Who’s Winning the Presidential Chess Match?

A high-profile election campaign is more like a chess match than a football game. What’s important isn’t so much the current score (i.e. the polls), it’s the way the game has been played so far. Examine the moves that John McCain has made—his framing of the campaign for persuadable voters. McCain has boxed himself into a difficult endgame.

To explain, let me review the concepts of “persuadable voters” and “framing of a campaign.”

Persuadables—Americans who remain undecided in this election are not like you and me. They haven’t been paying much attention to the candidates. They probably didn’t watch the conventions or the presidential debate. They’ll start thinking seriously about this election sometime in the next week or two, or maybe not until the final weekend. A recent Associated Press poll [1]found that 18 percent remain persuadable—which seems about right.

Framing—A campaign’s frame is the big-picture reason to support the candidate. For example, in 1992 the Clinton frame was “the economy, stupid,” designed to focus voters on the question “Which candidate is more likely to fix the economy?” That year, Clinton was the obvious answer. In 2004, the Bush campaign focused on the question “Which candidate is the ‘strong’ one?” That year, Kerry was painted as a weak flip-flopper so Bush could be seen as the strong leader in a time of war.

Those of us in the progressive base, as well as those in the conservative base, tend to support our candidates because we agree with them on a variety of issues. But persuadable voters generally don’t decide that way. Persuadables are captured by an effective frame.

Back to the chess game. It takes tremendous work—usually over a period of months—for a campaign to link a candidate to a frame in the minds of persuadable voters. We all know Obama’s frame because he’s repeated it for 18 months: it’s change. Obama recognizes that Americans overwhelmingly believe the country’s headed in the wrong direction, and he promises to change directions. It’s a simple, effective frame, and actually not very different from the one that worked for Clinton in 1992.

But what is McCain’s frame? What’s the story that might make him the choice of persuadable voters? Before the GOP convention, McCain’s frame was experience. He said you can’t trust the presidency to someone who has only a few years in high-level electoral politics, and that Obama is no more than a Paris Hilton celebrity. But in recent weeks, he's effectively destroyed that frame. First, the selection of Sarah Palin crushed McCain’s credibility to argue over experience—because she’s less experienced than Obama, and far more a celebrity candidate. Second, Obama’s debate performance made the McCain experience argument seem absurd on its face.

McCain might try to shift his frame to national security. Pundits argued all summer that McCain’s military background gives him a huge advantage, and early polls seemed to support the idea that voters trust McCain more than Obama to keep America safe from terrorists. Yet, recent polls indicate that Obama won the debate on national security. More important, Americans are much more focused on the economy than they are on foreign affairs. Unless there is another terrorist attack on the U.S. or Bush invades some unfortunate country before the election, it’s very unlikely that security issues will win over the persuadables.

What about McCain’s reputation as a straight-talker? For years, the media trumpeted McCain’s truthfulness and honor to the point that reporters seemed to be his greatest supporters. But the press has fallen out of love with McCain over his easily-debunked lies, his refusal to talk to the media, and his walling off of Sarah Palin from reporters. Without media support, the straight-talker frame falls apart.

In fact, McCain has made so many wild, unconventional, or ill-advised moves in this game that he has few options left. Apparently his latest attempt at framing is to position himself as the “maverick.” He and Palin are trying to portray themselves as full-fledged anti-Washington populists. In other words, he is agreeing with Obama that voters should focus on the question “Which candidate is more likely to bring change to Washington?” McCain is arguing that he’s the agent of change while Obama is for more of the same.

I am not so foolish as to say that Obama can’t lose. But if McCain doesn’t shift gears, and soon, he can’t win. It is irrational to expect persuadable voters to see a 72-year-old, 26-year Washington veteran, who is white, conservative, and Republican as the candidate of change against the likes of Barack Obama. Both progressive and conservative partisans who've followed McCain's career for years can at least imagine him as the "maverick." But for persuadable voters—who simply don't pay that much attention to politics—the idea is too much of a stretch.

What does that mean for progressives around the nation?

First, progressive advocates should double-down on the theme of change. When both presidential candidates are for change, down-ballot conservative defenders of the status quo are at a big disadvantage.

Second, with both presidential candidates running anti-Washington campaigns, absolutely nobody is defending the President. It’s a great time for progressives to jump aboard the Populist Express, arguing that the failures of the Bush Administration are failures of ideology, not policy execution.

Third, progressives everywhere should focus on five simple economic contrasts:

• On jobs, contrast conservative trickle-down with progressive growth.

• On health care, contrast conservative market schemes with progressive affordable health care for all.

• On trade, contrast conservative unfair trade with progressive fair trade.

• On Social Security, contrast conservative privatization with progressive strengthening of the trust fund.

• On energy, contrast conservative cheerleading for the oil industry with progressive energy independence.

To learn more about how these economic contrasts can checkmate the conservatives, click here [2].

The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the recent book, Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People [3].