Wednesday, November 05, 2008
McCain on the Couch
I have heard a great deal from my conservative friends who blame McCain's loss on the press--that the press had a love fest with Obama unlike anything we have ever seen, with some claiming that he was anointed as the second coming. These conservatives were blithely unaware of the similar recriminations in 2000 and 2004 when the Democrats were in the same boat.
This Slate article by Christopher Beam is a great primer on how McCain can "rebrand" himself, pointing out that a sizable chunk of his loss lays with him and his campaign. And that is true. Thus if the media treated McCain poorly (and in many respects they did), it was not motivated by partisan bias so much as it was motivated by the candidate and his campaign.
In the 2000 election--one that parallels this election--there was a poll taken on the Bush campaign bus before the election, asking the traveling press corp who would win the election. Bush's own traveling press picked Gore over Bush. But the Bush campaign did not flinch. Why? 1) They had run a campaign with a unified message while the Gore campaign started and stopped with different messages (Remember Gore 2.0, 3.0, etc.?). 2) They went out of their way to make the traveling press feel special. Remember all those nicknames that Candidate Bush had for various members of the press? Stretch, SuperStretch? And yet the Gore press corps hated the candidate. He denied them access, and when he did grant access, he lectured them like they were school children. So when they filed their stories, the tone was down right hostile, including complaints about what they were being fed day to day. The interesting thing is that in 2004, when the Bush campaign was tighter in access and where the Democrats could have made in-roads, the Kerry campaign made the same mistake as the Gore campaign. A candidate who rarely interacted with his traveling press and when he did, do so as a lecturer. The press didn't like Kerry any better than they liked Gore. Thus the stories continued to be filed with a hostile or critical tone. And Kerry also fell into the trap of appearing to lack a unified message, thus it appeared as if he was banking on a wing and a prayer.
Enter John McCain, who once claimed the press as his "base." He allowed his campaign staff to run the kind of campaign he is not comfortable running. After McCain had a rough couple of interviews early on in the election, his campaign staff shut him down. And when his running mate, Sarah Palin, blew the softball interviews with Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Sean Hannity, the campaign shut her down as well. Thus when the press was shut down, they went looking for stories, like the $150,000 wardrobe shopping spree for Palin, which generated several days of bad news. Furthermore, McCain never had a unified message. From the start of the campaign back in September, he seemed to adopt a new message every week. And if your message changes week by week, it is easy for your opponent to sell the press on the narrative of erraticism. And when external conditions turn as poor as they have, the candidate who seems erratic in a time of crisis is going to pay the bigger price.
Here's hoping that McCain rediscovers his mojo.
|
This Slate article by Christopher Beam is a great primer on how McCain can "rebrand" himself, pointing out that a sizable chunk of his loss lays with him and his campaign. And that is true. Thus if the media treated McCain poorly (and in many respects they did), it was not motivated by partisan bias so much as it was motivated by the candidate and his campaign.
In the 2000 election--one that parallels this election--there was a poll taken on the Bush campaign bus before the election, asking the traveling press corp who would win the election. Bush's own traveling press picked Gore over Bush. But the Bush campaign did not flinch. Why? 1) They had run a campaign with a unified message while the Gore campaign started and stopped with different messages (Remember Gore 2.0, 3.0, etc.?). 2) They went out of their way to make the traveling press feel special. Remember all those nicknames that Candidate Bush had for various members of the press? Stretch, SuperStretch? And yet the Gore press corps hated the candidate. He denied them access, and when he did grant access, he lectured them like they were school children. So when they filed their stories, the tone was down right hostile, including complaints about what they were being fed day to day. The interesting thing is that in 2004, when the Bush campaign was tighter in access and where the Democrats could have made in-roads, the Kerry campaign made the same mistake as the Gore campaign. A candidate who rarely interacted with his traveling press and when he did, do so as a lecturer. The press didn't like Kerry any better than they liked Gore. Thus the stories continued to be filed with a hostile or critical tone. And Kerry also fell into the trap of appearing to lack a unified message, thus it appeared as if he was banking on a wing and a prayer.
Enter John McCain, who once claimed the press as his "base." He allowed his campaign staff to run the kind of campaign he is not comfortable running. After McCain had a rough couple of interviews early on in the election, his campaign staff shut him down. And when his running mate, Sarah Palin, blew the softball interviews with Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Sean Hannity, the campaign shut her down as well. Thus when the press was shut down, they went looking for stories, like the $150,000 wardrobe shopping spree for Palin, which generated several days of bad news. Furthermore, McCain never had a unified message. From the start of the campaign back in September, he seemed to adopt a new message every week. And if your message changes week by week, it is easy for your opponent to sell the press on the narrative of erraticism. And when external conditions turn as poor as they have, the candidate who seems erratic in a time of crisis is going to pay the bigger price.
Here's hoping that McCain rediscovers his mojo.
