The Trouble With McCain

I'm working on some thoughts about Josh Marshall's long series of posts on what's wrong with John McCain, but consider that in the works. For now, let me note this from The Note:

McCain is writing the latest script with Steve Schmidt, who brings discipline, decisiveness, and determination to his new role -- and most importantly, the perception of all three qualities for the journalists and GOP insiders who were almost ready to give up on McCain.

It doesn't really surprise me to learn that The Note considerations "perception" of positive qualities among "journalists and GOP insiders" to be the most important thing a new campaign manager could have. But clearly that's a silly thing to believe. But I get the sense that McCain himself believes it -- that if he jiggers things just right GOP Machers + McCain Fanboys in the Press = National Electoral Majority.

Comments

He's right. It will.

Add in an Iran war and it's just about guaranteed. I keep telling you, McCain is the anointed next President of the United States. Obama might as well quit now.

And what the hell is a "Macher"?

Christ, Matt, when are you going to fix both your typos and the goddamn Atlantic server? I've had four straight server errors on the last four posts I've made here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 9, 2008 6:47 PM

But clearly that's a silly thing to believe. But I get the sense that McCain himself believes it -- that if he jiggers things just right GOP Machers + McCain Fanboys in the Press = National Electoral Majority.

Why is this is a silly thing to believe? It may quite possibly be true - if the GOP Machers provide him the funds to run a typically dyspeptic Republican campaign and the McCain Fanboys allows him to say any crazy pandering thing he wants, he could scrape out a victory.

Indeed, it's the only strategy available to him.

Posted by Gabriel | July 9, 2008 6:47 PM

But clearly that's a silly thing to believe. But I get the sense that McCain himself believes it -- that if he jiggers things just right GOP Machers + McCain Fanboys in the Press = National Electoral Majority.

Why is this is a silly thing to believe? It may quite possibly be true - if the GOP Machers provide him the funds to run a typically dyspeptic Republican campaign and the McCain Fanboys allow him to say any crazy pandering thing he wants, he could scrape out a victory.

Indeed, it's the only strategy available to him.

Posted by Gabriel | July 9, 2008 6:48 PM

Hey, its worked so far. Why change a winning strategy? I'm going to go light a candle now and pray.

Posted by JAB | July 9, 2008 6:52 PM

But I get the sense that McCain himself believes it -- that if he jiggers things just right GOP Machers + McCain Fanboys in the Press = National Electoral Majority.

I believe it too. McCain's made two major gaffes in the past 48 hours (calling Social Security an "absolute disgrace" and joking about killing Iranians, again) that have received virtually no coverage from the mainstream media. Meanwhile, the media is literally inventing bad things to say about Obama (his alleged Iraq flip-flop, the phony story about him refusing to fist-bump a kid, the phony story about his home loan, etc).

If this keeps up, McCain could very well pull off a victory in November.

Posted by Darius | July 9, 2008 6:57 PM

Who is to say McCain is wrong? He has been running a terrible campaign recently ... but is within just 4 points of Obama in the latest polls.

And the media is pounding on Obama for ... nothing.

So maybe McCain is right to focus on the visuals and on his relationship with the media. Again ... it is complete crapola, but it seems to be working.

Not that this is fair, and not that it is a good thing.

Posted by Bokonon | July 9, 2008 7:13 PM

"Macher" = "bigshot" in Yiddish. Matt's just showing off his Grace Church education.

Posted by phil | July 9, 2008 7:13 PM

How DARE you question John McCain's integrity! Why, the man was shot down!

I asked you a question, Mr. Yglesias! How DARE you!?!?

Posted by Stefan | July 9, 2008 7:16 PM

Is the Atlantic using a TRS-80 for its server? The speed and reliability of the blogs sucks.

Maybe Matt should just open a blog at mybarackobama and start posting there. It would certainly be a big improvement.

Posted by lampwick | July 9, 2008 7:24 PM

I think it is important to MY that campaigns & elections be at least in part determined by policy preferences and assessment of competence, rational actor stuff, ya know? Maybe even 30-50% of what determines the outcome.

That's why he insists that Clinton lost because of her Iraq policy. And why it is important that Kerry & Gore made mistakes, were bad candidates. The story just can't be that Bush sold bullshit in the midst of catastrophe and won.

Abandon that, abandon a rational voter theory of politics, and procedural liberalism is in big trouble. Politics has and can exist without procedural liberalism, can deliver good outcomes, and even be fun. Obama knows.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 9, 2008 7:27 PM

I am as disgusted as anyone with the Lapdog Express style of reporting, but looking at it rationally, ultimately I think this does McCain more harm than good. The press can't shield him forever, he is stuck at 40-44%, has been for months. He likely won't be ready when the accumulative mistatements, the convetions and the debates catch up with him - in part because he will have no experience with the greater exposure and how to react.

As to the polls - my sense is that most of the undecided break for Obama - it's early, they want more information, want to be sure. But the way the last couple weeks have gone (no McCain added voters) pretty clearly indicates it will take a lot of the undecided to break for McCain.

Posted by hopeless pedant | July 9, 2008 7:34 PM

This would explain why McCain has this odd obsession with attacking Obama over how he runs for President, like the swipe he took at Obama today over that mock Presidential seal from two weeks ago -- a subject which you figure has to resonate much more with McCain and his advisers than with Americans. But maybe he's not talking to Americans -- maybe he's talking to the elite press corps, who are probably among the only people in the country who could identify the mock seal on sight.

Posted by neil | July 9, 2008 7:36 PM

Well, since MY sent me over to TPM , here is David Sirota on his new book.

But I don't suppose The Uprising has anything to do with politics, which is about Presidential Campaign managers and the MSM.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 9, 2008 7:52 PM

Well, since MY sent me over to TPM , here is David Sirota on his new book.

But I don't suppose The Uprising has anything to do with politics, which is about Presidential Campaign managers and the MSM.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 9, 2008 7:54 PM

The press will go after Obama much more than McCain. SNL made fun of them a few months ago for going too easy on him, so now they ignore every crazy thing McCain says and invent things to attack Obama on. They're children.

Posted by mad6798 | July 9, 2008 8:00 PM

for the journalists and GOP insiders who were almost ready to give up on McCain.

What is "who were almost ready to give up on McCain" modifying? Is this a concession that the journalists are pulling for McCain?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 9, 2008 8:03 PM

Well, the Creamy Donut Brigade thought that happy fun times with Johnny Mac were going away last autumn, but they've been enjoying extra sprinkles for a while. So I think it modifies just the GOP insiders who managed to assemble a bunch of primary contenders who no-one really much liked.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2008 8:30 PM

Is the Atlantic using a TRS-80 for its server?

Judging by speed and reliability, this blog is being run on a Commodore PC-1

Posted by rea | July 9, 2008 8:50 PM

In an odd way, it's not much different from Bush's approach to Iraq.

There's this apparent belief that if he can get the elite opinion types to say that Iraq is going well, then it really doesn't matter much what is actually happening on the ground, or what the broader geopolitical strategic consequences of Iraq are.

Remember all that emphasis on painting the schools, and all the whining that reporters only covered the bombings and death?

It really is quite bizarre. I feel like historically, every administration has aggressively managed the press--but fundamentally, it was in order to get enough time and public support for their good ideas to eventually bear good results. Kind of like giving your investors a pep talk until the receipts start rolling in.

But this administration seems to view the media stuff as the end goal. Like, if you're getting good coverage, it doesn't matter what's happening on the ground! It's all pep talks, and no quarterly reports! Who cares what the sales numbers are?

It's insane. Although it does explain why they are so obsessed with people's feelings and their entire "green lantern" approach to policy.

Posted by anonymiss | July 9, 2008 10:17 PM

Obama's got some luck. Look at the list of characters who have self-destructed before him:

The Illinois GOP
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Jesse Jackson

and soon:

John McCain

I'm glad he's on my team. But sometimes I wonder if he's merely the last halfway decent and competent politician in a system chock full of jackasses, nitwits, and turds.

Posted by lampwick | July 9, 2008 10:28 PM

Anonymiss: It IS all "pep talk" and it doesn't matter what the reality on the ground is.

Because as long as Dick Cheney and his oil company and military-industrial complex cronies are making money, THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!

People just don't want to believe that's how this country is being run.

But it's true.

When it comes to McCain and his 40-44% ratings, that doesn't matter. Bush and Cheney and McCain and the GOP bigwigs (okay, Matt, Macher, whatever) know (or at least believe - and I think reasonably so) that when the Iran war starts, McCain will get a ten point bounce in the polls by supporting Bush. Obama will get a five point drop by supporting Bush - and he will support Bush in the attack, even if he criticizes the lack of "diplomacy" by Bush first.

And that ten point bounce will make McCain the next President.

This has been planned since before 2006. Josh Bolton, the White House Chief of Staff, said it in 2006: "The Dems will lose over Iran."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 9, 2008 10:52 PM

lampwick: Don't forget the Illinois Dems in 2004 and George W. Bush in 2005 and 2006.

Posted by Gabriel | July 9, 2008 10:53 PM

I remember a discussion on metafilter in the aftermath of McCain's defeat in the 2000 primaries. Someone commented how he couldn't understand how McCain had lost so badly when he was so popular. A Republican chimed in to point out that McCain was not popular with voters; he was popular with the press, and it created the illusion of wide support among the public.

In the end, there was only so much McCain could do with a journalistic fan club but without money and electoral foot-soldiers in 2000, and that's going to hold true in 2008, as well.

Posted by Tyro | July 9, 2008 11:30 PM

Tyro -

it's true that McCain's popularity with the press didn't win him the 2000 GOP primary. But that was a primary - a process that gives disproportionate weight to partisans and ideologues.

The general election is a very different story. In the general, it's more about attracting the elusive "swing voter." In practice, that means attracting voters who are largely uninformed, have vague opinions and positions, and make judgments based on fairly superficial perceptions. McCain's popularity with the press will certainly help him in that regard.

Whether that will be enough to overcome the unappealing aspects of his persona, or the overall degradation of the GOP's image, is an open question.

Posted by N | July 9, 2008 11:59 PM

Tyro: He wasn't "anointed" in 2000 - Bush was.

Now the same people who "anointed" Bush are "anointing" McCain. That's the entire difference.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 10, 2008 12:03 AM

Here's a good, close to home example of the way members of the mainstream media are so committed to the McCain narrative that they literally cannot see McCain acting in any way dishonorably:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/mccain_sticks_by_capntrade.php

Ambinder collates the evidence of McCain saying one thing to the general public on climate change and another, opposite thing behind his hand to the GOP denialists, and then contorts himself in knots trying to understand and then explain to his logical readers the logical consistency of it all.

It is staring him in the face, but he literally cannot see what McCain is doing.

Despite overwhelming evidence, the idea that McCain is less than sincere on climate change, or that he is a trimmer, simply does not compute.

Posted by Mark | July 10, 2008 2:00 AM

For now, let me note this from The Note:

"The Note"?

They still have that?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 10, 2008 9:25 AM

I think Matt may be failing to appreciate the gravity of the current situation for McCain and the GOP. If enough people in the GOP decide McCain is destined to be a loser, the resulting turnout and bandwagon effects could lead to a Mondalesque loss for McCain and a bloodbath in the Senate and House (meaning losses worse than the GOP is currently expecting). It is therefore absolutely critical that McCain et al find a way to convince at least Republicans that he can turn around his campaign and compete effectively. In that sense, perceptions of McCain and his campaign among Republicans who are approaching the point of giving up on McCain really are a crucial issue right now, even if addressing those concerns would not by itself be enough to win the election.

Posted by DTM | July 10, 2008 9:43 AM

Judging by speed and reliability, this blog is being run on a Commodore PC-1

"Press play on tape."

Posted by Just Dropping By | July 10, 2008 9:57 AM