Pop Politico: “Swing! Swing! Swing!”

Ted Asregadoo September 9, 2008 26

The current breathless “Sarah Palin Watch” going on in the mainstream and not-so-mainstream media is one of those political phenomena where the accuracy of her claims doesn’t really matter to those outside the chattering class. That’s because it’s not so much what she says as the image she projects. But that image has to project a certain something with keywords directed to the political base and swing voters (at this point in the game, swing voters are about 21% of the electorate and they have a high opinion of both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden).

If you had a chance to see Palin’s big debut at the Republican convention, it’s clear she can throw a punch with a red meat speech written for her. However, one thing that’s not too clear (well, not to casual political watchers) is Palin’s inside-the-Beltway political tactics regarding allegations of abuse of power as governor of Alaksa. The so-called “Troopergate” scandal (can we get away from attaching “gate” to political scandals?), and her behind-the-scenes maneuverings to gum up the investigation give us a glimpse of what a McCain administration would be like if Sarah is part of the day-to-day business of governing in the White House. However, because Republicans are masters at changing the political narrative, we’ll have to wait to see how this plays out in the future. In the meantime, it’s an out-and-out hard sell for the hearts and minds of swing voters.

The latest polling indicates that 42% of the electorate are committed to Barack Obama, and 37% are committed to John McCain, so now you see what the game is: make sure your base of support is motivated to show up on voting day, and lure as many swing voters as you can. The 5% difference in committed votes between the candidates means they have to hustle and speak to those who are on the fence. What do the fence sitters want to hear the candidates talk about? The expression “It’s the economy, stupid” is pretty much front and center. Forget “Hockey mom,” or “Executive experience” for swing voters; candidates have to convince them that they can address their concerns.

What are swing voters concerned about? Pretty much the same thing as the majority of the electorate:

• The lack of good paying jobs
• The real estate mess
• The high cost of oil
• The amazingly high cost of health care

What did the Republicans mostly talk about at their convention last week?

• The torture John McCain endured in Vietnam
• How Barack Obama was “just a community organizer” and has no executive experience
• Tax cuts
• War
• 9/11
• Sexism (But only against Sarah Palin)
• Liberal media

Now, to be fair, the war in Iraq and terrorism are on the minds of swing voters (and McCain gets higher marks on his ability to handle both than Obama), but the way in which the McCain campaign ignores bread and butter issues is astonishing. On the one hand, we’ve got Palin’s head-scratcher of a remark about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and expensive to taxpayers, and on the other, John McCain’s comment that “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” Taken together, one would think that, on the economy, Obama’s message would be a slam dunk, except for one thing: Obama doesn’t have a sound bite on the economy.  Well, there was that speech where Obama mentioned the Midwestern economies that have been devastated for the past 25 years and haven’t “regenerated.”  But the money shot for the Right was Obama’s comment about bitter people who turn to guns and religion when the good jobs evaporate. “Bitter,” “guns,” and “religion” — those are the keywords that serve as Obama’s comments on the economy in swing states.

Can you see why swing voters are on the fence? On the one hand, you’ve got a pair of Republicans who clearly don’t know their elbow from their anus when it comes the economy, and on the other, you’ve got a couple of Democrats who might be saying something about economy (i.e., it’s bad, and we’re going to make it good”), but all that gets reported is the comment about “guns and religion.”

You may be asking: “Aren’t the debates supposed to address the economic policies of each candidate?” Well, sort of. For the past year, one would think both campaigns would craft a pithy “Here’s what I’m going to do when it comes to the economy,” but what have we gotten? Not much. With the Republicans showing themselves to be less-than-able stewards on fiscal policy, and not-too-bright when it comes to economic policy, Obama and Biden have a chance to change the political conversation and regain the advantage – but the window of opportunity is closing.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Neither candidate has a magic fix for the great ills of our economy.

    But you somehow avoided mentioning some major themes of GOP speechifying:

    1. Energy (we need more generally, more domestic production of all forms, but right now oil especially). Without adequate and reasonably-priced energy, whatever the source, there is no economic growth and recovery.

    2. Crazy, stupid, and corrupt government spending. (I would put much of the Iraq war effort in this category, but many of the conservative faithful would not.)

    3. Although not explicitly mentioned, the highlighting of Sarah Palin's family was a mute but powerful advertisement of the party's belief in the innate value of human life, whether it's a bun in a teenage oven or a special needs child that many would have denied the chance to live and be loved. This last will be a factor in Catholics moving to the GOP, where McCain now enjoys a double digit lead among likely Catholic voters.

    These three are hardly inconsequential issues. 50 million aborted babies is not an inconsequential issue to tens of millions of voters. Being allowed to use the vast energy resources America possesses is not inconsequential. Government spending is not inconsequential.

    I'm not saying that the GOP overall has great answers for this economy. But Obama cannot come into office inheriting a half-trillion dollar annual deficit and do half or even a quarter of the things he's promised, either. Tax the rich is not a plan — Obama himself is now backpedalling on screwing the rich:

    “Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.” — AP, Sept. 7

    Wow. Obama understands a little about economics after all. After we pass the crisis, THEN we can screw the rich! Oh boy, I can't wait.

    You know what? I smell panic in the water.

    “We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.” — Ayn Rand

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Ah, Ayn Rand … The strong individual will be the one's who can shoulder the risks in society, and without them, society fails to function. Ha! As we see from our current credit crisis, it's because of the idiotic financial maneuverings of “strong individuals” that we're in the current economic crisis. And who comes to the rescue? Yep, the collectivist entity of the government with a bailout.

    “Drill, baby, dill” won't lower oil prices now . It's a nice red meat line that gives us the illusion of energy independence in the short term. “Clean coal?” Another illusion — but this one is based on the illusion that coal as a energy source doesn't pollute the environment.

    And Palin's family dynamics just underscores what being pro-choice is about. It's not solely about abortion, it's about having the freedom of choice when it comes to pregnancy — which is what Palin and her daughter have done. They chose (or are choosing) to have their kids. No one pointed a gun at their heads and said: “Have an abortion, it's the pro-choice way!” Abortion is not inconsequential to women who have had one, or even thinking about having one, so to lump all abortions into one category (i.e., they devalue human life) is what it is: an effective trope for rallying the anti-choice base.

    At this point, the most important issue is the economy, and what each candidate is going to do help it recover. Cultural issues are easy to argue over, and at this point in the game serve to deflect our attention from a real crisis that could possibly become global.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Ayn Rand, the trickle-down theory… Either way, we've seen what damage it can do, yet we still are now experiencing a McCain bounce if the polls can be believed. Why does it feel like a large sector of the population was always just dying to vote Republican and only needed the proper enabler in place?

  • StandingDamaged

    First of all – Ayn Rand? pffft Marge Schott with a library card…..

    Let's see – John”I'm a POW don't pick on me”McW makes a joke about Cjelsea a couple years back – Why is Chelsea so ugly? Janet Reno is her father….and NOW it's WRONG to single out the family????Sarah uses her daughters pregnancy to deflate the blogoshpere rumor that Trig is her daughters' child and then sayys 'don't use my daughter as political fodder'….

    But yeah Ive noticed that NEITHER one can say much for our economy, that's because the fiat dollar is finally showing it;s true value, it was only saved after Nixon yanked the gold standard by pegging it to oil, nd now oil is moving to the euro and other currencys.
    The chickens decided to come home to roost when middle Amerika swallowed the steaming pile of nonsense about Joe Hill = Joe Stalin
    I have no sympathy – monkeys should never have left the trees
    siiiiigh
    I guess I will see y'all in the internment camps
    Why? because there IS no easy fast answer to a failed economy based on a failed system…so now we see the return of 11th century feudalism in ALL it's glory

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    First to clarify: I am not an Ayn Rand-ite. In only liked that quote. Although I think her Atlas Shrugged was prophetic, I am a Bible-thumper, not a follower of darwinian capitalism. So I'm sympathetic to your comment about bailing out Wall Street.

    Also, I do not have high hopes of a McCain-Palin administration solving the important issues I raised. It was my intention to point out that the GOP convention was a little more substantive than you gave it credit for.

    Finally, drilling might not lower gas prices now, but ten years from now, people paying $8/gallon might want to tar and feather the ones who blocked drilling today. As well they should.

    And you're wrong about clean coal. Germany has just built a coal-fired power plant that sequesters CO2.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Sir, 60% of Americans self-identify as conservative. 36% identify themselves as liberal.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_bigg…

    Does that answer your question? Yes, a large sector is dying to vote for conservative principles. Unfortunately McCain is not a conservative, but Palin is, and that's the closest we're going to get. IF McCain had picked Tom Ridge, his campaign would be floundering right now.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Polluting the environment isn't only about carbon emissions. Take a look at what kind of damage coal mining does to not only the surrounding area but also to the people who have to mine that stuff.

    Also, I know you're answering Dw above, but “conservative principles” does not necessarily presuppose an unchanging ideology — despite the connotation of the word “conservative.” A couple of good books on conservatism in the United States you may be interested to read are (and ones that chronicle the — dare I say — evolution of conservative thought): The World Turned Right Side Up by Godfrey Hodgson and an oldie but a goodie, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945 by George Nash.

    It may also surprise you to hear that, in some ways, the counterculture movements of the '60s were “conservative” in that, many strains of radical thought at the time were very anti-modern. Palin and McCain (for the most part) tow the GOP line when it comes to supply-side tax policy — but supply-side economics is a relatively recent theory and practice, and conservatives in the U.S. didn't get on board with it right away (Remember George H.W. Bush called it “Voodoo Economics”). However, on cultural issues, Palin has shown herself to be more authoritarian than conservative, and maybe as a self-identified “Bible thumper” that's why you're politically attracted to her. In other words, her religious credentials are probably in line with yours, and you're suspicious of McCain because his religious credentials aren't.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    We're missing the big point though. Let's forget about the ecological effect of oil and coal, or the Faustian bargain we make with countries for oil, as those funds get washed clean as a whistle and sent on to those who actually might do us harm…

    Oil and coal are finite resources. Would it not be better for people ten years from now if not only weren't they paying for $8 per gal. gas, but their vehicle was being powered a whole new way? A way that doesn't simply convert gas into unclaimable pollution but somehow is amenable to the cycle rather than being an obstacle?

    Innovation comes from hard times, not prosperity. Hard times allow people to risk trying new ideas because they need a solution fast. Prosperity makes people complacent and lazy. Fuel efficiency actually went up in the 1970s because companies were required to make it happen during the fuel embargo. Embargo lifts, money changes hands, people get all fat and cozy and, before you know it, efficiency goes all to hell and priorities move from maximum MPG to maximum vehicle size.

    If we “Drill baby, drill” and get that oil flowing again, the lines of innovation will be severed. Not may be – will be. Humans have shown again and again their inability to achieve when times are good. $8 gas ten years from now is a scary thought. Our children stringing us up in the town square for condemning them to the results of our short-sightedness? I'd say that's worse.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Believe it or not, I've been known to thump my Bible too. Sure, my mouth (or web-mouth) sometimes gets spicy, but I am a committed Christian boy. Yet I don't see how McCain / Palin reflects my beliefs.

    I also don't see the substance you claim is there. They had two loud talking points and a few whispery, say-em-fast talking points and, at the other side, the assertion is that if you don't vote Republican, you get oil crisis and terrorism. Obama attempted to cover a lot more ground with a more even hand. Why I should vote for a team who's overwhelming motto is now “Drill baby, drill” has not been adequately explained.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    60% of conservatives polled self-identify themselves as conservative. 36% of liberals polled identify themselves as liberals. The overwhelming majority of the American population self-identify themselves as neither, as they see pros and cons on either side of the ideological spectrum.

    I do not put my trust in any side that would cultishly slide into such a cushy, easy chair and be content to watch the whole show if they only agree with parts.

  • Dan

    Your comment about Palin's comment about Fannie and Freddie being a headscratcher is a headscratcher. We taxpayers are taking the hit for this. So she's right. Right?

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Sorry, Boo-Boo, but no. Miz P was saying that Fannie and Freddie had BECOME too much of a tax burden for poor ol' America, so that's what this bailout is about. She doesn't know her ass from her elbow. Sadly, half the country doesn't seem to give a shit.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Palin's quote on Saturday: “The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

    McCain/Palin support the government bailout, and it's a bailout where the state has nationalized a big chunk of the financial sector. So … given all that, how can McCain/Pailn be for the bailout and against it at the same time? That's “real change” from the “Maverick Twins from Different Mothers.”

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Talk about innovation during hard times:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/…

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Now that's what I'm talking about. Do you think they'd bother if oil was at $30 a barrel? I doubt it.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Palin's quote on Saturday: “The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

    McCain/Palin support the government bailout, and it's a bailout where the state has nationalized a big chunk of the financial sector. So … given all that, how can McCain/Pailn be for the bailout and against it at the same time? That's “real change” from the “Maverick Twins from Different Mothers.”

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Talk about innovation during hard times:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/…

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Now that's what I'm talking about. Do you think they'd bother if oil was at $30 a barrel? I doubt it.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    We're missing the big point though. Let's forget about the ecological effect of oil and coal, or the Faustian bargain we make with countries for oil, as those funds get washed clean as a whistle and sent on to those who actually might do us harm…

    Oil and coal are finite resources. Would it not be better for people ten years from now if not only weren't they paying for $8 per gal. gas, but their vehicle was being powered a whole new way? A way that doesn't simply convert gas into unclaimable pollution but somehow is amenable to the cycle rather than being an obstacle?

    Innovation comes from hard times, not prosperity. Hard times allow people to risk trying new ideas because they need a solution fast. Prosperity makes people complacent and lazy. Fuel efficiency actually went up in the 1970s because companies were required to make it happen during the fuel embargo. Embargo lifts, money changes hands, people get all fat and cozy and, before you know it, efficiency goes all to hell and priorities move from maximum MPG to maximum vehicle size.

    If we “Drill baby, drill” and get that oil flowing again, the lines of innovation will be severed. Not may be – will be. Humans have shown again and again their inability to achieve when times are good. $8 gas ten years from now is a scary thought. Our children stringing us up in the town square for condemning them to the results of our short-sightedness? I'd say that's worse.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Believe it or not, I've been known to thump my Bible too. Sure, my mouth (or web-mouth) sometimes gets spicy, but I am a committed Christian boy. Yet I don't see how McCain / Palin reflects my beliefs.

    I also don't see the substance you claim is there. They had two loud talking points and a few whispery, say-em-fast talking points and, at the other side, the assertion is that if you don't vote Republican, you get oil crisis and terrorism. Obama attempted to cover a lot more ground with a more even hand. Why I should vote for a team who's overwhelming motto is now “Drill baby, drill” has not been adequately explained.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    60% of conservatives polled self-identify themselves as conservative. 36% of liberals polled identify themselves as liberals. The overwhelming majority of the American population self-identify themselves as neither, as they see pros and cons on either side of the ideological spectrum.

    I do not put my trust in any side that would cultishly slide into such a cushy, easy chair and be content to watch the whole show if they only agree with parts.

  • Dan

    Your comment about Palin's comment about Fannie and Freddie being a headscratcher is a headscratcher. We taxpayers are taking the hit for this. So she's right. Right?

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Sorry, Boo-Boo, but no. Miz P was saying that Fannie and Freddie had BECOME too much of a tax burden for poor ol' America, so that's what this bailout is about. She doesn't know her ass from her elbow. Sadly, half the country doesn't seem to give a shit.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Palin's quote on Saturday: “The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.”

    McCain/Palin support the government bailout, and it's a bailout where the state has nationalized a big chunk of the financial sector. So … given all that, how can McCain/Pailn be for the bailout and against it at the same time? That's “real change” from the “Maverick Twins from Different Mothers.”

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Talk about innovation during hard times:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/…

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Now that's what I'm talking about. Do you think they'd bother if oil was at $30 a barrel? I doubt it.