Bloodless Coup

Publius Argues That McCain Is a Weak Candidate

It's not the usual narrative on McCain, so it's worth considering.

"For one, he's extremely undisciplined. With virtually no pressure on him at all, he's already offered a series of troubling gaffes. He's also prone to - as Kaus says - "reflexive righteous blunderbuss denials" that often get him in more trouble than the original accusation. Third, he's a horrible speaker. Finally, his fundraising operation has not only been anemic, it's based on the models of the past.

He's been able to get away with all this largely because he has yet to come under sustained scrutiny. Yes, he won the Republican nomination, which is no small feat. But he won it in the most untested way possible. He was written off for a year and then charged at the very last minute as Rudy collapsed and Huckabee surged.

There's a lot of truth in this. I thought McCain was the strongest general election candidate of the Republicans running - but given who he was up against that wasn't necessarily a wildly impressive achievement. He is a poor speaker and fundraiser. But does any of that matter? Is the apparatus around him strong enough to make up for his weaknesses? Will media love inflate him? Will his long-standing popularity mean he gets the benefit of the doubt throughout the campaign? Do positive feelings toward a candidate outweigh flubs and mistakes by the candidate? Does poor speaking or "blunderbuss" really hurt a candidate? After all, George Bush won in 2004 after an atrocious debate performance, and most people don't watch candidates' speeches.