(This is a less fancy-pants way of making my key argument in my earlier diary, "Walking And Chewing Gum"--we're not reality-based when it comes to campaigning, and we need to be. Maybe this will get more of a response. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Only one guy's opinion, but what seems to be missed in the comments about what "Obama should do", is to look fairly ruthlessly at the process of campaigning. The Republicans seems to really have made a science of campaigning. Take a look at this David Brooks article
While I disagree with a lot of what David Brooks says, I do think there is a valid history traced -
1. McCain started out with the same sort of kibitzing campaign style that he used to woo the press back in 2000. It didn’t work. 2. McCain started out with the same sort of improvised campaign events he’d used his entire career, in which he’d begin by riffing off of whatever stories were in the paper that day. It didn’t work. 3. McCain started his general-election campaign in poverty-stricken areas of the South and Midwest. He went through towns where most Republicans fear to tread and said things most wouldn’t say. It didn’t work. 4. McCain started with grand ideas about breaking the mold of modern politics. He and Obama would tour the country together doing joint town meetings. He would pick a postpartisan running mate, like Joe Lieberman. He would make a dramatic promise, like vowing to serve for only one totally nonpolitical term. So far it hasn’t worked.
Brooks then goes into how the campaign had to "adjust" their strategy. Most of that adjustment has been playing to the base, and using the media to distribute and discuss the smears, lies, and untruths that McCain has used to hit Obama with.
In a way, it's a very pragmatic, scientific, style of campaigning.
We do X - does X move the polling numbers? No? Do Y!!
We do Y - does Y move the pollign numbers? No? Do Z!!
We do Z - does Z move the polling numbers? Yes!!
KEEP GOING WITH Z!!!
Now, it just so happens that Z means, what works to MOVE POLLING NUMBERS, is a lying, smearing, campaign, that focuses on myths about the McCain campaign, and lies about the Obama campaign.
But - from a practical standpoint - IT IS WORKING.
And what seems annoying to me is, from the Obama campaign, to Stoller, Rosenberg, Sirota - is that this same principle isn't applied to the media campaign war.
TRY SOMETHING OUT. If it doesn't move the polling numbers - THROW IT OUT. And then on to the next strategy.
Instead, what seems to be happening is a confirmation bias - either to the old style of Penn "micro-targeting", to the hobby horse of various Left practitioners - be it Uprising, or more populist, or 'HIT BACK HARDER', or Marshall's 'bitchslap' theory. You make the ASSUMPTION - and usually for good reasons - that so and such is a good media strategy - and stick to that.
But really, that is all theory.
It amazes me that the Republicans, in the case of the media war campaign, is much more a reality based community.
1. Execute a strategy for a week. 2.Does it move the poll numbers? 3. No? Do something else. 4. Yes - do a variation of the same thing, in a new form (in McCain's case, a fresh, new, smear.)
I would urge -URGE - all democratic commenters who want Obama to start doing better in the media war - to be OPEN to the fact that there needs to be openness to different media strategies. While it's a little late now - we have about 3 weeks to go to find "what works", if anything will.
NOTE - In the ground game, I believe the Obama campaign is going with what works. It just seems in the media campaign, there is already a pre-existing strategy.
STATE BLOGS
