Fit to be Tied

Absolutely - because the differences in Obama and Hillary's policies were so minute, you couldn't articulate them in 30 second sound bites. You'll also remember I said the issue discussions would start in the general election, because that's when the two candidates would have wide gaps and you could talk about the different philosophies.

Obama and McCain can talk about whether universal healthcare is worth the cost or whether taxes should be raised on the wealthy to cut the budget deficit, Obama and Hillary couldn't talk about whether it was more efficient to raise this tax rate 2% or that tax 3% because no one would have a clue what's going on.

The GOP primary was a little more about issues, but only because McCain and Huckabee disagreed with the traditional GOP platform in a lot of ways. So there was more basic variance on the economy and on immigration, etc. The Dem primary had no such differences - so you couldn't talk about issues.

 

August is the month when the GOP will throw their best punch at Obama. They will also try to break his kneecaps and machine gun him into swiss cheese. Remember how August 2004 treated John Kerry. I firmly believe Obama's image will be different in 4 weeks from what it is now. He will either be tattered, wounded and beaten down as the GOP successfully defines him in some negative way(s) or he will be seen as a tough hombre who took their best shot and proved he was ready to be President of the United States.

The GOP offensive has just begin. It will get worse very soon. Too bad McCain has no qualms rolling in the mud with the same people who destroyed him in 2004.

 

McCain's campaign manager, talking about smear campaigns in 2004:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/

The anatomy of a smear campaign


Every presidential campaign has its share of hard-ball political tactics, but nothing is more discomforting than a smear campaign. The deeply personal, usually anonymous allegations that make up a smear campaign are aimed at a candidate's most precious asset: his reputation. The reason this blackest of the dark arts is likely to continue is simple: It often works.

The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don't agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter's basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate's natural supporters.

All campaigns do extensive research into their opponent's voting record and personal life. This so-called "oppo research" involves searching databases, combing through press clips, and asking questions of people who know (and preferably dislike) your opponent. It's not hard to turn up something a candidate would rather not see on the front page of The Boston Globe.

It's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness.

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

Campaigns have various ways of dealing with smears. They can refute the lies, or they can ignore them and run the risk of the smear spreading. But "if you're responding, you're losing." Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues.

We chose to address the attacks by trying to get the media to focus on the dishonesty of the allegations and to find out who was making them. We also pledged to raise the level of debate by refusing to run any further negative ads -- a promise we kept, though it probably cost us the race. We never did find out who perpetrated these smears, but they worked: We lost South Carolina by a wide margin.

The only way to stop the expected mud-slinging in 2004 is for both President Bush and Senator Kerry to publicly order their supporters not to go there. But if they do, their behavior would be the exception, not the rule.

Richard H. Davis is president of the Reform Institute and a partner in Davis Manafort, a political consulting firm. He was a fellow at Harvard's Institute of Politics in 2002. He was campaign manager for John McCain in 2000 and has worked in every presidential campaign since 1980.


Sounds just like what the McCain campaign - and the T_J/bigtexxx's of the world here - are attempting.

 

As someone who attempted to support both Democratis candidates during the primaries, something that proved to be an exercise in futility here, I just wanted to say that I found the part of your post bolded to be both offensive and untrue.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

Really? So when the early race talk had died down, Clinton just accidentally would come out and say things like "hard working White Americans" while in the heart of the most racially divided part of the country? Who do you feel polarizing the race between white and black helped? And if the Clintons didn't want the media to keep talking race, why did they constantly bring it up in conference calls and press releases?

Again, like the McCain camp, you'd have to assume that Clinton and her staff are extremely stupid if they didn't want the media talking race, while at the same time constantly bringing it up in their press statements and conference calls (mostly as accusations that the other side is race-baiting, which is odd, given that Obama already had all the black vote). If you don't want to talk about race, the easiest way to do it is to not bring it up.

You really don't think statements like this:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Were meant to get the media to talk about race?

 

I think Major already spoke my thoughts about the differences in issues between Clinton and Obama, but there is a huge difference in issues with McCain.

however leadership style, and the change is also important. With McCain where there is more difference on the issues, it becomes more important to get that out there, in addition talk can also be about change, and leadership style etc.

 

You are absolutely right. And you know what - it's not just a test for Obama. I actually don't mind the smear campaign against him. If he would be such a great president, than he should be able to overcome it.

And if the American people can see through it, than they deserve that they get.

 

I think you made an extremely broad statement that implied that the Clinton campaign was about "race."

"I don't think McCain played the race card - but he wants the talk to be about race, just as the Clinton camp did."

Just what the heck is that supposed to mean, Major? Could you make a statement any broader than that? I don't recall her campaign "being about race." Yes, there were some "stupid" comments made by her, and there was a comment made by Bill that was used by the Obama campaign, if not by Obama himself, to smear Bill and to smear Hillary, simply by association.

I fail to see why you feel the need to bring up Hillary Clinton and slam her when talking about John McCain, which is what you did. I simply don't get it. If appealing to those who like the Clintons, about 18 million Democrats, at last count, is something ardent Obama supporters desire, you are going about it in an ass-backwards way, with all due respect.


Impeach Bush.

 

I compared the races because there are similarities there. Obama-Clinton and Obama-McCain are the two most high profile political races we've had in the past year, and the tactics used are relevant in that we saw what did and didn't work in the Clinton race, and that will affect what is and isn't used by the McCain camp. I never said her campaign was about race - I said that both the Clinton camp and the McCain camp have done things that they KNEW would spark conversations in the media about race. And they were done in order to benefit their campaigns. No, they weren't just stupid things they said - these are extremely skilled politicians. You really think they were all accidents? Bill Clinton didn't accidentally mention Jesse Jackson as a comparison for Obama - unless you believe the Clintons are enormously stupid, he knew exactly what would result from things like that. There are several of these things, from the "imaginary hip black friend" to "hard working Americans, White Americans". It wasn't an accident.

In the Clinton race, the effect of putting race out in the media was to polarize the electorate. The Clintons just had to mention it once - then the media would cover it for days. Obama's white vote went down; his black vote went up. But if you assume Obama already has the majority of the black vote, the upside there is extremely limited. Maybe it was just one big coincidence - the Clintons made mistakes over and over and it just happened to benefit them - but that's selling them short. They understand politics and they knew exactly the result of that. Now, the McCain camp is doing something similar - they just mentioned it one morning, and it gets coverage for days. You don't have to like it, but that doesn't change the facts. You can keep pretending Clinton ran a squeaky clean campaign and didn't pull any stunts and that no one should ever mention anything negative about the campaign or whatever you want - but I certainly won't, and we'll end up arguing over it again somewhere.

As far as appealing to Clinton supporters - I could care less about that. If someone is not going to vote for Obama or McCain or Clinton or anyone else because they don't like a random supporter of his or hers, they are a shallow voter anyway. I'm much more interested in analyzing the race looking at all the factors at play.

 

Deckard - for what it's worth, this has nothing to do specifically with Clinton. I like (or liked) McCain a lot. I think there's plenty to criticize Obama on, especially for progressives. I will be the first to criticize Obama (or McCain) if he gets elected and does stupid things, as I did with Pelosi/Reid after they went off course taking over Congress. I have no loyalty to any politician or party here - I call it as I see it, as someone who values the middle road and finding common sense solutions that people from both parties can agree to.

 

Yes, it does look like McCain's slander campaign seems to be working. We'll see if it's a trend or just a blip.

 

continuing slandering your opponents position while not taking one of your own isn't taking a position

 

Obama is not in a very good position right now. To say the least.

 

If McCain's smear campaign works, I will lose a lot of respect for Americans in the heartland for being so easily manipulated.

 

Just like 4 years ago. This is why I said the early overconfidence of some Obama supporters was silly. The difference between now and 4 years ago is the GOP candidate himself is directly tied to the ads, which shocks me.

 

As i read in an opinion piece, Obama needs to do the same thing McCain is doing - and hit back really hard.

1. Show McCain talking to an empty stadium and say "there's a reason no one is listening to John McCain" And then talk about all his "experience" - and experience of failure - how he sold out standing up for people to be like Bush. Yes he has the experience. But is it the right experience? Then show his quote where he admits not knowing anythign about economics.

2. Show Karl Rove and Bush and then show McCain and his team. And then say, "The people who brough us 8 years of failure are now bringing you John McCain". "Do you really want to trust them again?"

 

I think the Rasmussen poll is useful because it finally represents a breakthrough. We'll see, but I suspect McCain's "bottom" will be higher now in that poll for at least the next few weeks.

That said, these polls miss two huge factors that I think, to a large extent, makes them irrelevant:

1. The enthusiam gap. None of these polls measure how likely a voter is to actually go out and vote. The do measure "likely" voters based on historical demographic patterns, but they don't account for the fact that Dems and Obama voters are more excited about their candidate than McCain. You saw it in the primaries with Dem primary voters outnumbering GOP primary voters 2:1 even in GOP states. None of these polls have a way to account for that.

2. The ground operation. The Obama campaign has the largest ground campaign in history. How much impact this really has in the long-term is unclear. But their field offices and GOTV operation is far more widespread than the McCain campaign. These polls again can't measure that impact in any meaningful way.

I still think there are only three ways Obama loses: (1) if he leaves McCain an opening with a woman VP; (2) if he makes a huge blunder of some sort; (3) if there's a game-changing event like a terrorist attack, in which case the whole election becomes unpredictable.

Here's a good story on the Obama ground operation:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/organizing-update.html


Organizing Update

“The largest field operation in the history of American politics.”
- Boston Globe, July 19, 2008

As August begins, the Obama campaign is nearing completion of its final round field organizer hires. In our last update, we noted the eye-popping plans for Missouri, Michigan, Ohio and Iowa. Since then, a patchwork of reports have trickled in about offices and numbers of paid staff expected in several other key states, including Wisconsin, Alaska, Montana, Virginia, Florida and Pennsylvania.

Understandably, the campaign has been tight-lipped about its exact strategy, though federal campaign finance disclosure requirements will eventually reveal where salaries are going. Since final hires are only now being completed, we should have a good picture of the whole tableau sometime in September after the August filings.

In Alaska, Obama has four field offices open (Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Palmer) to McCain’s none. In Montana, Obama had six offices to McCain’s none in July, with reports that McCain would open five offices by August 1.

In Virginia, Obama has a 20-6 field office edge, with as many as 60 expected to be open in the near future. Via the widely-linked Boston Globe piece from whence the opening quote comes, each of Florida and Pennsylvania Obama is expected to have a minimum of 200 paid organizers.

In Wisconsin, Obama has 15 offices open now, with 24 expected to be open by mid-August. The staffers are directly paid by Obama’s “Campaign for Change” organization. By contrast, Republicans have five party offices open that handle both McCain field work as well as the state leg. races, which somewhat dilutes the effort.

This may seem like a trivial distinction, but it’s actually a story we’re keeping an eye on. Though our idea about the timetable of campaign ramp-ups has been distorted by this nearly two-year presidential ordeal, most local races and even most congressional races are only barely beginning to coordinate their own field efforts. In this respect, it is unclear on the Obama side how the traditional coordination between presidential race field staff and downballot candidates will be carried off. The traditional vehicle is the coordinated campaign which can be funded by the national committees not subject to the same strict caps on individual contributions. This story will probably ripen post-convention when most of the other local campaigns begin to kick into gear.

As for the Obama-McCain matchup, it’s clear the campaigns are playing a game of chicken. Republicans are confident that no amount of organizing will move states like North Dakota, Alaska and Montana into the Democratic presidential column and that if those states do flip, the issue of winning the national election will be moot anyway. Local articles discussing each campaign’s efforts in the given state tend to be full of quotes from Democrats that the state will be heavily contended and may well flip; Republican counterquotes discuss how "wasteful" (see the Virginia article) the mass field operation reveals the Obama campaign to be and express confidence that nothing will change the inevitable McCain win in the state.

Republicans are banking on the principle that undergirds the Tipping Point states concept – if McCain is losing any of Alaska, North Dakota or Montana, they are losing the overall election (you’ll note that as of today, none of these states are in our top 15 Tipping Point states). Thus, it is rational to not waste resources defending states that will only matter in the event of a McCain loss.

We will keep an eye on the tension between both presidential campaigns and their downballot compatriots. Both dynamics have the potential for tension and discontent, albeit for different reasons. Downballot Democrats may discover that their access to voter files is restricted by an all-Obama controlled organization (as of yet TBD whether this is true) and may have to trustfall that heavy Obama organizing energy is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Downballot Republicans in red states where McCain is playing chicken by not placing field staff may be distressed that they are left exposed to the Democratic energy and heavy registration of new Democratic voters.

Montana will be a very interesting place to watch this downballot contrast play out. As mentioned in the original Brian Schweitzer VP post, the Montana House in 2007 was 51-49 Republican (one Constitution Party member caucuses with Rs) and the state Senate held a 26-24 Democratic edge. Given the term limits kicking in this year, Dems were looking at an uphill battle to retain the split. If Obama’s paid organizers outnumber Republicans in Montana by one of these 10-1 ratios we’re seeing in states like Missouri, even if they don’t directly talk to voters about the local races, the increased number of Democratic voters may overcome the disadvantage it appeared Democrats would face in the state leg. races this cycle.

At the end of the day, this organizing story was why Obama was never, ever going to be vulnerable to superdelegates overturning his pledged delegate win. Red state Democrats have understood that the "focus on a few battleground states and ignore the rest" strategy leaves them in dire straits during national cycle years. Hillary Clinton would have inspired heaviest backlash turnout by the Republican base in precisely these red states, and Clinton's campaign would not have followed the Obama 50-state strategy.

Though folks like Nate and I spent much energy during the primary explaining why proportional allocation locked in an Obama pledged delegate win by February, fewer observers grasped or were open to seeing the obvious truth that the red state superdelegates saw clearly - an Obama candidacy was going to approach organizing on their home turfs in a diametrically opposite and positive way than Hillary Clinton's campaign would have. Even if the technical coordination between the Obama staffs and downballot candidates winds up being awkward, awkward big resource effort beats a resource vacuum. There was a 0.0000000% chance the supers would have overturned the pledged outcome for precisely this nuts-and-bolts reason: the largest field operation in the history of American politics was coming down the pike.