And Even More McCain

by publius

A few more thoughts relating to McCain’s tone deaf statement:

First, I think that McCain today got his first taste of a united Democratic party firing at him. In particular, he got a taste of how quick, powerful, and efficient the Obama operation is now that it’s free from primary distractions. I agree with Andrew that it’s important not to let the surrogates get out of control. But generally speaking, today looked like a strong, simple, quickly-assembled, well-coordinated attack that had the McCain team flailing about for most of the day.

And for that, you can thank Clinton. One benefit of the endless primary is that the Obama team is truly a battle-tested organization. Fighting off Romney or Huckabee statements just doesn’t provide the same type of trial by fire. It’s almost like Obama’s been training in the mountains and has come down to normal altitudes to battle Rick Davis’s ragtag operation.

Second, it seems odd that McCain is stressing Iraq so much at this stage. It’s extremely unpopular, it ties him to Bush, and it keeps him from moving into the centrist independent territory that would presumably play to his “core competencies.”

Frankly, it looks like he’s still trying to consolidate his base (I heard an MSNBC pundit say this — Wolffe I think). The problem, though, is that base consolidation at this point harms him in specific ways with this year’s swing voters. He should have already dealt with this. Women, for instance, are supporting Obama by nearly 20 points. That’s not surprising when you consider that McCain’s only discernible message thus far is that he brings more testosterone to foreign policy.

Third, and looking beyond today’s comments, I think one overlooked problem with McCain is that he takes issues potentially harmful to Dems off the table. For instance, I think immigration and taxes (particularly immigration) could potentially be big-time weaknesses this fall for Obama. But, McCain is perhaps the least suited person in the entire Republican Party to attack Obama on either front, having drafted immigration reform bills and opposed Bush’s tax cuts. Of course, I still think McCain was the strongest of the batch, but that just indicates how weak the GOP field was.

Comments

[allmaya]

I am so grateful that Jeb's last name is Bush. He would have been formidable otherwise.

[jon]

You will now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational general election campaign...

I think that in a way, it's good if this gets nasty. We all know that Obama's going to get exactly the reception you would expect from a GOP that's been raised on the Gospel According to Kevin Phillips for four decades - but being able to punch back HARD is a key part of surviving Southern-style poltics. And we may as well force the Rs to put all their cards on the table vis-a-vis race and generational opinion. The more they run as the party of people who all had WALLACE stickers in '68 (or '66 if you count Lurleen, poor soul), the sooner we can have it out - and God willing over with.

I'm ready to be done with every Presidential race re-running 1972, but I'd love to be done with re-running the '70 Alabama governor's race, too.

[Daniel Merritt]

I don't know about immigration. I was actually hoping the Republicans would go for a really hard line, anti-immigration candidate & position this year; with other issues the way they were, I figured the Dems would win the overall election anyways. Meanwhile, Hispanic voters would be pushed strongly and possibly long-term into the Democrats' camp.

But even if McCain is tone-deaf on Iraq, I doubt he'll make really offensive blunders on immigration. Indeed, while I'm too lazy to look up the statistics right now, my impression from previous articles and polls is that a moderate immigration-crack-down stance might command the support of some segment of the Hispanic population (not a majority, but some). What's really going to drive them off is how many Republicans either overtly state or subtly hint that this is more of a race/ethnicity thing, that "our [anglo saxon] culture is under attack".

OTOH, a battle on this might have made a bad combination with Obama as the Dem candidate. Unfortunately, an African-American candidate defending non-white immigration would be a double-whammy of xenophobia and racism that might overpower even resistance to Iraq. And other Republican campaigns for congress and governor may do plenty to alienate Hispanic voters and undo W's original gains regardless of the presidential race.

[Daniel Merritt]

Regarding another demographic we should hope to turn D in the long run, young voters, this is probably one of the few years McCain is 'defanged'. A lot of young, independent voters like him, but I think Iraq is overshadowing that. Still, it surprises me the time it's taken for my more non-political friends' liking of McCain to erode; some of them I'm still working on, despite being opposed to the war. At least Obama has newer and stronger star power.

It will be interesting to see if all the young people being pulled toward the left and the Democrats by Iraq as an issue, Obama as a candidate, and Bush as the symbol of the GOP during their formative years will stay in the Dems' camp in the long term. If so, I'm hoping the Dems can keep a decent majority, but the Democratic party will probably be somewhat altered by its new members as we. The most likely direction would be slightly more overtly socially liberal and back toward economically liberal (in the economists' sense, eg free trade) positions.

[The Modesto Kid]

Women are supporting Obama by nearly 20 points

W-wait, you mean they're totally ignoring McCain's love of ABBA?

[cleek]

it ties him to Bush, and it keeps him from moving into the centrist independent territory that would presumably play to his “core competencies.”

exactly what are his core comps ?

I doubt he'll make really offensive blunders on immigration

maybe it's not a "blunder", but speaking at La Raza is not going to endear him to the xenophobes.

[North]

The political science research suggests that party identity is formed quite young and remains pretty stable after being formed. So all these new Democrats will at least stay Democrats. Ideology, to whatever extent it can be measured, is more slippery.

[Daniel Merritt]

Cleek: Yeah, exactly. I was thinking "offensive blunders" as in, offensive to Hispanic, moderate, or higher class economically aligned Republicans. But you're right, it's quite possible by avoiding those he'll make huge blunders in alienating bunches of the xenophobes (nice find btw).

I guess I just wonder who they'd vote for if not McCain, though they could of course just stay home. AFAIK Bob Barr and the Libertarians are seen as the main possibility for siphoning voters from the Republicans, but see eg this showing a position from Barr that falls short of shooting brown skinned non-citizens. Write in votes for Tancredo?

[Patrick]

McCain and the people around him clearly believe that "the success of the surge" is a winning issue for him in this campaign. Which just goes to show how shockingly isolated they are from mainstream public opinion. The majority's basic view of the war--that it was a mistake, and we need to start getting our people home soon--hasn't changed a bit.

I hope that Obama continues to stress how much money we're pouring down the sinkhole every week that we stay in Iraq, because that argument ties together his two most powerful issues, and resonates ever more profoundly as the economic security of most Americans steadily deteriorates.

[von]

Second, it seems odd that McCain is stressing Iraq so much at this stage. It’s extremely unpopular, it ties him to Bush, and it keeps him from moving into the centrist independent territory that would presumably play to his “core competencies.”

Publius, I think that McCain's team calculates that, although the war is unpopular, McCain's vision of what to do next is more popular than Obama's. Assuming that the trends in Iraq continue as they have and, as predicted, more troops come home this summer, they may be right.

But even if McCain is tone-deaf on Iraq, I doubt he'll make really offensive blunders on immigration. Indeed, while I'm too lazy to look up the statistics right now, my impression from previous articles and polls is that a moderate immigration-crack-down stance might command the support of some segment of the Hispanic population (not a majority, but some).

Given Obama's relative unpopularity in the Hispanic community, McCain's support of comprehensive immigration reform, and the fact that Hispanic voters tend (in general) to be more conservative than other Democratic voters, I think that you understand the problem for Obama here. A lot depends on Iraq and the economy, of course, but there is an opportunity for McCain to split the Hispanic vote with Obama.

[cleek]

Assuming that the trends in Iraq continue as they have and, as predicted, more troops come home this summer...

those troops could be coming home because Iraq kicks them out.

then what will McCain run on?

[Xeynon]

I think that McCain's team calculates that, although the war is unpopular, McCain's vision of what to do next is more popular than Obama's. Assuming that the trends in Iraq continue as they have and, as predicted, more troops come home this summer, they may be right.

I think that's right. I'm not sure there would be widespread support for a quick pullout if it's made clear that such an action might result in, say, $6.00/gal. gasoline due to increased regional instability further impacting the oil markets, or an emboldened Iran growing ever more powerful and better-positioned to defy international will.

A lot depends on Iraq and the economy, of course, but there is an opportunity for McCain to split the Hispanic vote with Obama.

I also agree here. McCain is a new breed of Republican in that he's tailored his conservatism to appeal to Hispanics, who given their tendency to social conservatism and antipathy to some elements of the traditional Democratic coalition (particularly blacks) are the most natural minority group for the GOP to court.

[von]

those troops could be coming home because Iraq kicks them out.

It's a calculated risk, Cleek. If you haven't noticed, Democrats are heavily, heavily favored to take the presidency this year. McCain needs to take calculated risks and wage an insurgent campaign if he is going to win the presidency.

[Ugh]

Hopefully people are tired of the Society for the Advancement of Ignorance, Torture, and the Concentration of Wealth and will vote accordingly.

[jdw]

"Second, it seems odd that McCain is stressing Iraq so much at this stage."

what else he got? more bush economics. privatize social security. end freedom of choice, etc etc. everything he's for is unpopular except to the gooper base, at least wrt iraq it plays to his war hero status.

[hilzoy]

von: "Given Obama's relative unpopularity in the Hispanic community..."

The latest NBC/WSJ poll has him leading McCain among Hispanics 62-28. As TPM Election Central points out, this is well ahead of Kerry in 2004 -- though I grant you it's not up to the percentage we might have gotten had, oh, Tom Tancredo been the nominee. ;)

(How I miss the days when I had his proposal for a fence along the Canadian border to be amused by ...)

[von]

The latest NBC/WSJ poll has him leading McCain among Hispanics 62-28. As TPM Election Central points out, this is well ahead of Kerry in 2004 -- though I grant you it's not up to the percentage we might have gotten had, oh, Tom Tancredo been the nominee. ;)

I wouldn't be confident, yet. The poll was conducted immediately after Obama wrapped up the nomination, when you would expect support for Obama to be at its maximum. And the the ample size was only 150 Hispanic likely voters (
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/080611_NBC-WSJ_Released.pdf).

The fact that Bush and Kerry nearly split the Hispanic vote in 2004 suggests that the Democratic party as a whole is losing its grip on Hispanic voters. Given Obama's alleged problems with Hispanic voters (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hispanic+voters+hillary+obama), I think that we'll see this race tighten quite a bit as well. Whether we'll get to 50-50, however, depends a great deal on Iraq and the economy.

[Ugh]

OT - Good news:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

[cleek]

The poll was conducted immediately after Obama wrapped up the nomination, when you would expect support for Obama to be at its maximum

why would anybody expect this ?

are you implying that his support from here out among Hispanics (and is it just Hispanics?) is going to fall ? why ? based on what data ?

[Amos Newcombe]

I'm not sure there would be widespread support for a quick pullout if it's made clear that such an action might result in, say, $6.00/gal. gasoline due to increased regional instability further impacting the oil markets, or an emboldened Iran growing ever more powerful and better-positioned to defy international will.

How is our withdrawal going to increase regional instability? Exactly what is it that we are keeping a lid on? It was our going in that increased instability, and empowered Iran against our newly weakened selves.

[von]

why would anybody expect this ?

are you implying that his support from here out among Hispanics (and is it just Hispanics?) is going to fall ? why ? based on what data ?

The prediction was that Obama would receive a "bump" from wrapping up the nomination among all voters -- and that pretty much happened. Depending on the poll, Obama increased his lead by 3-8 points.

Bumps are generally (but admittedly not always) just that: bumps.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

Second, it seems odd that McCain is stressing Iraq so much at this stage. It’s extremely unpopular, it ties him to Bush, and it keeps him from moving into the centrist independent territory that would presumably play to his “core competencies.”

I'm not sure this is as political (in the sense of being driven by general election strategy) as you assume. It seems to me that it is quite possible that McCain is sincere in thinking that Iraq is really, really important, thanks to all the existential struggle rhetoric we've been hearing for the last 6 years on this subject. That and the monstrously large oil reserves in Iraq which assume greater and greater importance as we enter the age of Peak Oil.

He may be pushing it because he thinks it is the single most important issue which this election needs to decide, or at least the most important one which he feels he actually understands (as opposed to the economy for example). Also, keep in mind McCain’s biographical and family background – it would be understandable if military issues are the place where he feels most sure footed, his “comfort zone”, which is what a candidate should focus on if a campaign is off to a rocky start.

Note that I’m not endorsing McCain viewpoint on this issue, just pointing out that his perception may be that in focusing on Iraq he is playing to his strongest suit, and to Obama’s weakest (i.e. no military service background).

[cleek]

The prediction was that Obama would receive a "bump" from wrapping up the nomination among all voters -- and that pretty much happened. Depending on the poll, Obama increased his lead by 3-8 points.

right. but you said "The poll was conducted immediately after Obama wrapped up the nomination, when you would expect support for Obama to be at its maximum..."

as if this is as high as his support is going to go, evah (ie. "maximum" = maximum). seems like a pretty bold prediction, to me.

[von]

as if this is as high as his support is going to go, evah (ie. "maximum" = maximum). seems like a pretty bold prediction, to me.

I see your point. That wasn't the intent of my comment. I meant that we'll have a better sense of where the Obama-McCain race truly stands in a few weeks. I didn't intend to predict that Obama has maxed out his support; he could go higher (as could McCain).

[Michael]

To add to cleek's point, it seems pretty absurd to suggest that Obama has a legitimate problem with Hispanics that's totally masked by a small post-nomination "bump" to the tune of clobbering McCain by more than 2-to-1 in recent polls of Hispanics. BTW, those findings were duplicated in another national poll. Even if his support is artificially inflated, the fact the McCain is polling in the low-30s/high-20s speaks to the reality that his popularity with Hispanics is simply overstated, and the fact that, bump or not, Obama is hitting the 60's, puts to the rest the notion that he has some sort of Hispanic "problem". All we have to do is look at, say, white men, were Obama still loses big, just like every Dem loses big every 4 years, to see that there are limits to what a "bump" can get you, and here's a hint: it ain't 62-28 (or whatever the polls are finding). That, btw, is statistically significant even with the small sample size, the gap is so large.

Further, von, similar polling does not bear out your contention that McCain "just may be right" about what Americans want for the future in Iraq. In reality, having American troops out in the next 2 years is vastly preferred to waiting until 2013 or an indefinite presence. I'm feeling to lazy to dig up a link right now, saw that last week, but will later if you want.

Basically, your post amounted to little more than pessimistic speculation that flies in the face of all the data we have right now. In short, it's not persuasive, in the least.

[von]

My post was indeed speculation, Michael. I still think it likely that Obama will win the Presidency. I also think that you're overconfident, however -- and, to the extent that your view is shared among other Obama partisans, it does not benefit Obama.

[trilobite]

those troops could be coming home because Iraq kicks them out.

then what will McCain run on?

Then he'll run on, "See, I was right, we won."

That would actually be a great outcome for McCain. He could paint Obama as a defeatist who would have cost us a victory, and he won't have to deal with any tough questions about the costs of staying in.

Von's right, McCain wants this election to be a referendum on the war, because voters want to believe we can win after all. He may well be able to sell that story, as it does seem that Iraq is calming down a bit. How much this has to do with the surge, and how much with ethnic cleansing being largely accomplished and insurgents hunkering down until we leave, I don't know, but that may not matter for these purposes.

[spockamok]

Publius, what are your thoughts now about what Obama should be saying about Iran, what other Dem politicians should be saying, and what the "chattering classes" should be saying.

In '06 you were saying the only simple, and therefore effective, thing that people could say was that Iran-Alarmists were lying, although you acknowledged that candidates probably could not say it.
Have you come up with more ideas since this post from 2006? As you said its not easy.

IRAN - How to Respond?
_________

I’ve already said it, but the Yglesias post I linked to earlier really lays out nicely why it’s deranged to be talking about war with Iran now. But a lot of influential people are doing just that. Assuming you agree that a strike is a bad idea, the million dollar question is how you stop it from happening. In other words, what’s the appropriate political response to the war drums? It’s not an easy question – and frankly, it has me worried.

The virtue of the pro-war argument is its simplicity. They have nukes. They’re crazy. We’ll die. That’s not a hard message to understand. More critically, it’s not a hard message to communicate in the age of mass media.

Most Americans (sadly) don’t watch Jim Lehrer’s Newshour. Instead, they get their news in quick bites – a newsclip here, a headline there, a radio newsstory in between. As Karl Rove (to his credit) understands, there is a high premium on simplicity and repetition. I’ve touched on this before, but because the structure of modern media is the way it is, the key to getting your message out is to make it a simple one that can be endlessly repeated.

One benefit of simplicity is that people are more likely to hear your entire message in the short amount of time they devote to consuming news. A second one is that it’s easy for sympathetic listeners and pundits to take that message and run with it without central coordination. And finally, through repetition, it’s more likely that casual news consumers will hear the message you want whenever they happen to tune in (that’s because it’s repeated over and over).

This was the beauty of the flip-flopper critique against Kerry that was repeated again and again. And that’s why the Bush team tried to squeeze so many of the news cycles into that simple narrative.

Turning back to Iran, the problem with the anti-war argument Yglesias makes is that it doesn’t lend itself to simple responses. Yes, Iran is working on a nuclear program, but it’s years and years away from any real capability. Yes, Iran is defying the UN now, but it’s certainly given signals that it wants normal relations. Yes, Iran’s President says unacceptable things, but Iran is a rational state that can be deterred from following through on them (see also Soviet Union, Khrushchev re: burying US). Yes, Iran’s leadership doesn’t like us, but their offensive military capability is non-existent and they have lots of rivals in the neighborhood. Yglesias lays it all out better (with links), and it’s a devastating critique. But it’s not easy to squeeze it into a 20-second sound bite in a political campaign.

And so that’s the issue – what’s the effective political response? There’s no easy answer. I suspect many GOP/CT-for-Lieberman candidates (with assists from the blogosphere and Weekly Standard) are going to be attacking with a very clear message – they’ll nuke us if we don’t attack. That argument has certainly worked before.

I’d welcome comments on this, but I think the political response among the chattering classes should be that Iran is not a threat. If you say they are, you’re wrong – or lying. And if you support strikes to fight this non-existent threat following the Iraq debacle, you should be mercilessly ridiculed. That’s a fairly simple response and it pretty much captures the heart of the objection – Iran is simply not a threat, and certainly not enough of one to justify a military strike anytime soon. And if you say otherwise, you have your facts wrong.

I admit that ridicule is not the most polite way to proceed, but these are high stakes world-historical matters. The trick here after all is to make an essentially defensive argument an offensive one. The pro-war camp is on the offensive, and the anti-war camp is trying to block it. And so the goal is to turn the tables by making it a reputational liability to support military strikes and to peddle “slam dunk” arguments about the threat.

But that said, I’m not sure politicians can use this strategy. If, for instance, Harold Ford got up and said “Iran is not a threat,” it would be demagogued by Corker and would come to define the campaign. Yes, it’s unfortunate that candidates would play Dangerous Liaisons with human life by using heavy-handed war rhetoric, but that’s a fact of life that needs to be accepted.

I wish I had a good answer but I don’t. If one candidate is willing to essentially lie about the scope of the threat facing America, you have to say “they’re lying” or there’s not much else to say. More precisely, that’s the only simple thing you can say. If you have to get into conversations about the need for patience and cooperation, you’re losing. The effectiveness of political responses is inversely proportional to their length.

And so I’m guessing the first strategy of Dems will be to avoid the issue. But that’s not a good strategy because it might get forced on them. So what is a good strategy? One possibility is just to say (diplomatically) that their opponent is lying (or “misleading the public”). That shifts the terrain from Iran to the credibility of the pro-war camp in the post-Iraq era. There they go, misleading the public about the threats we face without any evidence. Just like they did in Iraq.

The problem though is that it’s tough to say that when the headlines say that Iran is trying to enrich uranium – even if it’s only enough to make a Mickey Mouse watch glow for a bit. That's why it's critical to keep after the chattering classes to be honest about the scope of the threat.

Again, it’s not a simple issue. And until someone comes up with an answer, it’s politically rational for the GOP to go all in on Iran for the ‘06 election. And it might work.

------by the way, Chuck Schumer has some Kissingerian ideas about the matter. I actually dig Chuck's drift.

I believe in carrots too, but I think he outlines what a non-insane "stick" option should be.

but I would not be surprised if it gets attacked more than supported, because Americans don't like to come face-to-face with the idea that you can't get something for nothing. Here's Chuck's plan:

Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran
By Charles Schumer

Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was installing an additional 6,000 centrifuges at Iran's main nuclear enrichment complex. The Bush administration in turn needs to use every diplomatic tool in its arsenal to halt Tehran's development of nuclear weapons.

While the military option can never be taken off the table, most experts admit it would be unlikely to succeed. Because Iran has dispersed its nuclear facilities and buried some deep underground, an air strike will at best slow down, without preventing, its eventual creation of nuclear weapons. A military occupation might do so, but there are less costly solutions available.

Those solutions begin with understanding the fundamental instability of Iran's theocratic dictatorship. Iran is not a homogenous country. It is home to several major and traditionally competitive ethnic groups – Persians, Azeris, Kurds and Arabs. The predominant Iranian culture is mild and secular, not prone to religious fanaticism. Iranians have a great affinity for Western goods and ideas. Satellite TV is illegal in Iran, but there are an estimated five million satellite dishes in Iranian households. The most popular television station is not Al Jazeera nor even CNN, but MTV.
Most importantly, Iran is considerably younger, more educated and more middle class than its neighbors. More than two-thirds of the population is under 30, and the literacy rate is 79%. Women make up half of all incoming university students. Iran's average income far exceeds its neighbors. The growing middle class treasures economic success above political or religious rights, and they measure the success of the current regime on an economic scale.

This dynamic creates an opportunity. Economic sanctions could cause the Iranian government to negotiate seriously with us, and might, over time, topple the theocracy. In fact, the mildest of economic sanctions – a boycott of Iranian banks by U.S. and European central banks – has already produced an economic slowdown, and unrest among Iranians.

Stronger economic sanctions could produce more effective results. To work, these sanctions would require the cooperation of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The U.S. and Britain have always backed tougher action; Germany and France are also now on board. The Chinese may go along if everyone else will. That leaves Russia and its prime minister, Vladimir Putin. Thus far, it is Russia that has blocked more effective economic sanctions.

There are three reasons. First, Russia has a longstanding, close relationship with Iran and regards itself as Iran's protector. Second, the Russian economy benefits from its relationship with Iran by several billion dollars a year. Third and most important is leverage. Mr. Putin is an old-fashioned nationalist who seeks to regain the power and greatness Russia had before the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia's relationship with Iran is a key point of leverage over the West that he will not relinquish easily.

To bring Putin's Russia on board we must make it an offer it cannot refuse. The offer has three parts.

First, we must treat Russia as an equal partner when it comes to policy in the Caspian Sea region, recognizing Russia's traditional role in the region. Second, we must offer to make Russia whole if it joins in our Iranian boycott and forgoes trade revenues with Iran. That will cost the U.S. roughly $2 billion to $3 billion a year, about what we spend in Iraq each week. Third, we should tell Mr. Putin we will cease building the ineffective antinuclear missile defense sites in Eastern Europe in return for him joining the boycott.

Two years ago, under NATO auspices, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania agreed to build an antimissile defense site to thwart the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran. The threat is hypothetical and remote, and the Bush administration's emphasis on pursuing the antimissile system, without Russia's cooperation, still baffles many national security experts.

It also drives Mr. Putin to apoplexy. The antimissile system strengthens the relationship between Eastern Europe and NATO, with real troops and equipment on the ground. It mocks Mr. Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.

Dismantling the antimissile site, economic incentives and creation of a diplomatic partnership in the region – in exchange for joining an economic boycott of Iran – is an offer Mr. Putin would find hard to refuse. It is our best hope to avoid a nuclear Iran, because a successful economic boycott would certainly force the Iranian regime to heed Western demands more than anything attempted so far.

Mr. Schumer is a Democratic senator from New York.

[magistra]

The virtue of the pro-war argument is its simplicity. They have nukes. They’re crazy. We’ll die. That’s not a hard message to understand. More critically, it’s not a hard message to communicate in the age of mass media.

I'd say the best response to 'They have nukes. They're crazy. We'll die.' is 'That was what you told us about Iraq and you were WRONG. Why should we believe you this time?' Or if you want to have it as an image, have a sequence of slogans: 'IRAQ is a threat to the US', 'IRAR is a threat to the US', 'IRAS is a threat to the US', 'IRAT is a threay to the US', right through IRAZ and back round via IRAA to 'IRAN is a threat to the US', to emphasize that it's all the same rhetoric with randomly-changing targets.