Does McCain Have a Chance in an Election About the Economy?
Democrats are frustrated and Republicans are amazed: Barack Obama is not running away with the presidential race.
This is the presidential election, we have been told, that a Democrat can’t lose. The economy is in decline, with unemployment on the rise, President Bush’s approval ratings in the basement and virtually everyone convinced that America is “on the wrong track.” But the race remains tight, at least according to the polls.
The McCain camp would no doubt like to keep the focus of the coverage where it was for most of last week, on story lines far from the economy. The narratives were the ones they dictated: Obama’s presumptuousness, the success of the surge and the Democrats’ opposition to offshore drilling (which has popularity ratings approximately double that of Bush and Congress combined.)
But that’s not a luxury the McCain campaign will have going forward. The economy will be an issue, and no incumbent party in recent times has held the White House in faltering economic times.
If McCain is to have a chance once the discussion shifts back to the No. 1 concern for voters, he’ll have to simultaneously destroy voter confidence in Obama’s ability to manage the economy and separate himself from some of the most unpopular elements of his own party.
So how can he do it?
First, McCain and his surrogates argue that if things are bad now, Obama will only make them worse. By focusing on Obama’s ideas for tax increases (and there are a few of them) and his protectionist hype from the primary, McCain will be invoking memories of Smoot-Hawley, George McGovern and Walter Mondale. If the choice is fiscal conservative versus old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberal, McCain may level the playing field.
The problem: Obama is already sliding away from his self-described “overheated” protectionist language and suggesting he may delay planned tax increases. It makes it hard to paint Obama as a traditional liberal when he’s sounding more like Robert Rubin and less like Robert Reich every day.
Second, McCain takes a few pages from the populist playbook usually employed by Democrats (and more recently, by Mike Huckabee). McCain is not about to run as a defender of big business and unbridled market capitalism. His new ad declares: “Only McCain has taken on big tobacco, drug companies, fought corruption in both parties. He’ll reform Wall Street, battle Big Oil, make America prosper again.” Not exactly your average Republican appeal.
That and similar lines in speeches may give the editors of the Wall Street Journal hives, but McCain’s intention is to separate himself from traditional big business Republicans and reach out to those blue-collar voters, many of whom liked the feisty Hillary Clinton who was going to “fight for them.” The dual challenge for McCain here is prevent a revolt on the right and convince voters that there is something more than rhetoric behind his defense of the “little guy.”
Still, it's far from clear whether McCain can win on an up-or-down vote on economics against Obama. Polls show that voters trust Obama to manage the economy by margins as great as those by which they favor McCain as commander in chief. Sometimes you can only move the needle so much.
McCain may (as he has done on Iraq) make the pitch on this subject that the real issue is leadership, not just the economy. He likes to stress that he’s the one who stands up to special interests (in opposing earmarks), sticks to unpopular stands (running as a free-trader) and talks straight (about those Detroit auto jobs).
The appeal will be based on the very credible premise that the next president will face tough choices – cutting entitlements (or raising payroll taxes), chopping popular programs and delivering stiff medicine to Wall Street. McCain’s argument will be that what’s needed is a tough guy who doesn’t care how popular he is.
That formulation -- the economic grown-up to straighten out the knotty fiscal and structural problems we’re now in -- is the best McCain has at his disposal. If leadership is the issue (or Obama’s own economic proposals), rather than a referendum on the Bush economic legacy, McCain stands a fighting chance. But it’s a big “if.”
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.8
- 43.6
- Obama +6.2
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 54.9
- 36.1
- +18.8
- McCain
- 50.7
- 39.6
- +11.1
Bottom line is Obama has made this election about him.........and that is why McCain will win!
How about a simple answer to your question - NO!
So what we do know for sure is that we don't really know what Barack Obama is going to do. He says we will raise taxes then he revises. On one day he tells workers in Pennsylvania how bad NAFTA is and on the next he tells Forbes magazine how it is a good thing. All he does is pander and I have no clue what he is going to do. I know he gives great speeches, but what in the world is he saying?
To answer the question of "does McCain have a chance in an election about the economy?" one asked, the answer is simply a resounding "NO" unless if he were a Democratic presidential nominee instead of a Republican one, which he currently is. Many polls throughout the campaign has shown that people are extremely dissatisfied with the economy under the current Republican administration of President George W. Bush (R), and there is absolutely no way John McCain (R-AZ) will be able to defend it. Besides, McCain is already toast as soon as he clinched the GOP presidential nomination several months ago, so you can all put a fork in him! Also, I know that Republicans would be tempted to nominate Jeb Bush (R-FL), the ex-Florida Governor, for president in 2012, and should that happen, he will get slaughtered (his loss could be even worse than that of McCain this year and that of Bob Dole (R-KS), the 1996 GOP presidential nominee, combined, albeit somewhat better than the late Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), the 1964 GOP presidential nominee) by President Barack Obama (D), who is likely to run for reelection, in a huge landslide by that time. To sum it all up, McCain will not be the last GOP general election loser for the presidency, his party will be nominating sorer losers in many, many presidential election cycles to come.
He does have a chance, but it's very uphill. Though Obama will probably be worse for the economy i.e his socialist/liberal agenda, increased taxes et al, he has the trump card....charisma. Unless he fumbles badly, unless something untoward surfaces about him personally, I think he wins.
I don't how you counter his charisma, especially how
McCain counters it....he doesn't excite! The theory is that you "dance with the one that brung you" i.e. whatever got you this far, you stick with it...it's who you are.
The national polls don't tell the story; the electoral map does.....steep uphill. I hope he climbs it.
Republicans and their allies are always talking about the tough choices on cutting entitlements....that's the universe of right leaning journalism. They portray McCain as Mr. tough guy who will cut entitlements, and ole Obama who will not. Here is your problem: for millions and millions and millions of Americans, their idea of cutting entitlements starts with these three: cutting the insanely bloated budget of the pentagon (do we really need to spend 700 billion a year on defense?,) ending this disasterous waste of a war in Iraq and closing the spiggot to further hundreds of billions of dollars being pumped into this boodaagle, and three, allowing these obscene massive tax cuts for the very rich to expire....there, you have three big "entitlement" cuts. Think McCain will do any of them? No, of course not, because for those on the right...those items are important, but what they will squeeze are, as per usual for them, those programs that uniquely and vitally effect a huge percentage of the American public: Medicaire, Medicaid, Social Security,...get the picture. Those on the right have a really warped sense of what is unecessary, entitlement, spending, and what is not. I'm glad I'm on the left....the wining side in this election by the way.
David, you get half a point for your observation that ending the war would, "hello", end spending on the war.....that's it half a point. Your remaining observations are shallow....except for one: you are likely, in my opinion, to be on the winning side in this election....to the nation's detriment.
Note to David, do your math.
Here is the breakdown
(Source Office of Management and Budget FY 2007)
Social Security: 21 % or roughly $586 billion
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP: 21 % roughly $572 billion
Safety net programs: 9 % roughly $254 billion
Total Entitlement Spending = 51 % of the overall budget
Defense: 22 % roughly $590 billion
You can get a detailed breakdown on these amounts from the Office of Management and Budget. It all there to see, all that's required is you open your eyes.
OPEC will work to drop barrel prices to drop $4 gas to $3, in order to take oil off the table by November. Then it goes back up when Obama is Prez. OPEC embargoed us in 1973 because we backed Israel in the Yom Kippur War. They have clearly demonstrated the WILL use oil to influence public opnion.
OPEC does not want to see a European-style 100-year basing of American troops in Iraq. OPEC does not want America going domestic (ANWR, Shale, Gulf shelf, nukes, wind). The Dems accept Joe and Jane must suffer high fuel prices in order to modify their behavior. OPEC is for Obama.
This campaign come down to two conflicting visions of the role of government in the economy. BHO's Euro style social democracy (which all thinking Euros would love to dump if they could)and McCain's reliance on the free market system ( with a few lapses). In hard ecomomincs times, real or perceived, the activist government model does reasonate at least temporaryly with the electorate. But as it is scrutinized and historic experience is applied it falters as a policy presciption. I feel this is what is impeding a BHO runaway. America is historicly of center right persuasion. Obama is clearly left center in the modern Euro tradition.
David, are you suggesting that Americans are not entitled to a safe and secure country? Likewise do people have no entitlement to their income, even if it happens to be more than yours or mine?
Couldnt we also suggest that "Medicaire, Medicaid, Social Security,...get the picture" while they "uniquely and vitally" effect a high percentage of the America public, there are limits to what those who pay for it (with minimal return) should be required to contribute?
Troy (not verified) says:
Note to David, do your math.
..
Total Entitlement Spending = 51 % of the overall budget
Defense: 22 % roughly $590 billion
=============================
Troy,
How much do you spend on your retirement/healthcare and how much do you spend your house's security? Is the ratio 50/20? I didn't think so.
You can slice it or dice in any shape or form you care for Jennifer....but the end result is 'NADA'...
John McCain understands economy and can sell economc issues almost as much as any one who has been in hibernation for about 40 yrs...so NADA...!!!
Over the last 25 years, the economy has thrived under Democratic presidents and suffered under Republicans and the biggest federal deficits have been run up under Republican presidents. I think the age of being able to label Democrats as "spend and tax" is coming to an end -- especially given the spending record under the current regime.
The next president, whoever that is, will have to cut spending and raise taxes in order to reduce the deficit and ensure that the dollar maintains some kind of value. The occupation of Iraq is an economic issue, possibly the biggest economic issue. People are going to look at the amount of money we are burning through with that occupation, and come to the conclusion that the quickest withdrawal is the best choice - from an economic standpoint - that you could make.
Do you really think the voting public is ready for 8 more years of GOP rule.It's about time we worried about the status of the American middle class and not big business or the Iraqui government. Certainly neither party nor candidate has all the answers, but it clearly is time to give the Democrats a chnace at running government.They surely can't do a worse job than Bush and his Republican cronies has done over the past 8 years.
Obama is basically robin hood. Giving money to poor people will not help the economy.
McCain's desire to lower the corporate tax rate will help. It will help keep companies here in the US, give them more capital to make more investments which will lead to more jobs.
democrats always try to call these lower tax rates "Big Oil Handouts", the fact is these tax breaks will help all businesses from Big Oil to the corner store. If we had more capital in my company, we could invest in more jobs. And we would not have to hire Russian contractors to do work for us.
It doesn't matter what issue the media trys to portray this to be about. The truth is this election is about Obama.
Noone knew who Obama was a year ago. He was able to fool the far left kooks and the gullible young into believing he was the next coming of the messiah.
The problem is noone can maintain a facade as false as Obama's forever. His fall from grace was inevitable. Unfortunately it happened too late for the dems to save ourselves or for Hillary to overcome it.
Now that the true Obama is coming to light the country is turning from him. McCain may not be our favorite choice but he is a known quantity we can trust.
How about an explanation, lazy lefty?
"Troy,
How much do you spend on your retirement/healthcare and how much do you spend your house's security? Is the ratio 50/20? I didn't think so."
That's asinine, I do not have terrorist trying to blow up my house. Or my neighbors across town who hate me putting missiles in their backyard. You are a fool.
Wow, we've found the first Disciple.
Apparently this writer has forgotten that Robert Dole barely lost in 1996 and that Bill Clinton received less than 50% of the vote that year.
If Obama were not a "new kind" of "post-old-issues" candidate, there's no doubt he'd have this issue in the bag. If it were any other Democrat, say, oh, for example, Hilary Clinton, there'd be no question who would get the working class vote. But Obama is self-consciously not your father's Democrat. His coalition doesn't include the working class, which he now recognizes that he needs. His coalition instead depends on upper-income, college-educated, professional-class whites, anti-war one-issue types (Bush haters), and a monolithic black vote. Not exactly the FDR crowd.
Obama doesn't readily identify with working class issues. Instead, he obviously has to study them and try to give the right answers, as though it were a Harvard exam. His problem is that he keeps spouting Harvard-style Marxism with his blatant redistributionism and behavior-dictating suggestions. As for his sounding more middle of the road: the only thing we can be sure of is that he's in favor of sounding like he's in the middle of the road in his speeches, but as for whether he really believes it - who knows? His voting record and off-the-cuff remarks sound like a plain old-fashioned liberal/socialist, only his speeches tack to the middle. What does that say about how he really feels?
Messianic issues aside, his positions are so unclear that voting for Obama really does require a leap of faith, no matter where you are on the political spectrum.
John McCain himself said that economics is not his strong suit. His major economic advisor is Phil Graham??!! How does McCain expect us to believe that he is the one, with his chosen staff, to be the one to help this country through these tough times?
His support of Big Oil sounds like the past 8 years. I really do not understand how some politicains feel Big Oil, who are making record profits, and people who make over $250,000 should not pay the same or more taxes than the middle class.
Obama has been showing me he seems to know how to pick people around him. Warren Buffet or Phil Graham? Who would you pick to help lead us out of this mess of President Bush?
The more people actually listen to what Obama says, the less likely they are to vote for him. Even the far left is having doubts about him (they will vote for him, but they won't like it).
The first two days after his speech in Berlin, people thought it was a great speech; except for the fact that he ripped off both Kennedy and Reagan; that he was making an issue of his race (different from playing the race card, as he did a few days later); that he insulted the United States by saying "thousands of people from around the world were killed on 9/11" (it was only a couple of hundred "from around the world", it was "thousands of Americans"); that he apologized to the GERMANS for the behaviour of the United States (we beat them twice in two world wars; we stopped their dreams of world conquest; we stopped them from implementing their Final Solution; we kept Berlin free for 45 years; we helped reunite their country after 45 years of Communist rule; Yep, really a lot to apologize for); that he said "Never Again" to the genocide in Darfur (TO THE GERMANS, THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM THE PHRASE WAS ORIGINALLY INVENTED!!!!!). Then he blew off the troops, with a lame excuse that couldn't hold water.
What eventually came out of his Berlin visit was "What a F***ing Jerk"!
And as I said, the more people actually listen to what he says rather than how he says it, the more people will feel the same way.
The stark truth is that a sizeable amount of Hillary supporters (who know that Obama cunningly used the race card to defeat Hillary in the Primaries) will definitely vote for McCain, and so will a massive number of blue collar voters. McCain will crush Obama in a landslide come Election Day. No doubt about it.
Jim,
Perhaps you missed my breakdown of the budget. The lions share of which has been going to ever expanding social programs. The war in Iraq is not the biggest econoomic issue.
The facts don't support your statements. We were heading into the last recession toward the end of Bill Clinton's second term due in part to a market bubble during the dotcom days. Never in history have we "taxed" our way out of a recession.
I can do nothing better than to agree with that statement, referring to Obama's penchant for trading sides in issues of concern.
Who can forget his brilliant Middle East tour, where he promised a state to the Palestinians and (I may have which event occurred first reversed) the day before (or after) promised Israel protection from that?
However, this article is on the economy, so on the economy I shall focus.
Obama says he will input fifty million dollars to fix the 'recession' (which, by definition, we have not had) to lower income families. This sounds a lot to me like welfare. Effectively, Obama will take the fifty million and distribute it to people who, as a majority, are not working for their lives, or as hard as they could.
Additionally, Obama has stated that he will continue funding for alternative fuel sources, and that that will create jobs. Yes... it will create jobs, but at the cost of the jobs of an auto industry that truly can't tolerate anything of the sort at this time. If you don't believe me, look at his demand that cars have a certain Miles Per Gallon standard. This will serve to, at best, temporarily displace workers whose skills are better attuned to 'gas-guzzlers'.
He calls for setting a timetable to remove troops in Iraq, a cost that, including the removal of weaponry and bases in addition to other equipment for our troops in the area, goes into the tens of millions. He would then go and attack Palestine, a state that has officially been an ally of our country, at greater expense of American troop and treasury.
He's asking that the rich, whom, as Rush Limbaugh put it, includes anybody who owns a trash can, to pay more money. My father has worked in the United States Navy for 20+ years, starting off as an enlisted person, and is now an officer. Between his house in Virginia and the house in which he currently resides, in addition to his cars, salary, and my mother's salary, they could be worth in excess of half a million dollars. For that, Obama would increase his taxes, meaning that less money will be spread around for him to pay for my brothers and sisters to go to college.
And finally, Barack Obama has called for change, in the aforementioned ways as well as a national health care plan, among other ways. What is the cost of this? Between his desire for unprovoked war with an ally, retreating (a Democrat favorite answer to war) from Iraq, a national health care plan, searching for alternative fuels, and the like.... what is the sum cost of his 'change'?
I hope I have made it abundantly clear that Barack Obama does not represent 'change'. He might very think he is. After all, he's calling for spending money in a way Republicans would never sanction. So I guess that's change.
Using the label the article provides, he is simply another 'tax-and-spend liberal'. The government has no place in taking away the fruits of other peoples labor, simply because they were successful. In this country, we have the right to the freedom of OPPORTUNITY, not, as Obama believes via his socialistic plans, the freedom to EQUALITY at the end of all of our lives.
McBush has NO - repeat NO chance of winning this election if the economy is the issue and it is. It's the economy John !
Also we do not need lower taxes. We need LOWER PRICES !
Lower prices on health care, gasoline, food, home owners insurance (big issue here in florida). 70% of the public lives paycheck to paycheck and the greedy corporations are paying almost all of that out to their top 4 executives and little to shareholders and almost nothing to employees. Obama is absolutely right in wanting to repeal the excessive tax cuts for the "rich" given away by George Bush. Obama in large win 54 - 40%. It will get MUCH WORSE before election day.
Economy, gas, war, whatever.
McCain has the unbelievable opportunity of being competitive with the Democratic in this very poor Republican climate.
The only way he can win is to start being just a little bit real on just a few issues and stop the charade of spouting right-wing orthodoxy word-for-word in every context.
Not even the right believes him, and it's alienating the middle.
Hillary2012 (not verified) says:
Now that the true Obama is coming to light the country is turning from him. McCain may not be our favorite choice but he is a known quantity we can trust.
Hillary 2012,
Do you remember the Keating Scandal, the savings and loan debacle of 1980, which cost tax payers $125 billion dollars due to a government bailout. Yeah McCain was involved in that.
Funny how history tends to repeat itself. Now the governments bailing out Fannie Mea, Freddie Mac and a handful of other banks due to similar circumstances.
Now your tell us that because your favored candidate, HRC, lost your gonna back a guy who opposes every single issue you candidate supports who wants to spend $300 BILLION per year in Iraq. Who given the first chance to create a Conservative Supreme Court will likely do so and repeal Roe v. Wade, and force women back into the alleys.
Nice, real nice.