Ever since Air America went off the air where I live, I occasionally find myself listening to the incoherent babblings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity out of sheer morbid curiosity. I had no idea of the extent to which these guys seem to REALLY hate John McCain. Limbaugh has said that a McCain nomination would lead to the "destruction of conservatism". Hannity is clearly a Romney supporter, but also expresses a distaste for McCain. They aren't alone, many far right pundits generally think of McCain as a sell out, or worse.
At first I thought this was good for us Democrats, because it would indicate a depressed turnout among conservatives in the GE, but then I realized these kinds of attitudes are EXACTLY what John McCain needs to do well in November. In fact I wonder if this isn't official RNC strategy.
It seems obvious that Clinton's strategy for the general is to paint the Republican nominee as a continuation of Bush/Cheney, and if you look at Bush's poll numbers it seems like a sure-fire way to win. However, if the high-profile pundits who have been Bush's biggest cheerleaders repudiate McCain, he might be able to offer himself as an alternative to the Bush/Clinton years. If he does this, his campaign can try to portray Hillary as the "incumbent" in the sense that she represents "more than a decade of bitter partisanship", while he, McCain, is a "common sense conservative", willing to reach across party lines to get things done. I've long picked Joe Liebermann as his running mate, and this (to most low-info voters) would underscore this argument.
Of course, this argument is all non-sense, but this particular brand of bullshit seems to sell well with low-info voters.
This can only work, of course, if Hillary is the nominee. Which is why I think it is interesting that Hillary commented in last night's debate that if McCain were the nominee, the election would be about national security. We can't allow this to be the case. If the dialog of the election is about national security, I don't see how Hillary beats McCain.
For Hillary to beat McCain we have to make the election about Health Care and the Economy, two issues on which I think almost everyone agrees (even normally conservative voters) that Hillary is better than McCain. It seems that there is even a danger in this, though, because this is EXACTLY what Bill Clinton made his campaign about in 1992, and it would solidify Hillary's link with the past.
I think Obama would be a far better GE candidate against McCain. He has proven himself to be highly competitive for the votes of Independents, and moderate Republicans. He also offers the sharpest contrasts with McCain (both in appearance and policy). The above argument I have put forward (which I think will be the Republican strategy in November) cannot be used against Obama, because Obama does not represent the past. If it is McCain vs Obama, McCain will have a much harder time building a narrative in which he can be successful.
So I want to have a discussion with my fellow Kossaks, tell me why your favorite Democrat (Hillary, Edwards, or Obama) would be strongest in the General election against John McCain.
But remember,the argument you are making has to appeal to your average Joe who only votes in Presidential elections, and doesn't follow politics as closely as us.