- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
First of all this thread is not going to be pro or against McCain (or Obama).
Much discussion has taken place here and elsewhere saying McCain has run a poor campaign. Its come from Repubicans and Democrats, Obama and McCain supporters.
Well, I read the books written about the campaign of 2004. And it was very enlightening.
The Karl Rove political strategy was different from what the mainstream media, Democrats and Republicans talk about. The CW (conventional wisdom) is a candidate is judged on many factors, and if you are on the right side of enough of them, you will vote for that candidate. For example, a large majority of people in 2008 say they trust the Democrats over the Republicans on a generic issue like the "economy". What Karl Rove would say is ok, but what is the deciding issue that people make their minds up about. For some it might be a tax cut for themselves, for some its captial gains tax, for some its even things only barely related to the economy like eminent domain.
So what the derivative approach says is you can pick up more than you can get for the whole if you break it down. If 70 percent of the people support Democrats on the economy and 30 percent Republicans, Karl Rove starts to find what part of that 70 percent can he get. Take the word "socialism". Believe me, McCain didn't just throw it out there. I am sure Karl Rove knew how many of the 70 percent he could get by appealing to those who the word socialism once said becomes the dominate "issue" for certain voters.
I believe at some point very early in McCains camp they had to make a decision to go big, or squeak by. Go big meant moving centrist and giving up some of his base to grab an even larger amount of the rest. With Bush at 30 percent and the country ticked off, I am thinking the squeak by strategy won.
Now lets look at how Bush won in 2004, despite the perceptions amongst Democrats that he had done a horrible job and was easily beatable.
First off, according to Rove (from many sources) when he looked at the upcoming 2004 campaign he was shocked. It was Bushes campaign to lose. Added to the traditional one issue voters that would vote for Bush, and adding the traditional Republican voters, Rove found out there was a substantial number of, for want of a better term, security moms (and dads). Here was a single issue that could get even hard core Democrats to vote for Bush, no matter what he said on other issues. Hence the Swift Boat ads, hence the no back down on Iraq, no mistakes, Saddam had wmd, etc.
So what did it look like to Karl Rove in 2008?
Well, it would be much harder to piece together 50.1 percent of the vote, or 270 electoral votes but not impossible.
First off he had to make sure the one issue voters who were disgruntled came out to vote. You might be a strong 2nd amendment person, but if you were disenchanted with the Republicans you might not vote, etc, etc. So McCain would have to run the type of campaign that would highly motivate the one issue Republican voters. You don't do that by running towards the center and in any way treating your opponent like he's a good guy you just have some differences of opinion.
Hence, the type of campaign McCain has run.
Basically, keep the base, keep the one issue voters, keep the security mom and dads. Which left McCain searching for some more single issue voters out of what was left. Hence going after people whose key word 'elitist' Or the voters who wanted age and experience. Or, lets face it, the people who were unconfortable with a black man. Hence, Ayers. Hence, Maverick. This gave the perception of a lurching campaign. But it was picking up voters here and there.
While Bush may be too much for McCain to overcome, I submit to you, that McCain has run the type of campaign that made the most sense. Remember before the financial meltdown McCain was ahead. And, even if he loses, a side effect is keeping the one issue voters, or rather the pieces of the Republican base on board. Which will help the Senate and House races, and give the next Republican candidate a very small amount of voters needed above what he will start out with.
-----------------------------------
See Tech's next post for lock
Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
Much discussion has taken place here and elsewhere saying McCain has run a poor campaign. Its come from Repubicans and Democrats, Obama and McCain supporters.
Well, I read the books written about the campaign of 2004. And it was very enlightening.
The Karl Rove political strategy was different from what the mainstream media, Democrats and Republicans talk about. The CW (conventional wisdom) is a candidate is judged on many factors, and if you are on the right side of enough of them, you will vote for that candidate. For example, a large majority of people in 2008 say they trust the Democrats over the Republicans on a generic issue like the "economy". What Karl Rove would say is ok, but what is the deciding issue that people make their minds up about. For some it might be a tax cut for themselves, for some its captial gains tax, for some its even things only barely related to the economy like eminent domain.
So what the derivative approach says is you can pick up more than you can get for the whole if you break it down. If 70 percent of the people support Democrats on the economy and 30 percent Republicans, Karl Rove starts to find what part of that 70 percent can he get. Take the word "socialism". Believe me, McCain didn't just throw it out there. I am sure Karl Rove knew how many of the 70 percent he could get by appealing to those who the word socialism once said becomes the dominate "issue" for certain voters.
I believe at some point very early in McCains camp they had to make a decision to go big, or squeak by. Go big meant moving centrist and giving up some of his base to grab an even larger amount of the rest. With Bush at 30 percent and the country ticked off, I am thinking the squeak by strategy won.
Now lets look at how Bush won in 2004, despite the perceptions amongst Democrats that he had done a horrible job and was easily beatable.
First off, according to Rove (from many sources) when he looked at the upcoming 2004 campaign he was shocked. It was Bushes campaign to lose. Added to the traditional one issue voters that would vote for Bush, and adding the traditional Republican voters, Rove found out there was a substantial number of, for want of a better term, security moms (and dads). Here was a single issue that could get even hard core Democrats to vote for Bush, no matter what he said on other issues. Hence the Swift Boat ads, hence the no back down on Iraq, no mistakes, Saddam had wmd, etc.
So what did it look like to Karl Rove in 2008?
Well, it would be much harder to piece together 50.1 percent of the vote, or 270 electoral votes but not impossible.
First off he had to make sure the one issue voters who were disgruntled came out to vote. You might be a strong 2nd amendment person, but if you were disenchanted with the Republicans you might not vote, etc, etc. So McCain would have to run the type of campaign that would highly motivate the one issue Republican voters. You don't do that by running towards the center and in any way treating your opponent like he's a good guy you just have some differences of opinion.
Hence, the type of campaign McCain has run.
Basically, keep the base, keep the one issue voters, keep the security mom and dads. Which left McCain searching for some more single issue voters out of what was left. Hence going after people whose key word 'elitist' Or the voters who wanted age and experience. Or, lets face it, the people who were unconfortable with a black man. Hence, Ayers. Hence, Maverick. This gave the perception of a lurching campaign. But it was picking up voters here and there.
While Bush may be too much for McCain to overcome, I submit to you, that McCain has run the type of campaign that made the most sense. Remember before the financial meltdown McCain was ahead. And, even if he loses, a side effect is keeping the one issue voters, or rather the pieces of the Republican base on board. Which will help the Senate and House races, and give the next Republican candidate a very small amount of voters needed above what he will start out with.
-----------------------------------
See Tech's next post for lock
Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy
Facebook
Twitter