the party line on something that doesn’t necessarily even violate a core principle as they try to claim that it does.

Whatever you think about those issues and who was right or wrong in each case, the way in which he handles himself does nothing but make enemies - OR make huge fans amongst those on the left. And what impression does this leave on the base?

I understand that, but it’s the kind of thing you either love him or hate him for. If you agreed with him on the issue, you’d cheer him for refusing to kowtow to people (I’m not saying you personally would, just saying that a lot of people would- conservatives in particular tend to be that way, because they like someone who’ll speak their mind and want to know that he’s not saying things just to pretend agreement with someone that he needs to call in a favor with later.)

As to him making a calculated move as you suggest, with his eye on the presidency, I really don’t buy that either. For one thing, he’s the one candidate who didn’t act desperate when his campaign wasn’t going well- he was resigned to the fact that if it didn’t work out for him, then he’d accept that. He didn’t start changing at that point when that master strategy you attribute to him wasn’t working out- instead he doubled down on it. That indicates to me that he’s principled, even if you don’t agree with his principles (and I don’t always either.) The people that I’m more skeptical of are the ones who will change their position when it’s not working to their personal advantage.

It seems to me that if that was a strategy, it was an enormously risky one (or at least, a longshot.) And if it works, it’ll only be because the party is in disarray- and I have a hard time believing that he predicted that those circumstances would exist. If he is that brilliant, then I’ll subtract a couple of points for the ruthlessness, but I’ll say he must be a genius so let’s get him to the White House ASAP! LOL

I’m talking about those who refer to McCain as "McShamnesty"

That’s on the same intellectual level as "Chimpy McBushitler."