Stumping with the Enemy
By Dan on Jul 2, 2008 in Politics
Although I’m often disgusted with politics and its practitioners, I do sometimes enjoy learning about the strategic maneuvering of campaigns. For example . . .
During a presidential campaign, it’s not uncommon to see a candidate make a special effort to connect with a constituency that he stands little chance of winning over. You’ll see a Republican at an NAACP-sponsored event or a Democrat at an evangelical gathering. Do they really think they can cipher off votes from a base that’s affixed to the other party? Not really, and they’re not really trying to.
Let’s say, for example, that Barack Obama decides to visit Bob Jones University. His purpose there would be two-fold.
First, he wants to convince them that, while he might not be someone that they could actually vote for, he isn’t someone they need to fear. There’s a big difference between someone who says “I’ve decided to vote for McCain over Obama” and someone who says “We must keep Obama out of the White House at all costs or civilization as we know it will be destroyed.” The first person is one vote that goes the other way; the second person will try to rally many more voters and create a movement. By visiting the far Christian right, Obama can keep them from becoming too motivated in their opposition. He doesn’t need to win them over; he just needs to get them to like him a little bit.
The second reason Obama might court evangelicals is to let moderates and independents know that he isn’t entrenched on the left. These swing voters might not share many of the political views of the evangelicals, but would still be put off by politicians who can’t relate to their concerns. By crossing way over to the other side, Obama would buy himself credibility in the middle as a moderate.
It’s similar to the nudge theory that states that it’s almost impossible to get people to completely change their firmly-held views, but if you can move them just slightly to your favor, then an opportunity exists where none did before.
Anyway, I just thought that was interesting.
Loading ...
Dan,
I agree with your analysis. But what about the trouble that it will cause within your own party? I am referring to Obama’s recent 180 degree turns on NAFTA, the Death Penalty, Bush’s Faith Based Initiatives, and the recent SCOTUS decision on guns.
All of those issues were important ones to the far left progressives and guilt ridden whites who Obama seems to have their votes locked up. I was wondering if they feel a bit betrayed?
RickMonday | Jul 3, 2008 | Reply
Rick,
That’s a good point. It’s no wonder that most of the things you’ve mentioned have come after he’s sewn up the nomination and doesn’t have to answer to a Democratic opponent. I’m sure some on the left do feel betrayed, but it’s a calculated risk that Obama is taking. He figures his base isn’t going to leave him so he’ll court the middle. It’s a wise strategy, although it does make you wonder what his real views are and when is he just pandering.
That said, I know this happens on both sides of the aisle. McCain might be more careful about reaching across because he’s more at risk of alienating the GOP conservative base who were never completely sold on him in the first place.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Rock?
Dan | Jul 3, 2008 | Reply
I’m always amused by the letter writers (to the sjr) that try to “educate” readers about Obama, as if they are really going to change minds. Today’s paper had a letter discounting McCain’s military resume and I think that was just silly too. Did that letter really change anyone’s mind about McCain or make him seem less honorable? I don’t think so.
When people rally hard against a candidate rather than for one, it just makes them come off as fearful and desperate.
McCain’s supporters have more reason to do this, however, because as you point out Dan, he lacks a really loyal following even among conservatives. I don’t think most Obama supporters consider him the lesser of two evils as a lot of McCain supporters consider him, but are loathe to admit. Just my observations.
nancy | Jul 3, 2008 | Reply
RickMonday, what’s up with this ‘guilt-ridden whites’ premise? I’ve heard it a fwe times, and as a white Obama supporter who’s not feeling the least bit guilty or betrayed, I would would just like to understand where you are coming from.
Laura | Jul 3, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
As a supporter of McCain I would like to respond to some of your comments.
I was a big supporter of McCain’s that last time he ran. I felt that he was by far the best candidate. This time around I am not as enthusiastic for several reasons but still support him as the best candidate. It is like a no-brainer for the right side of the aisle. There is not a lot to choose from. But I also think the democratic candidates are in the same boat. Overall, seemingly very poor choices for president.
I am a little confused about your “lesser of two evils” comment. Do you mean the lesser of two evils like comparing Obama and Hilary or Obama versus McCain? It is definitely a “lesser of two evils” thing between McCain and Obama with the greater evil being Obama. Isn’t it always in cases like this? If you are talking about McCain being the lesser of two - or in the case of the republican primary process - or more evils, arguably I think that applies to both sides. Kind of just depends on how excited you can get about someone that you don’t know personally and in reality are just making an educated guess about. (In many cases it is not even an educated guess.) I personally can’t get excited in a scenario like that.
As far a loyalty goes, for supporters of McCain to get all rah-rah or vocal is wasted energy. We know what we are going to do and there is not a lot to talk about. I too am put off on the constant letters to the editor from both sides espousing why McCain and Obama are bad. Both sides should pipe down. November will be here soon enough.
If there is a difference between the two camps I would say it is in the blind and very vocal support of an inexperienced senator versus the quiet support of a person that has had the opportunity over a considerable period of time in the public eye to show what they are about. I think you are mistaken when you equate the lack of loyalty with silence.
M.B. | Jul 7, 2008 | Reply
Myself, I do NOT suffer from white guilt. Never have and never will. I just want to know how much of YOUR hard-earned money Mr. Obama plans on taking in order to fund his “change”. He makes me ill, quite honestly, listening to his bulls**t rhetoric. He has said on more than one occasion that “America is a great nation…”, yet what is he campaigning on ??? “Change”…so Mr. Obama, you want to change this great nation into what ??
Please Mr. Obama, this white guy has no guilt.
Chaz | Jul 9, 2008 | Reply
Chaz, Chaz, Chaz. Are you serious? Do you really believe that a person can’t at once love this country and be really proud and grateful to live here, and at the same time recognize the problems and struggles we face and want to do something to make things better? Throughout history, if everyone had taken the ‘love it or leave it’ attitude and was always willing to leave well enough alone, then women wouldn’t vote and black people wouldn’t ride buses and you wouldn’t be able to have a legal beer (although I can picture you with some contraband Boone’s Farm tucked away in your basement). I don’t think it’s very difficult to look at the current state of affairs - the economy, the war, the energy crisis, the rising cost of everything - and know that this country is in desperate need of change. There is nothing unpatriotic about wanting to solve problems.
And, just to clarify, I don’t think RickMonday’s ‘guilt ridden whites’ stance should be attributed to Obama…I don’t think Obama is the one suggesting whites should feel guilty. Rather, I think McCain supporters are trying to suggest that whites who are supporting Obama are doing so out of a sense of guilt. But to be honest I’m not sure where he’s coming from on that, which is why I asked for clarification. Personally, as a Catholic working mom, I’ve already got the guilt market cornered on two fronts, so I really can’t afford to allocate any guilt for being white. That’s why I was hoping he’d clarify his remarks and I could write them off as a load of crap.
Laura | Jul 11, 2008 | Reply
Laura, I’m not suggesting that some things don’t need to be fixed. Of course there are problems; economic, social, etc. But I don’t see how a bunch of new government regulations, TAXES (which is how ALL of his solutions will get paid for) will ultimately correct these problems. I do think you see a little bit of the “class warfare” fires being stoked by the Obama side of the aisle. It’s the “haves” sticking it to the “have-nots”, it’s business vs. the working class, it’s big oil vs. mom-and-pop. Obama is talking all the time about NOT creating class warfare, us vs. them, black vs. white, etc. and I understand your point about some on the McCain side trying to feed those flames, but to be honest, look deeper into Obama’s constituency and you’ll see it even more there. It may not be Obama himself but just look at his cronies and a lot of his supporters and you’ll see where it’s coming from and I bet you don’t have to dig very deep to find it.
Boone’s Farm ? Wow, haven’t had a swig in a LONG time. Now you’ve really got me thinking.
chaz | Jul 12, 2008 | Reply