Skip to main content

Obama runs for the center, McCain runs in circles, Barr runs for the base?

The conventional political wisdom is that presidential candidates run to their base during the primaries and then back to the center during the general election. Usually there is an unspoken agreement not to give each other serious grief over the things said to win the primaries, because both candidates have said equally embarrassing things.

2004 was an anomalous election in this sense, because both the Bush and Kerry campaigns sensed that there was not very much center up for grabs. The normal 12-14% of undecided moderate voters in the center without strong party identification had shrunk that year to less than 6%, which left both the Dems and the GOPers in the weird position of having a better potential for picking up votes in their respective bases. There were more anti-abortion, social conservatives, and evangelical Christians available to vote for Bush, and more environmentalists, gay rights advocates, and anti-war activists available to vote for Kerry that undecideds in the middle.

As a result, both Bush and Kerry ran to their bases to win their nominations, and then ran even further toward their bases during the general election campaign. This produced the unusual situation of Bush running hard right while Kerry ran hard left.

This year something even stranger is occurring. Senator Barack Obama is very obviously pursuing the traditional strategy of running back to the center, earning him fire from his liberal base that somehow expected he wouldn't do it.

Senator John McCain, on the other hand, actually won his nomination by more or less ignoring his base, running toward the center during the primaries, completely alienating the hardline conservatives quite early in the process. Now he's spiraling around trying to find a direction.

Meanwhile, Bob Barr--having pissed off whatever base he had in the Libertarian Party--is clearly running for the libertarian-leaning Republicans, most of whom would normally have been considered part of the GOP base.

And all the latest polling reports suggest that he's eating into that GOP base.

What makes this really interesting, however, is the potential dynamic for John McCain (if he's smart enough to take advantage of it).

Make one assumption for the sake of argument: Iraq could be off the table as a major issue by October. The fact of the matter is that American voters have short memories. If the current, apparently positive trend in Iraq holds up, and we are drawing down troops and declaring victory, Senator Obama will lose one of his key issues. He will thus be thrown back on domestic issues.

His stances there got a pass in the primaries, but since McCain never went seriously after his own base back then, he's now free to go after Obama as too socially, big-government liberal to be trusted as president. He'll have to do it hard, because Barr will have infiltrated the GOP base.

This could get really interesting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...