It's Not the Economy, Stupid

It's the economy, stupid. Or is it?

Over at MSNBC.com--the place, I'm told, for politics--my NEWSWEEK colleague Howard Fineman recently posted an interesting column exploring a"series of strategic errors that could jeopardize [Barack Obama's] chances in November." I usually tend to think that this sort of armchair MSM quarterbacking is a little silly--an unsavory product of the press's need to impose narrative structure on the flimsiest or most ephemeral of statistical fluctuations. But Howard actually has some smart insights to share, especially on Obama's refusal to take federal financing for the general election or accept John McCain’s offer to hold ten town hall debates. That said, one critique in particular caught my eye:

It is not enough to be for change – everybody is, or is trying to be. To make it stick, Obama needed, and needs, to put forth an easy-to-grasp grand proposal, one that would encapsulate what his central message is. That tagline? That he is dedicated, body and soul, to advancing the economic interests of hard-working, average Americans. He has the makings of such a proposal – his tax cuts for low and middle-income families. But he has yet to package that, or anything else, in an easy-to-grasp, hard-number plan for voters. Instead, he’s got more of a laundry list than an actual rallying cry.

I hear this all the time from worried Democrats--and know-it-all pundits. Voters are stressing about the economy and blaming President Bush, they say. Obama needs to be Mr. Economy. But I suspect that the Illinois senator's troubles have less to do with his lack of "an easy-to-grasp, hard-number plan" than with the mechanics of modern American politics. And McCain's recent surge in the polls shows why.

In the wake of last week's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, most analysts have focused their energies on examining the stunning shifts in McCain's direction among independents and white women--Stumper among them. But the more interesting change may be in the "who do you trust to handle the economy?" category. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken in mid-July, 54 percent of voters answered Obama and 35 percent answered McCain. That's a 19-point gap. But now Obama's lead has collapsed to a mere five points--47 percent to 42 percent. According to the latest FOX News poll--which also found Obama's edge narrowing from 19 points in July to four points today--independent voters are responsible for much of the slippage. Back then, independents chose Obama 43 percent to 36 percent on the economy; now they prefer McCain 45 percent to 40 percent.

What does this tell us? That image determines how voters see the issues these days--not the other way around. At the Republican convention, McCain didn't say much about his economic proposals, so it's hard to see how the swift McCainward shift on the economy had anything to do with specific policy prescriptions. It's not like vast swaths of the American populace spent the post-St. Paul weekend carefully combing through Obama's plan and McCain's plan and deciding they preferred the latter. A more plausible explanation is that the convention changed how voters view McCain as a candidate--and that in turn affected their preferences on specific issues.

Call it the convention two-step. First, Sarah Palin attracted massive amounts of media attention to McCain. Then McCain used his time in the spotlight to disentangle his candidacy from Bush and the Republicans. Like the New Republic's John Judis, I suspect that in St. Paul McCain's personal story--"combined with theme of 'country first' and the commitment to 'reform'--created a credible gap between McCain, on the one hand, and Bush and the Republicans on the other." Most voters tuned in last week for the first time--many because they were fascinated with Palin. What they saw wasn't a candidate who sounded like Bush--or even like a Republican. Instead, they saw someone selling himself almost as an independent. I can imagine that a lot of folks said, "Hmm. I'm not hearing 'more of the same.'"

The polls support this scenario. In June, 59 percent of ABC News / Washington Post respondents said Obama would "bring the needed change to Washington." McCain's share? Twenty-seven percent. But that was pre-Palin--back when voters were hearing more from the caricaturists than from the candidates themselves. Today, Obama's 32-point "change" lead has plummeted to 12 percent. What's worse, Obama is actually trailing McCain 36-38 on this question among independents--an amazing statistic given that McCain's party has been in power for the last eight years. As a result, Obama's specific advantages--on the economy, the federal deficit, social issues and energy--have been cut by half or more, while McCain's have grown by nearly as much. Again, issues flow from image. So if voters believe that McCain isn't Bush, they're much more likely to believe that a McCain economy represents a change from a Bush economy--despite the obvious similarities between their policies.

That's why Obama won't really benefit from "repackaging" his economic proposals. In fact, he's done this dozens of times--and no one noticed. (Remember the "Blueprint for America's Working Women?" Didn't think so.) The sad truth is that the press would rather focus on Palin than on Obama's plan to double funding for the manufacturing extension partnership. Simply put, the news is what's new--and that's not going to change. Which is why Obama has to fight fire with fire--and even think WWSSD? (What would Steve Schmidt do?) This doesn't mean Obama should lie or play dirty or stop talking policy. But it does mean that he could benefit from manipulating the media a little bit. The first step: diverting the the MSM's attention from Palin (and, by extension, McCain) with some sort of flashy maneuver. The second: using the spotlight to reconnect McCain to the failures of Bush's Republican Party.

Now, I'm not political strategist, and I don't presume to know how Obama should react. That said, I'm intrigued by a suggestion from the smart folks over at FiveThirtyEight.com. They say, in effect, that instead of cutting and running from the noisome pig in lipstick metaphor that's been consuming the chattering classes for the past few cycles, Obama should "go full boar -- er, full bore -- and build an advertising campaign around it." Imagine: "a funny ad... [in which] the pig roots around in its sty, wearing lipstick and a pink bow...After a few seconds, the words 'John McCain's agenda --- more of the same.' Those words fade out, followed by (one at a time, in sequence): 'Unfair tax policy.' Foreign policy failures.' 'War on the middle class.' 'Irresponsible energy policy.' 'Corporate welfare.'"

Silly? Maybe. It might even backfire. But a pig ad would certainly capture the country's attention--and, in turn, convey Obama's "more of the same" message. Either way, the point, I think, is clear: in this frantic, 24/7 cable-news environment, it's not enough to come up with a clever package for your economic proposals. If you want the press--and the people--to pay attention, you might have to break out the lipstick every once in awhile.

Just ask John McCain.

Thoughts? Amendments? Disagreements? Ad hominem attacks? The comments are all yours.