Playing Not To Lose
Posted on October 15th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Equally, “constructing” a “narrative” of Obama as a “lightweight celebrity” was a strategy that depended upon Obama showing himself to be nothing more than a lightweight celebrity candidate. But what if he showed more than that? What would the McCain campaign do then? In other words, McCain’s strategy depended upon Obama failing, not McCain succeeding. As such it was vulnerable. Indeed, it was predicated upon an analysis that was not the GOP’s to control. ~Alex Massie
This is an important point. There is a basic rule in any competition, and elections are no different. If you assume that all you really need do is show up and wait for the other side to fail, you will lose and probably quite embarrassingly at that. McCain never made the case for himself, because he assumed that he would be the default winner once the public decided Obama was unprepared. Whether or not Obama is unprepared by some standards is not the point. Relative to McCain, he has shown himself to be fairly masterful while his opponent blunders and lurches. Despite having every advantage in the political conditions this year, Obama has not taken those advantages for granted nearly as much as he could have done. The post-nomination pandering and position-switching, all of which now seems to have been quite unnecessary, were part of a steady, cautious effort to appear cautious and steady, which gave calls for undefined change a reassuring rather than an unsettling quality and negated McCain’s efforts to portray him as reckless and unready.
What is striking about McCain’s failure is how irrational it was to approach an election this way amid conditions that everyone acknowledged to be very good for Democrats. It might make sense to coast along on biography and belittling your opponent’s readiness and depth in a year when you have the wind at your back, a coherent message and a party label that is not radioactive, but McCain had none of these advantages. Gordon Brown, a similarly doomed political figure, also likes the refrain “it’s no time for a novice” as a dig against Cameron, but after years of failure by the experienced politicians you would naturally think this is precisely the time for some new blood. McCain supporters are always dwelling on Obama’s inexperience. This would be fair enough, but we see now that it isn’t very smart, because each time this charge is made people are reminded that he hasn’t been in Washington very long, to which the ordinary sane response is to say, “Excellent.”
As for being ambushed, as Gerson puts it, no one put a gun to McCain’s head and demanded that he talk senselessly about earmark reform and the “surge” for half of the campaign. No one forced him to have no message beyond calls for generic reform against stereotypical corruption. The lack of policy detail, indeed lack of policy knowledge, the ad hoc, day-by-day planning, the utter disorganization in the campaign, the obsession with scoring tactical victories, and the endless sanctimony, all of which have crippled the McCain campaign’s ability to communicate a consistent, clear argument for his candidacy and build a successful “ground game,” are all reflections of who McCain is. Let’s also remember that if McCain had been allowed his true desire, he apparently would have chosen Lieberman as a running mate, which would have been the single greatest act of political self-immolation ever. When choosing Sarah Palin is the smart, safe alternative, there is something fundamentally screwy in the candidate’s ability to make decisions.
Perhaps most remarkable about the attempt to potray Obama as a lightweight celebrity is how true of McCain that description now seems to be.
P.S. As Mr. Massie noted, playing not to lose had worked for McCain in the primaries against other Republicans, which I think ought to lead us to render a pretty harsh assessment of the weakness of the GOP primary field. McCain has demonstrated over the last almost two years that his main qualities are persistence and an ability to surprise. Had his most capable opponent, Huckabee, ever had any resources, McCain would have lost, and had Romney been even remotely credible he would have wiped the floor with McCain. As it was, McCain managed to hold off Huckabee, whose campaign structure was not so much disorganized as non-existent, and just barely edged out Romney and his millions in Florida. Once he had a politically talented, reasonably well-informed and well-funded candidate, as he would have had in either eventual Democratic nominee, the writing was on the wall and McCain was definitely found wanting.
Filed under: politics
Excellent point. Another example of McCain’s disorganization and heedlessness is the promise he made yesterday to attack Obama with the Ayers/terrorist charge in the debate tonight. Even if you think this charge has substance, surely announcing the attack before launching it isn’t a great move tactically. Yet McCain never seems to consider that Obama might be able to throw a punch or two himself. No wonder he’s flailing. He literally doesn’t know what’s hitting him.
‘McCain never made the case for himself, because he assumed that he would be the default winner once the public decided Obama was unprepared’
Correction: ‘once the public realized Obama was black’.
I still don’t think Obama will win and it’s for that reason. If the dem candidate was white (but not Hillary) McCain would have conceeded already.
“Once he had a politically talented, reasonably well-informed and well-funded candidate, as he would have had in either eventual Democratic nominee, the writing was on the wall and McCain was definitely found wanting.”
Maybe. I don’t know, though. I think that if Hillary Clinton had edged out a victory in the Dem primary, the dynamics of the race would have been very different and more in McCain’s favor. For one thing, a Clinton win would have ignited the GOP based faster than a lightning strike in a field of dry California grass. All the volunteers and funds he got after the Palin nomination would have started coming in much earlier — and there would have been no need to tap the Alaska gov. Instead he could have played to moderates and independents with the selection of someone like Lieberman (what’s the base gonna do, vote for a Clinton? Ha!). You’re probably right that his poor preparation and campaigning would have caught up with him in the end, but still…I just don’t know.
If he had chosen Lieberman, his campaign would have gone up in flames faster than Zozobra. Besides demoralizing a lot of Republicans, the choice would have declared to the world, “Yes, we are crazy warmongers.” Even Hillary “Obliterate Iran” Clinton would look reasonable next to those two.
rawshark,
That would be the mother of all Bradley effects.
Instead he could have played to moderates and independents with the selection of someone like Lieberman (what’s the base gonna do, vote for a Clinton? Ha!).
Did you miss Ann Coulter on this topic? She’s about as base-y as you can get and she said she was voting for Clinton over McCain before he made a VP pick. I don’t think picking Soupy Joe would have changed that.
The base could also just sit on its hands. They might troop out to vote for Johnny Mac, but their wallets would have stayed shut and they wouldn’t have manned the campaign offices.
The standout comment of the debates has been McCain’s comment in the first debate that Obama doesn’t understand the difference between strategy and tactics. This highlighted McCain’s problem as it demonstrated that it was he that didn’t know the difference.
He was talking about ‘The Surge’ - a tactic designed to provide time for political reconciliation in Iraq - the strategy (I could be being a bit generous here in assuming that the current administration had a strategy in mind other than kicking the can down the road for the next president). But it has also shone a very bright light on the contrast between the two campaigns. While Obama’s campaign has always focussed on the strategy of winning 270 or more electoral votes and building a machine to accomplish that, McCain’s campaign has been a series of tactics dictated by the facts of the day.
Sarah Palin’s pick was undoubtedly a tactic to attempt to crush the big bounce that Obama was going to get get from the Democratic Convention and his closing speech. It succeeded in its aim by giving McCain a big bounce in the polls but it only lasted a couple of weeks before reality set in and the unvetted choice proved disastrous in the long term.
I think it is Obama’s clear setting of strategic goals that will be his most valuable asset when he (presumably) becomes President next year.
“Did you miss Ann Coulter on this topic?”
I do my best to miss Ann Coulter on any and all topics.
Daniel, good point, but there’s one thing to add:
Gerson was Bush’s chief liesmith; when Bush wanted a turd gilded and polished, Gerson was the guy to call. Any statement made by Gerson should be analyzed with ‘he’s a liar!’ as the starting point.