McCain's forfeit

[BarbaraGordon]

What McCain forfeited, if you ask me, is the opportunity to have the only ticket with any perceived economic credibility.

McCain has already admitted that he "doesn't understand" the economy, and that quote is certainly going to get plenty of airtime these next two months. So he could really use some help in this arena. Now Obama, he had to go with a foreign policy VP to make up for his weakness on that front, which leaves him with no economic credentials anywhere on his ticket.

But McCain had an advantage: he got a chance to see Obama's complete ticket. McCain got to make his move fully aware of what the opposition had already done, of what he needed to do to one-up the competition. That's the advantage he had in going second. It's true in overtime, and it's true here.

And that's what I don't get. He didn't take advantage of his advantage. McCain should have seen the remaining glaring omission on the Dem ticket - economic knowledge - and he should have taken advantage of the weakness by adding padding those credentials on his own ticket. But he didn't. He passed up the opportunity for his ticket to have the exclusive claim to economic competence.

Voters are concerned about the economy (see below). There's no getting around it. And they want to be reassured that the government's got their back by someone who understands how the system works, and by someone with at least a perceived successful record in the sector. Obama's ticket can't offer that. And now McCain's ticket can't either. I think that was a mistake by the GOP advisers, and it may end up hurting them in the rustbelt states.

It's nice that McCain wants to reach out to the heartbroken Hillary supporters, but there are more ways to appeal to women than by simply putting a female on the ticket. Women have been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn, and they'll be looking for leadership on this issue.

(NB: Yes, it's true that the president doesn't really have anything to do with the economy, and he gets all his info and whatever from advisers anyway. But that doesn't change the fact that voters in Detroit and Scranton and Cleveland want to feel like the candidates know what they're talking about and have some kind of plan to create jobs, curb inflation, etc.)



ps. It seems somewhat upside-down to me that I'm still lobbying for Romney and y'all guys are defending the evangelical chick.

[YOhio]

Great idea Babs! Your strategy sure worked for Bob Dole.

When is the last time a ticket had a true economic expert on the ticket. Economic experts are renowned for their inability to win an election. Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot, Bill Bradley, and the list goes on.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by YOhio

When is the last time a ticket had a true economic expert on the ticket. Economic experts are renowned for their inability to win an election. Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot, Bill Bradley, and the list goes on.

Lenin was an economic expert of sorts. Of course, he didn't need an election.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

What McCain forfeited, if you ask me, is the opportunity to have the only ticket with any perceived economic credibility.

McCain has already admitted that he "doesn't understand" the economy, and that quote is certainly going to get plenty of airtime these next two months. So he could really use some help in this arena. Now Obama, he had to go with a foreign policy VP to make up for his weakness on that front, which leaves him with no economic credentials anywhere on his ticket.

...

McCain has narrowed Obama's wide advantage on handling the economy, by far the electorate's top issue. Before the GOP convention, Obama was favored by 19 points; now he's favored by 3.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...-07-poll_N.htm

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Romney would have been far better in that regard. This pick is a big mistake, and I think most people here know it but are defending McCain because they hate Obama. Another solid pick on the economics front would have been Meg Whitman. She has about as much political experience as Palin, but has built a multi-billion dollar corporation and gets you much further with the female Hillary crowd than an evangelical female who is militant on abortion.

SHut up, Hannity. You would have claimed every single possible pick as a mistake.

[All-American]

I wonder if the recent 7-houses scare swayed McCain at all? I dunno.

Right now, economic prowess does not necessarily mean you'll score with voters concerned about the economy, especially when Obama is finding such success threatening to hike up taxes for the rich. You need somebody who represents the little guy that everybody seems to care so much about.

Don't get me wrong, I think Romney would have been the best choice if you're worried about economics, but perception is everything. That's the gamble.

[MikeWaters]

Romney has huge negatives. There is this fiction that has emerged that Romney the weak candidate has died, and Romney the strong candidate has taken his place.

Romney would have been ok, in the sense that VP picks don't matter. Any positives on the economy would have been counter-balanced by all the negatives, such as his stiff style, Mormon religion, fake personality, history of flip-flopping, disconnect from the average person, etc.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Romney has huge negatives. There is this fiction that has emerged that Romney the weak candidate has died, and Romney the strong candidate has taken his place.

Romney would have been ok, in the sense that VP picks don't matter. Any positives on the economy would have been counter-balanced by all the negatives, such as his stiff style, Mormon religion, fake personality, history of flip-flopping, disconnect from the average person, etc.

No, if folks are as concerned about the economy as it's being reported, then all of Romney's perceived negatives would have been overridden by his understanding of the economy. Of course, if McCain isn't elected then Romney's strength wouldn't matter.

That said, the idea is to get elected and McCain has a better chance with Palin than he would with Romney. America isn't ready for a Mormon that close to being the President.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No, if folks are as concerned about the economy as it's being reported, then all of Romney's perceived negatives would have been overridden by his understanding of the economy. Of course, if McCain isn't elected then Romney's strength wouldn't matter.

That said, the idea is to get elected and McCain has a better chance with Palin than he would with Romney. America isn't ready for a Mormon that close to being the President.

I know Romney knows how to run a business. I don't know that he knows how to "run" the entire USA economy. He promised huge govt. intervention and funds in Michigan. Is that the kind of thing you were thinking about?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I know Romney knows how to run a business. I don't know that he knows how to "run" the entire USA economy. He promised huge govt. intervention and funds in Michigan. Is that the kind of thing you were thinking about?

If he understands how to run a business, then wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that he understands what the government needs to do (or not do) to allow businesses to be successful and therefore allow the economy to grow and stabilize?