Thesis: The McCain messaging failed because it lacked cultural reference for the electoral middle.
One of the things that has fascinated me this cycle is how right wing and jingoistic the McCain campaign's main attack themes have felt to me. They seem to rely on secondary reference to themes that alot of America is no longer acquainted with or receptive to, a sort of shorthand of attacks.
For instance, "socialist." That seems outside the norm as an attack, especially as it was introduced without preframing and development of the idea. Or even the Ayers attack which was similarly launched without laying the groundwork of definition first. They were suddenly shouting "Ayers" and most of America had no idea what they were talking about.
It's almost like the McCain camp's messaging begins with a reliance that most of America is acquainted with, and accepting of, the right wing radio/FoxNews frame. That we're already aware of the attack lines, and that by simply recalling elements of the symbology, we will all respond in a particular way.
In theory, this could work as a code to the base, but that's not how these attacks were used. They were used as the main theme of speeches, of weeks of the campaign, and specifically targeted to swing voters. No surprise no one got it. We haven't been getting groundwork building viral emails for six months or listening to Sean Hannity.
Throughout this entire campaign they have not been able to damage Obama's "personals." You could attribute that to solid branding and continuity by the Obama campaign, but I think the larger culprit is a detachment by the McCain campaign from cultural references recognizable by the center.
It's almost like the campaign strategists are so far inside that right wing bubble that they don't recognize that they need more than shorthand references to get messaging effect.
For instance, "socialist." That seems outside the norm as an attack, especially as it was introduced without preframing and development of the idea. Or even the Ayers attack which was similarly launched without laying the groundwork of definition first. They were suddenly shouting "Ayers" and most of America had no idea what they were talking about.
It's almost like the McCain camp's messaging begins with a reliance that most of America is acquainted with, and accepting of, the right wing radio/FoxNews frame. That we're already aware of the attack lines, and that by simply recalling elements of the symbology, we will all respond in a particular way.
In theory, this could work as a code to the base, but that's not how these attacks were used. They were used as the main theme of speeches, of weeks of the campaign, and specifically targeted to swing voters. No surprise no one got it. We haven't been getting groundwork building viral emails for six months or listening to Sean Hannity.
Throughout this entire campaign they have not been able to damage Obama's "personals." You could attribute that to solid branding and continuity by the Obama campaign, but I think the larger culprit is a detachment by the McCain campaign from cultural references recognizable by the center.
It's almost like the campaign strategists are so far inside that right wing bubble that they don't recognize that they need more than shorthand references to get messaging effect.
posted by mikevotes at
1:53 PM
5 Comments:
Campaigning in the echo chamber?
McCain is a man who has outlived his time of relevance. He sees the world through the lens of the cold war and where, as I've said, the future is 1980.
On top of that McCain is at once trying to campaign as the anti-establishment, non-Republican Republican and the standard bearer or the Republican party... the uber-Republican, if you will. Confusing and disjointed. This ties in to he habit of contradicting himself, sometimes in the a single interview... the "McCain doesn't speak for the campaign" meme is born.
On the one thing that he was consistent on -- POW and Maverick -- he sold it so relentlessly and ham-handedly that it ended up being a punch line of sorts. Obama has managed to finesse his "change" message and "community organizer" message. But finesse is not something McCain knows how to do. Indeed, lack of finesse is part of his pitch.
In the end McCain hasn't been able to articulate why he would make a better president than Barack Obama. Not the the political middle in any case.
His issues patently fall flat with this group. So he's left with character... do the voters feel comfortable with him. McCain doesn't make people feel comfortable. He's sarcastic, condescending and a bit of a prick some times... He's prone to biting the hand that feeds him. He managed to turn the fawning press into a bitter ex-girlfriend. Wow.
America is so much over the cock-sure fly boy. We had our fill with W. But when it comes to leadership, that's all McCain's got. He's confused leadership -- real leadership -- with just being cock-sure of himself and damned the egg-headed experts.
As you said; McCain is running against Barack Obama, and Obama is running against the Republican brand. McCain's only job of late has been to make Obama look more unpalatable to the American public than the reality they've lived through under eight years of Republican "leadership."
By
-epm, at 3:33 PM
Please write a book on this. You've got the sources down, and the mechanics in relation to the Rovian playbook.
It would be a seminal work on dirty and negative campaigning. Similar to Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" and it's relation to propaganda.
By
matt, at 4:04 PM
EPM, I heard someone the other day say that Palin was the perfect candidate.... for 1984.
Also, that's a really good point about his message being broken by trying to run as both outsider and basepleasing Republican.
And, "experience" is the core of his character argument, and his selection of Palin as well as the erratic campaigning has completely undermined both. Thus the definition of McCain is broken, so nobody's comfortable with it.
...
Matt, thanks. Frankly, I can only write about blog post length before it digresses into nonsense.
By
mikevotes, at 4:25 PM
It's almost like the McCain camp's messaging begins with a reliance that most of America is acquainted with, and accepting of, the right wing radio/FoxNews frame.
Absolutely agree with your thesis here.
Republicans, across the board, genuinely believe that "base appeals" work on those out side of their base.
This is because they still live in 2004, when the majority beleived virtually anything they said.
It's almost like the campaign strategists are so far inside that right wing bubble that they don't recognize that they need more than shorthand references to get messaging effect.
Again, spot on.
The Republican organisational mentality is radically different from that of the Democrats. The GOP is extremely "top-down", and any kind of independent expression is considered "off message" and outside your pay grade.
It's this "group-think" that colours their perception of those outside their bubble. Thus, "everyone knows", in their view, that Obama is a Marxist - it's just that the "liberal media" has assured them that it's nothing to be worried about. They begin with the premise that people agree with them, and they believe that if they stand up for those views in public, then people will reject the "liberal media narrative".
Because everyone hates the media, right?
I hope you explore this further as we see post-election analysis.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:21 AM
And, I understand if the rank and file do it, but the national campaign people are supposed to know better. They're supposed to have focus groups and polling on all this stuff, but either they don't, their methodology is screwed way up, or they're ignoring them.
I think that last big paragraph probably sums it up better than I did.
By
mikevotes, at 10:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home