An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« RIP Mother’s Cookies

Obama Saw It Coming »

The Media vs. John McCain

Posted by DENNIS SANDERS in Economy.
Oct 10th, 2008 | Comments

No, it’s not what you think.

Jay Cost has an interesting analysis as to why John McCain is doing so badly in the polls and there is nothing that he can do about it. He notes:

McCain’s problem a week ago is the same as his problem today, enhanced anxiety about the economy. The deal failed to sooth any nerves, so McCain is still in a weakened position…So long as the newspapers and the televisions are full of stories about contraction, which as you can see dominated every day this week here in Pittsburgh, John McCain’s poll position will be weak. That’s all there is to it. Conservatives can criticize McCain for not doing this, that or the other; liberals can praise Obama for doing this, that, or the other. But the fact remains that, as of today, the state of the race is pretty simple: this was an even-steven contest until the markets started to sputter and people started really worrying about the economy. Now Obama’s up 6 points.

Cost notes that McCain’s downward slide and Obama’s rise is not about who is a better campaigner, as much as it is whose party is in power:

The average voter doesn’t understand the intricacies of economic policy. Heck, when you think about it, nobody really understands the economy. So, voters often rely on simple yet sensible metrics to make political decisions about the economy. One of them has been more or less operative since the election of 1840: if the economy tanks during a Republican administration, vote Democrat. If it tanks during a Democratic administration, vote Republican. Applying this rule to 2008, we get the following. McCain, because he is of the incumbent party, gets the political harm. Obama, because he is of the out party, gets the political benefit. That’s all there is to it.

I agree. If we had a President Gore and the economy were tanking, the public would vote for a Republican like Mitt Romney. Folks blame the party in power for economic conditions and hope the out party can make some changes. The public was angry at Carter during 1980 because of the economy and went for Reagan. The public thought Bush the Elder didn’t get it in 1992 and chose Clinton.

In these 24-hour, all-day news world that we live in, it’s hard to NOT escape such bad news and put hope in the new guy.

Of course, focusing on an aging radical and his ties to Senator Obama only help feed the view that McCain is out of touch with what is going on.

Cross-posted at the Square Deal

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

JSpencer

Even if the economy wasn't tanking there would be no shortage of good reasons to vote against McCain, and more than enough good reason not to reward the GOP for their past 8 years of what has essentially been an extended insult to America, democracy, and reason in general. All the economy does is force voters to focus, when they might otherwise be wrapped up in their own worlds.

casualobserver

Spencer, you feel compelled to moralize even when the subject matter of the post implies you shouldn't.

GeorgeSorwell

Of course, focusing on an aging radical and his ties to Senator Obama only help feed the view that McCain is out of touch with what is going on.

I agree.

Though of course I also agree with JSpencer that the last eight years of Republican leadership is reason enough to vote for anyone but this year's Republican.

Marlowecan

Hmmm...I am not sure if the connection is that easy, Dennis.

In Canada, America's great white north, the conservative government looks to be re-elected next week . . . despite having been in power for the past few years.

I think voters also do a rational calculation, over who they feel will be the best to handle a government in difficult times.

Speaking personally, my opinion of McCain's leadership has dropped dramatically in seeing his response to the crisis. . . while my opinion of Obama has risen somewhat.

That is just me, though.

casualobserver

Marlow, you're usually quite a reasonable chap, so I am surprised you would choose to elevate your opinion above 160 years of relatively demonstrable fact.

Despite obama's lead in the vote-for polls, Rasmussen "view favorably" has not moved obama ahead of McCain. It's Carville's axiom once again, no more, no less.

Marlowecan

Casualobserver...

Well, OF COURSE I elevate my opinion about 160 years of relatively demonstrable fact! :)

I was just struck by the contrast between the Canucks and the Yanks in simultaneous elections.

Please expand on your idea, though. Carville's axiom? (you mean "it's the economy, stupid"?). I am curious: How do you account for this difference between "vote for" and "view favourably" about Obama?

kritt11

I think in a good economy, John McCain's Ayers attack would be getting more traction. I agree with those who think it makes him look like he just isn't getting it. Also, his plan to give homeowners mortgage relief flopped with conservative backers, so he had to change it so that the banks take no hit for issuing bad loans.

casualobserver

Well, that's why you are affectionately referred to as Canuckleheads, my good man!

The poll differential demonstrates to me, actual independent voters out there have shifted from a McCain vote lean to an obama vote lean without necessarily viewing McCain as lesser candidate, but less right for the time.

That "timing thing" is what Jay Cost put empircal evidence to above.

JSpencer

Marlowe, I have close friends in Canada and have spent a fair amount of time in various provinces, and I can assure you, Canadians wouldn't take at all well to being referred to as "America's great white north". ;-)

Marlowecan

Hahahaha...what you say is very true, Spencer.

One of the first times I visited Toronto, years ago, I was at a party...and remarked that I didn't really see much difference between Torontonians and Americans...except American beer was shite, and Americans were generally more mannerly in my experience.

Well . . . .

Based on your travels in Canada, Spencer, you can imagine the reaction! :)

Yah, Canadian identity is based on not being American. Canadians aren't really sure who they are as a country, and seem to disagree about everything else...but they are at least bloody sure of that.

Marlowecan

Casualobserver said: "Well, that's why you are affectionately referred to as Canuckleheads, my good man!"

Hmmm...and here I thought the popular term was "Canuckistan" :)

blog comments powered by Disqus