It’s becoming pretty clear that John McCain’s embarrassing inability to recall how many homes he owns is becoming a defining moment of this election. Particularly fascinating has been listening to the conservative punditocracy try to explain why it won’t matter.
I heard two different members of the club, the Weekly Standard’s Matt Continetti and the NY Times’s David Brooks, make basically the same argument today: it won’t stick because it doesn’t fit “the narrative” about McCain. That is, whatever else you may not like about McCain, “the narrative” doesn’t allow you to think that he’s an out-of-touch elitist, so wealthy that he’s lost track of how many homes he owns.
They are wrong, though it’s hard to know whether they actually believe that line, or they are desperately spinning to keep their preferred candidate close. They are right to recognize that “the narrative,” which in the past has generally been determined by a small group of MSM pundits, is quite powerful and does affect the way people see candidates. But narratives, of course, can change, and they can change quite quickly. Moreover, the power of the punditocracy to set the terms of the debate — to define “the narrative” — while still formidable, is no longer as exclusive as it used to be. The internet has changed that. There are far more sources of information now than there were even four years ago, and far more places to turn for alternative viewpoints. Something like McCain’s housing gaffe can now live on endlessly on the blogs, on YouTube, on listservs, and elsewhere, gathering steam (did you hear about the $520 loafers? the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on maids and butlers?), even if the usual suspects don’t care to talk about it, until they simply cannot ignore it any more.
Brooks and Continetti either don’t recognize that, or they know it but (understandably) are reluctant to acknowledge it, since it lessens their own authority over “the narrative.” But whether they like it or not, John McCain is an out-of-touch, incredibly rich guy who has no understanding of the economic pressures ordinary Americans are facing these days. The housing gaffe crystallized that in an incredibly powerful way, and that’s what it takes to change the narrative.
This one isn’t going away, folks.
This was a key moment in the campaign, certainly more so than anything else the Obama campaign has tried to use against McCain to this point. This is something that will still be talked about in November, because it is a new narrative.
<
p>This gaffe seems pretty similar to me to the grocery scanner gaffe of the ’92 Bush campaign, where Bush 1 seemed hopelessly out-of-touch by not recognizing what this “new” technology was. Now, same as then, the economy is poor and both the Bush 1 and McCain gaffes help to drive the narrative that the candidate simply doesn’t know what the average American is dealing with.
<
p>Indeed, this doesn’t go against the reigning McCain narrative, which the conservative commentators David cites argue. Remember that most polls have shown people trust Obama more on the economy, and there’s been a narrative out there for some time that McCain needs to bone up on the economy (that McCain’s “I don’t know much about the economy” comment highlighted). So, in many ways, this reinforces the narrative against McCain as unable to effectively deal with America’s economic problems.
<
p>All the more important is the fact that, as usual, the Republicans were going to try to paint Obama as the elitist (see: Dukakis, Kerry). That just because MUCH more difficult for them now. The tables have turned, and I think this will reverberate throughout the remainder of the campaign. This is the “I voted for it before I voted against it” of 2008.
$520 loafers? Maids? BUTLERS!?!?
<
p>You’d think his wife was a millionaire or something!
<
p>I’d never vote for a millionaire! I’m voting for Obama!
He makes less than $5 million.
Me, I’m a Bush Pauper.
There seems to be confusion as to one having dolla dolla bills and being elitist.
<
p>First, I’m going to throw out the wiki definition of elitism in our context.
<
p>
<
p>Question: How does McCain not knowing how many houses he owns fit this definition.
<
p>It doesn’t. Plain and simple. However, bring up tidbits such as Obamas clinging to God & Guns whathaveyou, and you have the implication that these San Fran liberals he was talking to think they know better than middle america, and that it’s okay, because he’s not like them. Go ahead and have a 5 dollar latte, I’ll handle the hicks.
<
p>That’s why this isn’t going to get a lot of traction and let Obama pull away. There wasn’t any sort of veiled (or even blatant) condescension in the whole affair. When Obama made that comment about clinging to religion, I felt like Obama was talking down to my way of life. Even if I step back and remove myself from my political stripes, I feel like that. I can’t think of any other reason he would say that than to score points with some snobby San Fran a-holes who can’t understand why I’m not atheist like them.
<
p>Was McCain scoring points? No. His wife is bank, mint, rich, hot and other adjectives. What if he said say…2, because 2 are in his name. Would you say he lied because his wife owns the other 6 or whatever the numbers worked out to be? I like it when politicians say they don’t know and they’ll get the answer for you. It’s honest — no matter which political party you belong to.
But you are wrong. You, too, are missing the importance of this moment. It’s not about whether McCain is or is not condescending, or whatever. It is about dramatically changing “the narrative” — the idea that many Americans have about who John McCain is. That idea has just changed, and not in a way that is at all helpful to McCain’s campaign.
<
p>Frankly, I had no idea McCain was as rich as he apparently is until relatively recently, and I pay attention.
Cool, let’s see some numbers. I want to see the poll shift. Because last time I checked, which was like 5 mins ago, it’s just getting tighter and tighter.
<
p>Unlike with Obama, david, america doesn’t need an event like this to teach us who john mccain is. He’s been around longer than a little under 4 years. He’s been in the spotlight for longer than 9 or so months. He’s done more than been some ambiguous “community organizer” or a State Senator.
<
p>You would EXPECT the narrative to change, because that’s what happens with obama, because the man is such an untested variable that people still don’t know what his deal REALLY is. If you expect this to be the turning point you’ve been waiting and hoping for, you’re going to be sadly mistaken.
You know better than to expect the poll numbers to shift that fast. These things take time.
<
p>Beyond that, all I can say is that this:
<
p>
<
p>is exactly wrong, and exactly why this gaffe is so important.
… and ad that narrated: “Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do.”
<
p>Unbelievable.
David, I think Joe is right in his basic analysis that most voters don’t care how rich McCain is. In fact, the richer he is the more likely many people are to vote for him. Most people would love to be so rich they can’t remember how many houses they have.
<
p>Joe, however, I think you are wrong that this issue won’t hurt McCain (if that’s actually what you are saying). It will hurt him because it is a very dramatic reminder of the fact that he’s out of touch and appears to be incompetent on a number of important subject areas. It feeds into the developing narrative that he just doesn’t know important requirement of the job — like, for example, that Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist anymore, or that Iran is in between Iraq and Pakiston — and that he is not qualified to be President. This developing “incompetent narrative” is harsh, and potent. A sympathetic reading is that the man has given a lot for his country — evidently, too much. He needs to take a break, not have the responsibility of the White House. CMD made this point better than me in this thread.
that anyone is more likely to vote for McCain because they envy his riches? That strikes me as unlikely.
<
p>Also, I think that the harm to McCain is more specific than simply being further evidence of his apparently failing faculties. To a voter who is concerned about keeping his or her one home out of foreclosure, McCain’s carelessness about how many properties he owns (much less the financial condition of any of them) can’t inspire much confidence that the guy has any understanding of what the voter is going through. I think voters want a sense that their president has at least some degree of empathy with their problems. McCain just blew that.
with people’s problems got blown a long time ago.
<
p>At worst, it’s a level playing field now.
Or are you just EaBoing?
<
p>What is important here is the narrative that is established here with the “rich McCain” meme (actually, I think you get at this in the second half of your comment).
<
p>After all, Dems argued until they were blue in the face that Bush “flip-flopped” as much as Kerry (remember the 9/11 Commission?), and that Bush was surely as “elitist” as Kerry, given that he was the son of a frickin’ President for God’s sake (talk about a silver spoon!).
<
p>But none of that mattered, did it?
<
p>What mattered is that the narrative was set, and that it permeated the remainder of the campaign. Believe me, if the McCain people aren’t worried about this, they should be (and I’d be willing to bet just about anything that they ARE worried). From a theoretical point of view, I’d agree it’s not the most important point (I think the whole thing about not knowing that Checkoslovakia no longer exists and the difference between Shiites and Sunnis is more “important”), but it’s the most politically salient.
<
p>I love seeing JoeTS, EaBo, and the other resident conservatives get all up in arms about this. They are doing so because they know that this thing has legs, and they are worried. I would be too if I were a McCainiac.
And he was a bigger, and more out-of-touch idiot. Neither McCain nor Obama are average middle-class Americans. They both should stop pretending to be so and move on to more substantive matters.
…was that he was a devoted family man. The narrative can change very quickly when events cause it to do so.
<
p>This is very bad for McCain. And it’s a two-fer!! Not only is he an out of touch rich guy, he’s a doddering old guy who has to rely on his staff to keep count of his houses.
GHW Bush was up against a professional politician and McCain is up against a relative novice. McCain already sort of turned the tables on Obama by bringing up his mansion issues.
<
p>McCain came back from VietNam out of touch and has remained that way throughout his career. It didn’t stop him as of yet.
<
p>I think that this will blow over. I am sort of hoping that his wife’s arm injury is a ruse for her to get more narcotics, now that would be a story,
This “relative novice” beat Hillary Clinton and her campaign of inevitability, perhaps you ought to remember that…
Obama is a relative novice. Hillary is no Bill.
Barack Obama beat the Clinton machine – the Clintons had all the early advantages and many of the big-time party insiders on their side, and they lost to the person you describe as a “relative novice”. From what I can see, the only “relative novice” around here is you…
I deduce from your pout that you are an Obama supporter. Ever hear of the “big tent?” Obama is not a lifelong pol as Bill Clinton was. He has the personal magnetism but he does not have the experience Bill Clinton possessed when he made his run.
…but there’s that deep thinker thing again. You seem to be missing my point – no matter what you say, your description of Obama as a “realtive novice” is inaccurate – he’s an accomplished pol in his own right, and he demonstrated this by beating the Clintons and their machine.
but for being such a genius you seem to have very thin skin. I was stating an obvious fact, Obama is a relative novice. He has run 1 senate campaign and is in the middle of his first presidential campaign.
<
p>Clinton had run multiple statewide campaigns for AG of Arkansas and governor of Arkansas prior to throwing his hat in the ring. He was running for president ever since he met JFK in the Rose Garden back in 63. He won some races and lost some races and learned each time. Bill Clinton was the greatest Democratic politician since JFK. Does Obama match up?
<
p>Obama is quite the candidate. He is smart, good looking, comfortable in his own skin, a good talker. He has lots going for him. One thing he lacks is EXPERIENCE. Don’t have a hissy fit, its true. People like you are the worst thing for Obama. You sound shrill, insecure and insulting, but I know that your waters run so deep.
Experience only counts for so much – more important is sound judgement, and I’d have to say that he more than makes for any imaginary experience gap with the judgement he exhibits. And he’s gaining experience every day…
You are pretty much on target there I guess except that in Lincoln’s case it was not a two party race by any stretch.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong John, I like Obama and will vote for him I just don’t think McCain’s gaffe has strong legs.
It goes beyond McCain simply giving the impression that he is out of touch. If you recall the campaign’s original theme was that the economy was fine and America was just a nation of whiners.
… box! Too quick on the keyboard and you get a comment subject with no comment.
(with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:
<
p>You know you’re an elitist…
<
p>Let’s see what’s been done so far.
<
p>… if you can’t remember how many houses you own.
… if you have to check with staff about how many houses you own.
… if you don’t know what kind of car you drive.
… if you think people who complain about the economy are mental.
… if you haven’t filled out a job application in over 35 years.
<
p>Some other ones that have been tried:
… if Germans really really like you.
… if you think you’re smart.
… if you are smart.
… if you vacation in the foreign country of Hawaii where your grandmother lives and where you were born.
… you bowl bad.
… others are encouraged at your arrival on the political scene.
… nobody likes your pastor.
<
p>Some other classics:
… you have an expensive hair cut.
… you have an expensive hair cut and your name isn’t Romney.
… you windsurf.
… you don’t recognize a grocery scanner.
… you don’t clear enough brush.
… you believe in climate change.
… you decide to wear more earth tones.
<
p>Go ahead… give it your best shot. What did I miss? 😉
…you know where to get fresh guava puree
…your wife can create a whole foundation just to get a drug fix
…you think the little people like your attempt at faux equality with “my friends”
… out the arugula. Oh the arugula.
… you ask for an orange juice when someone offers you coffee
…And being multi-lingual
… good catch on multi-lingual.
<
p>Now that I think of it I should add one:
<
p>… read newspapers.
… Meant to say:
<
p>You forgot windsurfing to the left… followed by windsurfing to the right.
Even here in BMG’s tiny corner of the universe, this house business has got our cadre of differently-winged friends in a positive dither. EaBo’s got an outraged post up about Tony “yesterday’s news” Rezko, and JoeTS is commenting furiously, doing his gosh-darndest to explain it all away. When we hit the hat trick of Peter Porcupine chiming in, we’ll know we’ve really hit paydirt. ‘Til then, we can only hope that EaBo and Joe are racking up their comment troll rewards!
His post this morning probably netted him 25 points!
truly an epic battle of wits.
in the category of conciseness. yuh-huh, have too!
i have to go to the bathroom.
First, David is absolutely correct in stating that this has an impact. Obama has taken this issue and ran with it. It is an opportunity to define McCain to the voting public. People are still making up their minds about the candidates and the ability to define McCain as an out of touch elitist will have an impact.
<
p>Second, it also shows that Obama is different from some past candidates and is not afraid to mix it up. The charge doesn’t really matter, its how you respond to the attack that matters. If Obama made a speech and said that it wasn’t nice that McCain has an ad about Rezco. They would start to mock him and make him look weak. Instead Obama came after him with an ad picturing him with Bush in a golf cart and talking about his homes and how he believes middle class are those who make less than 5 million. Very sharp ad that does a much better job of feeding the narrative than McCain’s.
I worry that such a narrative shift still requires authorization by the MSM and its D.C. social cohort, internets or no internets. They generally won’t countenance this kind of story about an alpha male GOP type who’s been around D.C. for a long time.
<
p>The beauty of this though is that McCain’s wealth is of such magnitude that even pundit millionaires can credibly laugh about it.
It’s perfect timing, with the convention next week – the Obama campaign and every surrogate is going to pound this theme mercilessly until about 11:00 PM eastern time on November 4th. It’s out of the hands of the traditional media – I refuse to call them the mainstream media any more, we’re more mainstream than they are.
<
p>With deference to an analogy, the good analysts in the stock market don’t look at the day’s trade, they look at the week’s, or months. The house thing, is a 24 hour cycle, ’til the next 24 hour cycle. It’s not a defining point, or turning point. It’s a waypoint that marks one thing: the date that both candidates ran negative.
<
p>Within 36 hours, anyone who cares will remember that neither Obama nor McCain are not your ordinary guys, that each are millionaires and each remember the price of milk, or gas because their handlers coached them to know it.
I split diff b/w you and David.
<
p>Agreed that folks will only remember that neither Obama nor McCain are both millionaires, and neither are regular guys.
<
p>But that is progress for Obama, no? Helps to cancel out the “celebrity” thing. And it’s more than 24 hours: it’ll live on as punch line.
A piece of the Republican / conservative worldview that has taken hold over the last 25+ years is illustrated well in this comment by gary:
<
p>In other words, if you get into any sort of financial trouble, it’s your own damn fault and you shouldn’t expect help.
<
p>The reality is that most of us know good people who have had bad things happen to them. People who are in financial straits because they’ve lost a job. Because they or a family member has been stricken by an illness or disabled by injury. Because of a divorce. Because of mental and physical injuries suffered while serving in the armed services. Or just because costs keep rising while wages are stagnant.
<
p>A good friend of mine was a small child with three siblings when his father left his mother. She had to go on welfare in order to make sure that she and her kids remained sheltered, fed, and clothed. All four kids ended up going to college, got good jobs, and are not dependent on government help anymore. My friend’s first daughter has graduated from college and has her first job. Most of us know stories like this and know that these cases are more prevalent than the generational “welfare queens” that Reagen made famous. Yet we’ve all been bamboozled by the Republican narrative and have somehow forgotten this.
<
p>My point (finally) is that John McCain does not know people and stories like this. This episode illustrates that he doesn’t know what many people are going through and will not be able to come up with adequate solutions to their problems. He buys into the lie that if folks just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and we allow corporations to make and keep as much money as possible (and in some cases, collect subsidies), everyone will be fine.
<
p>We’ll see if the Dems continue to pounce on this. They should. We should.
<
p>No, not ‘in other words’. My words were exactly what I meant to say, and don’t require your interpretation.
<
p>I said:
<
p>Many of the foreclosures are in the sub-prime: those people who lied, who were lied to. Those people who were poor credit risks and the banks and companies reached too far to give them a loan they COULDN’T AFFORD.
<
p>The key point is: they couldn’t afford the loan.
<
p>Given that some, you know, shouldn’t have gotten the loan in the first place, should the government pay to keep them in it.
<
p>Not ‘in other words’.
<
p>Those are the words. This is the question: should the government pay to keep people in loans, they couldn’t, with prudent lending practices, afford in the first place?
<
p>
The topic of this thread is whether or not this incident will have an impact on the election, not my opinion on your comment. I only used it because it was one I remembered that was posted recently and it was a good illustration of how the Republican solutions always draw a stereotype of the victims in order to argue against government intervention. Sure, there are people who could have avoided the problem and there are those who could not. Do the latter just get thrown under the bus? In any case, as I said, that’s not the point.
<
p>The point is what effect this has on that person who sees their neighbor as someone who has always “worked hard and played by the rules” yet is losing their house. What happens when they hear John McCain say that his neighbors should just cut their expenses and get a second job (might be doing that already) and then learn that McCain also thinks the middle-class extends to $5M/year and that he can’t remember how many houses he owns? How does that play? I don’t think the details of how the mortgage was obtained and whether the lender or borrower might be at fault will come into play.
<
p>For once, the simple explanation (McCain doesn’t know how to fix it because he’s out-of-touch and doesn’t understand the problem) falls on the Democrats’ side.
Not a wise thing.
I have been involved in politics long enough to know that you can’t determine the long-term impact of a gaffe or event within a couple of days of the event, unless it is an extreme event.
<
p>My gut instinct is that not knowing about the seven homes is going to stick, especially if Biden keeps getting off lines about seven kitchen tables. This is so very concrete, people just seem to internalize it very easily. With careful nurturing, you can grow this line into a really good argument that McCain is truly disconnected with the working class.
<
p>On the other hand, I think the best line of the day was Obama’s description of how Biden knows the name of every conductor on Amtrak. That line is the connection that conflicts with the seven homes. Keep repeating both lines within a paragraph or two of each other, that working class vote will come back home.
<
p>I am looking forward to a Biden-Romney debate. Please, PLEASE, let it happen.
Yeah, this story has legs. And Obama was all over it like plaid on a vacuum cleaner salesman… but… but… GAAK!
<
p>Why is this frikkin thing even close? Why are we debating who owns which house? Why are we so mired in a mickle of triviality? Yeah, yeah, I know… I said that in 2000 before Bush v Gore and in 2004 with Kerry? Three good candidates… all essentially liberal in theology (if a bit cautious in action… not a bad think, IMHO) up against two of biggest upward-falling failures this country has produced: George Dubya and John “Reverse Ace” McCain and we can’t run away with the thing…???
<
p>OK… with Gore, it might have been a fluke. But Gore and Kerry? And now Gore, Kerry and Obama? (not saying that Obama is gonna lose. I hope not, in fact… But why, oh why haven’t we just swept the thing?
<
p>Why is it even close??
<
p>