Picture of the Day
Not to be too literal here, but does the McCain camp really want to compete on Obama's man and most successful branding element?
Do they expect to take "change" away from him or are they aiming for an implied contrast that Obama won't get anything done?
posted by mikevotes at
8:12 AM
12 Comments:
I've always found McCain, with his snide insults and almost childish fits of pique, to be a rather small man. At least as a candidate and campaigner.
Then I got to thinking. "Hey, he's kinda small physically too. Kinda short." The debates will pair up 6'2" Obama with 5'7" McCain. That, and the differences in age and grace, will make for some interesting TV. The likes of which we haven't seen since 1960.
By
-epm, at 9:37 AM
The main thing to me is the s"look what I did" smirk and frequent wink into the crowd when he delivers a line. It makes them feel really weird.
And, yes, but part of the debate negotiations is sitting/standing, podium height and all that, so yeah, there will be a difference, but some of it will be mitigated.
By
mikevotes, at 10:35 AM
Yes, they do expect to take Change away. Straight outta the Rove playbook, you attack their biggest strength. It's easy: "Change? What has Obama really changed? Maverick McCain means change!"
Might sound weak to you, but it sows doubt in mainstream voters. And they have bought Republicans as the Outsider Party for the last 44 years.
Under Rove/Schmidt, the Dems would attack McCain's POW trump card. "John McCain gave the Vietnamese the bombing routes and schedules, allowing them to shoot down 200 US planes. He betrayed his fellow airmen and then posed as a hero." (It's true, and it would work.)
By
MarcLord, at 12:35 PM
The thing is that that is the core Obama brand, and Clinton, who had a much more viable shot at it, never came close.
This isn't some little effort, it's the main thrust of his convention speech, the biggest moment they have to try this out.
By
mikevotes, at 1:12 PM
Picking up on Mike's mention of Clinton, I'm beginning to appreciate the long Dem primary season. That Klinton Kitchen Sink undoubtably sharpened the Obama team's skills.
McCain continues to look like a candidate devoid of originality; on issues and on his attack campaign.
I wouldn't under estimate the Roveians. However, the only have one playbook -- that they've used over and over -- and I think it's effectiveness has faded tremendously.
By
-epm, at 1:58 PM
I still don't know about that EPM. I nice tight unifying clinch in March or April would have made Obama's ride alot easier through the summer. There wouldn't have been the constant undermining harping about the Clinton supporters.
And the difference this time is that the Rovian playbook works when your party is in the ascension, but is much harder when they're shrinking. It helps feed the hostility, but you start to have trouble making the partisan numbers work.
By
mikevotes, at 3:29 PM
The long primary was a double edged sword. No doubt about it. But I do think it sharpened the skills of Obama's people; to deflect attacks, stay focused, and respond with effectiveness. Also, McCain is using many of the attack lines the Clinton campaign did. So to some degree this isn't new territory for them.
I haven't spent much time considering how the negatives of the long campaign affect, or do not affect, where Obama stands today in the polls. I think it's blunted some of McCain's attack effectiveness because voters have heard all this before and Obama has addressed all this before. That's part of the reason why Palin's pick shook up the media.
In a campaign season that had a fair amount of politicking predictability going forward, the Palin pick was a WTF moment. It had people going back and reworking their prognostications in a way that the Biden announcement did not.
Maybe I'm naive and just looking for a silver lining. Maybe the long primary was/is really a net negative for Obama. I'm just exploring a possible positive angle. You know?
By
-epm, at 3:48 PM
Okay, I'll buy there was some innoculation, but that divided Dems thing was just a cancer on Obama's message throughout the summer.
It put Dems on TV talking about what was wrong with him, that's very undermining and it left a whole lot of Dems as tepid supporters.
(And if you want another positive, it really did build out his ground game in a couple of those states that now matter, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Of course it also meant he spent alot of money nd effort in states he now has no chance in.)
By
mikevotes, at 4:09 PM
mike--the Pugs own the Outside Party brand since 1960. It's Obama who's trying to take the brand away from them and reform his party for 30 years going forward. He is looking at the future in Lincolnesque terms.
epm--another positive angle, for fun, is that the New Democrats are Open Sourced. The Old Republicans are Lock-Steppers.
By
MarcLord, at 4:20 PM
I understand what you're saying, beause that was the run in the old machine dem congress days, recalled in 94, but this year, no.
By
mikevotes, at 5:48 PM
It's easy: "Change? What has Obama really changed? Maverick McCain means change!"
If Obama were an incumbent, that might work, but he's not.
McCain is, after all, the guy who has been in the Senate 26 years. If he was so big about change, and so good at achieving it, then why are we where we are at now? Listening to his speech, it seemed as if the Republicans had been out of power for the past 8 years.
Judging by the reactions to some of his points, the Republicans have deeper divisions than the Democrats do. The difference is that Republicans are very good about doing as they are told.
Looking at the big picture, the Republicans selected a nominee that either rejects or weakly supports most of their core principles. They did this so that they could win, because nobody could be elected by standing on those core principles. However, Republicans see a McCain victory as some kind of validation of those core principles...which is just weird.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 7:45 PM
Todd, I'm waiting for that ad.
Also the semi-mocking moment when the Obama camp asks "which party do you trust to work on economics for the middle class? which party do you trust on healthcare? John McCain....."
But what's weird is that he's now trying to embrace all those policy points.
I've got a post for tomorrow morning that I think you''l like alot.
By
mikevotes, at 9:17 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home