John McCain, 90210

No wonder we lost.  

The Vanity Fair straight-up hit piece on Sarah Palin might be garbage based bitter campaign staff and enemies back in Alaska, but it is valuable in showing how the John McCain campaign's was more interested in internal cliques, gossip, and fights than actually winning.  This is the damning accusation at Steve Schmidt, who's job was to run a tight ship based solely for the purpose of electing John McCain.  Instead, he got caught up in how to deal with Sarah Palin, and those who were excited by here.

Thats what this is really about.  Schmidt, a known moderate, wanted nothing to do with the religious and social conservatives that proved to be the backbone of the two preceding George W. Bush elections.  He wanted to win on his own terms, creating a coalition of moderate Dems, Repubs, and Is - and then dragging the base with it at the end.  But the problem is that is now how you win, you win with your base first and build out . . . its how both George W. Bush and Barack Obama won the presidency.  When Sarah Palin was selected, based on her record as governor, he knowledge of energy issues, and her noted attack on the corrupt Alaska GOP establishment; suddenly the social conservative Bush voters were back in the fold, and in force.  I was at the Fairfax rally, I saw it.

The problem with Schmidt, and we see it over and over with Republican "centrist" or "moderates", was that his planned was flawed from the beginning.  After eight years of Bush and 12 of the last 14 years of a GOP Congress, Democrats were never going to vote for McCain or anybody.  Obama captivated not only the left, but also the center-left.  The McCain campaign strategy to appeal to the center first and the base last was never going to work because the center was drifting to Obama and the base did not enjoy being  ignored and/or objected too.  When Sarah Palin came on board, conservatives openly talked about voting for the Palin-McCain ticket.  She drove the ticket up in the polls, but Schmidt couldn't control it, and didn't want a McCain presidency to owe anything to the right.  

Its revisionist history that Sarah Palin was a disaster as a VP candidate . . . she didn't get off to a great start with the Couric interview, but that was a gotcha game to begin with.  The McCain Campaign had no way to prepare her because they were so use to being media darlings they never realized they would get turned on so badly.  And it was a terrible performance.  But Palin bounced back with an amazing convention speech and a strong showing against Joe Biden in the VP debate.  Like very other presidential election, the reason the candidate lost had nothing to do with the VP candidate.  If anything, Palin was the fighter.  She wanted to go to Michigan.  The weekend before the election, she got 18,000 people in Jefferson City, MO.  Don't tell me she was the reason the GOP lost.  The reason the GOP lost was a presidential candidate who spent half a debate talking about pork and government spending being the evils of our recession - then vote for a stimulus bill laden with pork (twice!), and then talked about buying people's mortgages!

A perfect example of how they dealt with Palin was this:  at the Fairfax rally, they had several liberal female professionals talk about how they are supporting McCain because he picked Palin and what it meant for feminism.  That doesn't appeal to anybody in the Republican party, was awkward and out of place, and the wrong way to sell her out of the box.  They should have talked about her pro-life credentials, her fighting corruption, and her stand for less government.  They introduced her on liberal terms, not conservative.  

I've said it a million times, I've always had a soft-spot for John McCain going back to 2000.  I agree with Bill Kristol that he was done wrong by his staff who focused on internal power, winning on their own stubborn terms, and the passing the buck on the VP candidate for the pasting they ate on election day.  Was she perfect?  Of course not.  But she was a secret weapon, a true conduit into the conservative base, and clearly an eager, articulate, and energetic campaigner who the campaign was almost ashamed of because she represented the people in the Republican coalition that Steve Schmidt and John McCain wanted nothing to do with.  

For everything about her, look at THIS crowd Sarah Palin drew.  

Surely instead of worrying about ideology, the McCain campaign leadership could have found a better way to harness the excitement and curiosity that she created.  They allowed her to be defined the way she was, and did nothing to defend her past press releases.  The lesson in all of this is you cannot run campaigns ignoring your base, and you cannot win based solely on "moderates."  Both the Bush and Obama victories will built from the base generating excitement that feed over to moderates, who want to be on the winning side above everything else.  Steve Schmidt should never work another campaign again.  Both Sarah Palin and John McCain deserved better.

Comments

[Don't you know who the F#$$ I am?]

Well stated.

The problem is that there are too many Schmidts in the Republican Party.

Look at Virginia in 2009 where we have Tom Davis' chief political consultant, John Hishta, advising state House candidates to tack left on issues like guns.

Remember the last time this was tried?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGZkIydbOeY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hobf91i7IHY

How'd that work out?

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2007/11/34th-senate.html

Hopefully we won't see Michael Bloomberg around this year campaigning with Bob McDonnell.

[VA Blogger]

Chris Chris Chris...

[I like Palin, but...]

Piggy-backing on the Vanity Fair article and attacking Schmidt is lame. Sarah Palin had promise. Yes, the base loves her. I saw it. I also saw how center-right and middle-of-the-ground voters saw her as a ridiculous selection that was in no way acceptable (not b/c she was a conservative, but rather she lacked experience and knowledge on national issues).

Selecting Palin as VP DID rally the base, but it also killed any credibility with moderate voters. There is a strong debate as to whether Palin's name on the ticket was a net plus or minus.

Of course, there are a bunch of other issues, etc., but the simple fact is that Palin is very similar to Hillary Clinton from the standpoint of how she is viewed. I'd be curious to see what VA Blogger dig up with regard to poll numbers on Fav/unFav between Hillary and Palin... I'd imagine Palin's are taking to a similar course that Hillary's were a couple of years ago.

[NoVA Scout]

I thought that the Couric interview came after the nomination speech, not before. It all gets a little hazy fairly fast at my age.

Any doubts about Mrs. Palin being articulate or having the inside of her head straight were resolved in that incredibly bizarre public statement today. If Tina Fey had done that as a skit, in haec verba, everyone would have been up in arms at SNL and Fey for being viciously over the top for the sake of cheap laughs.

The market for partial one-term governors as Presidents and leaders of the Free World is one that I would not go long in with any substantial capital. The 2012 R field is thinning very quickly.

[Not Bobby Jindhal]

I recall the Couric interview being after the nomination. Sarah Palin seems like a good person, but I hope she doesn't try to run for President.

I voted for McCain. Twice. I picked him in the primary and in the general. I think about the biggest mistake he made was picking Palin as his running mate. But I don't think Palin is the reason he lost. Not at all.

I don't think any Republican could have won on the heels of W. He was just too unpopular at the end of his eight year stint. His lack of popularity tarnished the Republican label. Obama had energy. He had the advantage of saying that he's not with W.

We just need to get over the past. And the past players and we just need to move forward. Palin is part of a past that didn't work for us. So is McCain. Forget about them.