Post-Mortem of the Upcoming Obama/Biden Loss, Damn It!
Now that we know how this election will unfold, we can look back on the main mistakes of the Obama's campaign, with a hopeless wish that the people who run future Democratic campaigns will change their approach that has now produced two losses and a third one on the way.
Standard Democratic Mistakes:
1. Conceeding national security issues by acting like crypto-Republicans.
Democrats for several election cycles believe that the way to reach centrist voters is to cave in to Republicans on any issue that can be legitimately labeled "national security". This response is near automatic, even if there isn't any public desire for Republican-proposed approach, such as was the case with FISA. This approach yields precisely opposite effect - Democrats open themselves to attacks as being a party devoid of any alternatives and flip-flopping, they loose the enthusiasm of their base and do not gain, or even loose independents. Democrats who have demanded a change of the party's national security strategy, such as Greenwald of Salon, are routinely maligned and shouted down as "traitors" and "left-wing radicals".
2. Attempting to run an "issues campaign", when it is long been "not the issues, stupid".
Democratic campaign managers, have managed to learn only one way to win - the way Clinton won in 92. They have never been able to understand and much less adjust to the plain facts that the Clinton election was an anomaly, held in the wake of the American win in the Cold War and the First Iraq War, i.e. at the time of large rise of American power and, thus, ensured safety in the minds of the electorate. The sad facts are that many (likely most) Americans are low information voters and low information people; they have long lost an ability to understand the world around them and the issues, much less solutions to the complex problems facing this country and the world. These voters cast their votes on issues they do understand - likeability, looks, perceived strength (both masculie and faminine) and religion. They can't possibly be swayed with rational arguments - if you actually want them to vote for you, you have to get them to like you. Democrats continue to mis-understand this and loose large swaths of the electorate as a result. Recent McCain's manager's statement to the fact that this election is "not about the issues" have been predictably ridiculed by the democrats. It is a simple statement of fact.
Standard Republican Strategy:
1. For several election cycles, Republicans have been pursueing a simplest of all election strategies - attack the opponents strength, dampen his appeal to the base, destroy his appeal to independents, electify their own base in large numbers. For reason that today are unfathomable, this continues to suprise and then dismay Democratic campaign managers. Since Obama's greatest asset was clearly the excitement he brought to the young and independent electorate, it was more than predictable that Republicans would attack this aspect of his candidacy. Therefore, the McCain's "celebrity" ad campaign was a natural direction of the Republican strategy for this candidate. Obama campaign's weak and cerebral responses have reduced his appeal to independents.
2. Republicans only real wrinkle on their by now completely standard "attack opponents' strength" strategy was a clever, but also quite predictable "experience feint". This fake focus on the supposed "lack of experience" was meant to encourage Obama's campaign to choose a "safe, experienced" Vice Presidential candidate - Joe Biden, whose selection further dampened the enthusiasm of Obama's base and reduced the overall ticket's appeal to young voters. Then came the expected Republican main attack - selection of Palin, which exposed the "experience" attack as a false front. Her selection successfully stole the excitement edge from the now moribund and tired Obama/Biden ticket and electrified the Republican base, ensuring their full support and large turnout during election. Democratic campaign strategists and analysts were paid plenty to predict this, but they failed, once again.
Again, this strategy is so simple, in the military terms is has been used for millenia - feint left, attack right.
Conclusion:
Even though this election cycle unfolded in nearly exactly the same way, in the strategic sense, as did two previous election cycles, Democratic campaign managers proved once again, unable to unticipate and prepare for the standard frontal attack. I don't really know why the people who run Democratic campaigns are so incapable of actually learning from past mistakes, but the sad facts is that they can't. It is also unclear why the Democratic candidates hire these same people over and over again, and blindly follow their direction, but they do, and they loose.
Maybe in 2012, whomever the Democratic candidate is, he or she will actually try to run an aggressive campaign to WIN. But this cycle is lost.
Standard Democratic Mistakes:
1. Conceeding national security issues by acting like crypto-Republicans.
Democrats for several election cycles believe that the way to reach centrist voters is to cave in to Republicans on any issue that can be legitimately labeled "national security". This response is near automatic, even if there isn't any public desire for Republican-proposed approach, such as was the case with FISA. This approach yields precisely opposite effect - Democrats open themselves to attacks as being a party devoid of any alternatives and flip-flopping, they loose the enthusiasm of their base and do not gain, or even loose independents. Democrats who have demanded a change of the party's national security strategy, such as Greenwald of Salon, are routinely maligned and shouted down as "traitors" and "left-wing radicals".
2. Attempting to run an "issues campaign", when it is long been "not the issues, stupid".
Democratic campaign managers, have managed to learn only one way to win - the way Clinton won in 92. They have never been able to understand and much less adjust to the plain facts that the Clinton election was an anomaly, held in the wake of the American win in the Cold War and the First Iraq War, i.e. at the time of large rise of American power and, thus, ensured safety in the minds of the electorate. The sad facts are that many (likely most) Americans are low information voters and low information people; they have long lost an ability to understand the world around them and the issues, much less solutions to the complex problems facing this country and the world. These voters cast their votes on issues they do understand - likeability, looks, perceived strength (both masculie and faminine) and religion. They can't possibly be swayed with rational arguments - if you actually want them to vote for you, you have to get them to like you. Democrats continue to mis-understand this and loose large swaths of the electorate as a result. Recent McCain's manager's statement to the fact that this election is "not about the issues" have been predictably ridiculed by the democrats. It is a simple statement of fact.
Standard Republican Strategy:
1. For several election cycles, Republicans have been pursueing a simplest of all election strategies - attack the opponents strength, dampen his appeal to the base, destroy his appeal to independents, electify their own base in large numbers. For reason that today are unfathomable, this continues to suprise and then dismay Democratic campaign managers. Since Obama's greatest asset was clearly the excitement he brought to the young and independent electorate, it was more than predictable that Republicans would attack this aspect of his candidacy. Therefore, the McCain's "celebrity" ad campaign was a natural direction of the Republican strategy for this candidate. Obama campaign's weak and cerebral responses have reduced his appeal to independents.
2. Republicans only real wrinkle on their by now completely standard "attack opponents' strength" strategy was a clever, but also quite predictable "experience feint". This fake focus on the supposed "lack of experience" was meant to encourage Obama's campaign to choose a "safe, experienced" Vice Presidential candidate - Joe Biden, whose selection further dampened the enthusiasm of Obama's base and reduced the overall ticket's appeal to young voters. Then came the expected Republican main attack - selection of Palin, which exposed the "experience" attack as a false front. Her selection successfully stole the excitement edge from the now moribund and tired Obama/Biden ticket and electrified the Republican base, ensuring their full support and large turnout during election. Democratic campaign strategists and analysts were paid plenty to predict this, but they failed, once again.
Again, this strategy is so simple, in the military terms is has been used for millenia - feint left, attack right.
Conclusion:
Even though this election cycle unfolded in nearly exactly the same way, in the strategic sense, as did two previous election cycles, Democratic campaign managers proved once again, unable to unticipate and prepare for the standard frontal attack. I don't really know why the people who run Democratic campaigns are so incapable of actually learning from past mistakes, but the sad facts is that they can't. It is also unclear why the Democratic candidates hire these same people over and over again, and blindly follow their direction, but they do, and they loose.
Maybe in 2012, whomever the Democratic candidate is, he or she will actually try to run an aggressive campaign to WIN. But this cycle is lost.
