McCain’s Iowa Strategy: Three Theories
by Linda Thieman
Theory OneIf you ask McCain why he thinks Iowa is still in play, he gets a glint in his eye and says that his campaign has been called dead before and they've always been wrong. There is almost a Palin-esque wink, like just wait until you see what I've got up my sleeve.
Well, Bryan Lefwitz over at DailyKos believes that we have now discovered what McCain thinks he's got up his sleeve. Lefwitz reports that the McCain campaign has been robo-harassing Iowa flood victims with calls that claim lack of federal help is Obama's fault. They are also targeting these folks with nasty mailers.
I guess McCain settled on this bizarre and tasteless strategem before all that negative campaigning backfired on him.
Theory Two
This theory by thereisnospoon, also over on DailyKos, is interesting in that, though a bit twisted, there are actually some little known sparkling fact gems involved. Nospoon explains that there is no group in the U.S. who is turned off by negative campaigning/advertising the way Hispanics are. This is why, s/he continues, McCain has seen his polling numbers diminish in both New Mexico and Colorado, home to large populations of Latinos.
So, the reasoning goes, “almost entirely white” Iowa appears to be one of the few places left, in spite of Obama’s 12-point lead in the Iowa polls, where McCain thinks negative advertising will work. And once he’s lost NM and CO, he must have Iowa to win.
Well, personally, I doubt the negative ads will work here. I don’t know why everyone thinks Iowans are such a bunch of gullible hicks, but I’ve always thought it works to our advantage to be underestimated thusly.
Theory Three
In an elaborate poker analogy, andysbg at DailyKos hypothesizes that McCain’s inexplicable refusal to pull out of Iowa is actually a tell. “The tell occurs when the player, to their detriment, unintentionally reveals their otherwise hidden intent,” Andy writes. Continuing to stick sorely-lacking funds into the Iowa campaign, McCain and his incompetent handlers are actually trying to win Iowa for other purposes, such as bragging rights? Sowing the seeds of hope for future malleable neocon-endorsed candidates? “This would make winning Iowa a useful data point to fill out the coming storyline, to be deployed in the wake of what we hope is the Republicans' crushing defeat in three weeks' time.”
Well, it’s a theory, anyway. Can you do better to explain the inexplicable? If so, post your theory here.
Blog For Iowa 