Over the past few weeks, as the financial crisis worsened (or at least acquired more Chicken Littles) and McCain’s narrow lead slipped and then disappeared, criticism of McCain’s campaign has grown. Specifically, talk floated around the punditocracy about how his campaign is too focused on the short term goal of winning the news cycle at the cost of pushing a coherent long-term goal.
I think these critics miss the bus for a couple reasons.
First, tactics and strategy are not mutually exclusive. Second, the benefits of trying to win the newscycle (actual coverage by the media) outweigh any disadvantages (supposed contradictions, perceived lack of focus).
Obama clearly has the home-field advantage with the media, and according to them can do no wrong. When McCain and his team do not play the media, they get very little coverage, and it is overwhelmingly negative.
For example, when Obama was on his excellent adventure early in the summer, the amount of coverage each candidate received was vastly in Obama’s favor, and the little McCain got focused on him being old and out of touch. Then McCain released the Britney/Paris celebrity ad. Suddenly McCain’s message was being disseminated by the media, albeit with constant harping on its ‘negativity’ and how ‘childish’ it was. The fact is that McCain’s capture of that newscycle negated almost any benefit Obama would have otherwise gotten from his trip. Obama’s adoring crowds became a liability rather than an asset.
Similarly, McCain stole Obama’s thunder and eliminated any potential convention bounce by named Governor Palin as his running mate the day after Obama’s big speech. As with the celebrity ad, the media immediately switched its focus to McCain, with the coverage mostly negative. Both the quantity of the coverage and its negativity were exponentially higher, but the result was that both Palin’s and McCain’s convention speeches broke viewership records.
The critics of McCain’s ‘short-term’ strategy miss the point: by capitalizing on the newscycle, he is able to get his message out to more people and it is delivered intact (albeit with commentary) as opposed to being reported secondhand. As an added bonus, it generally means that Obama receives less coverage, and maybe slightly more critical coverage. So what if one cycle he praises Hillary, and the next he bashes her. That’s irrelevant. Any perceived contradictions in his message are mostly illusory and entirely irrelevant. The short-term narratives are disposable, and solely a means to an end. The purpose of speaking approvingly of Hillary is not to improve Hillary’s standing among voters, it is to remind voters of Obama’s poor judgment and/or lack of experience. Turning right around and speaking critically of Hillary serves the exact same purpose, even if it presents her in the exact opposite light, because Hillary is irrelevant to the broader message. Can it appear inconsistent? Sure, but I think most voters understand that McCain is not too worried about Hillary’s image, and is only using her to make a point.
McCain is running a very organized and very well-thought-out campaign. Just because a pundit fails to see past the surface flash does not mean there is nothing below the surface. What it means is that McCain is playing the game to win, and playing by the rules that exist now — not those that existed 8, 12, 16, 20 years ago.
