"Ways McCain Can Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot"

[Angel of Death]

http://thepage.time.com/halperin%E2%80%99s-take-ways-mccain-can-beat-obama-that-clinton-cannot/

Perhaps not nice things to do, but they seem to work in America.

[Reaganfan]

Experience. While Democrats have trouble in primaries with experience, since they really like more style then substance, Hillary's experience argument doesn't work. However, in the general election, it does matter, and McCain has more experience, it's not even debatable.

[Iosif is a COTHO]

Except experience on it's own is not a winning issue.

It's usually invoked when the candidate has nothing going for them except the fact they've been around a bit longer.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

There is no convincing Obama supporters around here. Good read, though. There are lots of ways we can attack Obama that the Clintons really cannot do.

Those of you who believe he'll walk his way into the White House with a comfortable margin are delusional.

[NHPolitico]

There is no convincing Obama supporters around here. Good read, though. There are lots of ways we can attack Obama that the Clintons really cannot do.

Those of you who believe he'll walk his way into the White House with a comfortable margin are delusional.

Obama is only up about 5 points right now, so anyone who thinks Obama will sail into the WH is delusional. It will take a lot of hard work.

[Stranger in a strange land]

1. Play the national security card without hesitation.

The Republicans tried this in 2006 and it didn't work. Of course, the GOP also imploded in 2006, but the hatred for liberals and liberal ideas that existed in 2002 and 2004, the elections directly after 9/11

2. Talk about the Iraq War without apologies or perceived contradiction.

The Iraq War is still unopular and it makes it easy for Obama to tie McCain to Bush and the neo-cons. Also, see above.

3. Go at Obama unambiguously from the right.

McCain tried to tack to the right before, and they wouldn't accept him. Besides, I don't think McCain has the cred with social conservatives to pull this one off. Plus it would burn his carefully accumulated goodwill with moderates and independents.

4. Encourage interest groups, bloggers, and right-leaning media to explore Obama’s past.

Obama's clean as far as politicians go. The only stuff they'll find is fake conspiracy theory stuff like the Muslim story. Also, McCain's past isn't exactly impeaccable: ever heard of the Keating Five?

5. Make an issue of Obama’s acknowledged drug use.

It would backfire because he's been completely honest about it.

6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.

This could work, but America is a far less racist country than it was 30, 20, or even 10 years ago. Plus Obama's great strength is that he transcends race: he hasn't run on black issues and hasn't run a black campaign. He's scrupulously avoided Al and Jesse, much to his benefit.

7. Exploit Michelle Obama’s mistakes and address her controversial remarks with unrestricted censure.

Nobody will remember that six months from now. Plus they might be able to explain that her remarks were taken out of context. I'm pretty sure the campaign will be a lot more careful about letting Michelle Obama speak from now on.

8. Play dirty without alienating his party.

and running the risk of alienating Independents and otherwise-friendly Democrats

9. Dismiss Obama’s brief national tenure from his own lofty platform of decades in the Senate – there will be no ambiguity about who has more experience as conventionally defined.

This could work, but experience isn't always a plus.

10. Use his sterling war record to reinforce his image of patriotism and valor – and contrast it with his opponent’s.

That one would probably work.

11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.

That would be the equivalent of calling him the N-word.

12. Employ third party groups like the NRA to hit Obama on issues that might turn off general election voters. Perhaps an ad such as this will run in Ohio: “So, what do you really know about Barack Obama? Did you know he supports meeting with the head of terrorist states? Do you know he wants to get rid of your right to own a handgun? Do you know he is calling for the repeal of the law preventing gay marriage? Do you know he is for a trillion-dollar tax increase? What do you really know about Barack Obama?”

Use tired conservative attack tropes? It might work, but only for those who will probably vote Republican anyway. People by and large are ready for change, and about 70% think the country is on the wrong track.

13. Face an electorate less consumed with “change change change” (the main priority for Democratic voters) and keenly interested in “ready from day one” as an equally important ideal.

See above. Plus McCain's age will be an issue.

14. Link biography (experience/courage) and leadership (straight talk) to a vision animated by detail – accentuating Obama’s relative lack of specificity.

This could work

15. Give Obama his first real race against a credible Republican. (Clinton has always asserted that Obama would wilt before a fierce Republican assault.)

Has McCain ever run a real race against a credible Democrat? Just asking.

16. Confront Obama with a united, focused campaign absent of second-guessing, which hits the same themes and message every day.

If he has the money: a lot of Republican donors are sick and tired of the party's antics, and the true believers don't see him as one of them. As I said before, McCain's efforts to move to the right failed. Unlike Kerry and Gore, Obama's campaign will be united and consistent, without him feeling the need to adopt a new persona every week. In this regard, I expect they'll be equal, whereas in the past few elections, the republicans have had a distinct advantage in terms of consistency of message.

[MODU]

There is only one way to beat Obama, and it is simple.  Just explain how your plan is more beneficial to the people of America than Obama's.  You don't need to tap dance around race, or drug us, liberal voting record, or anything else.  Just go right to the details, especially if you mix it with a logical comparison against Obama's plan.

[perdedor]

Experience. While Democrats have trouble in primaries with experience, since they really like more style then substance, Hillary's experience argument doesn't work. However, in the general election, it does matter, and McCain has more experience, it's not even debatable.

Experience is perhaps the most over-rated quality a candidate can have.

What I find particularly funny, and a little sad, is that experience only matters when your candidate has the advantage. How many Republicans here were harping on about experience in 2000?

[bullmoose88]

Experience. While Democrats have trouble in primaries with experience, since they really like more style then substance, Hillary's experience argument doesn't work. However, in the general election, it does matter, and McCain has more experience, it's not even debatable.

Experience is perhaps the most over-rated quality a candidate can have.

What I find particularly funny, and a little sad, is that experience only matters when your candidate has the advantage. How many Republicans here were harping on about experience in 2000?

Perhaps, but maybe that mistake now justifies the need for experience.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason Republicans lost Congress in 2006 was partly about Iraq, which was out of control at the time, but mostly about spending and corruption. Exit polls showed this to be the trend. It wasn't all about Iraq.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This strategy can work. McCain can be honest and say that no matter who wins, we will be in Iraq for years to come. This whole "I'll begin withdrawing troops in 60 days" crap is unrealistic. Bush may begin withdrawing troops before the election, but a complete pullout would put this nation at a greater risk than it was at any time before Saddam was taken out. The war may have been handled wrong and should not have happened, but living back in 2003 will not work. McCain will not, and should not, run from the Iraq war. He can beat Obama on this issue if he presents it clearly to the American people. No one will be pulling out in 60 days, unless they want a huge chaotic problem in that region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The more Obama and his wife open their mouths, the more ticked off many conservatives get. They will come around. Resting on the assumption that the right will just sit at home and let Obama become President is a flawed strategy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The general election and the primary election is much different. Just because it backfired within the Democratic party doesn't mean it will do the same among the general public. This applies to many other issues as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, a misconception. I have talked with many people from NEW JERSEY who are die hard Democrats who have said they will not vote for a Muslim, black man. Race may not matter much amongst the Democratic primary voters, but applying that to the whole country again, is a flawed assumption.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are sadly mistaken if you don't think that line will be used in Republican attack ads. If there's one thing the GOP likes to champion, it's that they are more patriotic than the Democrats. This is perfect ammunition for them. This won't just be forgotten. You guys continue to amaze me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The dirty stuff will come from the 527s, so McCain can't directly be blamed for such things. It won't hurt him that much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a time of war with national security at its utmost importance and a recession looming, why put someone in there with no national experience at all? For the Democratic base, it may not be an issue, but for the general election, things could change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See Obama's wife's comment, his refusal to wear the flag pin, hand over his heart, etc.. McCain will have a field day with this one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? Bringing up where he's from and his middle name is somehow racist? Then again, attacking Obama in any manner is racism to most of his supporters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but things are beginning to turn around--depends on which polls you look at.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1948614520080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Gun rights do matter in some states like New Hampshire. The do work and could turn out people who may not vote to come and vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It may be, but since Obama supporters like to use past Presidents -- Reagan was 69 when he took office. McCain's mother is 94 or something and running around on the campaign trail with him. He may be able to use it to his advantage. Unfortunately, he won't be able to exploit it as eloquently as Reagan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it could. Obama must get better at explaining himself or eventually those who are not Obamamaniacs will start to question what he really stands for. In debates, he tries to say what he is for, but many times he says "what she said" (referring to Hillary) and "uh uh uh" in them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's never been in a close race, no. I don't know if that was due to lack of an opponent or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The jury is still out on this one. Obama has a consistent message of HOPE and CHANGE, but McCain can quickly make a mockery of that to the general that Hillary couldn't do to Democrats. That being said, The GOPs unity is worrisome right now. Fundraising is very low compared to what Bush would raise in the past two election cycles. That could all turn around once the nominees are decided, but it may not. We'll see.

[perdedor]

Experience. While Democrats have trouble in primaries with experience, since they really like more style then substance, Hillary's experience argument doesn't work. However, in the general election, it does matter, and McCain has more experience, it's not even debatable.

Experience is perhaps the most over-rated quality a candidate can have.

What I find particularly funny, and a little sad, is that experience only matters when your candidate has the advantage. How many Republicans here were harping on about experience in 2000?

Perhaps, but maybe that mistake now justifies the need for experience.

That mistake justifies the need for intelligence and innovated ideas, not experience in playing the political game.

[Lief 🗽]

Experience, as we've seen in the primaries, doesn't work. The American people don't want experience when that experience costs good judgment, leadership and optimism for the future. McCain will run a campaign of the past, as Clinton did, while Obama will run a campaign of the future. Future trumps past.

[MODU]

Experience, as we've seen in the primaries, doesn't work. The American people don't want experience when that experience costs good judgment, leadership and optimism for the future. McCain will run a campaign of the past, as Clinton did, while Obama will run a campaign of the future. Future trumps past.

Clinton has to dwell on the past, since that's all she has.  Obama has no past, so he could only deal with the future.  McCain doesn't suffer the short-comings of the two.  Plus, he has a whole other half of the country to support him.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Experience, as we've seen in the primaries, doesn't work. The American people don't want experience when that experience costs good judgment, leadership and optimism for the future. McCain will run a campaign of the past, as Clinton did, while Obama will run a campaign of the future. Future trumps past.

You'll find that the voters in the Democratic primary are not the same as the whole country. McCain is now running a national campaign, as Obama will have to do.

The primary campaign is irrelevant now in terms of what is wanted. Yes, the Democrats want change--as they did in 2004. You can't apply that to the entire country and say "because the Democrats want change, the whole country will flock to him and McCain can't run on anything else but the past."

McCain, unlike Obama, has been fighting for reform and change in the Senate for 24 years. He has a record of that. Obama just has words, hope and change.

You all better hope he can convince the majority of the American public to believe the same thing.

[Lief 🗽]

Experience, as we've seen in the primaries, doesn't work. The American people don't want experience when that experience costs good judgment, leadership and optimism for the future. McCain will run a campaign of the past, as Clinton did, while Obama will run a campaign of the future. Future trumps past.

You'll find that the voters in the Democratic primary are not the same as the whole country. McCain is now running a national campaign, as Obama will have to do.

The primary campaign is irrelevant now in terms of what is wanted. Yes, the Democrats want change--as they did in 2004. You can't apply that to the entire country and say "because the Democrats want change, the whole country will flock to him and McCain can't run on anything else but the past."

McCain, unlike Obama, has been fighting for reform and change in the Senate for 24 years. He has a record of that. Obama just has words, hope and change.

You all better hope he can convince the majority of the American public to believe the same thing.

The American people that overwhelmingly opposed the corrupt Republican Congress in 2006 don't want change? The American people that hate this pointless war don't want change? The American people feel their own economic futures fading while CEOs rake in profits don't want change? The American people that can't afford healthcare don't want change? The American people that are sick and tired of the same old politicians doing the same old things don't want change?

If people voted on records, then John Kerry would be President right now. They don't; they vote on a message for the future. Obama's is one of hope and optimism, while McCain's is a pessimistic return to the failing status quo.

[Democratic Hawk]

George, Captain of the Titanic, W Bush should be more than enough to sink the staid, old and tired McCain, who by association, if nothing else, has aided and abetted His Ineptness much more than any Democratic presidential nominee

'Experience' is one thing but if that experience, probably, represents not much more than a continuation, rather than a real 'change', from what you have at present it shouldn't count for much

Dave

[Nym90]

Experience. While Democrats have trouble in primaries with experience, since they really like more style then substance, Hillary's experience argument doesn't work. However, in the general election, it does matter, and McCain has more experience, it's not even debatable.

Yes, it does matter, and it certainly is a potential problem for Obama. McCain could win if he can show in a concrete way how Obama's lack of experience could be dangerous or harmful to the country.

Problem is, people would rather have change than experience right now. So long as Obama successfully points out that you can't really have both at the same time, he'll be fine.

McCain has to run away from Bush but neither Obama nor the GOP base will allow him to do so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Why didn't he just say "effectively dog-whistle" and leave it at that?

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

An interesting rant that I decided to pull out and look at.

"American people that overwhelmingly opposed the corrupt Republican Congress in 2006 don't want change?" - After over a decade, a change was unavoidable, especially since the Democrats finally had something to run on.  This does not equate to "opposed the corrupt Republican Congress in 2006" since both Democrats and Republicans had corruption problems that year.

"The American people that hate this pointless war don't want change?" - "The American people" and "pointless war" is a projection of the individual and doesn't not represent the American people as a whole nor a general consensus, as evident on this forum alone.

"The American people feel their own economic futures fading while CEOs rake in profits don't want change?" - Unless the author is advocating government stepping in and infringing the rights of the stockholders and the boards of companies everywhere to place some sort of artificial limit on CEO salaries and compensasion, there is nothing this election can do for the portion of the American population which shares the opinion of the author.

"The American people that can't afford healthcare don't want change?" - I'm sure that those who can't afford healthcare do want change, but that does not justify the creation of a mega-government program that will put further economic strain on a soft economy as well as the taxpayers that have to fund such a program.  After all, Social Security isn't economically viable as it is, and yet some people think that a national healthcare program would be any different?

"The American people that are sick and tired of the same old politicians doing the same old things don't want change?" - Kinda of a circular argument back to the beginning regarding change in Congress.  The public seems to keep voting the same people back into power, so what does that have to say about people being "sick and tired of the same old politicians?" 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's just 1 way McCain can beat Obama that Clinton  can not. The media LOVES John McCain and will do anything for him. The media is already starting it with this flag label bullsh**t.

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... the Democrats had one corrupt politician, Jefferson, and he was opposed by much of the party. The Republicans had Mark Foley/Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay and numerous congressmen tied up in the Abramoff scandal. Exit polls showed that corruption was the most important issue for voters in 2006.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll after poll show the American people's opposition to the war. Despite the media trying to convince them that the surge has been a success, Americans are still by and large wholly opposed to the war and support a timely withdrawal. If they had to pick between Barack Obama's plan to withdraw within the year and McCain's plan to stay in Iraq for the next century, they'd go with Obama.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regardless of whether or not the candidate can do something about it, we are likely in a recession, and many Americans are feeling the pinch on their pocketbooks, as they lose their homes and are unable to pay their bills.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rolling back the unfair Bush tax cuts would pay for much of it, and Americans' views concerning government programs have shifted dramatically left since the 80s and 90s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but when they are faced with a young, optimistic, "clean" politician versus an old, pessimistic politician whose campaign is run by lobbyists, I think they'll pick the former over the latter.

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... the Democrats had one corrupt politician, Jefferson, and he was opposed by much of the party. The Republicans had Mark Foley/Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay and numerous congressmen tied up in the Abramoff scandal. Exit polls showed that corruption was the most important issue for voters in 2006. [/QUOTE]

Yet that doesn't make your case, since both parties experience corruption on an annual basis, and people are always tired of corruption. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll after poll show the American people's opposition to the war. Despite the media trying to convince them that the surge has been a success, Americans are still by and large wholly opposed to the war and support a timely withdrawal. If they had to pick between Barack Obama's plan to withdraw within the year and McCain's plan to stay in Iraq for the next century, they'd go with Obama.[/quote]

People are naturally opposed to war, and war weariness grows as time goes on (even when you're on the winning side).  You might be for Obama's plan, but I would not be, as I do not see a need for us to unnecessarily leave while ahead, causing us to leave billions in US hardware behind simply to bring our troops home faster, especially at the risk of losing all the progress that has been made.  Starting at this point right now, regardless of the past, would you be willing to take responsibility for creating a power vacuum in a current US ally simply to have troops home at a faster pace?  It is a valid question which people need to seriously contemplate rather than responding based solely on emotion.  After all, I too want our boys and girls to come home as fast as they can (like most Americans).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Regardless of whether or not the candidate can do something about it, we are likely in a recession, and many Americans are feeling the pinch on their pocketbooks, as they lose their homes and are unable to pay their bills.[/quote]

Yet that has nothing to do with CEOs.  And for those who are losing their homes, many of them have themselves to blame for failing to read and/or understand the loans for which they were signing.  Now, this can be resolved by tighter applicant screening practices, as well as punishments for companies that knowingly take advantage of high-risk bowers, but infringement on company pay scales (outside of minimum wage) is not in the governments (or the publics) best interest.  As far as the softening economy goes, it was to be expected after numerous years of growth.  It cannot last forever, and corrections are to be expected, which is why people need to be more responsible in the ways they divest their savings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rolling back the unfair Bush tax cuts would pay for much of it, and Americans' views concerning government programs have shifted dramatically left since the 80s and 90s.[/quote]

There is nothing unfair with everyone receiving tax cuts.  In fact, more tax cuts should occur and force the government to funding things which they are truly responsible for (rather than every pet project a Congressman can slip into funding bills in the hopes of gaining a few more votes for their reelection).  Plus, even if we were to undo the current tax cuts, according the current Democratic leadership, that will only pay for the current deficit.  Placing in a boondoggle as national healthcare will probably lead to your taxes increasing by 50%.  I'm sure those that are currently fiscally restrained and cannot afford healthcare will appreciate that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but when they are faced with a young, optimistic, "clean" politician versus an old, pessimistic politician whose campaign is run by lobbyists, I think they'll pick the former over the latter.
[/quote]

There is a fine line between optimism and realistic.  Reagan understood it by talking about "hope with sacrifices."   While Obama does mention some of the sacrifice, he focuses the majority of his time on hope.  And hope alone does create a good foundation to run a country and resolve real problems.  McCain isn't a charismatic leader and focuses much more on reality.  Is being realistic "pessimistic?"  Of course it is, but that isn't a bad thing when you're being frank with people.  And being "clean" isn't necessarily a positive, since it can be easily shown that the person lacks experience of dealing with the large problems facing the nation and trying to fix them (something McCain definitely has in his corner, even though two of his attempts to resolve problems have created other problems).  By the way, labor unions are lobbyists, which Obama does have involved with his campaign.  So, the last point you made is a bit silly.

[Sam Spade]

Why didn't he just say "effectively dog-whistle" and leave it at that?

If Obama's the nominee, the dog-whistle is coming back into my sig.

[Stranger in a strange land]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, a misconception. I have talked with many people from NEW JERSEY who are die hard Democrats who have said they will not vote for a Muslim, black man. Race may not matter much amongst the Democratic primary voters, but applying that to the whole country again, is a flawed assumption.

Look at the reaction  to George Allen's Macaca incident in 2006. Ten years earlier, the reaction would have been something along the lines of, "Give em hell, George! F****n towelhead deserved it!"

Also, in the early 90s, when Madonna dated Dennis Rodman, there was a huge uproar. Ten years later, when Nicole Kidman dated Lennie Kravitz (who is himself biracial) nobody cared, though Kidman had just broken up with Tom Cruise and had a far less nasty reputation than Madonna. Hallie Berry has starred in films where she was in bed with white men, something which would have been close to unthinkable for an actress of her caliber 20 or 30 years ago.

All across America, young people date interracially and work alongside people of different races in ways unimaginable not that long ago. you may not like it, but it's the truth: society is far more open about race, though clearly not everybody is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See Obama's wife's comment, his refusal to wear the flag pin, hand over his heart, etc.. McCain will have a field day with this one.
[/quote]

Let's not forget however, that in 1992, a former war protester beat a war hero.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? Bringing up where he's from and his middle name is somehow racist? Then again, attacking Obama in any manner is racism to most of his supporters. [/quote]

Bringing up someone's name or ethnicity as a negative is racist. Especially if you're using it to imply that they're disloyal or some sort of al-Qaeda plant to destroy America, which is clearly the intended subtext here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, but things are beginning to turn around--depends on which polls you look at.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1948614520080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Gun rights do matter in some states like New Hampshire. The do work and could turn out people who may not vote to come and vote.
[/quote]
The Ohio senate race of 2006 provides a good model for how a liberal can beat a McCain-style conservative by focusing on economic issues, ethics, and clean, transparent government. The environment was favorable, with Brown being able to link DeWine to both the corrupt Bob Taft administration in Ohio and the corrupt, inept Bush administration.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

How is attacking Obama over his middle name NOT racist?

"Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. Therefore he is obviously no different from Saddam Hussein and you must not vote for him.

I'm John McCain and I approve this message."