The Candidates
Frank Luntz has zeroed in on the demographic that will decide this election: middle-aged, middle-class voters who occupy both the political and geographic middle of the country. For what it’s worth, I think Luntz is spot on:
Who are these voters? Think of the political equation 4M + 2M: middle age, middle income, middle of the road and mid-America, plus Missouri and Michigan.
* Middle age. Obama is likely to win a larger share of the under-30 vote than any candidate in modern history, including Ronald Reagan in 1984. McCain is running relatively strong among senior citizens and is managing to pull a few older Democrats into his camp. The battle here is among voters age 40 to 59 who don’t have strong partisan leanings. They appreciate Obama’s energetic, youthful appeal but also admire McCain’s knowledge and wisdom. Unlike younger voters, they aren’t as swept up in “Obama-mania,” and unlike older voters, they aren’t as concerned about such issues as Social Security and Medicare. Simply put, these are the voters for whom leadership and a clear plan for restoring economic security and peace of mind are most critical.
* Middle income. Families with incomes of about $50,000 a year — the national average — are highly pessimistic and negative about the direction of the country and the condition of the economy. From 1994 through 2004, Republicans tended to have a narrow advantage among these floating voters, allowing the GOP to capture and maintain control of Congress for the decade. But they returned to the Democratic fold in the 2006 campaign and are leaning Democratic this year. They despise President Bush’s economic policies and are most certainly “change” voters, but tax increases are the kind of change they will eagerly vote against. Neither Obama nor McCain has a lock on economic solutions for the middle class, and so Americans with average incomes continue to wade around in the floating-voter pool.
* Middle of the road. By election day, Obama will likely win more than 95% of self-described liberals and McCain 95% of self-described conservatives. And both candidates will take more than 90% of their respective self-identified partisans. That leaves the people who reject partisanship because it’s polarizing and those who denounce ideology because it’s limiting. They cringe at Bush’s dogmatic adherence to principle and his refusal to compromise. Eight years of that is more than enough for these voters. Obama and McCain have a shot at these floaters because both represent a clean slate. Obama’s words are as unifying as any candidate in decades. Every time he says that “Democrats need to stop acting like no Republican ever had a good idea,” the floating voters sit up and take notice. On the other hand, McCain’s record is among the most bipartisan of any Republican leader in modern times. He’s a “maverick” because he says no to Republicans so often that it is not merely a source of pride but almost a trademark of his political character.
* Mid-America. From Ohio to Minnesota and then south to the Mason-Dixon line, several of the Middle America states are up for grabs. But the two states that matter most are Michigan and Missouri. Historically, as Missouri goes, so goes the nation. In all but one election in the last 50 years, the Show-Me State has voted with the winner. It’s one of the few states with significant urban and rural populations, with up-and-coming communities bordering down-and-out neighborhoods. As for Michigan, what was once a Republican mainstay has moved decidedly Democratic in recent elections. But the state’s economic distress, coupled with a somewhat unpopular Democratic governor, unpopular Detroit mayor and unpopular Democratic Legislature, has made it a haven for floating voters. Call them cynical. Call them disgruntled. Call them whatever you like, but the people of Michigan are going to make the candidates earn their votes more than any other state.
What’s the best message for floaters? In a word, empathy. First, acknowledge the frustration. Admit the mistakes. Let them know you feel their pain. But unlike the Bush reelection campaign of 2004, which sought to emphasize the threat of the unknown, and John Kerry’s campaign, which was nothing more than a critique of his opponent, these voters want answers, solutions and, most important, results. “Yes we can” is certainly appealing, but “yes we will” is even better. And a declaration that “there are some things more important than an election” will win their votes as well as their hearts.
Obama and McCain may have captured their respective party nominations on the parallel themes of hope and heroism, but for floating voters, hope isn’t going to reduce the country’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and heroism will not fix the housing collapse or put struggling middle-class voters back to work. Pocketbook issues are as important as character concerns for these voters, and they will be watching closely over the next four months to see who can deliver. Period. History suggests that in times of anxiety and cynicism, Americans turn to a leader they trust to get things done.
For floating voters, change is not enough. It’s not simply a fresh face they want. It’s a leader who can give them a fresh start.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
All of this sounds about right to me. Your paragraph about the best message for floaters is spot on.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I take issue with this article, because I think that it’s just a rhetorical flourish that doesn’t really add anything. Michigan and Missouri aren’t especially important: if anything, it’s Ohio that’s the key state (of course, all the swing states are important.)
As for the middle-of-the-road voters: of course swing voters are the most important. Shouldn’t that be obvious? Similarly, there’s really no point in saying that middle-aged or middle-income voters will play the key role in this election, because with groups as large as these, you can say that about any group. For instance, McCain may very well win older voters, but his margin among them will also be extremely important.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I agree 100% with Luntz’s analysis.
The way for McCain to win is apparent: run as this country’s Sarkozy.
I know this sounds crazy, but McCain should seek to tie Obama to Bush, not ideologically, but as part of “politics as usual”.
Why can’t McCain focus on Obama’s breaking his promise to serve his first-term in the Senate? Obama couldn’t even complete 1/3 of his first-term before he stopped being a Senator and started being a Presidential candidate.
This is a guy who so obviously is in politics for the acquisition of power. If not, he would finish at least 2 years of his first Senate term before running for President.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
#2: Swing voters are more important in some years than in others.
In 2004, swing voters weren’t that important. That’s because the political climate had thrown a wedge right down the middle of the country. The country was pretty much divided 50/50 on everything. I still remember the most amusing post-election poll. They asked whether Bush was a uniter or a divider. 49 percent said uniter. 49 percent said divider.
In that environment, since everyone was on either side of a big ideological wall, the trick was to get the folks on your side more motivated than the folks on the other side. That’s a base election.
This year, when the 70 percent of the voters are pissed off at everyone, playing a 2004 strategy is going to get you nowhere fast. You have to convince the supermajority that you’re more pissed off at the status quo than the other guy is. Of McCain and Obama, whoever best channels the “everyone in Washington sucks” sentiment best will win the election.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Kavon is not far off.
Obama broke his promise and voted to fund the Iraq war. As well, he supported Bush’ energy bill, McCain did not. Scott McClellan said it best….Obama is running the same campaign (to change Washington) as George Bush did eight years ago.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
If Obama picks someone like Sam Nunn as his running mate — and I think Nunn will be in his top three — the Democratic ticket really will be Bush/Cheney ‘00. McCain should then run a Gore ‘00 campaign, keeping in mind that Gore won more votes that year. McCain should pick someone who reinforces his maverick image as his running mate, the way Gore picked Lieberman, who reinforced his DLC image. Just as Gore was able to separate himself from Clinton’s personal life, McCain can separate himself from the things that make Bush unpopular. Just as Gore was ultimately able to say to Americans, “I know the other guy’s sexier, but we all know you trust me more at the helm,” so too can McCain make that argument and win as long as he is able to make a clean break from the Bushies and the national GOP establishment.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Frank Luntz wrote: “They despise President Bush’s economic policies and are most certainly “change” voters, but tax increases are the kind of change they will eagerly vote against.”
If middle income voters oppose the expiration of Bush’s tax cuts, specifically what economic policies of the president’s do they despise?
And, if those in the middle-class only have a problem with the continuation of tax cuts for the more affluent, perhaps they could explain how exactly they would benefit if their boss were to make less money? How would that make the company they work for more profitable? How does that sudden tax hike on their employer’s income, stock portfolio, or father’s estate increase the likelihood of them getting a raise? How does that help reduce what they’re paying at the pump, or at the grocery store?
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Kavon asks: “Why can’t McCain focus on Obama’s breaking his promise to serve his first-term in the Senate?”
He could, but bear in mind that would preclude him from picking Pawlenty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeFyAd1sDAs&feature=related
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Here is the problem the Kavon and DaveG strategy of trying to tie Obama to Bush: it is an admission that Bush sucks and its a bad thing to be allied with him. So McCain goes out there (as he already has) and says Obama is like Bush for voting for the Cheney energy bill. Obama response: I voted for one bill, McCain voted 95% of the time with Bush. It was also no help that Bush and McCain announced their drilling plans at the same time, giving Obama more ammunition. Its a confusing and doomed strategy.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The same could, arguably, also apply to Mitt…
Romney declares he will run for reelection
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Telamonian,
99% of voters do not spend time on these blogs, there news intake on a daily basis (average) is less than 30 minutes per day. Headline, “Engery policy = Bush = Obama”. Kavon has a point because wedge issues can have an impact.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
DaveG:
“By election day, Obama will likely win more than 95% of self-described liberals and McCain 95% of self-described conservatives.”
That’s quite an extraordinary claim. You think McCain is going to do 11% better among conservatives than George Bush in 2004?
So far McCain has run 9% behind Bush among conservative voters. If McCain were to get 95% of the conservative vote he’d need only 35% of the moderates.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Did Norm Coleman hire Stuart Smalley and his friends over at SNL to create this sketch embarrassingly abysmal Senate campaign TV ad?
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Kristofer,
You make my argument stronger because with little information voters will simply view the election as Bush (R) = McCain (R). Think for instance how quickly “McCain is running for Bush’s third term” caught on. It was so embedded that Limbaugh was repeating it. The association is just easier.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Aon those are good points to consider. Also, let’s face it, all these guys want more power, why else would you run. The question is, what do they want it for?
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
#12: We need a better blockquote system on this program. Everything below “I think Luntz is spot on” in the post comes from Luntz’s column, including the 95 percent language.
I think Luntz was trying to make the point that the supermajority of conservatives would be voting for McCain in the fall, though I doubt he’ll win a greater percentage than Bush did.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
I’ll add a couple more Ms. McCain and Mitt.