The Reason Why McCain Will Lose
For those of you who didn’t watch Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight at the convention, go watch it now. Clinton’s speech was nothing short of impeccable, given the circumstances. Many had fears of the disenchanted, pro-Hillary, anti-Obama bloc gaining traction and causing serious fiction to the forward motion of the Obama-lead Democratic ticket. I seriously think that after tonight (and by the time of the convention’s close), the Democratic party will be as united as it can get — sufficient enough to down the Republicans come November.
If I were a McCain, or a member of the McCain campaign staff, after witnessing tonight’s speech I am thinking that I may need to start looking for work, post-November. The Democrats have begun, in a coalescing fashion, to hone in on McCain’s greatest weakness and most vulnerable trait: the 3rd term tag. Earlier this summer, David talked, and accurately so, about the inevitability of the 3rd term tag. It’s a stigma strong enough to be the deciding factor in the election. It’s like a crap-stain on fresh pair of “whittie tighties,” or like pouring acid on an open wound. Metaphors aside, the important political fact to note is that the American voters’ psyche is going to be supersaturated with the notion that electing John McCain president is unconstitutional, according to the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. John McCain, you are George W. Bush, for all intents and purposes.
But why is this so? Didn’t McCain use to be the Republican Maverick? The one capable of stepping across the partisan isle to strike up a deal with the opponent-democrat, especially on issues like immigration and campaign finance. At what point during the nominating process did McCain undergo a conversion from bipartisan senior to King Bush III? The Answer: The point in time when McCain encountered his “death-knoll dichotomy.” It looked something like this:
Option 1: Differentiate yourself from the Bush administration. Promote yourself as a moderate, rank-and-file Republican. Stay soft on many of the hot-bed issues at the risk of losing your strong Republican base.
Option 2: Take a hold of the Republican baton at the risk of getting stuck with the “3rd term tag.”
Sure, the optional analysis is a bit overly-reductive, but the point is accurate. If McCain wanted the nomination and a real shot at winning the Republican base, option 2 was the obvious choice. And unless there were clear signs of a realigning election (which there very well may be), going politically renegade (option 1) would be suicide. Bottom line: McCain is fighting an uphill battle with a nagging leg injury (caused by a diplomat named cowboy) that will probably exhaust him somewhere around halfway up the hill. McCain will be unable to distance himself away from the President with one of the lowest approval ratings, ever.
Clinton sums up the reason why McCain will lose, in under a minute’s time. The pun is so politically pertinent, it almost seems unfair… almost.
Nicholas Horton is against mudslinging?
Can someone please help me locate my jaw?
Holy crap, did you guys seriously read this already? Its like 1:50!
Thanks for the grammar suggestion Nick, I already had that fixed. I have a few grammar hurdles that I trip up on every once in a while. intensive and intents and purposes is one of them. Perhaps we should add you on as an editor?
Denney, you might want to read the newsletter he edits before you ask him to look for grammatical errors in your writing too. Apparently he can only see an error if it’s written by an Obama supporter.
If Steve Denney makes an error, that means all his points are wrong. If Nicholas Horton or his like-minded contributors to his newsletter make a mistake, it was simply a mistake.
Change…
Clinton
Biden
Soros
Left leaning old media
Hate rather than debate
I don’t seem to understand where the change is. It looks just like 2000 and 2004…
It’s interesting that while McCain and his followers are calling for a high level of discourse and a clean campaign, he is running one of the most negative campaigns we have seen. Almost every campaign ad and the vast majority of right-wing blogs, newspapers, and pundits focus completely on attacking Obama to the exclusion of any sort of cohesive alternative.
Thanks a lot, guys. The “crap-stain” metaphor just made me burst out laughing in my cubicle and now all of my co-workers think I’ve lost my mind.
Bring out the old battle axe to do the dirty work. I love how the male leaders of the Democratic Party enjoy hiding behind her skirts, or more accurately, pantsuits. The “McSame” slogan is only effective for the converted. Her speech was largely a rally for democrats to vote democratic, not a defense of Obama’s candidacy. Judging from the “hillaryclinton.com” signs and her dynamic delivery, this speech was the launch of her 2012 campaign. To the general electorate, I believe this election will be a referendum on Obama’s leadership credentials. Criticism of his lack of experience has already been given by HRC and Biden. At an appearance yesterday, Bill Clinton alluded to this as well, suggesting that voters will vote for a more experienced candidate, even if they don’t completely agree them him/her on the issues. In classic Clinton style, he qualified it by saying this has nothing to do with the current presidential election. Yeah, right.
“It’s interesting that while McCain and his followers are calling for a high level of discourse and a clean campaign, he is running one of the most negative campaigns we have seen.”
1. This is nowhere near the most negative campaign in presidential politics (See Lincoln being called a “black gorilla”, Jefferson-Adams in 1800, Jackson and Quincy Adams in 1832, or even Kennedy-Nixon in 1960).
2. What is also interesting is that while Sen. Obama and his surrogates like to label the McCain camp as negative campaigners, Obama’s campaign has launched an equal number of negative ads. They have just done it quieter and under the radar. That’s certainly change you can believe in.
1. I wasn’t around for that any of those. Also, it seems irrelevant to my observation.
2. I’ve got no problem with negative ads. I think they are more persuasive and more interesting than positive ads. They tend to focus more on hard issues like voting records and proposals and less on fluff like waving flags, amber waves of grain and happy minority children. Also, I’m pretty sure that Obama has used way more ads overall (he has a lot more financial support from the people), but his ratio of postive-negative ads is more positive than McCain’s. I’m trying to check on this, but the only one I found so far was an NPR story that says 1/10 of Obama’s are negative and 1/3 or McCain’s are. If you find some better analysis, please link it here.
There was a lot of mud slinging against George Soros (therefore implicating Obama) in D.C. this past summer. I don’t know how many “fliers” were handed to me denouncing the financial practices and philosophical positions of Soros, but it was plenty. They connected Obama to Soros (because of campaign contributions) and accused the Democratic Party of the “same old shit.”
I’m sure there’s some truth to that, of which my post had nothing to do with. I was merely stating why McCain will lose — because he can’t shake the 3rd term tag. There is far less of a stigma (if any at all) to comparing Obama to Gore (or even Kerry) — if it were even possible to make the populace believe there was a similarity.
I suppose it’s politics as usual. Although Obama’s campaign tactics are significantly different (and obviously more effective).
I think “negative” ads are fine if all you mean by “negative” is that a candidate’s campaign is pointing out flaws in their opponent’s politics. It’s the personal stuff that I think is a shame, effective or not.
Did anyone, aside from David, happen to catch the interview with the African American lady who is beyond loyal to Clinton after her speech last night on CSPAN? If not, you missed out. If so, what do we (we as in Obama supporters) do to reach THOSE people who are passionate about Clinton and too blinded by that passion to see anyone else?
I think it was CNN. I switched over to the real network from CSPAN once the actual speeches were over. But still… interesting question…
This lady was literally crying about how much she loved Hillary and how she didn’t know if she could ever bring herself to vote for Obama. Then she named a long list of issues that matter so much to her, and all of those issues are issues that should push her right in line with Obama; however, she didn’t feel like Obama had “courted” her vote enough.
I saw another lady later on Larry King who said similar things. She said that she felt like the Obama people hanging out in the hotel lobby didn’t include her as much as they should have when she walked through wearing all of her Hillary stuff. She seemed like kind of a witch, though, so maybe it wasn’t the button on her shirt…
I didn’t notice you switching channels.. my bad =)
But really, that lady repeatedly said she wouldn’t vote for McCain, but Obama hadn’t won her over. Is she just not going to vote? Seriously? That is a bit childish, sad, and pathetic… not to mention naïve.
If the is a Reason Obama will lose emerging, it might just be that his highly touted campaign apparatus is getting spun in circles by the McCain campaign. They’re getting their asses repeatedly kicked in the day to day spin wars (is cable news really this concerned about the presumptuous aesthetic of Obama’s backdrop for his Thursday night speech? amazing), and the last few months have largely seen their candidate become increasingly defined on the GOP’s terms. I guess the real genius of the Obama primary campaign was its ground game and resource allocation (they really only had one big spin victory during the primaries, though it was indeed a big one), so maybe this shouldn’t surprise me. Hopefully David Plouffe has an equally brilliant GOTV strategy in store for Novermber, because otherwise it seems that the Chicago brain trust may have used all its creative juices a bit too soon.
Kolby, what do you say about Biden? I haven’t heard much. That seems to work against Obama (in the incessant spin wars, flip flops, and disillusions), because Biden is a long-time beltway insider with a sharp-tongue and lack of tact.
I think Biden was the best pick available. Every other feasible candidate had serious problems. Biden will be an excellent surrogate, and he may actually force McCain to pick someone with a similar resume in order to continue to claim that Biden mitigates the change message. Voters say they want more substance from Obama, but that obviously isn’t literally true. They don’t want him to give 15 point policy speeches. If he did they would be completely bored and confused. Rather, they want him to have the vague appearance of seriousness (something that the press believes Biden to have). The problems Biden poses are (to me) the reasons I think it was an enormous mistake to nominate Obama in the first place, but I think Biden makes the best of a precarious situation. I am seriously hoping for a Biden/Romney VP debate. Oh how the blood would flow…
Biden v Romney?
I would love to see that debate! Hide the women and children……
I’m pretty sure they would have to have a “cup check” with a baseball bat before that debate for the sake of safety.
For Your Enjoyment.
http://libertasexemplar.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/the-reasons-why-obama-will-lose/
Bill Clinton’s speech last night was really good, too. Hillary’s might have been more powerful and a better speech overall, but Bill’s was a lot more direct in supporting Obama without reservation. I think it will go a long way toward uniting the party, and I was frankly surprised by how the speech turned out.
I think you are overestimating the amount of Hillary voters who will go to Obama. I still don’t think the blue collar voters of Michigan and Ohio are going to flock to him. That’s a very tough sell to me.
“I think “negative” ads are fine if all you mean by “negative” is that a candidate’s campaign is pointing out flaws in their opponent’s politics. It’s the personal stuff that I think is a shame, effective or not.”
Chris Berry, I am so glad that you brought this up because it opens the door for me to ask you this: How is launching an enormous (and I might add seemingly desperate) attack campaign against Sen. McCain on the number of houses he owns any different from Sen. McCain launching an equally enormous attack campaign against Sen. Obama with regard to his close association and mentorship of the Reverand Jeremiah Wright (which I might also add that Sen. McCain vociferously condemned the republican adds doing just this during the primaries in the Carolinas)?
I have enjoyed Sen. McCain’s ads portraying Sen. Obama as nothing but a celebrity because it has brought some humor to an election process that is always constrained by seriousness. Now I am not saying that a campaign should be a joke, because the POTUS is not laughing matter. However, there is nothing wrong with, and I quite enjoy, the little bit of humor combined with the substantive policy attacks.
“It’s interesting that while McCain and his followers are calling for a high level of discourse and a clean campaign, he is running one of the most negative campaigns we have seen. Almost every campaign ad and the vast majority of right-wing blogs, newspapers, and pundits focus completely on attacking Obama to the exclusion of any sort of cohesive alternative.”
You know David, I was thinking the exact same thing about Sen. Obama and him saying that he was going to run a clean campaign with a high level of discourse, and yet he has engaged in one of the most negative campaigns we have seen and denied multiple invitations to encourage this high level of discourse through joint town hall meetings (it seems that, from multiple examples throughout this campaign, that Sen. Obama does not do so well without a teleprompter or prepared speech in front of him and especially not when he is asked tough questions). Also, I find i interesting that you are saying that the vast majority of the “media” and the McCain campaign are attacking Obama without doing anything else when the same thing is happening to Sen. McCain in reverse (although you have to admit that the media loves Obama so much more than they love McCain, and it shows through their biased reporting–CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc.). Obama is not the only one suffering from a wave of accusations and negative talk within our modern day of mass communication, so please do not play the victim game here. Those complaints fall straight to the floor where they belong. Why doesn’t Sen. Obama agree to more debates with Sen. McCain so that they can discuss the issues, and bring the media coverage back to that. Instead, Sen. Obama runs from those opportunities (only agreeing to the 3 presidential debates) and instead elects to give stump speeches that make people swoon, yet give nothing of substance. I know it is hard to present the whole truth when you completely support a candidate (trust me you are not the only one who suffers from that, on both sides of the aisle), but I do ask that you at least present the truth of both sides in order to appear as a respectable source of knowledge and information (the blog as a whole not just you David, I didn’t mean to single you out or demean you in any way by this).
I do love Bill Richardson.
100 negative ads are better than Obama’s practice of parading his daughters around on stage every chance he gets. If he can’t win on his own merits and policies, he doesn’t deserve to be president. HRC was accused of “pimping” out Chelsea, but what Obama is doing is much worse. His children are underage. They should be concerned about being little girls, and not concerned about getting the “how cute” vote for their father. I realize he’s trying to paint himself as a “family man,” but I don’t know what that has to do with running for president. I recall the Clintons were fiercely protective of Chelsea during his campaign and presidency. McCain rarely speaks of his children. The last time I heard him do so was at that Rick Warren thing when he discussed his policy on adoption and referred to his daughter, but didn’t even call her by name. What Obama is doing is despicable and speaks volumes about his character or lack there of.
Actually his daughters appearing on stage with him has been a relatively infrequent occurrence during Obama’s candidacy, and at any rate it has been far from every chance he gets. They were certainly front and center Monday night, but that is hardly unusual for a candidate of any kind. I really don’t like the seeming insatiable desire of serious partisans in this election to insist that their opponent somehow suffers from serious character defects. There are certainly aspects of politics that can appear unseemly (and perhaps they are), but why can’t we just admit that both of these guys will do absolutely anything to win and that we should vote for and against them because of how we feel about their policies? I suppose it makes one feel better to convince oneself that you are of fundamentally superior character than the evil man who would be king.
And please don’t include any reference to far left Obamaphiles who think he is the messiah in any responses. I’m not one, I know they do the same thing,and I don’t like them either.
God is going to send every one who participated in this thread straight to hell, and even then He’ll wonder if he might have gone a little soft on you.
I don’t think I’m superior to anyone nor did I call Obama evil. I disagree with the practice of using the young children of candidates as political pawns. I have frequently seen his children showcased at events. On Monday night, one MSNBC commentator admitted that every time Obama’s daughters are on stage he gets votes. I don’t think that both candidates will do ANYTHING to get elected. Yes, policies are important, but so is the character of a candidate. As a mother, I would not put my children in that position. I realize that is my personal opinion, but I feel it is a misjudgment on Obama’s part and borders on exploitation.
“Political pawns… showcased… exploitation?” Isn’t the inclusion of small children and close relatives relatively standard procedure for any politician wanting to win? Don’t confuse typical family life with that of a presidential candidates (from any party, in any election).
There’s a difference between inclusion and exploitation. Where am I confused about the difference between a typical family and the family of presidential candidates? Does running for president exclude one from being a responsible parent? There is a difference between bringing them out at the end of a speech and involving them as an element in the political machine, using them to craft your persona. If you contrast Obama’s behavior with the recent presidential campaigns of Bush (2) and Clinton, they never so flagrantly used their daughters to gain esteem from voters.
Where did I say that?
Haha, I was just trying to read through the blog and find where you had said that, Steve. I’m glad I’m not the one going crazy, there…