The McCain Strategy

November 6th, 2008 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

Almost a month ago, I wrote an article about where I thought the McCain campaign had failed during this election cycle.  I more or less still stand by what I said then.  I won’t repeat myself much here, so be sure to read that article first.

Though some conservatives think McCain should have pressed on Bill Ayers, et. al even more and introduced Jeremiah Wright into the mix, I think it’s important to note that McCain started narrowing Barack Obama’s lead when he switched back to talking about the economy again.  Alas, it was too late.

It’s Not Pennsylvania, Stupid

First and foremost in my mind was McCain attempt to go after Pennsylvania.  Though some commentators thought this was unwise, some polls in the run-up to the election showed him gaining there.  However, I think Pennsylvania was always a pipe dream.  Maybe if McCain had gone there earlier, he could have flipped it, but we now know it would have been an uphill battle, seeing as how Obama won by 10 points there.

I think McCain would have been wiser to focus more strongly on more reliable swing states, such as Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, etc.  Obama won all these states, but by small amounts.  Indiana was particularly surprising to me, as McCain was supposed to win there (at least, so said all the narratives up to Election Day).  Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina (which is still uncalled, but looks to be going for Obama).  These still wouldn’t have won McCain the election, but he could have narrowed the gap considerably with them.  Wiped some of the glee off the faces of the Democrats.

The Palin Factor

In the first article, I wrote that a combination of too strict handling and little to no outlook on national issues defined the selection of Sarah Palin.  The idea after the interview with Katie Couric is that the McCain campaign staff simply didn’t let Palin be Palin.  She had to cram a lot of information in a short time; a tall order in any situation.

Now reports are starting to come out that the opposite may have happened, that Palin refused preparation for that interview, and that she was utterly unaware of many world issues, including the make-up of NAFTA and the fact that Africa is a continent and not a country:

YouTube Preview Image

I don’t know if this is all sensationalism on Fox’s part, but if Palin didn’t accept preparation, in that interview, Palin effectively was Palin.  Yet, the buck still goes to John McCain for this one.  Palin wasn’t well vetted, and it may have in part cost him the election.

Where He Went Right

Can a candidate who lost have done things right?  Sure.  He still got 163 electoral votes (current number) somehow.  I think if there’s something McCain did do right, it was wake people up to the idea of unified government for at least the next two years.  Now, the Democrats won’t get 60 votes in the Senate.  But they’ll have a formidable number of Democrats on hand, though I think some of the more progressive Democratic agenda can be limited if the more conservative wing will stand up to them.

Yet, one of McCain biggest messages in the final days, besides taxes, was that of unified government and the excesses that go along with it.  And I think that a lot of voters will remember that message and be looking for a reason to take away unified government in 2010.  I also think his message on taxes will be important, and if Obama really does start targeting lower and lower tax brackets, people will see that and not be happy.

Conclusion

Not campaigning where he was more likely to win and the selection of Sarah Palin (though not necessarily Palin herself) is probably brought down McCain’s chances to be elected.  Yet, he may have lost anyway.  This was a bad year for Republicans all across the board.  Three or four Senate races still have to yet to be called, and a handful of House races as well.  The last New England Republican Congessman Chris Shays, a moderate, was thrown out of office by a large margin.

So McCain made mistakes.  Yet, he also invariably left voters with a message warning about too much progressive taxation and the problem of unified government.  It’s a message voters are likely to remember, and if the Democrats screw up by 2010, a Republican return to power in one or more Congressional chambers may be McCain’s legacy in this election.

I’ll be back tomorrow with an analysis on Barack Obama’s strategy.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C Stanley
    November 6th, 2008 at 17:19
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I agree about the need to have focused on the economy more, and sooner. What’s inexplicable to me is why he never seemed to play some very strong cards that he held (and why RNC also didn’t do so) regarding his warnings about the subprime mortgage meltdown and calls for fixing the regulatory structure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s political malpractice that his campaign didn’t jump on this immediately and beat the drum over and over- and in fact even allowed the Democrats to get the upper hand and pretend that they were the ones trying to fix the mess that had caused by Republicans.

    Overall I think there were a lot of mistakes in the campaign, but that’s easy to say as a Monday morning quarterback, and even those who noted things in real time are ignoring the vast environmental advantage that the Dems had this year, and the fact that crafting a successul disiciplined campaign for the guy who’s claim to fame is that he’s a maverick isn’t exactly easy. It’s actually remarkable that until the economic meltdown, McCain was within spitting distance of pulling it off and even had a brief period of positive momentum.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.