When are people going to realize that U.S. presidential elections are not primarily about issues?

[BzaDem]

I keep seeing people surprised that Obama is not beating McCain in a landslide in the polls, based upon the issues. 4 more years of Bush policies? 100 more years in Iraq? Can't-do, won't-do, won't-even-try policy on the housing crisis and the economy? How could McCain get any votes? Are pollsters polling people from mars? Maybe polling is flawed as a concept? How could people really vote against their economic interests?

NEWSFLASH: People have been voting against their economic interests for DECADES.

The reason we have lost the last 7 out of 10 presidential elections is not because we had policy positions that Americans didn't like, 7 out of 10 election cycles. If elections were about issues, Gore would have won (by a larger margin than he actually did win by), and Kerry would have won in a landslide. If this election were about issues, Obama would be polling at 57-43 or higher. Generic democrats are currently polling 15 points ahead of generic republicans for the presidential election. That means Americans favor Democratic over Republican policies by 15 points.

The reason Obama is not landsliding McCain in the polls is because U.S. presidential elections are largely about personal qualities. The other side has exploited this fact to their advantage time after time. The other side is currently exploiting this fact, through disgusting e-mail rumors and smear campaigns.

This is not so much the case in other countries. In parliamentary systems, people vote for a party. They know the policy positions of the major parties, and they vote for the party that best represents their views. This is one reason why other countries are currently electing much more liberal leaders. Because people see what crap the right is offering and they vote against it.

But in the U.S., we vote for a person, and this means that personal qualities play a much larger role than in other countries. I hate this fact with a passion. But it is a fact, and the Democratic party needs to deal with it.

For us to win, Obama needs to use his huge cash reserves to pump out biographical ads that define him positively and put down the smears and rumors that have defined him (to a certain extent) so far. This needs to happen yesterday. Fortunately, I have seen some articles that indicate that Obama will be putting many such biographical ads on the air. I hope they come soon.

But for us to really win (and win with a mandate), we need to debunk the myth that McCain is a "maverick" and "a straight shooter." Obama (or 527 groups) need to air negative ads about McCain. They need to show how he constantly panders to whatever side suits his needs at the moment, and that he can't be trusted. They need to make sure that even schoolchildren know about the Keating Five. We need to go just as negative on McCain as McCain (and his 527 minions) will be going on Obama. We can't just ignore the lessons of the past in the name of a new kind of politics. That is unilateral disarmament. Republicans are not going subscribe to this new kind of politics. Their fearmongering and smearing is going to succeed if we don't combat it and turn it against them. We need to hit the Republicans just as hard as the Republicans hit Democrats.

I'm not saying that the issues are irrelevant by any means. If Obama can define himself positively and McCain negatively, then talking about the issues will only help (given what Obama and McCain represent). But if we fall into the same trap that we always fall into, the issues will never see the light of day on voters' minds, and none of it will matter.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. I realized it a long time ago, that's why I believed Obama is very electable

And still do. Obama is the antithesis of a Gore/Kerry policy wonk. He's marketing himself as a person not as a set of policies.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

2. You dont think Obama&Co are all over this?

Have you seen & heard him & the campaign going on?
Aint exactly breaking news.

[BzaDem]

4. I am skeptical that Obama is going to attack McCain hard enough.

He seems to want to make everything about issues. I really, really wish that would work. But I don't think it will. Obama needs to expose McCain's character for what it is.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

5. Well, we'll see. He keeps getting himself underestimated by a lot of tough folks

& yet here he is & where are they? I think he's opening up a
whole new definition of tough is what it is.

[cottonseed]

3. I'd add that we need to run against the Republican/Conservative ideology.

McCain has years of bankrolled 'maverick' cred that we've got to chip away at. For those in the know, we see him for what he is, we know where he plans to go with this presidency, and we know who's bankrolling his campaign. The general electorate does not share this insight.

I think we need to be careful about ONLY running against McCain. We need to make it well known that the Republican party, and conservatism more specifically is a bankrupt movement. Conservatism, it's the values that led us to allow our news media to let Bob Murray, the multi-millionaire mine owner become the public spokesman during the Crandle Canyon mine collapse. Like those miners, conservatism will leave all of us buried in that mountain, and walk away slowly, without a care in the world.

[SergeyDovlatov]

6. That is what scares me

I am afraid that a whole lot of people will go into voting booth with just a one liner about the candidate they overheard on TV or Radio.

1) liberal - muslim - anti-american - weak on national security -- Obama

vs.

2) moderate - war veteran - bi-partisan - works across the isle - maverick -- McCain

I think those of us who spent so much time watching debates, following candidates record / speeches feel that other people would have the same perspective as us. But they do not. They would make their mind few days before election based on what somebody else told them or they heard a comment on the radio / tv.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. Yeah it's scary!!!

:scared: