How Not To Beat Obama

If there's a Barack bubble for McCain to prick, Jennifer Rubin's suggested approach probably isn't going to do it:

The challenge to McCain will be considerable: get past the very attractive Obama packaging and get voters to focus on what Obama is actually proposing (e.g. withdrawal from Iraq, end of the Bush tax cuts).

But at the moment, what Obama is "actually proposing," on Iraq and taxes alike, is considerably more popular with voters than what McCain is proposing. According to this month-old poll, 74 percent of Americans don't want "large numbers of U.S. troops" in Iraq for more than two years; 50 percent want to be out within a year. Or again, here's a December poll in which 56 percent say that victory in Iraq is no longer possible, and 57 percent say that we should withdraw "most troops" by 2009. This is good news for Obama, bad news for McCain. And the same goes for the Bush tax cuts. As of this October, 61 percent of Americans either wanted them repealed outright, or agreed that "tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while others stay in place" - which is precisely what Obama is promising.

Now obviously future developments in Iraq could alter these dynamics, and so could the way that McCain and Obama go about debating the issues come the fall - and how the press ends up framing their positions. But at the moment, I think the GOP might have at least much luck going after Obama's "packaging," which is ideal for a Democratic primary but possibly less so in a general election, as they would going after him on taxes and Iraq. (Do Americans really want to put a "world man" in the Oval Office? Do they really want to pick a President based on his potential appeal to young Pakistani Muslims? Do they really want to vote for a guy whose campaign has become a vehicle for an "indie-yuppie political fantasy"? etc.) And I'm nearly positive that if McCain runs in the general election the way he's (wisely) run in the primary - on a platform of victory in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts and porkbusting at home - without coming up with anything else to say to voters, he'll get beaten handily.

Comments

true that.

Posted by lupercal | February 13, 2008 12:40 PM

Please - pretty please - let the Repiglicans run on prolonging the Iraq war. Combine that with the sure-to-come hate campaign from Rush and Hannity and Coulter about how Obama's a Muslim who's too dusky for America and the GOP will have skewered itself for the next decade. I know they have that sort of stupidity in them, of course - this is the party that's still solidly behind Dumbya Bush, the 200 pound tumor in the White House.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 12:43 PM

McCain will not get beaten handily, he will be trounced! Not because he is a republican, but because he is Bush on steroids. You think Bush is stubborn? Think again...

Posted by Tim | February 13, 2008 12:55 PM

McCain will not get beaten handily, he will be trounced! Not because he is a republican, but because he is Bush on steroids. You think Bush is stubborn? Think again...

Posted by Tim | February 13, 2008 1:01 PM

I wonder if McCain could actually start complaining about Bush abandoning Afghanistan, "declare victory" in Iraq, and actually triangulate the Dems here. he surge worked, so let's get out.

Surely he's still got plenty of wiggle room to let him shift on the Bush tax cuts. Assuming he pulls it off, a hard swing to the middle could save the GOP's ass this November. And if anyone could get away with this kind of flip-flopping without anyone noticing, it would be McCain.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 13, 2008 1:11 PM

McCain needs to follow the blueprint laid down by President Bush in 2004. Put the emphasis on the War on Terror, not the War on Iraq. And make it clear that we can't risk handing over the keys to an unknown and untested entity like Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by Mike | February 13, 2008 1:12 PM

And if anyone could get away with this kind of flip-flopping without anyone noticing, it would be McCain.

I believe this is true with regard to the tax cuts. However, the idea of McCain "triangulating" on Iraq is nearly unthinkable. McCain, the "Maverick", can get away with taking many exotic positions, but I just don't think he has the vocabulary to suddenly turn into the anti-Iraq guy.

Posted by Alexander | February 13, 2008 1:20 PM

McCain is a sucky campaigner. End of story, end of election. Sucky campaigners don't beat brilliant ones.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 1:22 PM

I think the next three weeks will be fascinating as we get our first taste of the fall campaign. So far, Obama has been running a meta-campaign because the policy objectives of each of the Democratic candidates have been largely similar. Obama has been campaigning less on the issues than on the tone he wants politics to take, which has led to this meme that he is soft on policy.

I think this is going to change drastically going forward, when we get a chance to see Obama sink his teeth into differences in both tone and policy, and the advantages on each count will be large compared to McCain in this electorate.

Posted by Curtis | February 13, 2008 1:26 PM

Policy positions will have to get sharpened. Obviously polls will say people want "out of Iraq" ASAP (hell, I wasn’t out) This is contrasted with getting out in a way that will lead to destabilization & a victory for Islamic extremists.

Experience will matter even in a “change” election. I think it will be as close as 2000.

(Once again) Yesterdays David Brooks column in the NYT “When Realty Bites” is exactly on that point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The pundit & journalist class won’t let blind rhetoric go unchallenged on either side. There are plenty of retired generals that can go on TV and explain the complications & dangers.

If pulling out was so popular, why didn’t the Dems do it after 2006 when things looked bleaker than today?

Posted by Fitz | February 13, 2008 1:43 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUV69LZbCNQ
This video is of a speech in October 2002, This is why I trust Barack Obama. He has the judgement and can surround himself with all the experience he wants.

Obama will shred McCain on the war. McCain can argue the surge is working. What does "working" mean ? Does it mean that we have reached a pre-invasion, pre-multi trillion dollar expediture,pre-thousands of Americans dead, pre- hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, level? Saddam Hussein could have been taken out with a small brass and led projectile.

Posted by davide | February 13, 2008 1:43 PM

If pulling out was so popular, why didn’t the Dems do it after 2006 when things looked bleaker than today?

Um, maybe because the C-in-C didn't want to and any bill to try to force the issue would have been filibustered? What did you expect the Dems to do? Go to Iraq and take away the Army's guns?

Posted by zaleriana | February 13, 2008 2:02 PM

Fitz-- please see the link at my handle for an effective dispatch of that fact-free article by Brooks.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 13, 2008 2:10 PM

McCain comes across as dour, pessimistic, a scold, and just plain mean. And old.

Obama comes across as good-natured, optimistic, and just plain nice. And fresh.

Combine that with Iraq, GOP, and all of the pictures of McCain hugging and kissing GWB, and it doesn't look close from my angle.

Posted by Tiparillo | February 13, 2008 2:15 PM

My cynical political rule with regard to political candidacies is that the more telegenic of the two candidates always wins. Think about it: Bush over Gore and Kerry, Clinton over Dole and Bush 41, Bush 41 over Dukakis, Reagan over Mondale and Carter, etc. Personality matters, sadly. When faced with a decision between an old dude who is fond of saying things like we ought to be in Iraq for 10,000 years and keeps talking about war and the need to sacrifice (for war, of course), just generally being dark and depressing, and a young, charismatic man who is talking about hope and fixing the problems that America actually cares about. I think it should be obvious who wins.

The problem with McCain is that he's bought into his own BS to a great extent. He thinks people like him for being the straight talker, which was true, but on issues like global warming and campaign finance. Independents and liberals liked him because he was willing to take the liberal stance on an issue now and then if it made more sense to him. He seems to think that being "responsible" on Iraq is going to get him victory because people don't want to leave Iraq, but we know that's wrong. There is a word for McCain's worldview: solipsism.

Posted by Lev | February 13, 2008 2:19 PM

Fitz, for several reasons:
1. Despite the Democratic majority in Congress, thanks to the Blue Dogs and DLC there is a working conservative majority
2. Democrats are still risk-adverse, and feared being branded as zaleriana described (ie, grabbing guns from soldiers and leaving them in the field).

Look at Social Security. Democrats blocking the phaseout proved very popular and dealt Bush a big defeat. But a lot of them really wanted to sell out, and it took a lot of pressure to make them stand firm. And that was just arguing to maintain the status quo, as opposed to actually making a policy change.

On Iraq, the one thing I will say is that while Americans perpetually want to have the majority of troops home in 1-2 years, they never want to have them home in 90 days. I think McCain's strategy will be to try to argue that by tying himself to a timeline Obama rushes troops home.

Or maybe he'll argue we should stay there for 100 years. That would be fun to watch him try to sell.

Posted by JoshA | February 13, 2008 2:28 PM

Elvis Elvisberg - Good article, thanks.

JoshA - I hear you. It’s just that "pullout" plays to the base (now & in 2006) where a majority don’t want a precipitous withdrawal & defeat.

Your observations concerning 90 days and such strikes me as correct. McCains 100 years remark is realism in the sense of Korea, Kosovo, Germany, Japan.....

Posted by Fitz | February 13, 2008 2:46 PM

McCain, the "Maverick", can get away with taking many exotic positions, but I just don't think he has the vocabulary to suddenly turn into the anti-Iraq guy.

He wouldn't actually oppose Iraq, he would just talk about it less. Think about his stands on abortion or torture--he doesn't exactly change the position so much as tactically forget about it and remember it when convenient. Just have a conditional draw down of troops in your plan. That was the plan for the surge anyway. Change the argument from staying in or leaving to leaving with defeat or leaving with victory.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 13, 2008 2:53 PM

Fitz squawks: "It’s just that "pullout" plays to the base (now & in 2006) where a majority don’t want a precipitous withdrawal & defeat."

Why does Fitz repeatedly use the phrase "precipitous withdrawal"? He does it because he's a well-trained parrot sitting on the collective shoulder of his party bosses, and they've decided to use that phrase to lie about what the Democrats are proposing. Is Fitz consciously lying or is he just too stupid to question his training? It's a hard question to answer, but his parrothood is well established.

A proposal to remove troops by mid-2010 is anything but "precipitous," of course. If anything it's a slower path than most Americans would prefer. I'd like to see it coupled with immediate and extensive hearings designed to punish the scumbags who lied the country into the war and the war profiteers who stole the war effort blind, but Fitz will have none of that. He's hoping that all of the connected Repiglicans who stole from us will get off free and easy.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 3:00 PM

Victor Davis Hanson in an NRO piece today, The Better Ticket? , makes a salient point:

…moderates and independents are surprised that the non-race candidate has been winning overwhelming block racial support. One might have expected Obama, in a race against the liberal wife of the first ‘black’ President to garner 50 percent or 60 percent of the African-American vote, but not 80 percent. That disparity might in itself prompt a like counter-reaction among whites, Latinos, and Asians that legitimizes voters taking into consideration race — as Hillary’s surrogate Gov. Rendell, in perfect Clintonian fashion, has just “suggested.”

i.e. Given the realities of racial politics there could well be a backlash among moderates and independents should they feel, whether fairly or not, that they are being railroaded by a candidate who is subtly or playing the race card.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 13, 2008 4:32 PM

McCain has to make it personal--Obama wants to raise your taxes. Not the taxes on the rich. And McCain needs to argue that Obama's surrender in Iraq would dishonor the voters individually. Self-interest and self-perception will be the battlegrounds in this election, along with self-deception.

Posted by Thomas | February 13, 2008 4:33 PM

Petey posts: "Victor Davis Hanson in an NRO piece today, The Better Ticket? , makes a salient point:"

No, he doesn't. Victor Davis Handjob spends his entire life pandering to the wet dreams of conservative jerkoffs. He was consistently wrong about Iraq - even more ridiculously so than Bloody Billy Kristol - and the mystery is why anyone takes the guy and his serial-killer stare seriously.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 4:39 PM

Republicans are living in a dream world right now. I think they forget that there is a horribly unpopular Republican president in office, an upopular war, and a crappy economy.
Any democrat with half a brain will make this all about how the last republication screwed everything up and ask people do you want more of that? The general will be a whole new ball game ALL about Bush's mistakes.
And, news flash, the surge isn't working all that great. All Obama would have to do is ask, ok ... so why aren't we bringing the troops home if its working? Why aren't the Iraqis taking care of their own security?
Once the primaries are done, this thing becomes ALL about the failures of Bush and asking, really, would McCain change all that much.
Also, it will become all about the economy, the issue most people polled are worried about and, really, an issue McCain doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by Scott | February 13, 2008 4:46 PM

Moe, thanks for the elegant response. We appreciate your thoughtful and balanced contributions to this blogsite.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 13, 2008 4:54 PM

A vote for McCain is a vote for continuing the occupation of Iraq and funding Haliburton, Blackwater and Exxon Mobil.

Senator McCain, thanks,
but no thank you

Posted by Stasinopoulos | February 13, 2008 5:46 PM

We are witnessing a movement. Not a campaign, not an election. Barack Obama is the catalyst for an America that returns to the ideals that created it.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain are fine Americans and have plenty to contribute to the future of this country.
Barack Obama is an uncommon leader for an uncommon time. We are on our heels, still reeling from terrible decisions made by the current administration. Our national security is dependent on the world community and the world community is pretty disgusted with us. We cannot under estimate the determination of radical Jihadists to inflict
as much damage as they can. We need the cooperation of the world community to be truly effective. Barack Obama will restore America to the country it was meant to be. He is a uniter, a communicator,and an inspiration. He has electrified the common people of all backgrounds and given us a reason to believe again .

Posted by davidespo | February 13, 2008 5:51 PM

Jennifer Rubin and the Mammon conservatives at the WSJ have destroyed the republican party by backing policies which impoverish the middle class.

Posted by Stan | February 13, 2008 5:52 PM

McCain and his crew have no idea what they are about to get hit with. Hillary is still recovery from the Obama tsunami and when he kicks her off the ballot on March 4, McCain will be next. Good night, J McCain, we love you so.

Posted by Gil | February 13, 2008 6:46 PM

The author just suggested that the only chance the republicans have of winning against obama is if they use dirty tactics, personal attacks, more swift boating, and general fear mongering.

That is exactly what I expect from republicans but it will be completely ineffective against obama. He may be skinny but he's tough.

Posted by thomas | February 13, 2008 6:53 PM

"i.e. Given the realities of racial politics there could well be a backlash among moderates and independents should they feel, whether fairly or not, that they are being railroaded by a candidate who is subtly or playing the race card."

And which candidate is that, I wonder?

What is Barack Obama supposed to do: Tell the black voters that they're doing it all wrong? That a certain percentage of them are supposed to vote for a white candidate, that they'll never get a black president unless they demonstrate to the white voters that they don't particularly care if they get one or not? The idea is absurd.

When Kennedy ran for election he bagged the Catholic vote wholesale. It would be ridiculous to suggest that it should be otherwise.

Obama and Clinton have virtually identical domestic agendas. She's catering to women along gender lines. I certainly won't vote McCain into office because he's white, and I live in the South.

One thing we poor Southeys have discovered in the last one hundred years is that the losing side of history is not a very attractive place to be. Even as I write this, there are many Americans (especially in the Mid West) who are attempting to nudge the New South (and it *is* the "New South") into rejecting a black candidate out of hand. All I have to say to that is: Wrong "South".

It's an easy mistake to make. Mississippi is still "burning" well enough, nooses still find their way into front yards in Alabama. Other isolated pockets of de facto racism exist in some of the southern states, but I think I speak for the majority of the old Confederacy constituency when I say that this is the New South.

The Deep South is dead. I should have thought that was a matter of record. We tend to elect people like Bill Clinton and Al Gore as governors. With exception of the Clinton/Gore strongholds in Arkansas and Tennessee, the vast majority of the South voted for Obama -white vote, and black. We've had quite a bit of time to become comfortable with the race issue. My concern is that the Mid-West has not.

Posted by David | February 13, 2008 7:19 PM

McCain is going to get crushed by the Obama Machine in November. No doubt about it.

Obama '08!!

Posted by PoliticallyInclined | February 14, 2008 2:11 AM

Hillary is road kill. The old hag should have known her place and stayed home to bake some cookies. McCain's next. He's going to get whooped worse then when he was a pow. Obama's going to kick him back all the way to Vietnam.

Obama rulz

Posted by Roland | February 14, 2008 12:26 PM

Roland: Are you campaigning against Obama ? Judging by your comments it would appear that you are.
Barack Obama does not need supporters like you. Please just stay home on election day.
-------------------------
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Posted by PulSamsara | February 14, 2008 1:12 PM

PulSamsara,

Sounds like you are working for the wicked witch feminist Hillary campaign and trying to smear us into not voting. Women are unable to do a mans job. I'm just going to say it like it is. Your tactics won't work. Yes we can vote! So please stop because the machine can't stop us. They said the day would never come, but it has.

Obama '08

Posted by Roland | February 14, 2008 1:32 PM