by Frank James
The autopsies of Sen. John McCain's failed presidential bid continue to roll in.
This morning, National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" aired an interview with John Weaver, a former McCain strategist who left the campaign last year when the Republican presidential nominee's campaign first imploded during the primaries.
Among the McCain campaign's mistakes, according to Weaver, was its failure to realize this year's contest wasn't a 'base election" like 2004 when President Bush won by energizing core Republican voters and increasing their turnout.
The Rovians in the Bush campaign basically were fighting the last war.
Another mistake, Weaver said, was that the McCain campaign waited too long to define President-elect Obama. By the time they got around to it, it was too late. Obama had already defined himself.
But according to a story in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the McCain campaign also had huge problems defining itself and making the argument for why its man should be president.
Here's the key excerpt:
Heading into the general-election campaign in June, Sen. McCain had been in a good place. He had won the Republican nomination early enough to be rested and ready after the bitterly fought Obama-Clinton contest.
But in a strategy session of five McCain advisers -- campaign manager Rick Davis, pollster Bill McInturff, strategist Steve Schmidt, ad-maker Fred Davis and strategist Greg Strimple -- the back and forth revealed a fundamental problem. Fred Davis posed a question designed to give the campaign a central focus: "Why should we elect John McCain?" Tellingly, after several hours of debate, the five couldn't reach a consensus.
"Without an overriding rationale, our campaign necessarily turned tactical rather than strategic," one adviser recalls. "We focused more on why Obama should not be president, but much less on why McCain should be."
It's surprising that McCain's campaign could get to late spring or early summer without having a simple, agreed-on answer to the key question: Why should their candidate be president? Obama's campaign initially had a two-word answer -- "hope" and "change" to which it added two more, "the economy."
But the McCain campaign never got out of the starting blocks on this one. It's hard to get hired if you can't make a cogent argument to your would-be employer, in this case, voters, as to why they should give you the job.
Comments
Frank James's articles about Republicans are always a curiosity.
Because in the 2+ years he's been writing for the Swamp, there's no indication that he's EVER talked to a Republican voter.
How can anyone claim to be a writer about politics, yet never talk to half of America?
Posted by: bruce | November 6, 2008 9:23 AM
Amazing how Fox retains Karl Rove as their "expert" when in fact he is probably the biggest reason the GOP has collapsed and conservatism is now relegated to Appalachia.
Hope to see more of him.
Posted by: Gus | November 6, 2008 9:33 AM
This was a hard fought election that became personal for many Americans - it will take some time to heal...................
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/05/this-election-was-personal-and-angry/
Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | November 6, 2008 9:43 AM
It was a "base" campaign, but in the sense "base" is an antonym for "noble".
Anyway, it was mostly Limbo and Hannify type stuff.
But effective.
All other things held equal, if Obama's father had been some white dude from Wichita, his margin would have been far higher, say, 59%.
They showed their fundamental strategy with those Rev. Wright spots which were running all day Monday.
Biggest reason Mcc lost, as that commentator said was "Bush Bush Bush".
Biggest reason Gore "lost" (other than Scalia) was "Clinton Clinton Clinton".
Posted by: ornery | November 6, 2008 9:59 AM
The curiosity is you, Bruce. The Republicans are sniping at each other and pointing the fingers of blame--even on FoxNews-- and you want to blame it on the Swamp and the media. Plus your facts are wrong... Republicans only make up a third of America.
Posted by: mort | November 6, 2008 10:44 AM
McCain also failed to realize that the media was going to turn on him.
As soon as the media realized Obama could beat Clinton it was all over!
Posted by: Pat H | November 6, 2008 11:02 AM
Pat H.:
Which "media" are you talking about?? Fox News? The Wall Street Journal?? The entire roster of right-wing blowhards who make up 90% of talk radio??
I suggest you watch "The Daily Show" from last night on which Jon Stewart ran some of the "news stories" that Fox News ran about Barack Obama in the last week to try and sabotage this elections.
This is the "media" that was all over Obama's so-called relationship with Khaladi, yet failed to mention the $500,000 that John McCain's Internationnal Republican organization gave to his Palestinian organization. Where was Fox News on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party??
Posted by: BobinATL | November 6, 2008 11:18 AM
BHO is just another pol who ran for office and happened to be black. To think otherwise is rather dumb. Time will tell the tale. I think that the masses expectations are not going to be met - how can they be - he promised everyone earning under 200K a tax break. Not going to happen. Health Care- well that has to be put on hold due to the problems that Bush left. How could he promise all this knowing what the deal was at the time he was making all these statements..He got what he wanted! Elected. NOW WHAT.. again I wish him the best, but am fearful that people are not going to be happy with the results, but he can always blame it all on Bush.
Posted by: seattleguy | November 6, 2008 12:23 PM
I do not think the Repugs could have defined Obama. HE was very smart to have already done that with his 2 books before he took the stage.
Posted by: Geraldine "Hussein" Too saying sometimes late is REALLY late | November 6, 2008 4:30 PM
Well, if this is how they're finding out about what they did wrong, then add to that autopsy list that they're waiting until everything's all over before they take a look at their problems. Yet ANOTHER reason to believe McCain would have been EXACTLY like Bush.
Posted by: Op109 | November 7, 2008 7:48 AM