Well, you may be right generally speaking, but I didn't vote for the guy out of deference to his seniority. I don't care who's "due." And for what it's worth, I haven't heard anybody else say they were voting for him for that reason. Maybe you have; I wouldn't doubt it. But it didn't factor for me or anyone I know who's said why they were voting for him.

The maverick thing factors in a bit, but I'm not sure I would put it that way.

I understand you didn't vote for him for that reason.

I think everyone weighs their personal likes vs. personal perception of winnability and votes based on some kind of balance between the two.

I think McCain had weight in the "winnability" category because of his seniority. Keep in mind, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of voters (millions?). Your and my anecdotal evidence isn't going to count for much.

I disagree with your post, Phil. Developing . . .

I like McCain - and to me this doesn't have the feel of the Bob Dole "it's his turn" candidacy of 1996, mainly because McCain isn't the choice of the Republican establishment. So I think I'd disagree with your assessment.

He won because he won.

I'm not sure winnability played a factor either, at least in the early primaries. I voted for him at the height of the "He's a liberal in moderate's clothing" fearmongering and wasn't sure he had a decent shot. I just liked him best. :-)

Go check out my updated version of this post. I took out the "maverick" line and I include actual evidence to support my thesis.

Jared, I'm sure a lot of people voted for him because they liked him best. I do wonder if his having run before and done respectfully had something to do with why people liked him this go round. They liked him last go round too, it's just that GW one-upped him on the seniority factor. See, I'm not claiming that seniority is the only reason people voted for him. I'm claiming that seniority is what pushed him over the edge. To put it another way, if McCain hadn't run before in 2000, I don't think he would have won.

I like McCain - and to me this doesn't have the feel of the Bob Dole "it's his turn" candidacy of 1996, mainly because McCain isn't the choice of the Republican establishment. So I think I'd disagree with your assessment.

You're right. It's not as bad as Dole. But the historical pattern still holds. Go check out my update. As far as "the choice of the Republcian establishment" I don't know who "the establishment" is. Limbaugh claims it's not him. He says McCain is the choice of the establishment: The old moderate bluebloods who were in control of the party before Reagan.

If by "establishment" you mean the hard-core conservative wing of the party, that's obvious, but I'm not sure that anyone could define them as "the establishment". I dunno. As I went back and researched this, I discovered that the liberal and the conservative wings of the GOP have been battling since its formation. This is actually a very old fight. And this GOP nomination fight wasn't near as contentious as most of the others going back through history.

He won because he won

That's hilarious, Bill. :) That's hard to argue with. I think I know what you mean. You mean he won legitimately because more people voted for him because that's who they wanted.

That's obviously true. I'm just saying that seniority was the factor that got him more votes. I'm not saying it's illegitimate or that he doesn't deserve it. I'm just saying that it's an important factor. It's been the GOP's pattern for a long, long time. I think it has something to do with human nature actually. We like what's comfortable. And someone who's been there before is comfortable. Plus we assume winnability because of name recognition.

Back to my old Pragmatics vs. Idealism theory - I think that those whose selection was weighted towards pragmatism, picked McCain because of his seniority and therefore, perceived winnability.

You and Jared were obviously weighted towards Idealism - who you thought would make the best president.

You know guys, you would both put serious weight to your argument, at least the personal anecdotal part of it, if you had voted for McCain in 2000. ;-)

He wasn't the best candidate in 2000.

If Huckabee and Romney were running then, I would have voted for McCain then too. :-)

Slight qualification:
Maybe he was the best candidate in 2000. I was 7 years younger then and was not the same voter then as I am now. But in neither case -- then and now -- have I voted because I thought it was someone's turn.

I disagree with your comments, Phil. Developing . . .

This is not spam

OK, OK I know you haven't done that. :)

I'm just looking at history dude. Besides you already said in comment 1 Well, you may be right generally speaking,

That's good enough for me. :)

Now, I just have to wait for Raindream to Wade in from the side, Phil in the blanks and blow my theory out of the water...

I think what plays in here is name recognition. Hillary is benefiting from that too, although Obama is an exception. I wonder if you analyzed the Dems choices if you'd find the same kind of pattern.

I would say that W doesn't follow the pattern very well. He was nothing on a national level prior to becoming president except the president's son.

For me, I like McCain. He had it sown up by the time my turn came on Tuesday, so I was spared having to think about it much, but I like him. What I like is related to his maverick-ness. He is who he is, and he doesn't seem to bend to political pressure, either from the electorate or party leadership. I won't say he's never persuaded to change or soften his position, that I don't know, but he has a solid reputation of being somewhat immune to political pressure.

I like knowing what a candidate stand for for a change, rather than knowing that he knows the right thing to say at any givben moment. I feel that I can trust what he says he believes in. I certainly can't trust Hillary, she changes to suit the occasion & audience. Obama is an unknown to me in that regard.

I know you haven't done that

Well, my follow-up was a response to your remark about my not voting for McCain in 2000.

I know. That's cool. That was me conceding your point. :)

My premise is based on a big picture view. I doubt that if we polled everyone who voted for McCain and asked "Why did you vote for McCain", I don't think anyone would say "because he's next."

Yet there is an undeniable historical pattern. Now is that pattern REALLY the reason he won? I guess that's debateable. Which we're doing. :)

I do know that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

All this has been making me think though about how many of our American politicians are children of past politicians. It's weird. It's like Americans like "royal families".

And hey Jared, forgive me for getting personal. I didn't intend to. I guess I justified it because the evidence of your argument was personal anecdotal. But I certainly didn't want to cross an inappropriate boundary, and I hope I didn't.

(You know this debate stuff would be easier in person over cigars late at night...)

I changed my title partly because our discussion made me realize that the underlying implication was that "I know the real reason you, the reader, voted for McCain", and that's not what I meant.

Hey and did you see how I changed the "maverick" paragraph in the original post?

Anyone have a better title suggestion for this post? I'm starting to like it less and less...

How about "Why McCain Won" or "Here's Why I Think McCain Won".

Or "McCain is the Bomb-Diggity" :-)

Of course there is a 'line of succession' nearly everywhere, but it is not unique to Republicans or politics in general.

Getting elected in nearly every political race has to do with building name recognition and previous political experience. Mayors tend to have been previously on city councils, governors tend to have been previous mayors or in the state assembly, members of Congress tend to have been in the state assembly, Senators tend to have been previous Representatives. And Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates almost always are previous governors or Senators.

Of course there are exceptions, but there is a pretty standard path of experience needed for most careers. People can skip some steps at times (and being the son or daughter of a previous leader with strong name recognition obviously helps), but you almost never get into the 'big chair' until you put some time in as a high-level 'second-tier chair'.

However, there are often several candidates for the 'big chair' among people with 'second-tier chair' experience, and once you have that, as is the case with Presidential elections, I don't see seniority or 'whose turn is it' mattering that much.

My take on why McCain won is that he was the first or second choice of a majority of Republican voters. When the race started, people's first choices (Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, Paul, Guilliani) were too fractured and polarized which didn't allow any one person to gain enough votes or momentum. So as some of these candidates dropped out of the race, people went to their second choice, which was more-so McCain versus one of the other guys.

Phil, I think your point is too simplistic. You touch on truths, but "Republicans have a thing for picking the next guy in line" just ain't so. I think Democrats have just as much of a tendency for that as Republicans do.

Politics is too darn complex. For example, many in the party didn't want Ford nominated. That was an establishment choice, and the establishment guys held the majority that time. We lost to Carter, and the estab. guys ate crow. Limbaugh says there are still many estab. guys, blue blood Republicans, who apparently don't care about issues so much as they do about their own power. They are playing a political game, as I understand it--the shirts vs. the skins. Just stay loyal to your team. They are embarrassed of conservatives (b/c of abortion and our religious fervor to name a couple issues). So they will always fight the ideals of others in the party.

In your list, it's important to understand who the other candidates were. VP Dan Quayle lost to Dole in 96, and he would have just as much claim on the next in line title as Dole. But Quayle never caught on, perhaps b/c he was so abused by the national press and maybe he just did not impress the money people. Electability was the buzz word around Dole. Somehow people thought he could bring in the votes, much like some have said about McCain this time. Forbes drew attention in that primary as did Patrick Buchanan. Take out one of those figures, and you may have another result in the primary. May is the operative word.

The biggest truth you touch on is name recognition. Somehow people do vote for the candidate they have at least heard about, if they don't know anything else. They will also vote for the one who makes them feel good, so whatever reason that may be. That's why we can't blame the election process for working in favor of people who have been in the process longer. It makes sense all around to go with the one you know better, which is partly why people did not vote for Romney.

In this election, I believe that if Huckabee was more conservative and had more resources to campaign with, he very well could be our nominee. He is a great speaker and politician, just not attractive enough in the current field of candidates. And that's the critical context. No candidate runs alone. He runs in a field of other candidates.

"Limbaugh says there are still many estab. guys, blue blood Republicans, who apparently don't care about issues so much as they do about their own power."

What does he know?

On the "establishment": Limbaugh's been one of the leading voices of the Republican party for 2 decades. But now he's not the "establishment" because his candidate got smoked in the primaries. Eh? And now there's a cabal of "blue blood Republicans" (nice) who are the establishment and who chose McCain in some smoky back-room, no doubt. It can't just be that more people liked McCain than Romney. Of course not.

I'm tired of Limbaugh and his ilk. May their influence wane.

No, Bill, you totally missed the point. Limbaugh did not say any of things in your comment, and I don't think he blames anyone but voters for nominating McCain. He has talked about establishment Republicans for years. In one story, he says some folks invited him to a party and tried to squeeze him to tell conservatives to back off. They didn't like Reagan or pro-lifers and were embarrassed to be in the same party with them.

I brought them up to say that they are an factor in the GOP, but they aren't the whole of the party. Conservatives wanted Goldwater and Reagan and had to fight these old party types to get them nominated. They were not the candidate next in line, but they were the best choice.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here or bash McCain. I'm just talking.

Heh - I know, Raindream. I am not sure what has prompted my recent revulsion of Talk Radio as a whole. I certainly haven't always been that way (and this is causing not a little bit of . . . um . . . conversation at home because my wife, who is awesome, loves Rush, Sean, etc).

I just don't consider McCain a "blue blood Republican" type. He reaches across the aisle, and holds some stances that TCs don't like. He's not a rabid partisan (as the TCs are. Which is weird - the "blue-bloods" care about power at any price, theoretically, but the TCs are the ones who will fight Democrats tooth-and-nail on everything).

McCain's strong on defense, pro-life, and those two issues alone are good enough for me.

But, yeah, I'm being a jerk to you. In reading my last comment (and maybe even this one) my tone is . . . crummy. I apologize. I need to get off this hobby horse.

Although . . . since we're talking :-)

"Conservatives wanted Goldwater and Reagan and had to fight these old party types to get them nominated"

Granted. But that was a generation ago. The current republican establishment is not the same as those guys (Rockefeller Republicans).

The current establishment, if there is one, is dismayed by McCain. Because he is not the scorched-earth, shut-down-the-government party that so blew their chance in the 90s.

He actually reminds me a lot of Bush - a disappointment to many TCs for less than pure stances, but someone who can accomplish a lot.

[Bill ducks a Raindream roundhouse kick to the face]

"And that's the critical context. No candidate runs alone. He runs in a field of other candidates."

That's still the story I'm going with--McCain won because there were no other moderates of his stripes, and therefore no splitting of the vote.

The fact remains, contra the Shrode of Turin, that both Goldwater and Reagan were insurgent candidates (the "next in line" candidate in '80 was G.H.W. Bush; Reagan's run in '76, and especially the fact that he didn't bow out until the convention, had really angered the folks who normally tend to vote on seniority, so it hurt him there rather than helping him).

And contra applying this general trend to McCain, we have the events of this election season. You see, McCain originally approached the race on that basis, and it just about ended his campaign. By the time he got his campaign moving, the guy in the "seniority" slot was Giuliani, as illogical as that was; McCain came roaring back precisely as an insurgent, a challenger, an underdog.

Also, two random notes. First, there really is an old-line blue-blood Republican establishment--but at this point, there's very little left of them outside the NE, and there's no way McCain was their guy. That was Giuliani, who was one of their own. (Which would probably be why he got all the "seniority" money.) Second, it dismays me to see influential conservative/libertarian/Republican types--most notably that buffoon Ann Coulter--forgetting Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." (Except, in a necessary codicil, if it turns out to be necessary for ethical/moral/legal reasons; Duke Cunningham was a friend of my uncle's, and I still find what he did hard to believe. But not for reasons of policy, or insufficient ideological purity.)

I'm not throwing out my back with another roundhouse kick again, so don't bother ducking.

[roundhouse kick to the sucka's head!!!!]

No, there are still blue blood type in the GOP, and I'm not sure McCain is one of them either. He has always been pro-life, hasn't he? But one of things that sunk McCain in 2000 was bad-mouthing conservatives and Christians. He hasn't entirely distanced himself from those comments today. And do you remember the people who stood behind him on several occasions for photos and announcements? Liberals and establishment types. Not good.

But, we hope for the best.

What you call establishment above sound like grassroots conservatives, and let me say that Limbaugh is not the voice of the GOP. He is his own voice and a thoughtful conservative thinker. There are others like that, and they don't agree all the time. Still they aren't the party establishment or Washington insiders.

Has V.D.Hanson talked about the primaries ?

This is a longer list than just Hanson on the primaries, but you can find 'em there.

Also, Shrode, if you want to change the title, why not go with "I Know Why the Caged Candidate Sings"?

UNCLE!!!!

Evan and Raindream especially, kicked my intellectual booty. I give!

I think you guys are right. I concede. You've changed my mind.

I made some changes to the original post, and there may be some more to come...

AM, I don't get your reference. Was "I know why the caged bird sings" and angelou poem? And what's it mean. Sorry. I have no culture.

That's interesting, AM, and the Northeast is just where I placed the establishment. Unfortunately, many who stay in Washington drift into the establishment, so even if they are from Nevada, they become part of the problem. Nevada is part of several problems.

Part of the electability argument this time around--an argument I always dislike--was its application to McCain, Giuliani, and at least one other maybe.

Rain

I really like V D Hanson! He has written some stuff over at nationalreview.com

[While Raindream's checking that link, Bill swoops down and sweeps his legs out from under him]

It's the first volume of Angelou's autobiography, actually. And don't look for meaning, I was just being silly. :)

Raindream--they don't really drift into the old-line NE Republican establishment. There's the definite tendency to drift into the DC establishment as a whole, though, especially if that brings with it approving comments from the NYT and the Post.

It should also be said here that your list is comparing apples and oranges--the primary era to the older system wherein conventions chose candidates.