Why did John McCain win the 2008 Republican presidential nomination?

[Suburbia]

John McCain wasn't liked by the Republican base of the party. The base wanted Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or even Rudy Giuliani. Why did McCain gain momentum after the January 8 New Hampshire primary and the Super Tuesday primary?

Was McCain a sacrificial lamb all along due to Obama and Clinton's historic campaigns?

Would McCain have won against scandal-tarred John Edwards regardless of the 2008 economic recession or not?

[TML]

He was considered the "my turn" candidate following his performance in the 2000 primaries.

It's hard for me to imagine any Republican candidate who could have won in 2008, given how unpopular the Bush administration was by that point.

[uti2]

Mccain was the maverick - they liked his independent track record and the way he stood up to the establishment in his voting record.

[UWS]

The social conservative vote was divided between Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, which explains McCain's success in southern states and led him to victory in the crucial South Carolina primary.

In addition, if you look at several 2008 primary exit polls, despite Romney's business experience, John McCain was more trusted than Romney on the economy. And also McCain was strongly advantaged by voters who wanted a candidate with the right experience due to McCain's large political and foreign policy experience. Meanwhile Romney has been described as a flip flopper on gun rights, abortion and gay marriage.

John McCain won the Florida primary thanks to the endorsements of Mel Martinez and Charlie Crist and also by accusing Romney of supporting a timetable for a phased military withdrawal from Iraq. McCain's victory in Florida led him to his ascension as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

The moreover that it was after that Giuliani dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, thus uniting all the moderate/independent wing of the GOP behind McCain while the right-wing of the GOP was still divided between Romney and Huckabee, which ensured a strong performance by McCain in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama and handed Oklahoma and Missouri to McCain. So before Super Tuesday, the endorsements to McCain were multiplying (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rick Perry, etc.). And by sweeping the northeastern states and big states with large urban population, including New York, Illinois and California, McCain strongly reinforced his delegate lead at the point of leading Romney to drop out.

Thanks to his foreign policy experience, he easily won Virginia, Maryland and Washington D.C. where an important part of primary voters were either in or connected to the military. And due to this momentum, he won Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, and thus McCain clinched the nomination.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I agree with what UWS said, but I would also step it back a few months.


McCain and Rudy had gone back and forth as national front runners, while Romney held the important leads in IA and NH. I remember back then I was close with a group of Romney activists on a site called "CoMITTedtoRomney". It felt kind of hilarious because while McCain and Rudy got the attention, Romney had the leads where it mattered in the early states. Romney also had strong connections to the rust belt, the Mormon belt and to many New England states, so he had connections in a diverse number of states and a network that we felt gave him several advantages.

Rudy's support was paper thin, a product of 911. Once people got to see what Rudy was and all the baggage he had, his support collapsed. We actually predicted this in our group and counted on it, but we didn't expect it to happen in October and September of 2007. However, one candidates support collapsing in June was very helpful and that was McCain. When McCain collapsed though, he adopted a single state strategy, and went all in for New Hampshire. This was actually good news for us, because Rudy was also playing for the state. So Romney often had polling leads of 32%-18%-15%. However, when Rudy collapsed nationwide, he began to trash NH and the early states as unfair to big states and went down to Florida in pursuit of his Florida only strategy. At a certain point, both Rudy and Fred gave up on their own campaigns and mainly just operated as agents of chaos to help McCain get the nomination. Rudy pulling out of New Hampshire, let McCain consolidate the moderate/independent base there, and so when Romney was reeling from having lost Iowa to Huckabee (where a similar situation had played out), Romney ended up losing NH 37%-32%.

Jumping over to Iowa, Romney fluctuated between 25% and 30% throughout the primary season. However, there again there were two candidates playing in the state, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee and then Fred Thompson entered the mix as well. As long as two of the three were close to 20%, Romney had a lock on the state. At the Iowa Straw Poll, Romney won with I think 31% and both Huckabee and Brownback were in the teens. Sometime in the fall, Brownback got out and Fred ebbed to the low teens. This enabled Huckabee to consolidate the Evangelical vote and win the caucuses 34%-25%, with Fred and McCain tied at 13%.

Huckabee began to surge after Iowa, but when Michigan rolled around it was a redux of New Hampshire. Romney played well in the Detroit metro, while McCain played well out west. The map was very similar when Romney faced off against Santorum and Trump also did well in the Eastern part while Cruz did better out west. This is a case study on overlap between Trump support and Romney (Remember Romney's base was middle and upper class suburbans voters and professionals), but his primary issue and strategy was to turn 2008 into an immigration primary, hence the overlap in the MI primary geographically speaking. McCain had came in a close 4th with Fred in IA despite opposing ethanol subsides, and in MI, he claimed Romney supported bailing out the auto companies because one of Romney's key platform planks was a massive invest in Energy research. This attack line fizzled out and Romney won Michigan 38%-29%.

In a comment on one of the Fox News Shows right around when McCain died, Huckabee said something to effect of "Fred gave up after Iowa, but stayed in to split the so-con vote and allow McCain to beat me in SC". Romney went west and racked up a big win in Mormon heavy Nevada, while McCain edged out Huckabee in SC.

Romney had actually surged on the back of movement conservative opposition to both Huckabee and McCain, since they disliked them both for various reasons far more then they had issue with Romney and Romney was gaining ground in Florida.

UWS is right on the decisive nature that Florida had as it was indeed the last chance that Romney had to really turn things around. However, I think the decisive factors were Brownback dropping out, Rudy pulling out of NH, and Fred staying in after Iowa. This opened a narrow path that allowed McCain to get to Florida. Had Romney won NH, McCain would have likely dropped out. Romney would have won Michigan by double digits, plowed through Nevada, get over 20% in SC with Huckabee winning the state and then Romney would have nuked Huckabee in Florida and became the nominee.

This is basically what happened in 2012, though it was far more messy with far more candidates. Romney downplayed his efforts in Iowa but went to great lengths to keep at about 25%, which with enough vote splitting could yield victory. The strength of the Ron Paul movement and with both Newt and Santorum in the mix, it appeared to be a victory or a tie on a election night, and by the time it was decided for Santorum, it didn't give him the bounce it would have otherwise. Romney dominated in New Hampshire, lost South Carolina to Newt and then nuke Newt in Florida. Unlike 2012 though, there wouldn't have been a Rick Santorum candidate floating around still after Romney decimated Huckabee in Florida. If he did stay in, he would have been damaged and Romney would have swept the big states on Super Tuesday, since Huckabee was basically broke and had little appear in New York or California.

I also still think that the situation in Pakistan played a significant roll in McCain's NH surge in December 2007. Fox had this plastered all over their news with alarming headlines about Middle East Turmoil, which benefited McCain substantially and put the discussion back on his wheelhouse.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Lastly, as a testament to how movement conservatives rallied around Romney, he was campaigning in Super Tuesday states with Rick Santorum and Jim Talent, while McCain was campaigning with Arnold and Charlie Crist. I remember this nauseated a lot of the activists on that site I mentioned in the previous post.

Romney's base in 2008, and 2012 was narrow. It was basically just Reagan conservatives in the suburbs. He didn't really play very well with rural voters and he didn't play very well with moderates, at least not against McCain. Romney's base was often found in the metros of Nashville, Atlanta, Detroit and Jacksonville. The only metro he did well in that has a lot of "moderate" voters, was Boston because of his home town turf. McCain actually did quite well in MA and won both Boston and the Berkshires. McCain ran away with it in suburbs of New York, San Fran, Chicago and Los Angeles.

McCain was better able to appeal in both rural and suburban areas. McCain did very well for instance in South GA and was able to come in second to Romney in Atlanta metro and to Huckabee in North GA.

[UWS]

I believe as a McCain supporter that Mike Huckabee’s win in Iowa over Mitt Rommey was a victory for McCain in the sense that this deprived Romney of momentum in New Hampshire and it was New Hampshire that launched McCain ahead of Republican field

[UWS]

According to this documentary, John McCain was the only primary candidate who said that Bush Administration had to adopt the Petraeus strategy during Iraq War, which he attributed to the improving of the situation in Iraq, which helped him win among Republicans and Independents during the primaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKVQW8Z0AFg

[Redban]

Mitt Romney was an unknown at the beginning of the primary. He became the runner-up eventually, but at first, he didn't have much name-value. He was a one-term governor of a blue-state, leaving with low approvals. I think Romney needed the runner-up finish in 2008 to get name recognition and set himself up for a win in 2012

Guiliani had a ton of baggage for a Repub primary: mayor of a titanium blue state, pro-choice, and not hawkish against illegal immigrants and LGBT.

McCain, in contrast, was the runner-up from 2000; he had an unmatched amount of political experience; and he was a war-hero. It was understood that he wasn't perfect. He wasn't as sprightly and sharp as he was in 2000, and he hurt himself by supporting the immigration bill in 2007. But he might have been the best choice in a fairly weak Republican primary class

[Jim Crow]

You guys are over thinking this.  It's the same reason establishment candidates who often have run in the past tend to be nominated.  DONORS!!!!!!!!  Good luck finding the best funded candidate in a primary who lost.  2016 was the only exception when Trump broke the trend.  Bernie Sanders tried to break the trend but both times the primary was rigged against him by super delegates and donors the first time.  The second time it was donors.

[Alben Barkley]

You guys are over thinking this.  It's the same reason establishment candidates who often have run in the past tend to be nominated.  DONORS!!!!!!!!  Good luck finding the best funded candidate in a primary who lost.  2016 was the only exception when Trump broke the trend.  Bernie Sanders tried to break the trend but both times the primary was rigged against him by super delegates and donors the first time.  The second time it was donors.

Sanders raised far more money from donors than Biden or Clinton.

Also in 2016 his campaign was begging super delegates to subvert the will of the (largely poor minority) voters after he was mathematically eliminated from winning with pledged delegates.

[Jim Crow]

You guys are over thinking this.  It's the same reason establishment candidates who often have run in the past tend to be nominated.  DONORS!!!!!!!!  Good luck finding the best funded candidate in a primary who lost.  2016 was the only exception when Trump broke the trend.  Bernie Sanders tried to break the trend but both times the primary was rigged against him by super delegates and donors the first time.  The second time it was donors.

Sanders raised far more money from donors than Biden or Clinton.

Also in 2016 his campaign was begging super delegates to subvert the will of the (largely poor minority) voters after he was mathematically eliminated from winning with pledged delegates.

Sanders had more soft money than Clinton and Biden?  They were determined to vote for Hillary even if Sanders had more delegates and votes than her.  In fact the Clinton e-mails tell us that.  Also, I'm not sure how anyone believes corporations invested their money in Bernie Sanders.

[Redban]

You guys are over thinking this.  It's the same reason establishment candidates who often have run in the past tend to be nominated.  DONORS!!!!!!!!  Good luck finding the best funded candidate in a primary who lost.  2016 was the only exception when Trump broke the trend.  Bernie Sanders tried to break the trend but both times the primary was rigged against him by super delegates and donors the first time.  The second time it was donors.

McCain’s campaign was strapped for cash the entire time. Romney was the guy who drew the $$$ in the primary, and in the general, Obama was pulling record amounts of cash

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

According to this documentary, John McCain was the only primary candidate who said that Bush Administration had to adopt the Petraeus strategy during Iraq War, which he attributed to the improving of the situation in Iraq, which helped him win among Republicans and Independents during the primaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKVQW8Z0AFg

McCain had a number of advantages from being in the Senate as well and well regarded by the media in terms of foreign affairs and the military. I remember a press conference in I think late 2006 or early 2007 where McCain, Lieberman, Graham and others were pressing the case for the surge strategy.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

Regarding Giuliani, has there ever been another candidacy (in the primary-dominant era, let's say) that went from clear frontrunner status to basically having no support at all once the votes were actually cast, and wasn't directly caused by scandal (i.e. Hart)? Jeb! was never really a clear frontrunner and Dean at least managed to win a state (and managed a clear second place in New Hampshire).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Regarding Giuliani, has there ever been another candidacy (in the primary-dominant era, let's say) that went from clear frontrunner status to basically having no support at all once the votes were actually cast, and wasn't directly caused by scandal (i.e. Hart)? Jeb! was never really a clear frontrunner and Dean at least managed to win a state (and managed a clear second place in New Hampshire).

The 2008 Republican primaries also gave us Fred Thompson, LOL.

[oldtimer]

According to this documentary, John McCain was the only primary candidate who said that Bush Administration had to adopt the Petraeus strategy during Iraq War, which he attributed to the improving of the situation in Iraq, which helped him win among Republicans and Independents during the primaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKVQW8Z0AFg

McCain had a number of advantages from being in the Senate as well and well regarded by the media in terms of foreign affairs and the military. I remember a press conference in I think late 2006 or early 2007 where McCain, Lieberman, Graham and others were pressing the case for the surge strategy.

My memory of it was that Guiliani didn't actually campaign until it was too late, he practically dropped out when he chose the Florida strategy.
 
McCain and Romney were splitting the liberal vote.
Thomson and Huckabee the conservative vote.

After Huckabee won Iowa there was a stop-Huckabee movement among liberals.

The crucial moment was the Fox News N.H. debate, everyone got disgusted with Fox shilling hard for Romney and a stop-Romney movement was created.

That unified the liberals and people who hated Romney behind McCain, as the most moderate not named Romney.

After that it became a standard social conservative vs moderate GOP primary.

There were anti-establishment vibes in both parties, Romney and Hillary where perceived as the party establishment and that hindered them forever.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

According to this documentary, John McCain was the only primary candidate who said that Bush Administration had to adopt the Petraeus strategy during Iraq War, which he attributed to the improving of the situation in Iraq, which helped him win among Republicans and Independents during the primaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKVQW8Z0AFg

McCain had a number of advantages from being in the Senate as well and well regarded by the media in terms of foreign affairs and the military. I remember a press conference in I think late 2006 or early 2007 where McCain, Lieberman, Graham and others were pressing the case for the surge strategy.

My memory of it was that Guiliani didn't actually campaign until it was too late, he practically dropped out when he chose the Florida strategy.
 
McCain and Romney were splitting the liberal vote.
Thomson and Huckabee the conservative vote.

After Huckabee won Iowa there was a stop-Huckabee movement among liberals.

The crucial moment was the Fox News N.H. debate, everyone got disgusted with Fox shilling hard for Romney and a stop-Romney movement was created.

That unified the liberals and people who hated Romney behind McCain, as the most moderate not named Romney.

After that it became a standard social conservative vs moderate GOP primary.

There were anti-establishment vibes in both parties, Romney and Hillary where perceived as the party establishment and that hindered them forever.

Romney ran as a solid conservative in 2008. He had the support of both Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter IIRC. Huckabee wasn't seen as being much of a conservative besides social issues.

[oldtimer]

According to this documentary, John McCain was the only primary candidate who said that Bush Administration had to adopt the Petraeus strategy during Iraq War, which he attributed to the improving of the situation in Iraq, which helped him win among Republicans and Independents during the primaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKVQW8Z0AFg

McCain had a number of advantages from being in the Senate as well and well regarded by the media in terms of foreign affairs and the military. I remember a press conference in I think late 2006 or early 2007 where McCain, Lieberman, Graham and others were pressing the case for the surge strategy.

My memory of it was that Guiliani didn't actually campaign until it was too late, he practically dropped out when he chose the Florida strategy.
 
McCain and Romney were splitting the liberal vote.
Thomson and Huckabee the conservative vote.

After Huckabee won Iowa there was a stop-Huckabee movement among liberals.

The crucial moment was the Fox News N.H. debate, everyone got disgusted with Fox shilling hard for Romney and a stop-Romney movement was created.

That unified the liberals and people who hated Romney behind McCain, as the most moderate not named Romney.

After that it became a standard social conservative vs moderate GOP primary.

There were anti-establishment vibes in both parties, Romney and Hillary where perceived as the party establishment and that hindered them forever.

Romney ran as a solid conservative in 2008. He had the support of both Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter IIRC. Huckabee wasn't seen as being much of a conservative besides social issues.

He always runs as a Reagan tribute act, but his base was always the establishment.

[Jim Crow]

Mitt Romney was an unknown at the beginning of the primary. He became the runner-up eventually, but at first, he didn't have much name-value. He was a one-term governor of a blue-state, leaving with low approvals. I think Romney needed the runner-up finish in 2008 to get name recognition and set himself up for a win in 2012

Guiliani had a ton of baggage for a Repub primary: mayor of a titanium blue state, pro-choice, and not hawkish against illegal immigrants and LGBT.

McCain, in contrast, was the runner-up from 2000; he had an unmatched amount of political experience; and he was a war-hero. It was understood that he wasn't perfect. He wasn't as sprightly and sharp as he was in 2000, and he hurt himself by supporting the immigration bill in 2007. But he might have been the best choice in a fairly weak Republican primary class

That doesn't include Super PACs.  Another consideration is that Huckabee and Romney split the more conservative voters.

[Redban]

According to this documentary, John McCain was the only primary candidate who said that Bush Administration had to adopt the Petraeus strategy during Iraq War, which he attributed to the improving of the situation in Iraq, which helped him win among Republicans and Independents during the primaries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKVQW8Z0AFg

McCain had a number of advantages from being in the Senate as well and well regarded by the media in terms of foreign affairs and the military. I remember a press conference in I think late 2006 or early 2007 where McCain, Lieberman, Graham and others were pressing the case for the surge strategy.

My memory of it was that Guiliani didn't actually campaign until it was too late, he practically dropped out when he chose the Florida strategy.

The Florida strategy might’ve worked if it all went to plan. They relied on the belief  that Charlie Crist was going to endorse Rudy, as Crist had privately told them he would.. Having the support of the GOP Florida Governor, by itself, obviously helps, but it would’ve been a punch to McCain, as McCain and Crist were friends.  But later on, Crist said he was going to be neutral, basically throwing a wrench in Rudy’s plans

Rudy also made an error by totally ignoring South Carolina, which had a cluster of liberal pro-choice Repubs near the coastline towns. Rudy wouldn’t have won, but he could have made a better showing

And that he couldn’t gain traction in NH was a big warning sign, as this was a a state where he should’ve done well - proximity to home state + liberal on social issues

[UWS]

Another reason why the Florida primary is drastically decisive in helping John McCain to win the nomination is because before that primary California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger remained neutral and refrained from endorsing either McCain or Giuliani as Schwarzenegger counted both men as friends. But when John McCain won the Florida primary, Giuliani dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, which made the choice a lot easier for Schwarzenegger and led him to endorse McCain, which helped him a lot to win the California primary in a fairly close race as McCain won it by 8 percentage points

With California along with New York and Illinois, McCain’s delegate lead was insurmountable

[AltWorlder]

The moreover that it was after that Giuliani dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, thus uniting all the moderate/independent wing of the GOP behind McCain

Hey wait, does this mean that the one-two punch of McCain's loss in 2008, followed by Romney's loss in 2012 (after the GOP base had continued to shift rightwards), signify the discrediting of Republican moderates? In the same way that Goldwater's loss wrecked the libertarian configuration for decades, or McGovern for the progressives?

[Cyrusman]

It's still amazing to me how the GOP went from McCain to Romney to Trump. Truly crazy to think considering Romney could be in danger of losing a GOP primary in UTAH of all places next year. 2012 wasn't "that" long ago.

[UWS]

What has also helped John McCain to win Republican nomination is Fred Thompson as Thompson not only hurt Huckabee among social conservatives in SC but he also hammered Huckabee on conservative stances as he accused Huckabee of having overseen a net tax increase as Arkansas governor, having pushed merit scholarships for the children of illegal immigrants, having suggested he would sign a nation-wide ban on smoking in public places and having commented that the Bush administration had demonstrated an "arrogant bunker mentality" towards foreign policy matters]
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-presidential-candidates-debate-myrtle-beach-south-carolina
Meanwhile, McCain benefited from the fact that 25 % of SC's electorate was composed of veterans and he emphasized on the success of the troop surge in Iraq to appeal among them in a state where the War on Terror and Iraq combined together was a very important issue with 31 % of voters saying that these issues were the most important issues.