Why Democrats Lose Elections
Exhibit Q-13.
Andrew Sullivan, who I’ll probably put back on the blogroll pretty soon (he’s still pretty off his nut and lost in campaign fugue, but not being as actively shrill as he was for a couple of weeks there), has an interesting reader email he posted that’s touched off an interesting debate in liberal bloggy circles. Part of the email:
It also occurs to me that in a way McCain and Rove have actually simply taken over the liberal blogosphere in some way. They are being played.
Just a few examples—yesterday Obama gave a fantastic interview at the Service Forum. Did the liberal blogs even cover this? No.
He gave a great speech on the trail. Are his town halls even posted or excerpted? No.
The liberal bloggers have become McCain central. They make people click on his ads, make the world spin around him instead of focusing on our candidate and what he is trying to do. There is ZERO coverage of what Obama is actually doing every day talking tough on the issues. There is ZERO coverage of Biden (who is on the trail but the blogs don’t seem to care or cover him unless he is doing what they think he should be doing. Sadly AFP did cover him this week and people seemed to be too busy saying he was not doing anything to include the link with his forceful comments against McCain. The one time the blogs linked to Biden—when the MSM tried to make a big deal out his answer to a question that made Hillary look bad and he defended her. That was it).
McCain and crew realized early this cycle that they did not have a visible internet presence. So what did they do? They took over the liberal presence, they are manipulating the leading liberal blogs, just as they manipulate the MSM. All to their own advantage. And the blogs have all fallen for this hook, line and sinker. Does no one realize this?
At the risk of knowing James is going to agree with me, I think Sully’s reader is exactly right. I don’t think Rove has anything to do with it, and I don’t even think it’s an active decision on anyone’s part, I think it’s just Pavlovian on the part of both desperate Republican strategists and more-invested-than-is-probably-healthy (and that’s coming from me) liberal activist types. Adam touched on it earlier, but since I realize most people don’t read Adam’s posts, it’s worth reiterating. And frankly, what Sullivan isn’t quite getting is his own hysteria about Palin made him just as guilty, piling it on so thick so as to almost guarantee a triggering of the sympathy and rooting-for-the-underdog switch in the brains of Americans. Or the case of the lipstick on a pig thing. That was self-evidently ridiculous—how much of a word count did it really need on the part of Obama supporters to keep jabbing the finger at it?
Some are taking it to heart and catching on. And though the Obama campaign has been faltering on this point this week, mostly they’ve been almost shockingly zen-like and long-view oriented about this stuff.
You know the Obama that really impressed me? The Obama that ran against Alan Keyes. He did not ignore Alan Keyes, he did not let Alan Keyes get by on his bullshit unchallenged, but likewise, at the end of the day, he made a decision to not be overly preoccupied with whatever fucking blather happened to be coming out of Alan Keyes’ mouth on any given day. Alan Keyes would say some dumb fucking thing, Obama would quickly smack it down and then move on, leaving Keyes sputtering to get back on top of the topic that was already two days old. In the end, Keyes felt like he had to out-crazy himself just to get a rise, so he did, and it didn’t work, and he just buried himself, and Obama was absolutely untouched.
That’s the Obama that’s going to win the election. Obama + 10 million shrieking Howard Dean brigadiersmen are most certainly not.
Obama needs to treat John McCain the way he treated Alan Keyes. Because neither are worth taking too seriously or getting too preoccupied about carrying on the way he currently is. Obama’s got more important shit to worry about than whatever bit of minutiae of Sarah Palin’s record some blogger can drum up that nobody but other liberal bloggers is going to read, or whatever on-the-face of it ridiculous attack McCain and company come up with. At this point, the McCain campaign is not worth taking too seriously or getting too preoccupied with. You don’t role over and ignore them. You point out cleanly and severely their error, and you do that once, and you move, and make sure that you spend the rest of the time pushing your game. If there’s one kiss of death for a candidate, it’s when nobody takes them seriously anymore, when they become irrelevant to the contest at hand. It’s not when they have an army of fact-checkers parsing their every statement with the redundancy of a million monkeys sitting at a million typewriters and all typing the same fucking thing. All that means for them is free TV time and their guys being invited back on the programs to provide a “fair and balanced” perspective while whatever other message you have gets lost in the noise.
The McCain campaign is being clever, almost downright brilliant, in the sense of the old saying, “there is no such thing as bad publicity.”
To the extent this race is about the issues, McCain loses and loses badly. So anything, absolutely anything, that keeps the debate from being about the issues works to McCain’s advantage.
Even telling lies about Palin that they know will eventually be exposed, even to the point of embarassing themselves over their hilarious “lipstick on a pig” faux indignation, etc. All of it is still better than the alternative: discussing the issues.
I expect the debates will put a stop to this. But for now it’s the best the McCain camp can do.
Comment by KipEsquire — 9/12/2008 @ 10:55 pm
Actually, I agree. Which is sad, as I think McCain could have formulated a campaign based on issues, a genuine (not a peon) “return to conservative form” sort of thing. Unfortunately, he’s pretty clearly chosen not to, and sadder still, I think that decision was because they figured there’s no way they could win unless they made it all about what a shitty scary person Barack Obama is.
Here’s the thing though: as you say, these things can work in the heat of the last days of a campaign sort of way. But it’s September, and if McCain spends the bulk of it dispatching ridiculous attacks and nothing else, and having those attacks depth-charged by…well, by reality time and time again, that’s not good for business. I think the McCain campaign is running right up to the line of losing all credibility and just starting to come off cartoonish, and for their sake’s I hope they know where that line is (I strongly suspect they don’t). For as much as I’m railing above on Barack’s online supporters drowning out to some extent Barack himself, there might be a case for McCain—but McCain himself is the one drowning it out. And Barack, though he’s getting beat up a bit in the short term news cycles, isn’t really suffering any long term damage (unless anyone thinks that the lipstick thing or the sex ed video are doing permanent damage to his reputation in the way “Howard Dean is crazy” or “John Kerry lied about Vietnam” did to them). John McCain isn’t making a good case against Obama, he’s just making a loud case, and the one can’t always substitute for the other. Being tough in a campaign is a lot different than just being a nuisance.
Comment by Brad — 9/12/2008 @ 11:16 pm
Why does McCain lose and lose badly on the issues? Is McCain on the verge of losing all credibility? Who exactly answers these questions immediately in the affirmative that McCain is trying to target? McCain may be acting like a clown, but Obama looks immature when his legions chase the clown into the Teutoburg Forest. By the time the democrats recover, they fall back on the assumption that they can seize the narrative and win on issues (which they probably should), and saunter unprepared up to the table. But the republicans got out the trees first, defining ‘issues’ primarily as an energy policy debate between Palin and Biden, and an experience/Surge exchange between John and Barack.
I would put forward that democrats who are not named Bill Clinton always lose because they float like a bee and sting like a butterfly. They mis-diagnose and mis-time their opponents’ moves remarkably well. Part of that, I think, is that they would reflexively, unthinkingly answer yes to the the first two questions — and everybody knew they would.
Comment by Camillus — 9/13/2008 @ 2:14 pm
The short answer?
Because McCain looks more like a clown than Obama does immature.
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 4:46 pm
Your short answer you mean.
Comment by James — 9/13/2008 @ 5:06 pm
Gallup says that 45% of the people would agree with your short answer. The problem is 50% would have agreed a couple weeks ago.
Comment by Camillus — 9/13/2008 @ 6:45 pm
That would be the nature of the aforementioned short term gains. I think the conversation we’re having is about sustainability.
But here’s a question, you sound like a voter pretty disinclined towards Obama and pretty inclined towards McCain. Have you found the arguments against Obama in the last week to be persuasive? Has it influenced your vote?
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 7:17 pm
Here is the danger, Camillus.
And more.
I mean, when the girls of The View call you a liar to your face, there’s a real danger that you’re creating a negative impression and that the idea that you’re basically full of shit is solidifying. It’s one thing to do this in the last week of October. But to do it through August and September?
Comment by Brad — 9/13/2008 @ 9:21 pm
I guess I have become a little disinclined towards Obama, though a couple months ago when you described yourself as 40% McCain, 40% Obama, 20% ‘other’ I felt almost exactly the same. It’s very interesting to read your posts as I drift to the opposite corner. . .
I liked your original post and was a little thrown off by your comment that the McCain camp was close to losing all credibility. I didn’t get that at all, even though I didn’t like the intellectual dishonesty of the ads. I hadn’t as yet digested these blowbacks you listed. You’re right, though — if I narrow the picture to just the last three days, rather the the last two weeks as a whole, McCain is just asking to be labeled badly. I’m real interested in seeing if these opinions stick and harden among independents. Even if they’re right, it’s hard to take the NYT, the Post, and Kos at face value if you’re already leaning towards McCain (or Palin).
I just don’t feel immediately uneasy about McCain acting silly. Not that this opinion will hold, necessarily. I get more worried about him acting senile, or losing his temper, or altering the lyrics of songs in a paean to WWIII. With Obama (who is asking for a big leap of faith, after all), I am wary of someone in over his head – making tactical blunders, being thin-skinned, getting off message. Obama just hit those red flags, for me, lately. Whatever else, a Clinton wouldn’t be getting thrown off their game like Obama has the last two weeks.
Comment by Camillus — 9/14/2008 @ 2:32 am
Thrown off their game, what like being impeached? Not chosen as presidential candidate? Or just maintaining hairstyle?
Comment by fred — 9/14/2008 @ 7:13 am
They are just dazzled by my brilliance.
And as for winning on the issues, I think that McCain’s pretty strong on the issues (even where the answers aren’t what people like to hear) and what Obama’s killing him with is ‘change’, whatever the change might be. Much as our reader weltschmerz is convinced that Obama’s a sekrit atheist, it seems to me that lots of people can project onto Obama’s blank slate whatever they want to see by way of change, short-circuiting the issues. On the other hand, McCain has his own advantages, chiefly including his military service. The electoral context, in which the Republican brand is really devalued, favours Obama and feeds the ‘change’ enthusiasm. I think, alas, that Obama’s going to win, but it’s an interesting fight in the meantime.
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 3:12 pm
I didn’t take him off the blogroll, but I don’t think he’s improved a great deal (was just reading it) and as for actual analysis, there’s basically none. It’s a real shame, as I had really like the Daily Dish. It’s a lot more depressing to read than, say, Michelle Malkin, because I never liked her blog but I liked Sully’s.
Comment by Adam — 9/14/2008 @ 4:27 pm
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/14/111845/605/648/598375
This DailyKos post is along the same lines as that Sullivan comment, and makes a lot of sense.
Comment by ericrrr — 9/14/2008 @ 5:02 pm
I sort of anticipated the “New York Times is liberal!” response, which is why I included Dallas Morning News, etc. The fact is though, when the New York Times and the Washington Post are both running a story outlining the same idea (”McCain Sure is Lying a Lot”), it’s out there. When one of the dominant narratives in mid-September is “McCain Campaign – Full of Lies?”, you’re walking a thin line. It’s not just me.
Some more:
Etc. etc. etc…
…and then the outright mocking begins…
Comment by Brad — 9/14/2008 @ 7:07 pm