It's interesting that in GOP primaries McCain is still only mustering support in the mid-70s. Ron Paul still got 16% of the vote in Pennsylvania. Surely this does not bode well for McCain.

I'm not so sure the percentage of the GOP primary vote earned by Paul and Huckabee means anything. Since McCain's got the nomination locked up, there's no reason for Republicans to bother voting for him.

I'd be willing to bet that a majority of precincts in PA, NC, and IN have no other significant contested primary contests. So GOP voters who wanted to show their support for Huckabee or Paul are naturally going to be overrepresented. I'd have voted for Huckabee, myself, but I still prefer McCain to either Democrat candidate enough that I'm just as likely to donate and volunteer this year as in the past.

I completely agree with Eric here (how often does that happen?), and his points may apply even in cases in which there were other downticket GOP primaries -- which got trumped by the more media-saturated presidential Dem primary. Some of the coverage yesterday of the 5th District race here in Indiana talked about Republicans crossing over to cast their vote in the Dem primary, much to McGoff's frustration. (Though I don't know why he was so sure that those particular voters would have been more likely to vote for him instead of Burton.)

"If the party wants to win in November..." Should it? Or, more to the point: if you are, like I know some of the ITA contributors are, deeply unhappy with the current state of the GOP, might it not be appropriate to wish a brief season of electoral discomfort on the party, so as to be better motivated to disempower the forces in the party that have led it astray? I mean, _I_ would like to see a _long_ season for the GOP in a minority position, but I know that most of y'all aren't wishing for that. But would it be so bad for many conservatives if the GOP suffered one or two rough cycles, the better to help sweep things clean? I find it rather unlikely that a McCain presidency would function as much of a repudiation of the Bushism/Roveism/DeLayism.

This line of thinking can easily be cross-referenced with previous primaries where the nominee had essentially won the nomination. Did similar numbers continue to vote for other candidates in such numbers in those situations? The answer, from my brief searches, appears to be no. Thus, Eric and the philosopher's explanation do not fully account for what appears to be an anomaly.

You may be right that there's less unity around McCain at this point in the year than there was around GWB in 2000, or Dole in 1996. Of course, this year's primary started out more competitive, and remained competitive longer than those previous primaries. I see little reason to believe that Republicans won't rally behind McCain. If fundraising and/or volunteer support ends up being lackluster, it's more likely to be because Republicans see the race as a lost cause, not because they'd have preferred someone else as their candidate.

phil,
Like a 40-year old man who needs a heart attack to convince him to lose 50 pounds, the GOP may need to lose big this November for it to do some necessary soul searching and back-to-basics thinking. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it probably will. Newt Gingrich's warning published on the Human Events web site earlier this week wasn't well received from what I understand. The current GOP leadership seems to think the party is in fine shape.

Of course, this year's primary started out more competitive, and remained competitive longer than those previous primaries.

This is true, but it only reinforces the initial thesis that something may be amiss in the McCain nomination.

...might it not be appropriate to wish a brief season of electoral discomfort on the party, so as to be better motivated to disempower the forces in the party that have led it astray?

This is probably true. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like the GOP to win at least one house of Congress in November (preferably the Senate), but if we lose everything, there will be an opportunity for us to get some fresh (and superior) party leadership. The GOP has been out of power in Congress for almost a year and a half, but with a Republican in the White House, it certainly hasn't come to be seen as the party out of power, and there hasn't been much of a chance for new leadership to emerge from within the party. Once we're out of power, that could happen -- and it will probably result in those new leaders reviving the GOP's interest in reform (because even the corrupt members of Congress can support that, when they're out of power), and allow the Democrats to become associated with the scandals of the next couple of years.

My first thought is that that raises an interesting question: what kind of Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader would we have, if the GOP took one or the other? What would that persons status as most powerful Republican in the country (if Obama wins, that is) mean for the party more generally?

My second thought, though, is that either of those events is much, much less likely than John McCain becoming president.

Philosopher, I do not know the answer, and that does make me nervous. I hope that catastrophe would give an edge to the good guys. We would probably disagree on what would make them "good" philosophically or on many policies, but I would hope that it would include some kind of reform-mindedness -- giving Congress and the rest of the government the shot of honesty, transparency, efficiency, and common sense that it needs as often as it can get it. Without specifics, those are platitudes, but when the existing establishment is ready to fall, it is sometimes possible for the demand for genuine reform to sweep in, give a needed edge to leaders who do want reform (but are usually thwarted by other members of Congress), and do a little good. I do realize that this isn't an answer to your question, but like I said, I don't know the answer.

I've met Mark and his wife. They do visit Indiana from time to time. He is very impressive without any strain to be impressive. I think Mike Pence might be a better choice. If the GOP is to win then they must excite the conservative base and make promises that they will keep.

I used to be a Republican and still vote mostly Republican, but don't plan to vote for McCain. I've had practice in not voting for the Republican candidate. Twice I took the opportunity to vote against GWB (though the first time I almost forgot, and had to go ask for a new ballot).

If McCain promises to go to the mat to get McCain-Feingold repealed, and promises to take on the left to get justices confirmed who will get it overturned, I might change my mind.

It's not enough just to promise to nominate conservative justices, though. Anybody can do that. What he needs to do is exert enough energy to get them confirmed, which means making the case to the American people.