To illuminate my next critique, I will first choose the thing that Obama did (amongst other things [but in this case from strictly a marketing point of view]) oh so very right: He picked a brand identity and stuck with it.
If memory (yes, I am not googling it or whatever) serves me, then I believe he had the trademark blue "O" with the red stripes of the American flag as hills (or waves) more or less at his announcement in Springfield. I also believe it was fairly early on (before Iowa) wherein he used the one word slogan "Change." He stuck by those now famous messages throughout his effort.
Hilary gave him as stiff a challenge as she could (and still hope for a personal political future aside from her husbands shadow), and barely lost in her efforts to peel away at the brand of a cool intellectual who stood firmly for change and chose most words carefully most of the time.
She did throw the kitchen sink at him. But she also tried (again from memory only) the better part of half a dozen slogans, and dozens of various straw man sticking points with varying degrees of truth buried within the message-- all designed to run against Obama.
Last mention of Obama here, and then onto McCain, Obama (and his exploratory committee) seemed to calibrate the message (brand identity+slogan+platform) squarely against ALL COMERS, not just his next nearest competition.
McCain's team in March clearly failed to assess that (A) Obama's message was fairly consistent throughout a grueling Democratic primary, and (B) his Brand and Identity were fairly unshakable. That would seem to imply that (1) In order to appear more unshakable, unflappable, AND experienced a granite bedrock and marble foundation of a message needed to be developed during that down time from March to June, and (2) It was going to be an all out effort which required coordination and harmonization at every level-- especially the ground.
So, lets focus just on McCain: identity = servant to the nation, war hero, and maverick; slogan and platform... well that never quite got straightened out by the "Straight Talk Express."
If he was going to continue riding around in the STE, then a heavy dose of Straight Talk would have really been helpful. I mean how high would his polling numbers have shot up if he had said, "I know President Bush has been unpopular, hey personally I think he's even a bit of a Jerk, but in order to win these wars you have to make some unpopular decisions."
What part of that statement could the Dems have disagreed with? You then refocus on the messy details of how to win wars.
My Proviso here is that I am assuming the Pubs had some sort of strategy (other than continuing to prolong the war and siphon tax dollars to no bid contracted cronies for shoddy work and non-accountability), but if I am wrong then moreover they deserved to lose!
On the Economy (and I already suggested that Romney should have been the VP... there would have been a much more contentious battle in the West, Rust Belt, and to a lesser degree New England), if he were to have said, "I know there are some people struggling, but its the job of the government to give a hand-up-- not a hand out!"
Again, thats an oldy but a moldy from the Reagan playbook Maverick 2000 McCain would agree with, but somewhere the message was coopted to please the Rovian Sith Hordes (a.k.a. NeoCons) and so any talk of assistance to anyone (used here to include the "personhood" of corporations) not worth billions was taboo.
On Immigration, "My friends, I could prattle on about my long record on immigration and human rights, but lets get one thing straight-- We need to fix this broken down Immigration and border system."
Vague enough to not completely freak out the borders only crowd, but tongue firmly in cheek enough to give the wink to his true base of Pro-Life Hispanics who have some concerns for workers rights, and deep fear for some of the more draconian suggestions posited by the NeoCons.
Finally, although this may not be entirely "message," but it fits into the category of "Non-verbal." When you go into your convention a landslide victor, your party needs to conform its platform to your overarching gameplan and strategy.
That most certainly didnt happen.
No, as became clear on September 15th, McCain surrounded himself with people who could tolerate his bullshit, and (probably) feared him enough to not be able to simply point out his errors or fallacies. Someone had approved a script saying "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," when most economists worth their salt were at least tipping their hand that the "R" word was around the corner if not nearer. What on Gawds green monster sign were they thinking?
Here are some great stats about how to measure Recession, and why I would never have ever approved of that message (if McSame was my boy), as we have technically been in Recession for years.
He then panicked, "suspended" his campaign (even though in fact there were commercials, surrogates, and Palin romping around), scuttled a deal brokered in Congress with the President, and then resumed his campaign only to vote FOR the bailout. Think "My Pet Goat," on Viagra, uppers, and Scotch....
I have to believe that the absolute shit sandwich (all of those many many served to him 'special order' over the years) that McCain was served as part of the 2000 campaign and its subsequent events (including the absolutely dishonorable attack against fellow Vietnam Hero Kerry) had (as they say in Poker) put on Tilt a personality and temperament which could really not afford to be on Tilt.
So what possible message could you construct with all of those facts?
Suggestion for the trial balloon meeting that should have been on or around March 25th, 2008;
It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.
