Barack Obama is back from his Hawaii vacation - and Democrats better hope he was able to recharge his batteries, because the next few months are sure to be extremely intense. Polls remain as tight as ever, and while Obama retains a slight edge prominent Democrats have been getting jittery about the race and are increasingly eager to talk about it to the press.
In his Saddleback appearance on Saturday night, Obama was a bit rusty. But in the next 48 hours, Obama has apparently heard his allies’ advice that he get “tougher.” We have noted numerous times in the past weeks that the Obama campaign was not as high-minded as it tried to portray itself, as a series of state-specific ads that were not released to the national press were being aired at the state level in response to McCain’s negative ads. But now Obama himself is sounding more aggressive, offering somewhat of a contrast with the pre-vacation period.
Obama went after McCain’s strength - his straight-talker appeal - by portraying him as just another opportunistic politician beholden to his party’s special interests. Obama said, for instance, that McCain’s new found support for offshore drilling “is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling.” And he blasted McCain’s team “as the same old folks that brought you George W. Bush. The same team.”
Obama also sought to make use of McCain’s comment that rich people are those making above $5 million (this compilation of income data points out that the cut-off of the top 0.1% is an income of $1.6 million, and that only 10,000 families have a yearly income of $5.5 million). “This explains why his tax plan gives hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks to people making more than $2.5 million. I guess they’re middle class,” Obama said. We will now wait and see whether his campaign will include this McCain quote in ads. (something they have been doing increasingly in recent weeks).
Finally, Obama sought to discredit McCain’s tactics. Two weeks ago, Obama’s suggestion that the GOP was preparing to attack his sparked the “race card” discussion. This time, Obama was careful to avoid any suggestion that he was referring to his race. “People are questioning my patriotism. John McCain himself personally said I’d rather lose the war so I can win an election… They try to make it out like Democrats aren’t tough enough, aren’t macho enough. It’s the same strategy.” As if to illustrate what Obama was talking about by “aren’t macho enough,” Republicans responded by mocking his “hysterical litany” of complaints.
In an election year in which voters undoubtedly are looking to vote for a Democrat, the best strategy Obama can adopt is to make this election into a choice between two candidates rather the referendum on his character, his promise and his potential that it became throughout the summer. The McCain campaign was able to exploit how much Obama was at the center of attention through July and the international trip by putting the spotlight on Barack and blasting him as a phony “celebrity.”
McCain’s strategy did not significantly move numbers, but it did freeze the race at a time we were expecting to see Obama inch ahead. This has been somewhat of a surprise, but new information about how much both campaigns’ have been spending on ads confirms that the GOP put some serious money behind its attacks, ensuring that they penetrate in the political conversation. The Republican’s finances have been more solid than expected and he is spending roughly as much as his rival on ads; yet because McCain chose to air ads in only 11 states, compared to 18 for Obama, the Democrat’s resources have been spread more thin.
We already knew the 7 states in which Obama is alone (AK, FL, GA, IN, MT, NC and ND). Now, TPM came out with a detailed look at the spending in the 11 states in which both Obama and McCain are airing ads. Only in Virginia has Obama invested significantly more. In most other states, McCain has poured much more resources than his rival - including $1.5 million more in Pennsylvania, $1 million more in Ohio and $700,000 more in Iowa!
Despite this spending unbalance, poll numbers have remained remarkably stable in most of these 18 states - no matter which candidate has been spending more. That is obviously good news for both candidates, as neither has fallen behind in the states in which he has invested less. But Obama retains two key advantages:
- In the weeks ahead, McCain will no longer be able to compete with Obama financially. McCain was using his primary funds in the summer. Starting in September, he will be limited to $84 million - and Obama will likely have at least twice has much. That means that the Democrat is sure to dominate airwaves in September and October while continuing to air ads in many more states than his rivals. In fact, the reason McCain has been spending as much as Obama for now is that he needs to burn through whatever he has raised before his convention.
- A significant portion of Obama’s spending is going towards building an infrastructure, opening campaign offices and organizing a ground game. Obama is budgeting tens of millions of dollars to this effort, unlike McCain’s team. A Wall Street Journal article published this morning documents this disparity: “The campaign reports it has 131 such offices in five potential battleground states, compared to 13 reported by the McCain campaign. In Florida, for example, the Obama campaign lists 32 local offices, compared to three for Sen. McCain. In Missouri, the ratio is 29 to 1, while in New Mexico it stands at 23 to 1.” This will not necessarily be registered in polls, but it will make a difference come November 4th.
McCain managed to not be swamped during the summer, but his rival’s financial dominance will soon make more of a difference. That certainly does not guarantee Obama a victory, but combined with his more aggressive tone and his increasing willingness to strike back, it should at least allow Democrats to be more in control of the message of the campaign’s final stretch.
McCain has barely moved his numbers up (never breaking 44% nationally) and has spent millions more than Obama. Obama will be in much better position come Septmeber not just because he will have more money but the number of battleground states will be more tightly defined. For example GA probably won`t make the cut - you try during the summer to see if it could move, it hasn`t so you cut it. So more money on less states will give Obama a huge edge. Plus people will only really start paying attention come September or October. So McCains huge expense now will have little effect. Making it tight now also gives the Dems a wake up call to improve their game, better now than in October!
A couple of things to look for the next several weeks:
1. Conservative third party groups, whose liberal counterparts have been attacking McCain for months, will soon begin rolling out ads attacking Barack on a range of issues. Expect pro-life groups to be first out to the gate with Obama’s recent disastrous accusation against their flagship organization, the NRLC, during the Saddleback event. Infanticide will not play well in most areas of the country, especially with the religious voters who Obama has spent significant resources courting.
2. The new “patriotism card” claims by Obama will fall as flat as his “race card” claims since McCain has openly and repeatedly defended Obama on both points. Expect Obama to turn to the “class card” next with McCain’s $5 million gaffe.
3. If the Russian-Georgian conflict continues to remain hot, McCain will pull ahead (or further ahead) in polls on military and non-domestic issues.
Guy,
If you take a second to look over at Pollster, you’ll see that although McCain has usually been polling lower than Obama, he has still been over 44% dozens of times this year in national polls, including this month.
I’d argue with the notion that McCain has consistently defended Obama’s patriotism. Sure, when asked about it directly, he always defends it or defers. Yet in speeches he frequently questions it (or endorsed the message of surrogates who do). I would say the notion that Obama would rather lose an election than a war is a a pretty clear attack on his patriotism straight from the lips of JMac.
I would say it was a question of misplaced priorities, not patriotism. If Obama wants to try casting criticism of his anti-surge position as questioning his patriotism, he is free to do so, and to fall on his face for it.
TJ - you obviously don`t look at the Gallup tracking poll which is one of the most trusted national polls. In the past 2 months McCain has reach 44% exactly 7 times and 45% once before dropping back to 43%. Obama has never been below 44% and that was for only 3 times.
On the elecotral college (what really counts) Obama is listed as having over 270 (electoral vote.com, 538.com etc). So I disagree with you that McCain is tied let alone ahead.
He has done better in the past few weeks but outspending Obama, being negative (Jindal on TV could not give a single big ticket item McCain is running on) and having Rove’s protege running his campaign since early July (after yet another campaign reboot).
Lets discuss in September when we have VP’s, conventions and people back from vacation and engaging in the campaign.
Also TJ, Obama was correct on the larger issue of the war itself. The war has cost more and lasted longer than envisaged. McCain was wrong on that - that is a bigger issue that the surge which is a tactical issue.
Guy,
If you bothered to look at the site you would see that Gallup is included in the Pollster listing.
The rest of your comment makes no sense: McCain reached 45% but never did, and Obama never was below 44% but was three times? And I somehow claimed that McCain was ahead or tied? Huh?
Yes, we should discuss this again, when your wits are properly about you. :)
TJ - sorry for a few mistypes that might confuse you. McCain has not been over 45% dozens of times in the past few months on pollster or anyother website. SO you are wrong on that point.
At least you admit that Obama is ahead both in popular vote and EV’s. Bearing in mind McCain has reoragnised his team for the nth time and has outspent Obama he should be doing better.
Gallup is a good proxy because they have a good reputation, have a rolling program of taking polls. Pollster will include some “way out” polls from partisan groups.
Guy,
I didn’t claim he was over 44% dozens of times in the past few months, but “over 44% dozens of times this year”. If you take a couple minutes to actually fact check and count up number of times McCain has been over 44% this year on Pollster, you would find over 90 instances. Does that qualify as dozens? To the rational mind, yes.
To your other point, despite the horrible approval numbers of the incumbent Republican president, the dismal approval numbers of Republican members of congress, and the huge lead Democrats have on the generic presidential ballot, McCain still manages polling over 40% while Obama polls under 50%. Yet, somehow, its MCCAIN that should be doing better. That’s an…um…interesting…take on the situation, Guy.
TJ: If Obama wants to try casting criticism of his anti-surge position as questioning his patriotism, he is free to do so, and to fall on his face for it.
Except that’s not what McCain is doing. He’s not just criticizing critics of the surge; he’s saying that Obama would prefer to lose the war so he can win an election. That’s not just criticizing a policy decision; that’s an accusation that Obama is willing to sacrifice the good of the nation to benefit his own personal ambitions. That sounds like an attack on Obama’s patriotism to me, rather than just debating a difference of opinion.
Moreover, the whole “who was right on the surge” question should be broadened to include other aspects of the war and foreign policy. The surge was just about the only aspect of our involvement in Iraq that worked in McCain’s favor. He saw a threat where there wasn’t one, and then supported Rumsfeld’s policies until too late in the game.
In addition, decisions are right or wrong based on the information one has at the time, not on the ultimate result. If I’m in a high camp on a mountain, and it’s a blizzard out there, and I decide to try to go for the summit, and I make it and survive, did I make the right choice? No: I made a bad choice and got lucky.
There were plenty of reasons at the time to oppose going into Iraq when we actually did, and whether or not we found WMDs afterwards would not change the basis for deciding whether or not to go to war. The basis for the surge was highly debatable; the possibility that it is one among several developments having some beneficial effect doesn’t change the possibly very good reasons people had at the time for supporting or opposing that tactic.
But I suppose that point is too subtle for many voters.
TJ - first McCain’s polling in early 2008 is irrelevant. I would also add that Democrats in Congress also have very low approval ratings.
McCain is a “different” kind of Republican and Obama has been painted as some foreign, muslim lover.
Whatever the situation Dems would get at least 40% and Republicans would get at least 40%. There is no more than about 20% of the population who are no fixed in their voting behavior. So you are low balling expectations if you thought McCain is doing well getting 41, 42%. Umm not rational.
I forgot to add the positive media coverage McCain gets as well as his outspending Obama. Yeah you are damn right those two things should help him.
Guy,
I agree that McCain has spent alot more than Obama on TV advertising and this should have helped him more.
I am glad to see TJ’s negative tone has been replaced by some agreement. This website is great for both the insightful articles and the usually friendly comments section.
I think all polling from August will soon be forgotten once we know the VP picks and have the conventions take place. Three weeks from now will probably be pretty different from the polling place we find ourselves.
That last comment was not from me, just an pro-Obama troll being childish. Shocking.
Mike, pointing out Guy’s repeated factual errors is not being negative. He was wrong on the percentages and then wrong again on what I wrote about them. The denials and revisionism by Guy does not add to a friendly comment section. I hope he can change his tone.
TJ - I said that McCain is outspending Obama on TV advertising in 11 or 12 key states. That is a fact. You have been known to make errors and you should stop complaining.
Guy,
I’m not disputing the fact that McCain has outspent Obama (in the last couple months, in the states where McCain is actually spending), and never have claimed otherwise, just that you are wrong on your repeated percentage claims, which are easily fact checked, and your misquoting of my comments. Pointing out your obvious errors (which you still have not acknowledged) is not complaining, nor negative, just an effort to maintain accuracy. If I make factual statements that are inaccurate, please feel free to correct me with a citation of the proper data.
I acknowledge that McCain has polled slightly more than Obama in a few polls taken throughout the whole year. Whoopy do! Obama is polling ahead (until very recently) consistently.
McCain is outspending Obama in 10-12 states - i.e the key states like MI, PA, OH etc. Of course he is not outspending Obama where he isn`t running ads, logically impossible.
I look at multiple sites not just pollster.
I accept we both make mistakes, but am glad your tone has improved.
On the other hand, despite it all, McCain’s still behind and unable to get out of the low 40s; Obama’s numbers have gone down, but McCain’s really haven’t gone up.
That last comment was a quote from MSNBC - first read section. Could post it all as some problem with the length of the post maybe.