One thing that CNN's persuadables clearly don't like is when John McCain attacks Obama. They're considerably more tolerant of Obama attacks McCain, in part, I suspect, because Obama doesn't keep repeating "what Senator McCain doesn't understand is . . . ", and in part because I suspect that some of them are closet Obamatons.
Nonetheless, this gives me hope. Negative opinons about negative campaigns? Dare I hope that we may soon see a day when every other political ad concentrates on how the candidates opponent kills puppies, and also, invented scurvy?
Sorry, I must have been daydreaming. Where were we?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
OK maybe I've had a few drinks tonight but what in christ's name are you talking about?
I noticed that too and it also made me happy.
Let's get this straight - I can't say "Repiglicans" but "Obamatons" is okay?
Sheesh. The "do as I say, not as I do" ethic that you push here is Palinesque. Look into some rimless glasses and some garish lipstick and maybe you can take her spot on the ticket.
Moe, it's her blog, her rules. Private property and all that.
I'm not sure why this constant emphasis on nicey-nice campaigning. Sure, overblown charges that your opponent eats puppies for breakfast don't do much good, but what's wrong with a pointed jab?
These guys are running to be President of the United States, and we're supposed to be grownups. We ought to be able to handle a bit of disagreement.
Passive Iconoclast writes: "Moe, it's her blog, her rules. Private property and all that."
Gee, thanks for the profound lesson. That never occurred to me.
So if hypocrisy is rule #1 is it impolite to say so?
About the apparent double standard in tolerating attacks -
One thing I noticed watching the debates tonight is that McCain comes across as more negative and attacking. I don't mean the campaigns - the Obama campaign ain't exactly running an "all positive, all the time" strategy - but in person, McCain's instinct seems to be to attack hard and attack often.
I heard Obama say things like "John's right when he says" or "I agree with John that..." I don't think I ever heard McCain say the reverse.
Who knows, maybe some of that personality seeps into the broader campaign, making the McCain negative ads feel, well, more negative.
Nice job on the liveblogging.
But you left out the most important part:
What kind of alcohol are you imbibing to take away the pain, and how much of it?
I may be daydreaming too, but I certainly hope that people will actually be able to see through the BS.
I've always been fascinated by the issue of "understanding" and its use in agruments. Some people use the phrase "I don't understand" as a proof of their superior position. (I guess it is supposed to mean that the opponent's statement is hard to understand and therefore invalid.) Others, including McCain, lay upon others the charge of lack of understanding implying opponent's stupidity. Does such an accusation actually provide any proof of the accuser's own acumen or strengthen the accuser's argument?
No closet McCain sure-things among the R persuadables presumably.
Just an impression: Saying "Barack doesn't seem to understand" is not an intelligent way to attack. Some of the positions Obama held, particularly on Iraq, were also held by large numbers of viewers. You don't insult them by telling them that they just don't seem to understand. Certainly not when you yourself were proven wrong on the basic question of whether the war should be waged at all.
In other words, maybe the negativity in itself did work badly. But maybe it wasn't really the negativity, but the generic nature thereof, which gave many viewers the impression that they were targeted, too, and that by someone who had no right to call himself Mr Perfect.
There are largely no Democrat or Republican "persuadables" in these focus groups. I think the only way to put these kind of focus groups together is to have access to the potential participants' actual voting history, which, of course, is impossible.
Saying "Barack doesn't seem to understand" is not an intelligent way to attack. Some of the positions Obama held, particularly on Iraq, were also held by large numbers of viewers. You don't insult them by telling them that they just don't seem to understand.
I have no problem whatsoever with it. Obama was proven wrong, specifically on the surge. And Obama did clearly misunderstand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. When it comes to military terminology and strategy, Obama was leagues out of his depth. I was happy to see McCain press that point. God knows the closeted and not-so-closeted Obamatons in the media won't.
Certainly not when you yourself were proven wrong on the basic question of whether the war should be waged at all.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Stupid people should have their stupidity targeted. That's part of debate. Sorry if Obama supporters had their widdle feelings hurt.
One thing that CNN's persuadables clearly don't like is when John McCain attacks Obama. They're considerably more tolerant of Obama attacks (on) McCain
...because they like Obama. McCain, not so much.
Same dynamic here. We like Megan. MLJ, not so much. (Also, the fact MLJ whines every time someone attacks him or "his side".)
RMc writes: "Same dynamic here. We like Megan. MLJ, not so much. (Also, the fact MLJ whines every time someone attacks him or "his side".)"
Speak for yourself. Using the imperial we is the sign of a weak mind.
Who knows, maybe some of that personality seeps into the broader campaign, making the McCain negative ads feel, well, more negative.
If a person is going to attack, I'd prefer they do it man to man so that the other guy has a chance to defend himself.
Cheerful Iconoclast-Moe, it's her blog, her rules. Private property and all that.
Sure, Megan can do whatever she wants since it's her blog. Doing whatever you want is not the same as having rules, though. So what's the standard for separating the legit posters from the trolls?
Funny you should mention the use of the "royal 'we.'"
I agree with you...in Obama's case, it IS a sign of a weak mind.
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2008/07/royal-we.html
Top Gun... really? Cool
For what it worth I did note that after McCain accused Obama of not knowing the difference between strategy and tactics Obama made a point to use the word strategy whenever he was talking about ... well ... strategy.
I think that the problem with McCain saying that Obama didn't understand was that he obviously did understand, he just disagreed. Saying Obama didn't understand just made McCain look petty.
During the first 2008 presidential debate John McCain urged people to look at his record. I did. The detailed voting record assessment by different public interest groups can be found on votesmart.org for Obama and McCain in 2007. In the excerpt below, I have excluded the unions (pro-Obama across the board) and the most partisan organizations, except when they have certain prominence despite their partizanship. (E.g., NARAL and Americans for Tax Reforms)
NARAL Pro-Choice:
Obama 100% - McCain 0% (no surprise here)
National Association of Wheat Growers:
Obama 47% - McCain 9% (WOW, talking about white rural voters!)
The Humane Society of the United States:
Obama 75% - McCain 25% (This is serious. Pet owners would do anything for their babies...)
Americans for Tax Reforms (a.k.a. Steve Forbes)
Obama graded 5 - McCain graded 70% (no surprise here either)
Citizens for Tax Justice
Obama 100% - McCain 50% (actually, the HIGHEST of all Republican ratings from this group.)
Business-Industry Political Action Committee (how do you spell lobbyist?)
Obama 8% - McCain 100%
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (Crime Issues) 2005-2006
Obama 70% - McCain 29%
Latin America Working Group
Obama 50% - McCain 25% (Latinos might have preferred Hillary over Barack, but the John fares even worse.)
The Genocide Intervention Network - Darfur Scores
Obama graded A - McCain graded C
Armenian National Committee of America (2006)
Obama graded B- - McCain graded C
American Academy of Family Physicians
Obama 100% - McCain 0%
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Obama 100% - McCain 0%
American Immigration Lawyers Association (2006)
Obama 88% - McCain 75%
National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (2006)
Obama 100% - McCain 50% (talking about pro-market credentials, ability to deal with financial crises, etc.)
Alliance for Retired Americans
Obama 100% - McCain 0%
NETWORK, A National Catholic Justice Lobby
Obama 68% - McCain 37% (I guess they care about more than just Roe v Wade)
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Obama 86% - McCain 64%
American Road and Transportation Builders (2005-2006)
Obama 100% - McCain 40% (Putting the country first actually means building infrastructure...)
Disabled American Veterans (2006)
Obama 80% - McCain 20% (This is a very, very serious difference!)
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (2006)
Obama graded B+ - McCain graded D (Despite the difference in their backgrounds!)
The Retired Enlisted Association (2006)
Obama 12% - McCain 18%
American Association of University Women
Obama 66% - McCain 0%
Business and Professional Women USA (2005-2006)
Obama 100% - McCain 33%
National Organization for Women (2005-2006)
Obama 91% - McCain 13%
John McCain touts his Senate record. It seems that an awful lot of people have already made their judgment about his record, and it's not too flattering for him. McCain's low scores from the American veteran organizations are especially telling and make Obama's advantage many times more meaningful.
Gee, thanks for the profound lesson. That never occurred to me. So if hypocrisy is rule #1 is it impolite to say so?
Except you didn't. "Repiglican" (or its popular alternate, "Rethuglican") would correspond to either of "Dimocrat" or "Dumbocrat". If you want to play tit-for-tat on "Obamatons", I believe the philosophical opposite would be "McCainanites" or some such.
Stupid people vote, Jason. For both sides, even! Why do you think "elitist" is such an effective attack? Telling voters they're stupid may score tactical points with the pundits, but it's lousy strategy.
aMouse squeaks again: "Except you didn't. "Repiglican" (or its popular alternate, "Rethuglican") would correspond to either of "Dimocrat" or "Dumbocrat". If you want to play tit-for-tat on "Obamatons", I believe the philosophical opposite would be "McCainanites" or some such."
Exactly why should I care about your view here? As far as I can tell you never call any wingnuts out - you reserve your criticism for me. I regard you as a bonded servant of the GOP and a supremely tedious hall monitor type.
Besides, "McCainiac" would be the go-to phrase. "McCaininite" has no negative connotation. I guess you couldn't bring yourself to come up with one that did.
Accusing conservatives and Republicans of low intelligence, simple-mindedness, etc., has been part of the liberal playbook for years -- with loads of help from so-called "journalists."
See here, for an obvious example.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushdumbpeople.htm
There are plenty of stupid people on both sides of the aisle.
The difference is that only the liberals vote as stupid as they are.
;-)
"One thing I noticed watching the debates tonight is that McCain comes across as more negative and attacking." Peter Bautista
TR: They were both fairly attacking. I do respect that many Americans aren't used to an academic or even High-School debate world though. In that world "I agree with" is often just a prelude for the kill, which is pretty much what Obama did. Academics are odd so I should've understand why what he was doing might not register. If you don't know what it is I guess that strategy/tactic can sound like "oh, he agrees with something isn't that nice and civil." The reality is, no not really. It's a tactic, one I've used myself, to be as negative as possible without looking personally hostile. (Also to avoid becoming personally angry by distancing/distracting yourself from your emotions. You think of one-point of agreement or empathy so you can launch in without being overwhelmed by bile)
Now I understand why that might be confusing for some, but I assumed it would be obvious to pundits. So I assumed the post-debate would talk about how Obama showed he can be real tough and adversarial, that he's not some marshmallow. I figured there would be praise for his more aggressive tone even if I didn't care for it much. That it showcased him as strong without being mean or whatever. Instead everyone, even the McCain campaign, indicates he was weak and deferential. I'm almost baffled. These people at least knew someone in debate or forensics, didn't they?
I know I know "McCain made funny faces and had weird body language." However McCain always makes funny faces and has always had weird body language. In press conferences I've seen where he's being praised by Republicans he dislikes he practically grimaces, looks away, or acts uncomfortable. It's a bothersome tic that could lose him an election and it does show a certain immaturity. (Like a child if he doesn't like someone it badly shows on his face. When Romney endorsed him he had a "God, I wish I didn't need this bozo" look on his face that he made really awkward efforts to hide. I concede this could be really bad in negotiations) So anyway its weird, but it's not exactly news.
"Irreverent Comment on voting ratings"
Do you know much about those groups? Oftentimes "Catholics for" are basically conventional liberal organizations that happened to started by Liberation Theologians or something. Same with some Vets groups.
That McCain is not lockstep with lawyers or NARAL is a huge plus to me.
Negative campaigning will not be going away, that was indeed a daydream. However, there is a difference between taking a "you are wrong on this issue" jab and the personal smear, guilt by association, etc.
I think Hans has a good point: The easily-satirable repetition of "what Senator Obama doesn't understand" not only sounds condescending, but comes across as insulting anyone who disagrees with him on any topic. That old guy who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is an uninformed idiot is not a beloved figure at work or at family reunions.
JVS in contrast makes the bizarre point that all the undecideds who disliked the McCain disdain and gave the debate to Obama are secret Obamatons. If all the undecideds in polls are secret Obamatons, we are indeed looking at a landslide. But I think it more likely that undecideds would like to be treated with a little respect, not as though they are idiots to have not yet agreed with whichever poster is ranting at the moment.
Deborah,
JVS in contrast makes the bizarre point that all the undecideds who disliked the McCain disdain and gave the debate to Obama are secret Obamatons.
Where, precisely, did I say anything of the sort?
I have no problem whatsoever with it. Obama was proven wrong, specifically on the surge. And Obama did clearly misunderstand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. When it comes to military terminology and strategy, Obama was leagues out of his depth. I was happy to see McCain press that point. God knows the closeted and not-so-closeted Obamatons in the media won't.
Colloquially strategy vs. tactics simply means big picture vs. small picture. Long term vs. day-to-day. The military has more specific definitions, but most viewers won't care.
I would say that tempermentally, McCain is simply a tactics guy. Nominating Palin, for example, was a short term tactic, not a strategy. He won the news cycle for a few days because of it, but it is now turning into a disaster.
Talking about Iraq (and the war on terror) as though the only issue worth discussing is the surge is small-ball. I thought one of Obama's best lines was telling McCain that he thought the war started in 2007. It fit McCain's tactical mindset perfectly.
McCain "suspending" his campaign to go to Washington (when even Senate and House Republicans had no idea what he was trying to accomplish) was again, a short-term tactic, designed to win the news cycle. It got him a lot of attention, but then blew up. Most people (fairly or not) now think he broke or postponed the inevitable deal.
Regarding the surge, I'm glad the Republicans finally got something right after five years. But even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Negative campaigning, or negative tactics work well when the reinforce feelings that are already there. If they don't, they just don't resonate. Currently the overall feeling in the country is that we're on the wrong track (80%). It is very difficult for any Republican to successfully use negative attacks right now. They just don't resonate with how a lot of undecided voters feel.
For months, Republicans have been portraying Obama as a lightweight. That goes with McCain's "he doesn't understand". Unfortunately (for McCain), Obama just didn't sound like a lightweight in the debate. He sounded fairly knowledgeable and credible.
You can disagree with him on policy positions (and I often do) but he was able to make strong arguments and sound like he actually knew a lot (or at least, knew as much as McCain). I think on points that the debate was a tie, but in terms of undermining the narrative that the Republicans have been trying to create, it was a win for Obama. The "Obama is a lightweight" meme is dead at this point, even though I'm sure the McCain campaign will keep trying to use it.
@JVS Apologies that was another poster. Though I do not find your contention that everyone is stupid but only Democrats vote stupid (especially in its present "vote McCain so he can appoint people like Palin!!!" incarnation) that far off McCain's "all those people who disagree with me just don't understand anything about the issues; only I understand the issues...."
Megan's colleague James Fallows has a worthwhile take on this. If nothing goes drastically wrong, as happened Friday, then those already committed will applaud their candidate. If you agree with someone on the issues and like their overall demeanor--more than you agree with or like the other candidate--then this is hardly surprising, and accounts for all the self-congratulatory "well our guy knocked it out of the park" stuff that infests the blogs after every debate. But to those just starting to pay attention, which candidate scored the most points isn't that important. (That's why they don't call them "pundits.") Issues matter, but as a frame for emotional judgments--on the economy, does he sound like someone who identifies with people like me? On defense, does he sound like he would work to keep us safe? And on those, Obama's strategy soundly thumped McCain's tactics. Apparently McCain's "Senator Obama just doesn't understand bupkis" mantra didn't go over well with these voters.
Wait, you think CNN has "closet" Obama lovers? Come on, I don't really think they're very in the closet about it. Or at least the closet has an open door.
As far as I can tell you never call any wingnuts out - you reserve your criticism for me.
Quoted for posterity!
Oh, and...
Besides, "McCainiac" would be the go-to phrase.
That one's good, too. I'll add it to the file.
"McCaininite" has no negative connotation. I guess you couldn't bring yourself to come up with one that did.
There's a literary allusion in it, but since you're more interested in guessing about people's motives than book reading, the result was to be expected. I will attempt to be clearer in the future.
aMouse squeaks again: "There's a literary allusion in it, but since you're more interested in guessing about people's motives than book reading, the result was to be expected. I will attempt to be clearer in the future."
I have an Ivy League English degree and a law degree, chuckles. You can proclaim yourself to be more literate than I am but that doesn't make it so.
You seem to spend most of your time here striving to say as little as possible. I can believe you're not butter.
That's a cultural allusion you might not get. Ask your mom.
"It is very difficult for any Republican to successfully use negative attacks right now." ADJ
TR: I think being negative on the Democrats of the House of Representatives might work, at least a little bit. Pelosi et alia are not particularly popular. Unlike going after Senators it doesn't sound as "inside" as McCain complaining about Reid, or whoever, because McCain hasn't been in the House in 20 years or however long it's been. Obama as President means the House wins, so to speak.
Would it work? Probably not, but then again nothing is probably going to work. An unpopular two-term President is pretty much never succeeded by the same party. A bad economy is bad for the President's party. All factors point to McCain losing even if he was a more brilliant campaigner than Clinton in 1992 and I'd agree he certainly is not.
Thomas R writes: "I think being negative on the Democrats of the House of Representatives might work, at least a little bit. Pelosi et alia are not particularly popular. Unlike going after Senators it doesn't sound as "inside" as McCain complaining about Reid, or whoever, because McCain hasn't been in the House in 20 years or however long it's been. Obama as President means the House wins, so to speak."
I hope McCain takes your advice. I can't think of a dumber strategy, unless of course he were to hang his hat on the awesome competence of Sarah Palin.
What Thomas and all of the other GOP loyalists refuse to admit is that the GOP deserves to lose, and it deserves to lose big. And so it will. Rather than wasting time trying to avoid the inevitable, they should see what they can do to purge the idiots and the lunatics out of their party. Of course this would leave them with a very, very small party, but at least the remnant wouldn't be a complete joke.
Hint: Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin is a salvageable asset is an idiot or a lunatic.
"closet Obamatrons"
Let's think about how stupid that is for a minute.
"Ghost Rider" should be capitalized. It's the name of Mav's aircraft.
(That was one of the more significant bits of confusing dialog that was never explained. Lots of folks thought "Ghostrider" was Maverick's practice or alternative call sign.)
"What Thomas and all of the other GOP loyalists"
TR: I don't like the Democratic Party, but I'm not a GOP loyalist. If I'd thought of a good independent to write-in in 2004 I would have.
The GOP is chock full of crooks, loons, and greedy idiots. I've considered donating to "Democrats for Life of America" this year.
All that does not mean that I want the Left-wing of the Democratic party to control the Legislative and Executive branches. Republicans already lost. That happened in 2006 when they lost the Congress. And even if McCain wins it means he's widely disliked by the Republican Party.
So the difference is I'm not an anti-GOP loyalist. I'm not a believer in the idea that Republicans need to be punished as much as humanly possible, and the Democratic Party given near total control, to satisfy a lust for vengeance.
Thomas R replies: "And even if McCain wins it means he's widely disliked by the Republican Party.
So the difference is I'm not an anti-GOP loyalist. I'm not a believer in the idea that Republicans need to be punished as much as humanly possible, and the Democratic Party given near total control, to satisfy a lust for vengeance. "
If McCain somehow wins he'll need the support of the entire GOP base.
Republicans need to be held accountable for the last 8 years, and they will be. I may think of it as justified vengeance, and I deeply hope the victory is followed up with the prosecution and jailing of hundreds of vicious, amoral Republican animals, but I would hope anyone who cares about accountability would be unable to come up with a good argument for McCain winning.
I realize fetus fetishists have their own weird math, though.