In today’s New York Post, Kirsten Powers may overestimate how juggernauty Barack Obama’s campaign may be, but she is generally correct about the way in which the McCain contraption (credit Allahpundit) is still sputtering: “If he wants to run as Hillary 2.0, then McCain should rip off some of her better stuff.”
Camp McCain does not lack for analysis of the campaign’s weaknesses. Powers follows Time magazine’s Mark Halperin (h/t RTO Trainer) and National Review’s Rich Lowry & Ramnesh Ponnuru in offering analysis and advice. The point common to these pieces — though not always expressly stated — is messaging. The McCain campaign too often seems like a pudding without a theme.
The Wall Street Journal (temp Google News link) reported earlier this week that Steve Schmidt, recently handed day-to-day authority over Maverick’s campaign, is trying to impose discipline over daily messages and the overall themes of the effort:
Above all, Mr. Schmidt argues that a campaign needs one positive message about its own candidate, and one negative message about the opponent. Sen. Obama has that: He’s for change, while Sen. McCain represents more of the same. Sen. McCain long didn’t have a strong, simple message of his own.
Now, Mr. Schmidt has settled on this formula: Sen. Obama represents a big risk, while Sen. McCain rises above partisanship to put country first. Expect to hear that sentiment nearly every day between now and Nov. 4.
I understand why Camp McCain would go with painting Obama as risky; most voters already think so. However, that fact shows that this is currently an insufficient negative message, as Obama maintains a persistent (albeit slim) lead in the polls. In a “change” election, where most voters think the country is on the wrong track and that the economy is deteriorating, there is likely to be a higher tolerance for risk.
That is why my commentary on the Lowry/Ponnuru advice suggested that it might be more effective to tie the negative messaging to Obama’s record. If Camp McCain hammered home that Obama is promising a middle-class tax cut, but he already voted this year to hike taxes on people making as little as $31,850 annually, they could not only establish that Obama is untested, but also argue that this is not the Obama voters thought they knew. If McCain hammers Obama’s opposition to offshore drilling is one plank of a platform that supports higher gas prices, a recycled, failed windfall profits tax, getting you to turn your thermostat down and government handouts for corn-based ethanol that enrich his backers but raise our food prices, he can show that Obama is not merely untested, but also out of touch with the economic pinch people feel at the pump, the grocery checkout line, and when they get their utility bills. Moreover, these are negatives that can be framed as positive messages for McCain — he cares, while Obama is aloof. As a bonus, a new Pew poll suggests Hispanic voters care more about issues like the economy than immigration, which would give Maverick an opportunity to try to erode Obama’s lead with that demographic without pandering on immigration reform and alienating base voters.
The positive message Schmidt has selected is not bad, though one now wonders anew why the campaign did not bring Mike Murphy onboard to do his Maverick-y thing (unless they felt he would not be able to resist overdoing it and alienating base GOP voters). The message also allows Mccain to contrast his record of bipartisanship on tough issues with Obama’s record of working with Republicans only on the easiest of issues. Thus, the positive message can also carry a negative message — Obama claims he will bring people together, but McCain has worked hard to actually do it (even if taking positions with which I personally strongly disagree). The campaign does have to be careful not to overdo the “putting the country first” angle as well — Camp Obama and its supporters will be all too eager to play the “don’t question my patriotism” card.
In short, McCain’s themes have potential, if sharpened to specifics — but whether Schmidt can get his Maverick to stick to them with discipline remains to be seen.
Baracky’s risky card check scheme alone will push a lot of people who are counting on retirement funds they have in equities over the edge. It will be very sad. Also, Baracky won’t drill any new oil. This is risky because we might need oil for cars and stuff. Also, Baracky will put the stability of Iraq at risk cause he really doesn’t care about failure there cause he can count on his media to say it’s all Bush’s fault. All in all, a Baracky presidency looks very risky to me I think. I will have to take this into account when I decide who to vote for.
You couldn’t be more correct about the dangers of the “card check” bill, hf. High potential for extremely negative consequences to the health of our economy, our political principles and yet it gets precious little attention in the working press. Though I shouldn’t be surprised at that, should I?
People in equities will also be looking at Obama’s proposed cap gains tax hike.
The working press is all unioned up, Sdferr. This is working very well for them.
People in equities already are hf.
Even creepier than the unionized press are the unionized Gov. employees.
Obama, Berlin, and the Press:
60 Seconds of Comedic Relief :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA29Rn4cRdI
I think that McCain could let some analysis of the Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” go out there to scare the hell out of independents.
Unlike the banal day to day speeches, the “Global Poverty Act” has real consequences that will cost a boatload of somebodies money. Given that 8 to 10 years from now Social Security will be spending the Trust Fund, Americans are going to get a hell of a lot more frugal going forward
Maybe it is entirely appropriate that McCain’s campaign organization is a “contraption” weirdly put together, pudding without theme as they have it. That seems to me precisely what McCain’s personal philosophical architecture is like, a herky-jerky idiosyncratic construct satisfying his peculiar psychological needs.
Advertising who McCain is, it proves to be refreshingly honest, even if it isn’t meant to do.
It is no way to run a railroad though.
Yeah, if you read Woodward’s The Agenda, you’ll find that the Clinton campaign had all sorts of internal chaos, but was outwardly disciplined.
Heh.
It’s stupid of me to say it but I’ll say it anyway.
I won’t read Woodward’s The Agenda Karl and you can’t make me (channeling sashal vis Liberal Fascism).
Obama is risky, let me count the ways.
If the election is a referendum on Obama then this should work well. Obama has no experience, no record of any accomplishments. He talks purty but who knows what he will actually do. How is Obama going to lower gas prices and create good jobs when he has no plan to do so? McCain favors increased drilling for oil which will do both.
Personally, I don’t think pudding needs a theme. Especially tapioca. Tapioca is its own theme, IMHO. YMMV.
The only reason why McCain is still in the game is because of the enormous respect voters have for the man himself. The grabastic assclowns who are burying him against this coffee-house neophyte ought to be horsewhipped, each and every one of them, for Crimes Against Good Campaigning.
They’ve already blown a four month head start. Let’s see if they can actually blow the election.
[…] Jay Cost notes (as noted here) that John McCain’s campaign still seems like a pudding without a theme, but also argues […]