The problem with Democrats' attacks on John McCain so far is that they don't dig deep into the consciousness of the American voter. They are rational yet superficial attacks that do not penetrate the believability threshold of most voters. This election so far has been a rerun of previous failed Democratic campaigns in which they assume voters are both fully informed and rational actors when they respond to political rhetoric. This couldn't be farther from the truth, especially when it comes to swing voters. Both assumptions have led to countless failures on the part of the Democratic party to frame their own candidate in a positive light and exploit their opponent's weaknesses. Democrats -- stuck up in their ivory tower yet again -- fail to understand the psychology of the non-partisan swing voter and moderate voters from each party. They fail to understand how the mind and the consciousness perceives, interprets and analyzes information. The way they frame their arguments are flat, flaccid and boring. It doesn't pull at the heartstrings, it doesn't sound believable, and it doesn't grab those unconscious psychological levers in the brain like the Republican message does.
Democratic strategists continue to assume that groups of moderates, low-information voters and low-education voters think and process information exactly like they do. But Democratic strategists (as well as, of course, Republican ones) are far more educated informed about the political process, and are highly trained in making objective and rational decisions. Most voters DON'T THINK LIKE THIS when it comes to political rhetoric.
Voters vote for political candidates and are attracted to political messages as much (if not more) by gut reactions and sub-conscious identification than they do about rationally thinking about the issues. Swing voters tend to disregard and disbelieve all political "facts" thrown their way. This is for good reason. If politics isn't your profession, second life, or hobby, there is no way you can possibly independently verify and fact-check everything you hear about candidates. It's not that these people aren't smart, its that they don't believe what any politician says. It is very easy, then, for them to filter out these kinds of bland factual statements and slogans. Low information voters are that way not because they are stupid or irrational, but because they don't see any purpose in seeking the information out and wading through it and deciding what information is a bunch of political lies, and which information is political truth. They simply don't believe that when a politician or a party advocates something that that politician or party are going to follow through on it.
But the political "fact" filter doesn't cover all types of information. Subconscious messages, suggestions of character archetypes, and subliminal propaganda plays a huge role in defining how people view candidates and the political parties themselves. Tapping into the unconscious mind with less overt statements of fact or position can exploit fears about candidates and parties and penetrate the consciousness with much less resistance. Voters are more receptive to political information that builds on a pre-set story about a candidate and forms their perceptions of a person's character. They don't question subliminal messages and hints as much, as much of it is perceived subconsciously. And to top it off, voters tend to believe purely rational information far more readily if it confirms their pre-existing notions of someone's character, and vice-versa. This is how the human mind has thought for thousands of years, and all the demands of liberals for people to be 100% rational are futile in the face of this fact. Voters form an initial perception about a candidate's character and then look for reasons to reinforce this. You can't just expect to throw policy out there and expect people to listen to you or support it simply because it is beneficial to them. And you can't simply sloganeer and say "4 more years" without the definition of McCain's character to back it up.
The Obama campaign has been only somewhat successful in doing this for their own candidate. Very early on in this general election, they hit battleground states with biographical ads. But that hasn't been enough. Obama's working-class, single parent upbringing has to be the story that defines him. Not the crowds he draws, not the great speeches. The crowds he drew worked perfectly against Hillary by breaking the assumption of inevitability regarding her nomination. They made Obama look like the popular one, and made it look like his nomination was at least in the realm of possibility. But the Republicans were 100% correct in using this to define him as someone who is detached and above regular people. Once Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, he instantly became the favorite, and not the long-shot black candidate. The grand speeches and soaring rhetoric have served their purpose of making Obama look strong and drawing attention to him, and in the process, making people personally familiar with him. But the Republicans have already succeeded in turning that into a negative. That's okay, though. He doesn't need to prove his viability as a candidate anymore. We all believe it is possible to win in November. Luckily (because McCain has only attacked Obama and failed to define himself), Barack Obama still has a very large opening to connect with a different type of voter now, but he obviously has to (and is) starting to change his strategy. It may have not happened as quickly as I would have liked, but there is still enough time to close the deal.
Where the Obama campaign has failed miserably is with their opposition. They have failed to build a negative narrative about McCain, despite his personal history being rife with entitlements, arrogance, and selfishness. Perhaps they are worried about turning Obama into the "angry black man", but outside groups and other Democratic strategists should have been on the news shows already pre-defining McCain more forcefully. The "4 more years" slogan is only somewhat believable as it is now, because it isn't being reinforced by any character building. It's just a political slogan that gets filtered out by the skeptical. Democrats don't need to just say that McCain offers 4 more years, and is like Bush, they have to show that he is like Bush with character definitions. They have to show him as someone who inherited his position in life, just like Bush did. They have to define him as an anti-intellectual, emotional, gut-thinking man like Bush is. They need to show that McCain is prone to making snap decisions and temper tantrums. They need to define John McCain as a spoiled brat. Spoiled by his daddy's position in life (just like Bush) and also spoiled by his wife's wealth (even worse than Bush). They even should exploit his differences with Bush. While Bush was rigidly idealistic, John McCain is emotionally unpredictable. John McCain was known as a punk in high school. He crashed five planes, but still wasn't kicked out of the Navy. His loving model wife was no longer useful to him after she got into a tragic car accident. He committed multiple acts of adultery, alienated the Reagans, and infuriated many conservatives. He has backstabbed the Republican party many times for his own political grandstanding. He is disrespectful of his current wife, as he has called her a "cunt" and a "trollop", and volunteered her for a topless beauty contest at a biker rally. He didn't follow the rules at Saddleback. He's known all around Congress for frequently blowing a gasket. The guy, despite his age, is a spoiled brat that never grew up. His five years in a POW camp were tragic, but they didn't change that part of John McCain's character. And like any spoiled brat, he uses that experience to excuse every single mistake he makes, even 40 years later up until this day. They need to advance this message full-force and without remorse. George W. Bush wasn't criticized in 2000 for tearing down a POW in the primaries. In fact, most conservatives know the negatives about John McCain better than anyone else. It will be hard for them to respond that Democrats are being too tough on a POW.
America doesn't need another silver spoon-fed brat running the show. America doesn't need someone who will put "McCain first" like McCain has constantly done in his life. Unfortunately, this has been the history of McCain. We need a cool, collected, strong leader that will put rationality and country first. We need somebody that will put the middle class first.
McCain needs to be defined by his selfish life story. People need to see the character of the man beyond his POW experience. People need to understand the character of a man who would put the elite first in exchange for the Presidency. People need to understand the character of a man who would compromise the moderate positions he has stood for in order to impress the RNC brass. People need to understand the character of the man who would sell out American workers simply to earn the Presidency. ONLY THEN will arguments like "McCain's tax plan only benefits the rich" really start to get traction. Only then would his dangerous rhetoric and temper on foreign policy resonate with people who don't want 4 more wars, who don't want more deficits, and who don't want our already overburdened troops to make more and more sacrifices in the name of extreme interventionalist ideology. People need to see the kind of tangible risks that someone of McCain's character presents to their future. War. Deficits. Higher taxes for the middle class. More reliance on gas, and higher prices. Disastrous health care policy. A government unprepared to deal with disasters like Katrina. A third world America. John McCain: temper first.
That's how we will win this election. Define his character. Don't keep offering up simple facts and slogans and expecting people to change their minds. Lay out your policy, but don't focus on it. People believe their own intuitions, and not words and facts from politicians and the media. And those intuitions are shaped by their perception of a candidate's character.