The Candidates
This post is a reaction to Dave’s suggestion for McCain to attack Obama as out of the mainstream. Dave thinks that non-ideological voters will respond to that sort of campaign.
He offers 7 questions McCain can ask Obama to set the debate.
I disagree with Dave here. Now I agree McCain needs to focus on issues against Obama, however I don’t think this line of attack will work. Obama will parry on issues and adjust where necessary with the media’s assistance. The media will fight any effort to portray Obama as out of the mainstream.
I don’t think the underlying theme is a winner. It’s not incisive enough. I think non-ideological voters will just ignore or discount this sort of theme. They’ll think:
“Hey, Obama looks moderate, he sounds moderate, this is just campaign nonsense”
Perhaps I’m just skeptical of the political awareness of my fellow citizens. In my opinion Obama’s personal weaknesses should direct the theme.
I’ve seen hints of this but McCain doesn’t seem ready to commit to it. The gas tax holiday was a good opportunity to subtly hit on the first theme. Obama’s comments in support of talking to Ahmadinejad need to be addressed using the second theme:
“Obama only thinks he can talk to Ahmadinejad because he has no experience facing off against dictators. As Hillary Clinton said, America needs a President who’s ready to serve on day one.”
What say you?
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
McCain has to be ready to run the attack ads detailing Obama’s past liberal statements or votes in order to destroy Obama’s credibility once he gives his new, mainstream answers to the above questions. That will get voters wondering just what Obama actually believes, something they largely haven’t thought about yet, because Obama’s been so good at avoiding policy.
I don’t have any qualms about going after Obama’s character in the way that you’ve described. But thus far personal attacks on Obama have been very low reward. It’s interesting: “Clinton is a scoundrel” never worked, but “Kerry is a flip-flopper” did work. Perhaps attacking a candidate personally works if it goes to a trait that directly impacts the ability to lead.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
DaveG,
I’d argue that the Kerry as a flip-flopper meme primarily worked because we had a particularly egregious example of it: “I voted for it, before I voted against it”. It had a sorta of mass appeal, which cut through voter apathy. That kind of message can stick and do damage, though it might not always damage a candidate in precisely the way one expects. I’d argue that Clinton was damaged by the Lewinski scandal, primarily through similarly cutting moments like “It depends on what the definition of is, is”, but Clinton had spent so long building an enduring political brand that it only damaged his personal brand. Any similarly “sticky” attack would harm Obama now, because he hasn’t built any sort of lasting brand. We just need to find the right trigger.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 am
“Obama thinks he’s better than you. (contrast with McCain who humbly wants to serve America).”
We have already seen this line of attack and the response. Rove, of all people, said Obama is the guy at the country club . . . Obama’s response: I worked hard and got scholarships. But more importantly the media also responded. On CNN an anchor said, “there are country clubs that won’t even admit people who look like Obama.” Maureen Dowd wrote that Rove was angry that Obama refused to be a patsy. And last night on MSNBC a panel talked about Cindy McCain racking up $750k in credit card bills in a month and not paying it off. I think this line of attack backfires.
“A corollary of this is that Obama doesn’t relate to you. (contrast with McCain who understands your concerns)”
Last night everyone seemed to be asking one question: “Why is McCain in Colombia talking about free trade?” Later today the jobs report comes out. Sure it may surprise us with gains, but its expected to show big losses. Starbucks is closing 600 stores. GM may have to file for bankruptcy. And John McCain is talking about how trade is working for Colombia and Mexico. So when you say McCain relates to “you,” I assume you are referring to a Colombian.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 am
Aias,
Fuel concerns trump free trade. While the loss of industrial jobs has been a big problem for many in the Rust Belt, gasoline prices affect everyone. Obama has no plan to reduce the cost of gasoline at all and can easily be shown to be opposed to a meaningful fix to the problem (It also hurts the Magic O that the public agrees with the Republican approach to solving the problem). That certainly isn’t relating to “you”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 am
In addition, I’m not sure how wise it is for Obama to use the free trade card, especially considering that he had his surrogates tell the Canadians that when he was taking a hard-line stance against the Bush/Clinton/Bush approach, Obama was really just blowing smoke up the voters’ asses.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 am
Adam,
I agree that fuel prices affect more people, but where is this election being fought - in the rust belt. And when you are out of a job, fuel isn’t the only thing you can’t afford so while lower gas prices helps it won’t put food on the table. A job will.
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:45 am
When campaigning in the rust belt, we must be talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, and if we talk about free trade, it had better be in the context of showing that this saves American jobs, and not what is good for Columbia, Mexico, etc. This thing of fewer of them will want to come to the country illegally will not fly in Michigan, Ohio, and PA. It won’t fly in Illinois either, but Obama will win Illinois anyway, no matter what.
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:39 am
McCain may be right on the complex economic theories that say go to Colombia and promote free trade. But, does anyone think that the average middle class worker or labor union member is going to analyze it that way?
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am
Interesting questions:
1. Most Americans want the government to spend less. Have the Republicans done this the last 8 years?
2. Most Americans want the government to spend less. Have the Republicans done this the last 8 years?
3. Most Americans want abortion to be generally unavailable during the third trimester of pregnancy. Will this matter to people more than the collapse of the economy?
4. Most Americans don’t want judges to be superlegislators. Will this matter to people more than the collapse of the economy?
5. Most Americans don’t want taxes to go up. Yes, yes, yes. But MY taxes won’t go up … just those rich people’s? Right?
6. Most Americans want to drill for oil. Have the Republicans done this the last 8 years?
7. Most Americans think individuals should be able to own guns. Oh yeah, guns! That’ll drive the electorate.
8. Most Americans want Osama bin Laden to be put to death. Another winner. Do Republicans really want to bring up the fact we’re still ‘looking’ of bin Laden?