Why McCain's campaign strategy is, well... bad. Part II.

The attack rhetoric on Obama's assocations with Ayers, Rezko, and ACORN is not working, for two reasons.

The first is that these attacks do not pass the "if my candidate did it" test. Over the past few weeks, my Republican friends and I have been debating over the questionable associations that each candidate holds. The arguments go something like this:

Them: "Ayers!"
Me: "Liddy! Keating!
Them: "Rezko!"
Me: "U.S. Council for World Freedom!"
Them: "ACORN!"

For each of Obama's tenuous associations with People Who Have Done Bad Things, McCain has a corresponding equivalent--and vice versa. They might not be exactly equal (I would say that Rezko is worse than Keating, and Liddy and the U.S. Council are worse than Ayers and ACORN), but they are easily comparable. And yet I have not changed my vote for Obama, and they have not changed their vote for McCain. This is because none of these associations pass the "if the candidate of my own party did it, would it change my vote?" test. (The same goes for Troopergate.)

Anything that does not pass this test is not going to sway an independent voter in this volatile climate. Period. Finito. The end. I don't know why the McCain campaign officials (who should have been fired months ago) do not realize this.

In contrast, political smears do turn off independent voters, especially when they don't pass the test. Obama's campaign knows about Liddy. They know about the U.S. Council of World Freedom. And yet they have not aired any attack ads featuring McCain's associations with this person or group. The Obama campaign--which is the best campaign I have ever witnessed--knows that this won't work. And McCain's antics give Obama an opportunity to stay out of the mud, and frankly, he looks better for it.

Of all McCain's attackable associations, the Obama campaign has only utilized one--the Keating scandal. And they have only done that because it directly correlates with the #1 issue on every independent voter's mind right now.

The second reason that these tactics will not work is the (unintended, I imagine) consequence--videos of the seething, frothing hatemongers who go to these rallies. I'm not going to call these people Republicans, because that's not really what they are. They don't have a guiding set of principles that they believe are the most sound ones for running our government.

They are, however, people that the Culture War persuades to vote Republican. They are xenophobes who are susceptible to the nativist message of Rove politics, who show up to vote for the "Defense of Marriage" amendments on ballots. To put it simply: they don't like people who are different from them. Rove and co. exploit that. But Rove would never allow OTHER PEOPLE TO SEE him exploiting that. Dole and Bush 41 were extremely critical of hatemongers; they have both said that they do not belong in their party.

Rank and file Republicans do not like to be reminded of this segment of their voting bloc. Libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives particularly hate this shit, y'all. Those are the people you NEED if you want to win states like Florida and Virginia--and they were *already* thinking about voting for Barr.

And of course, independents see this and it does not persuade them, not one iota, to vote for you. These people at your rallies look like they're about to start a lynch mob.

John McCain and Sarah Palin both need to immediately apologize and scale back their rhetoric. I can't even figure out what they're trying to do, since this tactic is clearly not working. Are they trying to create civil unrest after the election takes place, or violent mobs beforehand? Are they trying to create an atmosphere of ilegitimacy for Obama's probable presidency?

It certainly looks like it. This is not "Country First," y'all. Not at all.

Why McCain's campaign strategy is, well... bad. Part I.

Let me start by saying that while I lean left on 80-90% of issues--the major exceptions being eminent domain, gun control, and school vouchers (the best idea to come from the right in decades)--I do not hate John McCain. I don't even think that John McCain would be a bad president, except on foreign policy--which is ironically perceived by the general electorate as his greatest strength. This is probably due to my (is it left? Is it right? Who knows anymore, though it's definitely anti-neocon) belief that we cause more problems than we solve by interfering with foreign governments, as much as I might abhor misogynist states like the one the Taliban created in Afghanistan. I know that Obama's not a military isolationist, but he seems to swing far more on the diplomatic side of nation-building than the military aggression side. And that is, at least, better.

There's pretty much nothing that could have happened to make me vote for McCain, but a year ago, I would have said that I would not be unhappy about a President McCain--in fact, I would even have been sad that we can't have dual presidents. This is because the McCain of eight years ago leaned left or at least center on all of the issues that I do except for two, which are the tax system (center, because tax policies that benefit the rich only stimulate short-term growth and not long-term growth) and foreign policy.

I suppose what I am is a social liberal and a fiscal moderate. I believe in fair, but not high, taxes; "fair" is when capital gains are not given an advantage over income taxes, and the ability-to-pay concept is honored. I don't support corporate welfare in any instance, including subsidies to oil companies. I'm pro-property rights. But I am a firm believer in anti-trust laws and regulation over capital markets. I'm against fiscal policies that create boom-bust economic cycles.

My point is that I think there are a lot of people like me, and slightly more centrist than me, in the general electorate. We're the liberals and centers who voted for McCain in the Republican primaries in 2000, and would probably have voted for him in the 2000 general elections also.

So what does McCain do to a voter like me when he picks an obnoxious right-wing nut-job like Sarah Palin as his running mate? He inspires me to actually donate money to and campaign for Barack Obama, something that I was previously not willing to do, since I previously had not found McCain distasteful or thought that his administration might take away even more of our individual liberties.

If McCain had picked another moderate-to-left Republican like himself as a running mate, then he would not have won my vote. But he would have effectively kept me from registering several new Obama voters and contributing towards an Obama campaign ad in a swing state.

Palin undoubtedly does excite some of the Republican base. But the Goldwater Republicans, the ones who are voting for Barr, the ones who supported Ron Paul, are not won over. The intellectual conservatives are not won over. And people in the center are ESPECIALLY not won over. This is a swing-voter election, and McCain is campaigning like it's a base election. Obama has not been firing up the Democrats by talking about hot-button issues for them, such as abortion rights--which the current administration has given him plentiful fodder to do. McCain should take note.

Base elections work--for the right, at least--when economic times are good. When times are bad (when people tend to vote Democrat the most), you have to appeal to the center. People are far less wedded to ideology and the politics of identity when they are watching jobs, the stock market, and affordable health care disappear. No one cares about a $5000 tax credit for healthcare when they are concerned that they won't even make enough money to owe $5000 in federal income taxes.

McCain is campaigning like Bush did in 2004. It worked in 2004 because times were good and the Democratic candidate was not nearly as charismatic or appealing to centrists as Barack Obama is, in addition to today's economic problems. But far worse is the fact that McCain is not even campaigning as himself. He's bent right on issues that he doesn't subscribe to. He's bent left on issues that he doesn't subscribe to (ones that I actually agree with him on, like this bailout bill). He has thrown away his greatest strength, which is his appeal to moderates, in order to look more like George W. Bush, who people just don't like anymore.

And he's not even very good at it. McCain is an excellent senator. He's not a great politician. It's not that he can't lie--he can--but he's terrible at it.