One of my favorite stories about American politics (besides Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72) is about JFK, and his popularity bounce after getting elected, then assasinated. in 1960 Kennedy won a very close election, by about 100,000 votes. But, magically, by the time he was inaugerated as President, 60% or so of Americans told pollsters that they voted for him. Then, after his assasination in 1963, about 80% of people polled said they voted for him. Somone was lying.
Obama won fairly decisively this year, but the same thing is happening: a low to mid 50’s percent win in the popular vote magically turned into a 65% approval rating (acknowledging that people polled is a different group than voters). It shows just how successful Obama was in posturing himself as ‘historic’ in the post-election aftermath, and the popular utility of his personal narrative in winning himself political capital.
The bump demonstrates the very different rhetorical posture Obama must adopt as President, rather than Candidate, and also forecasts the difficulties he might have in re-mobilizing his 3 million or so subscribers. I think Obama’s need to make general, more cautious appeals once in power suggests that his ‘online army’ will perhaps go rogue and begin leading their own campaigns, rather than continuing to rally behind the more pragmatic rhetoric of President Obama.
Last year, just before NYPD officers were acquitted (predictably) for the murder of Sean Bell, the New York City media filled with stories about anticipated violence on the part of black folks, and the NYPD took the occasion to showcase some of their new crowd suppression tools.
But the violence never materialized. And hasn’t, for a long time – not since Rodney King, at least, and that was one acquittal, out of thousands. But every time another cop goes free, the rumor mill gins up new ‘anticipated unhappiness’ or some bullshit.
And it’s happening again for the election: The Boston Globe reports that police the cities of Detroit, Chicago, Oakland and Philadelphia have geared up for a night of violence if Obama loses. Not only does this serve as needless race-baiting (those cities are pop culture code-words for dangerous urban black folks), but it encourages the further militarization of any totally legitimate protests that do occur. It sets the wrong tone, identifying black people in America with irrational, riotous violence, but also sets the stage for the truly violent suppression of free speech and assembly bound to follow in the wake of this election.
OUR NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS ALMOST OVER. TAKE THIS ELECTION OUT BEHIND THE SHED AND OLD YELLER THIS SHIT.
Sendoff thoughts: I wrote earlier about how the GOP attacks on Obama mirror antisemetic attacks, but there’s another point inside of these arguments – this election deals in large part with an urban vs. rural divide that will have meaningful effects on the spatial character of America. The parties split on how the country should look: in many ways, the GOP stands on the side of a rural, sprawling America, while the Democrats embrace the more urban, denser parts of the country. In particular, the GOP’s obsession with home ownership encourages suburban sprawl, and their party leaders obsess over rural, small town American values. More oil and cheap gas also implies an argument about transportation and how the country should look. Republican attacks on Obama reflect this spatial divide. New York state politics also breaks down on this urban/rural divide, and the anticipated pickup of Democratic seats in the State Senate forecasts a more state investment in New York City.
Huge turnout forecasts a Democratic blowout. Obama owns the hope and change message, and having a wave of new voters suggests that his message caught on.
McCain’s blather about a late-campaign surge only brings more Obama people out in the hopes of staving McCain off from stealing the campaign at the last minute.
What it might do is run cover for GOP vote stealing. All McCain needs is a narrative, and an argument abut the liberal media bias, and he has a way to tamp down protest of the take. All it takes is the story – enough to encourage people to go back to the polls and fight again for a candidate, rather than an independent movement for social change.
The last thing keeping Obama from the Presidency is vodka (and not in the “George Bush history of alcoholism” way). Here’s what I mean:
If you sit and stare at a potato long enough, it stops being a potato, and starts becoming vodka.
Obama has been the front runner for a couple weeks now, and as election day approaches, each poll that puts him substantially ahead of McCain increases voter and media scrutiny on him. He receives more and more coverage as a nearly president-elect, people begin to speculate on cabinet choices, governance style, and divided government under an Obama Presidency. Through all of this, the sense of Obama as a fresh face with endless promise begins to morph a little, and maybe wear at the edges.
At the same time, McCain begins flinging anything and everything he can at Obama, hoping that any one of them could become an excuse for a voter to change their genuine interest in Obama into an excuse not to vote for him. “I like Obama but…” will be the shape of a McCain upset, and until Tuesday, expect everything including the kitchen sink to fly in the hope of hooking more and more “Obama, but…” voters.
There’s nothing left to say. McCain tried to co-opt Obama’s frame with the Palin pick, and it ended up sinking him. I think people will look back and say he had a fighting chance as the voice of reason and experience next to the up-and-comer with no real background (think Celeb ad), but as soon as he tried to change tack and go for the mantle of change, he lost momentum on both fronts. It seems like McCain never fully grappled with the fact that Obama’s narrative worked because of who he is, what he looks like, and his story. It wasn’t about reform policies – how many campaign reform bills you backed, times you took on your party – Obama doesn’t look like old politics, McCain does.
Which doesn’t mean he was doomed – or slated to be in a spot as bad as the one he’s in now. The tried and true, steady hand message like the one in McCain’s Storm ad, had a shot at effectiveness – even in 2004, in the middle of the worst part of the War in Iraq, after fucking Abu Ghraib, and people went for the fear and dread over a new face, and McCain had it. But he tried to have it both ways, and Obama out classed him – in all senses of the word.
McCain/Obama have done lots of talking, and lots of campaigning, but somehow they forgot to talk about:
1. Torture – I’m not talking about McCain war stories, I mean waterboarding, ‘advanced interrogation’ techniques and extraordinary rendition. The total silence surrounding this issue means that the ‘08 election effectively establishes torture as a centerpiece of American foreign policy for the long-haul. (The time to really end this was ‘04, right after Abu Ghraib, but Kerry refused to challenge Bush on the issue)
2. Wiretapping/Executive Authority – the real problem with the FISA bill was that it retroactively sanctioned the President’s overreaching in setting up the taps in the first place. It’s not like spying is even popular, but I think Obama and McCain both want to have a strong Executive Branch with themselves in charge.
3. The Gulf Coast - Hurricanes. Wiping out whole cities. New Orleans remains a mess, Galveston was annihilated, other parts of the coast were devastated in ways that remain invisible to most of the country. Rebuilding the coast requires a huge investment from the Federal Government that should be the centerpiece of a bigger infrastructure rebuilding process, but both candidates were silent.
4. Immigration – McCain even authored legislation on the issue. I guess Obama avoided it to not be seen as any more foreign than people believe him to be already, but this one isn’t going away.
5. Incarceration – Not that I expected anything out of either candidate, but holy shit 2 million people is a lot of people to have in jail. US prison policy hurts everyone it touches, and needs to be addressed in a way that reduces the number of people put in jail.
Like this, but better. from Vincent J. Brown's flickr
When McCain decided to roll out his Bill Ayers strategy, Obama was waiting with Keating Economics. Now that it looks like the election might take a turn for the national-security nitty-gritty, I’m interested to see what Obama has in store.
The most devastating argument against McCain is the Swiftboat: attacking him where he’s strongest. This Village Voice article is where I think the national security/’support our troops’ argument is headed – McCain votes against vets. There was already a disruption at the RNC about this, and I bet there’s a hoard of vets with good stories to tell about how McCain left them high and dry.
owned by GOP. from subfinitum's flickr photostream.
I don’t think folks have put nearly enough thought into whether this election could be stolen. The last two elections were fraudulent, and I think a barely-explicable swing right in these last two weeks could still occur, and cause swing-states at the margins to go ‘Republican,’ – with some help at the polls, of course.
Greg Palast and NYU’s own Mark Crispin Miller have been doing interesting research into the possibility – the question is, what are we going to do if it is?
The suggestion of ‘riots’ comes up frequently, but I’d like there to be a more productive response also in the works. Fighting to restore the vote is better than just fighting, but I’d appreciate if there was room for more productive responses too, that might encourage folks towards political systems that don’t require voting.
Images of images. from christhedunn's flickr photostream.
McCain’s last hope for the Presidency lies in keeping the meta-physics of his campaign in order. People have begun to see him as erratic based on how he led his campaign for the Presidency, and so he’s trying to get back on track by rationalizing how his decisions have been made. The last ditch efforts for covering up his negative attacks are trying to articulate a bizarre tit-for-tat process whereby Obama somehow incited McCain to talk about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. He’s also pursuing an argument about the need to keep government divided between Democrats and Republicans on the assumption that the House and the Senate will be majority Democrat come January.
We’ve reached a point in the media environment where the actual meaning of a campaign is in how it describes the actions it takes. McCain constantly talks about Obama’s decision to attack Joe the Plumber – not the facts of the attack itself; just as Obama talks about the negativity and cynicism of the McCain campaign on his stump. McCain lost debate 3 not because of what he said, but because his non-verbals showed that he was ‘out of control’ and unprepared for the debate. Obama has run a slick, well paced campaign that won him as many points as the actual things he said during it.
Jesus fucking Christ, have folks already forgotten what happened in 2003? Colin Powell went before the entire world and lied through his teeth to justify launching the invasion of Iraq.
Colin Powell is like Barack Obama in the sense that people somehow believe he is much more progressive and liberally minded than they are. Powell led not one but TWO wars in Iraq and served the Bush Administration. Now he’s pulling the same gimmick that George Tenant, Scott McClellan and David Frum have tried to pull to wipe the Bush Administration off their hands.
Powell may be right about all the things McCain is doing wrong, but hes not exactly someone I want on ‘my’ side.
…brilliant distraction, and he made it a character issue about Obama. He made Obama seem callous, and indifferent to the needs of Joe (stand in for everyone).
Also means McCain can give speeches like this one: “The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe,” Mr. McCain said. “People are digging through his personal life, and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn’t ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn’t recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.”
Remember when McCain went on the offense because ‘the left’ attacked Palin? Yeah, same thing. He’s moving the narrative from ‘on the defensive’ to ‘victimized,’ which is a much more rhetorically powerful position.
I thought McCain bungled his “Joe” move because he made it a talking point, rather than a real story. Now, he’s picked up a new story – that the ‘left’ will tear apart a regular American for their own political ends – as allegory for his argument about ‘big government liberals’ and taxation. And that’s almost a winning position – polls have McCain picking up steam a little bit, and the media outlook doesn’t look quite so bleak. Fortunately for Obama, “Joe the Plumber” is a flash in the pan type of story that will probably be gone as soon as the new fundraising numbers come out and the news cycle turns over.
This week in Pinocchio Politics: Doubt! A sudden materialization! Games!
Last week began with a smattering of chaos, what with the ongoing saga of the downfall of industrial civilization as we know it – thought it at least produced interesting web content from Pinocchio Politics partners, as you can see here.
The point being that trying ot keep up with the latest news-cycle was running us in circles – the brand and its offshoots would do much better with longer-range planning that probably honestly needed to be done months ago. As appealing as it seems to build instant campaigns out of shifting coalitions and proprietary press lists, effective organizing requires face to face, long term strategic thinking from the get-go.
The best breaks this campaign has received came from people who we knew, not from any kind of web-focused outreach. Many of the best creative ideas, the most interesting developments in terms of the message, and the funding came from people we met in other contexts, and collaborated with to build the campaign.
The upshot from these thoughts is that I think this campaign needs to shift back into the mode of creating news, rather than spinning it. The reason working with people you know in a long-term framework makes sense is that it allows you to buck the news cycle by focusing on your strengths and not reacting at every turn. Look: we know that campaigns try to ‘win’ news cycles by generating heaps of distracting bullshit – and that’s a trap for their opponents, but also for the activists caught up in working on the election. I always thought that working on the election matters because it helps define the symbols/frames that shape the country for (roughly) 4 years, and if that’s true, then we can’t get spun by the news cycle, but rather need to keep the bigger (non-electoral) goal always in sight.
All that being said, we made a sweet game of bingo. Play it at your next debate – or over the next weeks, when McCain will continue to spew really nasty stuff.
One of my favorite stories about American politics (besides Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72) is about JFK, and his popularity bounce after getting elected, then assasinated. in 1960 Kennedy won a very close election, by about 100,000 votes. But, magically, by the time he was inaugerated as President, 60% or so of Americans told pollsters that they voted for him. Then, after his assasination in 1963, about 80% of people polled said they voted for him. Somone was lying.
