Obama's Choice

That picture above is, according to Gallup, the underlying issue preferences of the American public. It's interesting to note that even in these polarized times, there appear to be a substantial number of people who are at least in some sense torn between McCain and Obama preferring one on some issues and the other on some other issues.

You also see that national security has turned into a substantial disadvantage for Obama -- he's tied on the question of Iraq and losing badly on the question of terrorism. But he's in the lead because these are, at the moment, relatively low-salience issues compared to people's economic grievances. This leaves Obama with a choice of campaign strategies, he can try to emphasize the issues he's winning on, hoping to maintain the current low salience of security, or he can attempt to shore up his weaknesses by talking about national security and trying to persuade people that his vision of an aggressive, but focused and disciplined, full-spectrum campaign against al-Qaeda is the best way to keep the country safe.

The conventional Democratic strategy would be to try to duck the debate and hope the economy will carry him through. That kind of thinking is, however, one of the reasons Democrats have had their Heads in the Sand for many years. It's relatively likely that events in the world will lead to a renewed focus on national security at some point in the coming months, and it's also relatively easy for the McCain campaign to change subjects in this direction at a time of their choosing since security issues are, by their nature, visceral and frightening.

At the same time, McCain is the heir to eight years of failed policymaking from the Bush administration and Obama has a very solid case to make that he can do better. But will he make it aggressively?

Comments

Bam! Awesome plug (and salient analysis).

Posted by scythia | June 27, 2008 2:51 PM

"... This leaves Obama with a choice of campaign strategies, he can try to emphasize the issues he's winning on, hoping to maintain the current low salience of security, or he can attempt to shore up his weaknesses by talking about national security and trying to persuade people that his vision of an aggressive, but focused and disciplined, full-spectrum campaign against al-Qaeda is the best way to keep the country safe."

Or he could get to the right of McCain on immigration where both are weak.

Posted by James B. Shearer | June 27, 2008 2:58 PM

He could make the case with the right running mate. Gen. Jones or Zinni, anyone? (Nunn or Webb might do it, but they'd be less persuasive in the role.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 27, 2008 3:01 PM

The conventional Democratic strategy would be to try to duck the debate and hope the economy will carry him through. That kind of thinking is, however, one of the reasons Democrats have had their Heads in the Sand for many years. It's relatively likely that events in the world will lead to a renewed focus on national security at some point in the coming months, and it's also relatively easy for the McCain campaign to change subjects in this direction at a time of their choosing since security issues are, by their nature, visceral and frightening.

Shorter Yglesias: what Charlie Black said!

I'll say again what I said before - events on the national security front will tend to redound to Obama's benefit, not McCain's. Both Matthew and Black are wrong about this. The only way national security can gain salient without looking bad for Republicans is if Obama acts to raise its salience.

Posted by Al | June 27, 2008 3:06 PM

The other reason he is in the lead is that people can sense his CONFIDENCE on foreign affairs issues. Even if they disagree with him they at least see him as a strong leader, which is critically important. It's super-important that he not try to sidestep these issues even if his position is less popular. People want a leader ont these issues first and foremost.

Posted by PG | June 27, 2008 3:08 PM

Yes, of course he will make it aggressively, as he has been already. And in part that is because it doesn't matter if he ever wins on these issues in head-to-head polls with McCain--as long as people don't believe he will be an objectively weak leader on national security issues, the rest of his advantages will be more than enough to win. And speaking with conviction about national security issues is crucial to creating the right impression.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 3:08 PM

‘National security’ is bloodless, guilt-free pollster-speak for “will kill brown people in case lots, at the drop of a hat, on the thinnest of pretexts, for me.” Of course McCain wins on 'national security'. He's never met a war he didn't like, and is still pissed at Clinton's failure to use ground forces against Serbia.

American politics for the foreseeable future is poker played with the bodies of dead brown people who worship the wrong God.

A the end of the day, the GOP can point to real, extant hecatombs of infidel dead. All the Democrats can do is promise.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 27, 2008 3:12 PM

No surprise, but confirms that faking a terrorist attack in September/October is the Republicans' only chance. I still say McCain should hire al Qaeda to kidnap his wife - two birds with one stone.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 27, 2008 3:40 PM

Subject, verb, Heads in the Sand. It gets almost as tiring as ol' Rudy (and I know it is partially tongue in cheek, a concept as foreign to Rudy as, well, foreign policy). Oh well, at least Matt is less dangerous.

Posted by Marlowe | June 27, 2008 3:50 PM

McCain is an old man, a poor public speaker, not terribly interested in domestic policy at all, and carries the baggage of Bush-and-GOP fatigue.

With all that going against McCain, Obama should be beating the pants off him. Instead, Obama is barely ahead. Testament to the fundamental weaknesses of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Mixner | June 27, 2008 3:58 PM

"there appear to be a substantial number of people who are at least in some sense torn between McCain and Obama preferring one on some issues and the other on some other issues"

You can't draw that conclusion from this graph. For example people who think Obama will be good on healthcare but McCain will be on terrorism could be as small a few points.

Good analysis, otherwise!

Posted by Lee | June 27, 2008 4:04 PM

With all that going against McCain, Obama should be beating the pants off him. Instead, Obama is barely ahead. Testament to the fundamental weaknesses of the Democratic Party.

Or the fundamental weakness of Obama as a candidate. In November we'll see how the presidential and the congressional elections compare, whether Obama does better than the congressional Democrats or worse, or maybe neither will be weak!

Posted by Danny | June 27, 2008 4:15 PM

Unreal that McCain beats Obama on terrorism and ties him on Iraq after 5 years of the BushCo/Cheneyburton wars. The "democrats" just can't seem to articulate a convincing anti-Bush position on these issues.

It's hard to know what to make of the illegal immigration category. Which McCain were the poll responders thinking of - the one that was for or against amnesty?

Posted by kafka | June 27, 2008 4:55 PM

I wonder how things would change with Independents if Sen. Obama telegraphed that he was interested in Hagel for his cabinet.

Posted by carsick | June 27, 2008 5:52 PM

I have to give Obama credit for taking a stand on increasing internal oil production (no to new drilling offshore, etc.). But the stance could prove to be unpopular enough to shift the energy numbers in the polls.

Posted by S.P. Gass | June 27, 2008 6:00 PM

I assume that question, "Who's better on terrorism?" Means whose policies will create more terrorists, just as whose economic policy will create a stronger economy. And so, yeah, hands down, that's McCain. Now, if the question were "Who's better on anti-terrorism?" Obama would win easily.

Posted by kidkostar | June 27, 2008 6:57 PM

I think Obama should try to raise his national security profile because he has a much better position than McCain. (Obama: let's be smart, keep all options open, tone down the bluster; McCain: let's shun everyone, then bomb them.) But based on his running to the center crap since clinching the nomination, I think he will play it "safe," i.e. keep his head in the sand, and emphasize his domestic strength and hope national defense stays in the background.

Posted by bobbo | June 27, 2008 7:02 PM

This chart shows the ignorance and inability to reason of the American people.

On the one hand, they want solutions to high oil prices and energy costs.

On the other hand, they prefer McCain's "handling" of "terrorism" - which is to bomb Iran and bump up the cost of gas at the pump to $10-20 a gallon.

Can you say, "Morons with no concept of cause and effect?"

I knew you could.

And as I've said, this DOES show that McCain has a very real chance of stomping Obama if the Iran war breaks out before the elections. Because most of the American electorate will back that war - until it becomes painfully clear to them, as Iraq has, just how bad a decision that was.

Except for the first three items on that chart, McCain will probably only need a ten percent bump in popularity to beat Obama. And he can get that from a "war bounce" easily.

Obama needs to distinguish himself from McCain on the issue of Iran and Iraq and he needs to gut McCain on his "war hero" image - or he's going to lose if the Iran war starts before November.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 7:54 PM

The good news is that 30% of the public realizes that both Obama and McCain are equally malign on illegal immigration.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 27, 2008 8:26 PM

Obama needs to keep whacking at McCain over Iraq. He has to, and he loves to. So he's going to. He reaches for it with glee when McCain starts in with the "Munich" stuff or the "surrender" stuff. "I'm not going to be lectured by..." It's one of his big applause lines.

He's also an Afghanistan/Pakistan hawk. Remember when Hillary and Biden and McCain tried to dump on him for saying he'd act on actionable intelligence to hit al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan? I think that worked out pretty well for him. It's notable that it was something THEY jumped all over, and assumed it would be a lead weight around his neck, and he ended up winning. It was pretty cool, the way the DC lifers in politics and media just assumed they could bury him with their collective condescension, and it didn't work.

So, he doesn't need to win on this foreign policy, just keep it close; and he's met with success in the past arguing vigorously while defying the Beltway consensus on the issue; and he holds a substantially different position from John McCain on the most important foreign policy issue of the day; and oh yeah, his position is vastly more popular than this opponent's.

I don't think we're going to have to worry about Barack Obama talking about foreign policy and Iraq enough. I think people who leave comments on Matthew Igelasias' blog are going to be sick of Barack Obama's foreign policy stump speech by the fall.

Posted by joe from Lowell | June 27, 2008 10:45 PM

I love the Republican spin that amounts to:

"Even though Obama is ahead of McCain in current polling we and our nominee suck so bad that Obama should be even farther ahead of McCain than he actually is which means that it is actually the Democrats and Obama who suck."

But I guess that sort of thing might work with the Karl Rove's math crowd.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 10:54 PM

The other reason he is in the lead is that people can sense his CONFIDENCE on foreign affairs issues.

I think that's critical. He is confident about everything, and confidence is the coin of the presidential campaign realm. It sustained Bush for a hell of a long time after a lot of people realized he isn't so bright. The 50-state strategy talk is as much about projecting confidence than anything else.

That said, I find the terrorism gap a little disquieting. I would expected it to be a little narrower. Even on taxes and moral values seems huge though. Especially the latter, given all the post-2004 handwringing over precisely that.

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 28, 2008 12:53 AM

How on earth is a sleazy adulterer like McCain practically tying family man Obama on "moral values?"

Answer: People are stupid.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 28, 2008 5:21 AM

How on earth is a sleazy adulterer like McCain practically tying family man Obama on "moral values?" Answer: People are stupid.

Call the Obama campaign and ask them if they agree with your answer. Let us know what they say. And can we get that in writing?

Liberals might be a bit more successful at persuading Americans that they really do care about the common man if every other sentence they uttered did not reek with contempt and derision for ordinary people.

Posted by Mixner | June 28, 2008 7:20 PM