Division of Labour: McCain on Clinton-Obama

April 22, 2008

McCain on Clinton-Obama

Have you seen ANY challenge to the notion that McCain is benefitting from the protracted Clinton-Obama primary? Some things to consider.

1. As a general rule, doesn't head-to-head competition make for better competitors? Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire a decade ago. Or even hopped-up Ben Johnson made Carl Lewis a better sprinter two decades ago. Athletes are one thing. Would the same hold for politicians?

2. The standard story for why the primary benefits McCain is somethign like this. The two Ds have to go hard left in the primary, and the harder left Obama and Clinton have to go to beat each other, the harder it'll be for them to come back to center in the general. A counter argument is that the primary and general election dimensions are sufficiently different (there are D issues and then there are R issues) that it doesn't much matter. An additional counter argument is that by beating each other up, Clinton and Obama work out all the kinks and hone their messages and leave very little for McCain to go negative with.

3. Generic ballot tests. When pollsters pit a generic Democrat with an unnamed Republica, the Democrat easily wins. Does the attention and exposure of the Democratic primary strengthen or weaken that?

4. The lack of a known opponent has to be hurting McCain's campaign finance. According to the FEC, he's raised just over $80 million so far this election cycle. He'll need to raise another $300 million in the next 9 months to match W's total for the 2004 cycle. So far Obama's raised $240 mil.

It just seems to me that to say this benefits McCain is to say that political competition is ruinous. Maybe so. But maybe not, too.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Edward J. Lopez at 04:03 PM in Politics

Comments

From an anecdotal perspective, I don't see what John McCain, or any politician for that matter, has to gain from the obscurity he has been suffering from for the past few months. He hardly gets a mention from the news unless he is commenting on the Democratic nomination, which he doesn't seem to do very often.

As for the fundraising, the standard story that I hear from my Democratic friends all the time (who all support Obama of course) is that Hildog should drop out because Obama is just wasting his money to beat her. But when you spend more money, you have to raise more money, which both candidates seem to be able to do. The resultant organization to be inherited by the winner and the buzz created can only serve to benefit whoever takes the torch in the end. After all, the independents who will decide the general election in November see and hear the constant adds and appearances just like Democrats (and Republicans).

On a similar note, I don't understand why John McCain is not attempting to influence the Democratic nomination. I am certain there are many things he could say and do that would benefit his preferred opponent and i don't see any of that happening.

Posted by: effay at April 22, 2008 05:07 PM

Effay,

On your obscurity point, I would agree and only add that the only other exposure he seems to get is at the end of every NPR story on Clinton v. Obama, which wrap with "and John McCain is loving this."

McCain might not want to attempt to influence because it could make him seem vulnerable should his favored opponent fail to win.

Posted by: Ed Lopez at April 22, 2008 05:26 PM

1. Are you implying that Clinton and Obama are on performance enhancing drugs?

2. There is always something to go negative with.

3. Is the "unamed republica" the Czech Republica?

Posted by: steve weitz at April 23, 2008 02:44 PM

Somebody's good with the typos. Prost, Steve!

Posted by: Ed Lopez at April 23, 2008 03:01 PM