Thursday, February 07, 2008

Worst-case scenario: Obama and McCain, with a McCain victory

Parapundit's Randall Parker has been speculating on potential Presidential match-ups and outcomes.

His basic argument is that a Hillary defeat of McCain would be a good thing. Republicans would oppose an immigration amnesty and the further opening up of the southern border to illegal Hispanic immigration, since it would be favored by the Democratic White House and both Democratic houses of Congress (although the Dem-controlled House, especially with regards to its newest additions, is not an entirely anti-nationalist body by any stretch). This would allow the GOP to fight for its demographic life by taking up a popular cause, rather than having to choose between either toeing the McCain Whitehouse line in favor of electoral self-immolation or internecine fighting within the Republican ranks.

I'm mixed on a best-case scenario. The major hangup I have with a McCain defeat is what it will mean for the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens will turn 90 during the next President's term. There has only been one other nonagenarian judge in the Court's history, and he (Oliver Wendell Holmes) left within the year of becoming one. Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy are all in their seventies. With Democratic control of both the Senate and the Whitehouse, that could spell a drastic leftward shift in the court, especially if Scalia retires.

But the worst-case scenario doesn't seem as cloudy. Obama versus McCain, with McCain winning, strikes me as the least desirable outcome of all. The GOP's performance among Hispanics would be maximized, possibly eclipsing the 50% mark, as Hispanics otherwise tending to support the Democratic candidate would be unenthusiastic about voting for a black. Many would stay home, and others would 'defect' to McCain and his pal Juan Hernandez. If you think the WSJ bilge over the essentiality of the Hispanic vote as garnered through support for open borders is nauseating now, just wait.

Further, as Obama is less culpable in the Iraq situation (and would certainly attack McCain on the issue of Iraq during the general election campaign) than Hillary is, we'd also get neocon braying about how an interventionist policy that not only maintains but accentuates our troop presence in 130 countries across the globe is an electoral winner and something the US must embrace. And the US would have to suffer embracing as much for at least another four years.


al fin said...

Without conservatives to get out the vote, I am wondering who will fill that purpose for McCain? Hispanics? I seriously doubt it. McCain's fundraising has not been that great. Republican enthusiasm overall has not been this low since Bob Dole.

Obama has an incredibly enthusiastic following, with prospects for even better fundraising than to date. Obama has the potential to be a huge phenomenon, unprecedented in the memory of most voters.

For McCain to beat anyone--including his disabled housekeeper--he would need to raise the level of enthusiasm behind him. Personally, I do not see that happening, once McCain is a lock on the nomination, and his media friends start to turn on him like rabid dogs.

Justin Halter said...

Now that McCain can no longer hide behind a fractured conservative vote, do you think he can even secure the nomination? Huckabee is seriously charasmatic and likable, almost the polar opposite of McCain. One-on-one versus Huckabee, McCain is in serious trouble, and certainly wouldn't be the front runner if he had to run one-on-one versus Huckabee from the start. Do you think conservatives will finally rally behind their best candidate?

Audacious Epigone said...

"Personally, I do not see that happening, once McCain is a lock on the nomination, and his media friends start to turn on him like rabid dogs."

This might actually be a blessing for him. Popular conservative outlets (the, talk radio, etc) will react defensively to leftist media criticism of him. I'd say the vitriol much of the mainstream media has for Bush helps him with those on the right who are not big fans of his.

Whether or not he'd be able to pull it off, I'm not sure. But I imagine that there'll be some 527s that go after Obama hard for his racialist background and church association. That potential damage hasn't been factored in yet.


If the other two both stay in, yes. If one dropped out and forcefully endorsed the other (with a VP promise, perhaps), McCain would theoretically be beatable. But that has to happen fast. Seems to me more likely that Huckabee will stay in until McCain has it officially locked up, and then he'll be offered something. The two apparently like each other and both dislike Romney.

Anonymous said...

My God, My God, My God........................I never thought I'd see the day when the best choice for America would be Hillary Clinton.

Folks, Obama is more to the left than the Clintons are. He even made an issue about giving illegals drivers liscences in California during the campaign.

Im with Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh (and Im pretty sure, Michelle Malkin). If I vote at all, it will be for Hillary.

I'd love for Huckabee by some miracle to beat McCain, but I doubt it will happen.

We have to learn from this, the establishment was able to "divide and conquer" the right within the party. What an awful election for true conservatives.

Anonymous said...

towing the McCain Whitehouse line

Ummm, that's toeing the line, as in, stepping up to the line and being counted.

pjgoober said...

Ziel of the Your Lying Eyes blog has the dirt on Obama on immigration:

"... Obama condemned the one feature of the proposed immigration bill that actually makes sense: de-emphasizing family ties and using a point system based on skills in selecting who gets to immigrate. The "family reunification" policy is, of course, insane, as there is no benefit to America whatsoever of allowing someone to live in the country merely because a relative is already living here..."

Audacious Epigone said...


Yes, it is very disheartening.


Thanks, fixed it.


Whoever ends up winning the WH is not going to be a friend of restrictionists. Do you think Obama would be the worst?

pjgoober said...

audacious, judging from recent pandering and from my comment above, Obama seems to the worst of the three. Obama is the only one of the three to have pledged to tackle comprehensive reform his first year as president as well. But from a strategic standpoint, I do agree with you. I'm just trying to add more info to the discussion.

My strategic take is that *if*, despite our best efforts to the contrary, comprehensive reform passes anyway, I'd rather have a democratic president and congress do it. Then they will own the blame for the horrific consequences that I expect to follow, re-enforced by building momentum from our already bad demographic trends that will occur and are occurring regardless of whether or not comprehensive reform passes. I don't say that as just a partisan hack. Americans need to have a clear eyed view of a pro-third worldization party and an anti-third worldization party (two of the latter would be even better, but that's just dreaming). People like McCain and Bush muddy the waters and make third-worldization impossible to stop. In the future, I want the republican party to be such that no anti-third worldization democrat can be able to say the republicans are worse or as bad on immigration with a straight face. Americans are woefully uninformed about politics. Without a clear-eyed view of two opposed parties on the issue, they just will not do the homework necessary to "vote the candidate" and thus will never be able to halt america's immigration disaster. That is why McCain should lose.

If a total Democratic government passes amnesty and ratchets up legal immigration, maybe americans will wise up and finally able to rally around a resurgent restrictionist republican party and finally halt the increasing damage from the mistake of 1965. McCain must lose for us to have a chance.

Audacious Epigone said...


Very well put. I don't have much to add.