I’m afraid that it’s a little late for this.  Obama has run a campaign on not doing that, and the Republicans are laughing all the way to the White House.  Following your strategy would be taken an as enormous flip-flop.

I am so far not being proven wrong.  More’s the pity.  Please, can we now shelve the “low-information voter” talk?  It’s childish and bad strategy.  At the very least.

while i admire obama’s willingness to be mature, the fact is that being petty is the game…and you can’t win if you don’t play the game.  elections are (unfortunately) won by whisper campaigns and flat-out lies, ridiculous memes and speculation about flag pins and haircuts, and the “who to have a beer with” mentality.

the republicans have that shit down, and are gaining in confidence and making even more outrageous claims through palin.  this is evidenced through rick davis’ assertion that this election is not about issues.  of all elections in recent history, this one needs to be about issues, but the republicans know they’ll lose that battle.  it’s a crying shame.

obama, if you can win without playing the game, more power to you.  but what this country really needs right now is a democrat in office.

Obama has run a campaign on not doing that

To be fair, he got a lot further than I thought he would using that strategy, and he may well have decided that this was what the American people and sentiment of the electorate wanted. That, and for Obama, it’s just the way he naturally does things. He has flashes of going against this instinct (eg, “You’re nice enough, Hillary”, “It’s like they’re proud of being ignorant” and the 7-houses “flood the zone” moment), but he seems vaguely embarrassed and ashamed of when it does it.

Part of the problem, I think, is that he drank too much of his own kool-aid. Instead of looking at the tail end of the primaries and thinking, “we need to re-tool to ensure we don’t get caught flat-footed by an agressive opponent,” they just figured they’d be able to cruise to victory in the general just as they had in the primaries. He didn’t have nearly enough negative reinforcement and pushback against his natural instincts.

No, that’s not why. 

The reason is, he has a campaign strategy that was perfectly optimized to get rid of his first obstacle—-Hillary Clinton—-but by that very token defanged him and the party against McCain.

Oh, this is silly. I rarely post anymore, because it’s just too addicting, but I’m just SO tired of all the concerned people insisting that Obama really needs to wade in the mud and wrestle with the proverbial pig.

I do NOT agree. Yes, there are people who are going to believe he’s an evil, latte-sipping, sleeper terrorist. But those people were going to vote against him anyway, no matter what rumors came out. And, sure, some people would be tickled pink to see Obama go AGRO and accuse McCain of being a baby-murdering Nazi, but those people were going to vote against McCain, anyway!

Americans - average, normal ones - care about fairness. They care about decency. They care about being a nice, upstanding guy. We forget that sometimes because we never get off the Interwebs, but it’s true. My mom and dad both are died-in-the-wool Republicans, but they are so frustrated by the McCain campaign that they are about two more racial slurs away from staying home on election day. ind you, it won’t make a difference HERE (Texas), but that’s not the point - my mom and dad are representative of millions of other voters who are SICK and TIRED of “uppity”, “muslim”, “boy”, “elite”, and all this other ridiculous nonsense. They’d excuse it as “just politics” if Obama was doing it too - but he’s NOT and they respect that. Grudgingly, perhaps, but they do.

I’ve heard more conversations in the past five days about what a great guy Clinton was and how hard done by he was in the whole Monica thing. The underlying subtext being that, hey, sometimes nice guys get it in the shorts and it’s NOT FAIR. They’re thinking of Obama, and that matters. I don’t know if they will vote for him…but I do know that a LOT of hard-core McCain supporters are starting to talk about staying home on election day.

Obama has played this wonderfully so far. I admire his determination and self-control.

Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Should be “dyed-in-the-wool”, not DIED. But still.

please don’t imply that i am a troll.  just because our opinions differ does not make mine invalid.

Well, liberal media bias or no, I for one am GLAD that Keith Olbermann and what’s his face lost their anchor positions at MSNBC. Their sexist attacks on Clinton were despicable, and now they can wank off somewhere else.

Of course this contempt for those old goats does not in any way effect my desire to see Obama elected.

Well, Amanda, I wasn’t just referring to you, but while we’re on the topic, I do feel like you’re Concern Trolling for Obama, whether you mean to or not.

Arguing that the Candidate for Change needs to ditch the whole change schtick and be totally indecipherable from his opponents is stupid, reactionary, and distinctly trollish. When you say “elections are (unfortunately) won by whisper campaigns and flat-out lies” and say, therefore, that Obama needs to start up some whisper campaigns of his own (did you hear that McCain is a sleeper Viet Cong sympathizer? I hear the torture totally broke him.) is a wonderful strategy for losing.

Once we have two candidates who are indecipherably dishonest, dirty, and incompetent, the only thing we have left is age, height, and color. Although I guess Obama still has that height thing down. /snark

Sorry if this is too snarky for you, but you need to stop panicking, get a lid on, and understand that morals and values are worth having for a reason besides just plain winning. Otherwise, the terrorists are right and we’re just nice idiots.

look at how Obama has taken down popular republicans in the past

By being lucky enough to have opponents that self-destruct before our very eyes?

Now, I grant you, if any Republican presidential candidates are likely to have a meltdown, it’s McCain and Palin. However, we can’t always depend on that happening.

Relentless attacks work. Relentless attacks win. Making your opponent an object of derision gets you elected. Americans don’t, deep down, feel a sense of fairness and decency when it comes to the voting booth or their sports team: what they want is a feeling of security and power, and that comes from feeling that you’d rather side with the winner than the simpering loser.

The election will be decided when one candidate tells the other to “call off the unfair attacks.” That’s when the voters will decide to support the other guy.

trolling?  no.

concerned?  yeah, a little.  simply because i see my conservative family and colleagues fired up about the election like never before.

i said those things about how elections are won not to condone them, but to illustrate how deft republicans are at manipulating the emotions of swing voters.  i said it was a shame, and that this election needs to be about issues.  i don’t want obama to lie or abandon change, but we really need him to win.  that was my point.  he doesn’t have to abandon his morals, but he does need to bring the fight. 

thanks for your concern though.

Way OT, but what, exactly, constitutes a “valid opinion”? Never heard that one before, and it strikes me as a bit off, somehow (“valid” seems to imply objectivity, while “opinion” seems to imply subjectivity).

The election will be decided when one candidate tells the other to “call off the unfair attacks.” That’s when the voters will decide to support the other guy.

Which is why everyone in America universally loves the media, because both candidates accuse it of unfair coverage once a day.

Besides your concern over the Obama campaign, consistently failing to use upper case letters is a troll hallmark.

Stephen, if you’ve never heard the term “valid opinion”, then I admire your deft avoidance of all religious debates.

I believe “valid opinion” means “an opinion that a person could come to intelligently and honestly, without being a lying asshole or a raving nutter”.

It’s meant to differentiate between good Republicans/Democrats/Christians/Atheists who argue in good faith and bad Republicans/Democrats/Christians/Atheists who spout talking points to try to drown out actual discussion.

IMO.

stephen, i meant valid ie: an opinion i really hold, and not just trolling for the lulz.  bad use of words.

the other will: whatever.

i am here several times a day, and rarely comment because i generally agree with the sentiment of the post and comments.  if you want to brand me as a troll because of this then i guess i’m out.

Amanda,

concerned?  yeah, a little.  simply because i see my conservative family and colleagues fired up about the election like never before.

And the whisper campaign that you insist Obama needs to start in order to win will change their minds and make them less fired up for McCain or cause them to vote for Obama?

Read what I said earlier about whisper campaigns only mobilizing people who were already going to be mobilized in the first place.

Which is why everyone in America universally loves the media, because both candidates accuse it of unfair coverage once a day.

You really, really don’t understand the dynamic. The politicians Americans support are the ones that respond by attacking, not the ones that merely complain about their unfair coverage.

The guy who complains how unfair it is that the media doesn’t like him—Americans don’t like that loser.

On the other hand, the guy who calls the media a bunch of elitist, out-of-touch malicious losers? Not only do Americans like that guy, but the media likes him, too.

no, faye, i’m not an idiot.

my family won’t be swayed.  however, their enthusiasm has potential to sway undecideds who are attracted to the possibility of victory like fair-weather fans.  it also illustrates to me that i need to get my area just as fired up.

also, i never said he should start a whisper campaign.  i distinctly recall saying those tactics are unfortunate and a crying shame but wielded deftly by republicans.  i also recall saying i don’t want him to abandon morals, but rather bring the fight.  for example, i would be ashamed if he started a rumor that palin eats babies or something, but calling them out for their lies in a tough, no nonsense fashion will help people understand he is aggressive enough to get things done.  for god’s sake on olbermann’s interview he wouldn’t even call them lies!  and when asked why it wasn’t okay to call palin’s lies lies, he didn’t answer.

elections are decided by a tiny portion of the population—you know that, right?  most of the country already knows who they will support—their party.  that tiny portion, somewhere around 5-10%, is what ultimately decides.  and most people undecided now, this late in the campaign, are not very politically active and will be won over by soundbytes. 

i’m done with you putting words in my mouth (“whisper campaign that you insist Obama needs to start”? seriously?) and i’m done getting raked over the coals for a simple observation about how politics works.  it’s not all rainbows.  yes, you can retain your dignity and fight tough.

The guy who complains how unfair it is that the media doesn’t like him—Americans don’t like that loser.

Tyro, not trying to fight with you, but you really don’t get off the Intertubes much, do you?

Every Democrat I know feels that the media is unfair to Obama. Every Republican (and Libertarian) I know feels that the media is unfair to McCain.

They feel this way not because it’s true (the “media” can’t universally favor McCain AND Obama), but because:

1. Democrats like Obama.
2. Republicans/Libertarians like McCain.
3. American hate the media.

Therefore that which you already hate (the media) is giving an unfair shake to that which you already love (McCain/Obama). Americans don’t like unfairness. It’s that simple.

(“Unfairness” is also the main reason why the poor people I know are against higher taxes on the rich, and the pro-life women I know are against abortions even in rape cases - “It’s not the BABY’S fault!!” - but we won’t go there.)

Americans - average, normal ones - care about fairness. They care about decency. They care about being a nice, upstanding guy. We forget that sometimes because we never get off the Interwebs, but it’s true. My mom and dad both are died-in-the-wool Republicans, but they are so frustrated by the McCain campaign that they are about two more racial slurs away from staying home on election day. ind you, it won’t make a difference HERE (Texas), but that’s not the point - my mom and dad are representative of millions of other voters who are SICK and TIRED of “uppity”, “muslim”, “boy”, “elite”, and all this other ridiculous nonsense. They’d excuse it as “just politics” if Obama was doing it too - but he’s NOT and they respect that. Grudgingly, perhaps, but they do.

Average Americans care about fairness, and therefore, they care that the “Wal-mart lady” is being savaged for her WalMartishness.  I don’t think you understand how easy it is to turn a sense of fairness around. 

“Drill, baby, drill.”  “Zero!”  These slogans depend on that sense of fairness, and if you can’t see that, well, there’s not much anyone can do.  It’s. Not. Enough.  A part of fairness, in a two-party adversarial system, is just retribution.  The Democratic party has squandered that component of fairness.  What little pity Obama might get is dwarfed by this.

I’ve heard more conversations in the past five days about what a great guy Clinton was and how hard done by he was in the whole Monica thing. The underlying subtext being that, hey, sometimes nice guys get it in the shorts and it’s NOT FAIR. They’re thinking of Obama, and that matters. I don’t know if they will vote for him…but I do know that a LOT of hard-core McCain supporters are starting to talk about staying home on election day.

Did you ever consider that the subtext was about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?

i’m done with you putting words in my mouth

Sorry if I misunderstood, but stating that politics can only be won by doing “X” and stating that we need Obama to win, period, seems to imply that you think Obama needs to do “X”. Basic logic, or at least the way Mrs. Morris taught it in grade school….

But, then, again All Conservatives are Racist Pedophiles, and there’s no way that you can take that sentence to mean that all conservatives are racist pedophiles. Right?

Did you ever consider that the subtext was about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin?

No, but I can see how you might assume that, since I didn’t relate the entire conversation.

Since I don’t feel like typing out the dialogue, I’ll just reassure you that my interpretation was correct, and that the “topic” was the Republican grime-slinging machine and how poisonous it is to reality.

Obama has played this wonderfully so far. I admire his determination and self-control.

Never wrestle with a pig - you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

You keep telling yourself these empty slogans.  Woo!  Ride that Pony!

Faye, the question is how candidates react to these accusaions of unfairness. Is it “Call off the attacks?” or “Those attackers are a bunch of vicious, anti-American losers who deserve to be destroyed?”

No one likes a wimp, and no one votes for a candidate out of sympathy. If you’re hoping that Obama gets elected because voters feel bad about the unfair attacks he’s facing, then that’s not going to work. People respond to strength, and that means bashing the Republicans hard the moment they even TRY to say something untoward about Obama.

Watch: the candidate who begs his opponent to “call off the unfair attacks” will lose. Period.

I do think Obama needs to be much more agressive. Not wrestling the pig, just countering the distortions.  Kerry wasn’t aggressive in countering the Swiftboaters. We know what happened. Democrats just don’t have the killer instinct in campaigns and it’s pissing me off. I’m not convinced that the fairness and decency of Obama will influence any more folks than it already has. Those who can be influenced by those qualities have already been influenced and will likely vote for him anyway.  I just hope he’s playing rope-a-dope with these guys; keeping the powder dry for next month.  There’s so much that he could throw back at them from the past 8 years…where is it?!?!?!?

Arguing that the Candidate for Change needs to ditch the whole change schtick and be totally indecipherable from his opponents is stupid, reactionary, and distinctly trollish. When you say “elections are (unfortunately) won by whisper campaigns and flat-out lies” and say, therefore, that Obama needs to start up some whisper campaigns of his own (did you hear that McCain is a sleeper Viet Cong sympathizer? I hear the torture totally broke him.) is a wonderful strategy for losing.

He can’t change his schtick, because his very nomination depended on that weak, meaningless Change meme that eviscerates the concept of fairness that you are talking about.  Its weakness became very apparent when McCain was able to dodge the McSame meme, which he has.

“Change” on its own is not a ground on which to run a political movement in the USA.  It’s a hollow meme that has exposed the Democratic Party to weakness in a cycle where they should not be weak that way.

Hopefully, Obama will prove me wrong, and continue to prove me wrong after the election.  But I am not counting on it.

They’re starting to get the hang of it- they’re hammering the “liars” theme pretty consistently now, and it’s getting some real traction with the MSM. But they have to stay with it and not succumb to ADD again, which has been their problem up till now.

Democrats just don’t have the killer instinct in campaigns and it’s pissing me off.

I am beginning to suspect that as politicians cultivate their careers, there is a segment of the Democratic electorate that goes out of their way to defeat Democrats who do have those killer instincts in the primary phase. As a consequence, the Democrats who rise to the top of their party are the ones who made it on the backs of primary voters that wanted to see their politicians run a “high minded” campaign.

I’m sure it makes those voters feel good about themselves, but for the American people, it hurts, because their interests don’t get represented when those candidates go down in flames against Republicans who do have those killer instincts.

Why is Adlai Stevenson considered someone politicians should strive to become rather than example of what not to do?

i could understand your confusion, faye, if i hadn’t already clarified that i mean “tough” and not “dishonest, dirty, and incompetent.”

I am beginning to suspect that as politicians cultivate their careers, there is a segment of the Democratic electorate that goes out of their way to defeat Democrats who do have those killer instincts in the primary phase. As a consequence, the Democrats who rise to the top of their party are the ones who made it on the backs of primary voters that wanted to see their politicians run a “high minded” campaign.

It’s called, “Iowa Caucus.”

“Change” on its own is not a ground on which to run a political movement in the USA.

Proving, once again, how out-of-touch you are with Real Life.

The people - Real People - I know on a day to day basis, the guy whose son is in Iraq and may never come home, the gal who is about to be shipped back over there, the well-to-do guy who is for the first time in his life having to budget for gasoline, the parents who are debating whether to stop drinking milk because it’s between $4-6 dollars a gallon in our area, the woman who just had an abortion because they suddenly can’t afford a third child, what with her husband getting laid off, these people are desparate for change.

They can’t afford another 4-8 years of constant war, a downward spiraling economy, and god knows how much corruption in Washington. And these people - many of whom were not “political” prior to this election - are far more attracted to the Guy Who Promises Change and Who Also Seems Nice and Polite over the Guy Who Promises To Keep Things Exactly As Is and Who Also Seems Really Rude and Condescending Especially to Normal People Who Don’t Own Eight Homes.

All I can say is that these feelings are easily corrupted by “Drill, baby, drill,” the Democratic Party is succumbing to it, and by dint of this, it’s empty and hollow, and the fact that Obama’s most ardent defenders on the (D) side are reaching for the vote-efficiency arguments demonstrates it in a way that transparent personal conversion anecdotes do not.

Yes, fairness matters.  Fairness means accountability.  Obama has not run an accountability campaign.

i guess the people that mandos, tyro, steve, tim and i know aren’t Real People.

Faye, you’re correct that this election is driven by “change.” That’s one thing that Obama figured out regarding the sentiment of the electorate (at least in the Democratic primaries).

However, where you err is thinking that this feeling of insecurity and need for change will naturally drive voters to Obama. It’s also possible that McCain can exploit the fears of voters to tell them, “you can’t risk the presidency on a young guy with a funny name during these insecure times.” How to do this? By reducing Obama to being perceived as an object of weakness and ridicule. People aren’t going to think, “wow, those attacks on Obama are unfair.” They’re going to think, “I can’t risk my future on the milquetoast loser who whines about how ‘it’s not fair!’”

If only we had gone with Senator Clinton instead.  She knew how to attack the Republican slime machine, which is why it was almost completely smashed, and the media now play genuinely fair.  Not to mention all the tough canny Republicans universally loved by the media that she’s beaten, from Rick Lazio to Generic Ballot Placeholder.  This week’s Florida speech showed just how relentless she could be in attacking the Republican ticket, if you read between the lines really hard.  (Would she be doing worse than the succesful party nominee and his Veep?  I doubt it.  But all this “Wow, how could Democrats have nominated such a poor candidate?” does regrettably smack of PUMA concern trolling, whether it is or not.)

“Change” on its own is not a ground on which to run a political movement in the USA.

Yeah, the “change” idea is so weak and tired that the Republicans ran their entire convention around it, and McCain explicitly embraced it.  They also followed up with an ad accusing Obama of representing “more of the same.”  Why on earth did they decide to co-opt their opponent’s weak, meaningless message, I wonder?

Anyhoo, there have been a couple of promising developments of late.  The “basketball court” comment was a fairly good response.  “The American people are not stupid,” when paired with calling the McCain campaign out on their lies about earmarks, is a good start.  The speech Obama just gave telling his opponents “Don’t mock the Constitution” ended with a dismissive “These people.”

See, part of the problem is the tightrope Obama has to walk.  “Righteous indignation,” like in the habeas defense linked above, will likely play well.  “Angry Negro” won’t.  Now, I do hope these recent hits are indications that Obama trusts himself and the electorate enough to make that distinction apparent.  Because without more righteous indignation over how wrong the other side is, he’s sunk.

Can everybody learn some new fuckin’ words please? ‘Change’ isn’t a meme, it’s a theme, or a slogan, or SOMETHING ELSE.

Yeah, the “change” idea is so weak and tired that the Republicans ran their entire convention around it, and McCain explicitly embraced it.  They also followed up with an ad accusing Obama of representing “more of the same.” Why on earth did they decide to co-opt their opponent’s weak, meaningless message, I wonder?

*smacks forehead*  It’s weak because it’s so easy to co-opt.

Sorry to go ad hominem here but look who’s saying Obama is being too cool—Richard “ROTFLMAO” Cohen!  If Obama did go on the attack, that same Richard Cohen would be (as is his wont) oh so concerned about how vicious Obama was being running his campaign.

You can’t please professional concern trolls.

That being said—Obama can and should go on the attack.  And he can do so in a way that still keeps it classy (and trumpets that fact).  It involves wit, etc.—all things Obama is good at.  Why doesn’t he do so?  It does seem like the Dems are not really fighting to win this one.  The GOP may be weak, but they are not so weak that the Dems can totally phone in this election.

*smacks forehead* It’s weak because it’s so easy to co-opt.

No, it’s easy to co-opt because Republicans are lying bastards who just keep lying even when they’re caught.  That’s why John Kerry, who went to Vietnam, was the weak, pansy-ass coward in 2004 while Bush, who ducked out of his National Guard commitment, was the strong military leader.  Because the Republicans always co-opt the Democratic message.  They take whatever the Democrats say and apply it to themselves.  Always.

Please name the message that you think the Democrats should be giving out that you think couldn’t possibly be co-opted by the Republicans.

That being said—Obama can and should go on the attack.  And he can do so in a way that still keeps it classy (and trumpets that fact).

He has.  Which is another thing that makes me wonder about all of this concern trolling.  Why did it suddenly start rumbling louder as soon as Obama started going on the attack?

Please name the message that you think the Democrats should be giving out that you think couldn’t possibly be co-opted by the Republicans.

Mnemosyne, now that’s not fair. I’m sure Obama could come up with LOTS of slogans the Republicans wouldn’t co-opt. For example:

- Babies Taste Best With BBQ and Biden
- God Damn, America, Where Are the White Women At?
- We Don’t Wear Flag Lapel Pins Because We Already Burned Them

...and many more. I’m, in fact, concerned that Obama hasn’t used these much stronger “memes”. “Change” is, after all, so over done these days.

/snark

Well, actually, starting with issues like universal health care and tearing down the insurance industry, publicly opposing telecom immunity, and all that stuff would have been good.  These things are all popular positions, and they’re positions that the Republican party is explicitly opposed.

I mean, once upon a time, the Liberal Blogosphere was all about how weak the Democrats were in pushing their own positions, and how triangulatory they seemed to be.  I agree.

Obama took the high-road with Clinton - & he kicked her ass.
Doing the same with McCain ... & so far (in terms of Electoral Votes, where it counts), he’s kicking his ass even worse. As of today he’s picking up 13 states from 2004. McCain is picking up exactly none.

If you’re still getting suckered by Gallup, Zogby & CNN’s percentage-pimping, I think maybe you need to research how US Presidential elections are actually decided. Here’s how amazingly wacky the Electoral College system is: Obama has just lost 20 EVs - yet he’s GAINED about 8 more states at the same time. Win a state by one seat, & you get ALL the seats for that state. Welcome to American politics.

McCain has yet to match his August peak of 261 EVs, even after parading Sarahcuda & her cute kids at the RNC. That convention got him one of the lowest post-con bounces ever. His platform is as ugly as his smile. The man literally stinks of epic fail.

Yeah, Obama should totally abandon a proven winning strategy & play Karl Rove’s game.
What could possibly go wrong?

And by starting, I mean starting.  Not at the acceptance speech.  The mental image has already been established by that point.

By the way, you may all be right and I hope you are.  I’ve been long enough around here that I don’t think that I’m just a run-of-the-mill concern troll.  I forgive you all if you were to wave the I Told You So in my face in November.  But I also think that some of you are complacent and have been since at least February.

Amanda, Mandos, Tyro: shut the fuck up. This comment thread is starting to sound like your private chat, and you aren’t even interesting

“Why did it suddenly start rumbling louder as soon as Obama started going on the attack? “

Christ on a Stick… Why can’t I (or anyone else) be genuinely concerned about Obama not being vocal enough without having my bona fides challenged?  Is there something I have to prove?  Do you need to see a copy of all my cancelled checks to the Obama Campaign?  What do you want?

“If you’re still getting suckered by Gallup, Zogby & CNN’s percentage-pimping, I think maybe you need to research how US Presidential elections are actually decided.”

That’s part of my problem.  I watch polls too closely.  Yesterday, Chuck Todd had another toy showing electoral votes.  I was comforted seeing that Obama has many more ways to make it to 270 than does McSame and the Milf.  McSame has to almost run the table to get there.

God Damn, America, Where Are the White Women At?

Based on Fox News, this one has been co-opted long ago.

We Don’t Wear Flag Lapel Pins Because We Already Burned Them

As it turns out, John McCain wasn’t wearing a Flag Lapel Pin during his acceptance speech.  Combine that with their track record of stealing other people’s American flags, and draw your own conclusions.

Because the Republicans always co-opt the Democratic message.

Right, which is why “Change” is actually an excellent choice of theme if it is aggressively elaborated upon.  Seriously, “Vote for Change:  empower the same people and policies that define the status quo” is a daringly stupid example of co-option, much more brain-wrenching than, e.g., “lower taxes for the middle class.”  But this only holds true if Democrats are out there pointing this out, reminding people that McCain is George W. Bush with less self-restraint.

Again, though, Obama has already started making some more aggressive attacks.  As I noted above, we’ll see if he can pull off remaining cool while still effectively laying into Republican misrule.

Yes…that was rude.

Amanda, Mandos, Tyro: shut the fuck up. This comment thread is starting to sound like your private chat, and you aren’t even interesting

nice.

if i hadn’t been accused of trolling i wouldn’t have felt the need to clarify my statements.  i know that reading all of these comments must have been extremely difficult for you, so i’m sorry if i wasted your time.

There are real Concern Trolls out there, no doubt. Just as there are “nice guys” who really aren’t.

Problem is, the term “concern troll” has become a useful weapon to shut down nuanced discussion among people who are ideologically generally on the same side. Often with the good intention of presenting the common enemy with an appearance of strength, or in the conviction that a realist (read: entirely cynical) approach to politics is the only way to win. (Sadly, that is probably right in the current climate.)

(And the magic label is so potent that this post will be tagged with the label in many readers’ minds before they even reach this sentence.)

Why can’t I (or anyone else) be genuinely concerned about Obama not being vocal enough without having my bona fides challenged?

Because it’s still two months until election day, and you’re freaking out over a completely normal post-convention bounce for McCain and ignoring all of the evidence that Obama is ramping up the rhetoric and going on the attack.  It’s happening while you’re running around in circles like it’s a fire drill at the nuclear power plant.

Seriously, people.  We’ve got another 60 days until election day.  If you’re panicking now that Obama and Biden aren’t doing things when they are actually doing them as we speak, you’re never gonna make it.

Here’s 538.com on the election roller coaster and how it’s hard not to be scared about the bumps even when you know they’re coming.  So it’s totally normal to be freaking out, even if it’s not completely logical.  I don’t know about Faye, but I’m just trying to talk you guys off the ledge.

Because it’s still two months until election day…

You know, the dynamics of the election are pretty much set once labor day comes. That’s why everyone is nervous. If the polls consistently showed Obama 10 points behind (thankfully, they don’t), then I’d pretty much be thinking, “It’s over, it’s done, I might as well concentrate on how I can help local elections.”

This isn’t a joke. Really, the time that MATTERS is the time leading UP to labor day, not the time period afterwards. And, quite honestly, Obama’s pre-labor-day performance when it comes to attacking McCain has been inconsistent. His rhetoric and messages to his supporters frequently indicate that he doesn’t really have the stomach for an organized, strong assault, and his attacks are more reactive than ones that drive the narrative. He asked that the 527s not run their own attack ads, and that turned out to be a mistake. People are nervous precisely because it’s two months until election day. If you aren’t running ahead by then, you’re in deep trouble. This is true every election cycle. People are a bit wary of giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

If Obama attacks McCain, he becomes no better than McCain. He has to go back to what works, and ridicule McCain, right out of the Alinsky playbook.

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

McCain picked a lying, vindictive, bimbo for VP—there’s some rich ore to mine there.

I still think Obama should challenge point guard Palin to some one-on-one. Let Biden challenge McCain to a game of checkers.

The other rules:

Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

Second: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Finally: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

You know, the dynamics of the election are pretty much set once labor day comes.

You do realize that’s pretty much the opposite of conventional wisdom about elections, right?  Generally, Labor Day is considered to be the start of the serious electioneering, not the end point.

Generally, Labor Day is considered to be the start of the serious electioneering, not the end point.

That’s true, but not in the way you’re thinking. By Labor Day, people start paying attention, and it is at this point that they will start paying attention to the established narratives and impressions of the candidates that have been set. If you’re behind by labor day, you’re not going to make up for lost ground, because your opponent has already defined you, and the dynamic is going to be all about whether you can make up lost ground—candidates almost never do, though some might lose by a closer margin than they would have otherwise.

The only time that post-Labor Day campaigning really resulted in shifting outcomes was in 2000, when things went back and forth.

It may be that the late conventions shift this dynamic considerably, and it may be that this year is another “win by inches” election as 2000 was. However, traditionally, it always seems like the election was won or lost in August, not after labor day.

My other advice for Obama—don’t get shrill when you’re being questioned, keep your voice pitched low. And try some of Reagan’s wry headshaking, “There you go again,” like McCain was just playing some worn-out tape.

If you’re behind by labor day, you’re not going to make up for lost ground, because your opponent has already defined you, and the dynamic is going to be all about whether you can make up lost ground—candidates almost never do, though some might lose by a closer margin than they would have otherwise.

Given that today’s Rasmussen Report shows a 48/48 tie, how does that support your contention that whoever’s ahead by Labor Day will win the election, so the election is already lost for Obama? 

I know we’ve all been feeling for months that by rights Obama should be ahead by 20 points, but he’s not, and he’s never going to be.  This is definitely going to be much more like 2000 unless there’s a drastic change or scandal in the next 60-ish days.

Given that today’s Rasmussen Report shows a 48/48 tie, how does that support your contention that whoever’s ahead by Labor Day will win the election, so the election is already lost for Obama?

Because the polls seem to indicate a tie (outside of that Gallup outlier), I’m merely nervous. If Obama were really behind, across the board, I’d pretty much find other outlets for my political activism. As it is, assuming that things are really close, this will be a situation where the ground game matters, but only if the Obama campaign can keep from falling behind when it comes to the media game. Sometimes, I worry that he’s not up for that.

My preference would be for Obama to be genuinely ahead across the board at this time, so we could be secure in the knowledge that it was McCain who had to overcome an already-set narrative putting him at a disadvantage.

My preference would be for Obama to be genuinely ahead across the board at this time, so we could be secure in the knowledge that it was McCain who had to overcome an already-set narrative putting him at a disadvantage.

Why do you think McCain decided to go with an out-of-nowhere VP pick that would garner him hours of media attention and give Rush Limbaugh an orgasm?  The narrative was set, but not in McCain’s favor, so he had to blow it up and hope the debris would fall into a more favorable configuration.

Don’t get me wrong—it’s going to be a squeaker, and I’m sure the Republicans have a few more tricks up their sleeves to try and get that 1% or 2% difference on Election Day.  But there’s no reason at all to start wringing our hands now and lamenting about all of the decisions that cost us the 2008 election before the damn thing even happens.