Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Attack Politics 101

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 06:06
in

Phil Singer mostly nails this:

Political attacks work best when the charge they make is both echoed by the subject of those attacks and resonate with voter perceptions of that candidate.  Case in point: The flip-flop attack on John Kerry wouldn’t have been nearly as effective as it was if he hadn’t told voters in West Virginia that he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.  Kerry gave the Republicans a real time example of the negative storyline they were driving against him.

Fast forward to 2008: It’s tough to make the McSame attack stick because John McCain rose to national prominence by being a thorn in George W. Bush’s side.  McCain might have voted for 90 percent of the Bush agenda but the public got to know him as a pain in Bush’s behind - a perception aided by the fact that Democrats rushed to exploit the McCain-Bush schism that came out of the 2000 primaries.

So does that mean the Obama campaign should ignore the fact that McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush.  Absolutely not.

It means that the Obama campaign needs to focus its energies on generating some real time examples of McCain hugging Bush.  (I think there are some other areas to hit as well but that’s a post for another time.)

Democrats need to test McCain’s maverick claims by creating news stories that force the Republican to choose between opposing the Bush Administration OR adopting the Bush position on an issue playing out in the headlines.

Therein lies the rub of the McSame strategy and the challenges Obama has attacking. The McSame attack directly contradicts McCain's image as Bush's #1 rival in the Republican Party, something Democrats were all too happy to stoke back in the day.

This is the Obama campaign going with an Attack 1.0 strategy -- pick your opponent's theoretically most damaging vulnerability and hammer away at it, regardless of how initially believable it is. The premise: repetition will make an initially farfetched but damaging attack believable.

The McCain campaign and the Steve Schmidt machine is pursuing an Attack 2.0 strategy. Pick the most believable attack (or the one most likely to get picked up by earned media, which magnifies paid media by orders of magnitude) even if it isn't the most damaging, and hammer away until it is the most relevant and therefore damaging.

Attack 2.0 beats Attack 1.0 because there is some kernel of public belief in the attack that allows it to go viral.

This is the premise behind "celeb" -- up to that point, Obama's celebrity status had been considered an asset. But in reality, it was always a hidden vulnerability. As I wrote on July 7:

The 2008 election will polarize around Obama in the same way that 2004 polarized around Bush. That's because Obama is a cultural icon. But so are Tom Cruise and Britney Spears. The danger to this celebrity strategy is that it's rendering Obama's trump card -- partisan contrast and "Bush's third term" -- irrelevant. Once someone is knocked off a pedastal as high as Obama's is, the fall is so hard that it doesn't matter that "the other guy is worse."

What are the viral attack memes you can come up with about McCain? If I were a Democrat, I think it was these three:

  1. His age
  2. That he is hiding behind Palin to mask flagging enthusiasm for his campaign and his age
  3. That he was a maverick but sold his soul to the devil (Bush) for power

Actually attacking on these, though, is problematic:

  1. You can't attack directly on age, and definitely not in a close election, without screwing yourself with the senior demographic in Florida and Pennsylvania
  2. Palin is an asset to the McCain campaign. And people see McCain as his own man.
  3. You remind people of his maverick status. However, of the three, I think this is still a vast improvement on "McSame." Democrats have to at least acknowledge McCain's (former) maverick status, and put it in context, just as McCain acknowledged Obama's celebrity status and put it in context. The most believable thing about McCain is that he is in no way of a maverick but that he is less of one than he used to be for cynical reasons. I have heard Bill Clinton and Joe Biden hint at this line of attack, but not Barack Obama.

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Likewise for the definition of a gaffe

Submitted by Evil Conservative on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 09:04.

You can't claim a gaffe unless it fits the perception of a candidate already.

For example, McCain confusing Sunni and Shia didn't get much traction outside the left because it was incongruent to the perception of McCain being strong on foreign policy. Had Obama confused Sunni and Shia I think the story would have gotten more traction. Even if McCain kept up the confusion on foreign affairs, the more salient concern would still be his age that caused the confusion and not his lack of knowledge of foreign policy.

That's why Obama had a genuine gaffe with lipstick. There is a perception that he may be sexist or that he's too inexperienced to realize the consequences of a statement like that.

Punch-drunk Obama campaign lost their script

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 13:18.

In the last two weeks, we have seen a savaging of the resiliently popular Governor Sarah Palin.

In doing so, the Democrats are engaged in pointless skirmishing over a person and an issue that is not even at the top of the ticket. Yet what does it manage to do? Undo the entire Obama campaign strategy:

1. It highlights the experience issue, and not in a good way for Obama, since Palin is a Governor, a job that neither Obama nor Biden have held.

2. It keeps McCain above the fray. So now Obama is wrestling with pigs with lipstick. Nice job, Barack.  Attack a hockey Mom and the American people decide to go for the war hero rather than the inexperienced celeb guy who has the hockey Mom under his skin.

3. The negativity completely undoes the 'hope' and 'change' theme. This is the same old, dirty partisan slug-fest politics.  ... oh, and every time McCain gets magnanimous on us and offers Obama a cabinet post (like he did last night) or says that Obama is an American and its a common bond that unites us (like he did at the convention) we get a taste of what real bipartisanship means (and some of us VRWC types cringe at McCain's true Maverickiness).  Obama talks the talk. McCain walks the walk.

Now they go after McCain about computers?!? LOL, and they were supposed to make this about big issues.  In 1982, McCain was a new Congressman ... and Obama was a pothead (self admitted in his first book). Do they want to go there?!?

McCain could completely overrun the Obama position if he waits a bit more for the Obama team to 'unload' their negativity and futher screw up their campaign... AND THEN RESPOND NOT BASED ON DAY TO DAY NITPICKS BUT THE BIG ISSUES:

- ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

- JUDGES WHO RULE ON LAW NOT MAKE LAW

-  THE JUDGMENT TO LEAD

- KEEPING US SAFE BY WINNING THE GWOT

- GETTING ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN

Those are the big 5 issues and the scatterbrained Obama campaign is so punch-drunk by now they lost their script.  At the end of the day, people are going to want their decisions validated by substance of what the ageda for the future is. I believe that NEITHER campaign has given voters enough of a campaign substantive message to get that ticket validated (the voters want to vote for you but this 'seals the deal' as they have enough information to be fully decided).

McCain can win on all 5 issues, he has an easy case on the first 4 and on the economy, he has the case baesd on tax positions and his anti-earmark view on fiscal responsibility.

Such a campaign will also btw reconfrim that the Democrats have been terrible leaders in Congress as well. Wrong on GWOT, wrong on economy, bad stewards of the federal budget. It will mean seriously improved GOP generic ballot if voters see a serious reform-minded Republican message against a shallow hype-message from the Democrats.

Script

Submitted by Ephus on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 13:31.

Text:

John McCain cannot help American's out of this lousy economy because John McCain does not understand our problems.  Take John McCain's words for it "It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have." [take his voice].

We cannot afford four more years of another President who is "somewhat divorced" from our problems.

When we are struggling to pay our mortgages, John McCain has lost track of how many houses he owns.

When we are struggling to afford health insurance, John McCain wants to raise taxes on your health benefits.

When we are struggling to makes ends meet on Social Security, John McCain wants to put your Social Security funds into the hands of the Wall Street wizards who got us into this mess.

It's time for a change.  Barack Obama for President.

I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message, because you deserve a President who understands your problems and has solutions to help solve them.

If Obama truly understood our problems then he would not...

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 18:52.

be for massive tax increases on those who create jobs, forcecd unionization scams, Big government takeover of healthcare, for real entitlement reform, for truly open and honest government besides merely nice sounding campiagn rhetoric at election time and would, like Srak Palin, have a record of standing up to politcal corruption rather than have launched his political career making nice with the Chicago political machine and would STOP playing identity politics.

I have a nuanced disagreement

Submitted by MichaelTurk on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:22.

What you and Singer both hint at, but don't actually say, is more specific.  What the GOP does well is take a perceived strength and make it a weakness.  It's not just a hidden weakness.  It's something the opponent is actually counting on to drive their story.

Kerry in 2004 was all about being a war hero with 'a lifetime of service' in the Senate.  It's not enough to merely tag him a flip-flopper, because that applies to every politician.  You have to undermine his narrative completely. You do that by going after him on his military record as well as his support for the military since.  You do that by banging away on every goofy position he took in the Senate.  Then you go after the one's where he changed his mind.

Obama picked Palin and started pushing 'real change' because it goes directly to Obama's strength (and frankly, Obama's only message).  They can neutralize his only appeal.  At the same time they drew the Democrats into a discussion of Obama's weaknesses through attacks on Palin's inexperience, gender, etc.

Obama's tactics will fail because he's ringing the bell on known weaknesses that everyone a) can see and b) has chosen to ignore.

Obama picked Palin?

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 15:36.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Obama picked Sarah Palin as the target of his campaign's attack

Submitted by lagomorph on Fri, 09/12/2008 - 19:04.

I agree with Michael that this pick was calculated and strategic, or at least it was thought to be strategic at the time.  Now, of course, it does seem to be backfiring in a big way. In addition to the poll numbers indicating a solid bump for McCain, Intrade on 9/12/08 shows Obama at 48.2, McCain at 51.2.  That's a spectacular bump compared to a month ago when Obama had about a 14 point lead in the odds. 

I think the original idea was to create great lack of confidence in the public for John McCain's judgment.  Everyone assumed that this was merely a stunt to garner some leftover disgrunteled Hillary supporters committed to playing identify politics.  No one counted on Sarah Palin as a dark horse come-from-behind champion of conservative values who's been seriously considered for this role by the McCain campaign (and lots of us at The Next Right as well as Bill Kristol and Scott Rasmussen) for months. 

From the first weekend after her announcement when KOS began the viral personal attacks, there was a backstory that (a) Obama blogs on KOS, and (b) Obama operatives were thought to be behind the so-called "blogger attacks".  The MSM picked up the "Trig is Bristol's incestuously conceived changeling child" meme and the "Silly Little Ole Yahoo Gal Who's the Mayor of Wasilly/Mayberry" meme, and then of course there was the "Apocalyptic Right Wing Jesus Freak Wacko" meme followed somewhat closely by "Warmongering Endangered Species Murderer Hunting from Helicopters with Assault Rifles" meme.  Perhaps the most potentially risky among women is the Lipstick on a Pig remark combined with "old fish wrapped in newspaper" snark, but my personal favorite is the "Jesus was a Community Organizer but Pontius Pilate was a Governor" meme (mainly because Saul Alinsky's rule book for Community Organizers is dedicated to Satan, LOL). 

Instead of running against The Old Guy, Obama's made a conscious decision to run against the pistol packin' moose-huntin' baby Jesus lovin' Mama which is completely ridiculous because it overexposes every weakness of his in the process. 

Liberal Dishonest campaigns is what makes "swiftboating" work

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 15:38.

Turning your enemies "strength" into a 'weakness' only works because of the dishonesty of the liberal campaign.

In 2004, the dishonesty of this - "Kerry in 2004 was all about being a war hero" - was self-evident when you went back and looked at the John Kerry who told lies to Congress about what happened in Vietnam, repeating the 'Winter Soldier' myths, and who threw his medals over the Congressional fence and even met with the North Vietnamese. The "Swiftboating of John Kerry" was nothing more than getting the whole story out there about John Kerry's real record. If Kerry had a more authentic biography he was running on, it wouldnt have worked.

Right now, the Democrats have a very flawed candidate in Obama - inexperienced, too left-liberal, with a lot of baggage in his background (radical pals, corrupt Chicago allies, etc) - but the great strength of being "CHANGE" where there is low approvals of President Bush and the Democrat-led Congress. McCain picking Palin doesnt undermine the Obama change theme but it does mute its advantage. Palin is more of an outsider than Obam and Biden - both in the Senate majority. Obama's attempt to run ads with McCain and Bush are McLame.  Bush has decent personal approval (above 50%) and his lousy job approval is due to Iraq and some conservatives who wish he were more conservative, and he wont be on the ballot. 

One of the dishonest aspects to Obama's campaign is his claim to be a "different kind of candidate" who would unify the country. Obama has no record of being a bipartisan legislator, has consistently catered to the mad dogs of the left, and now he has on multiple occasions gone in the gutter in how he attacks Mccain and Palin. The 'lipstick on a pig' comment, the attacks on McCain for not using email (not realizing that McCain cant type because of his torture-induced war injuries), etc. Different?!? No way, same old smashmouth Carvellian politics.

Obama preaches change but he cannot practice it, and his negative ads against McCain/Palin only deepen the cynicism about who he really is. At the same time, I think that once the Palinmania and PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) subsides a bit and the campaign get backs to the core Obama v McCain fight, the questions will boil down to actual policies they will carry forward. Every day Obama avoids fighting on that ground is a day closer to a mcCain victory.

The Obama declaration to 'fight' is exactly wrong.  Voters wont get swayed by lame comparisons with Bush or side-issue attacks. Obama will have to ask themselves a question as they keep trying to push a rope with their phony attacks on mcCain: How stupid do they expect or want the voters to be?