Paul announced that we would continue to meet on Wednesdays at 2:15 until we find a new time for the summer.
The main topic for today’s session was the major narratives for each campaign in the general election. We can expect some trial balloons and feints to get the other campaign to react.
The primary narrative of the Romney campaign is likely to be that “Obama is a nice guy but in over his head. The economy is the issue. Anything else that the Obama campaign brings up is a mere distraction from his record on the economy.” This narrative has a good chance of working if the economy does not improve dramatically and the Romney campaign can keep the media from being distracted. It appears that Romney’s strategy will be to pre-empt Obama pronouncements and then follow-up after the event. It could become tricky determining when to pre-empt and follow-up and when to avoid the issue so it does not become a distraction. The Republican super-PACs will be able to respond to issues Romney doesn’t want to address by himself. That Romney needs some practice with this narrative and strategy as he wasn’t prepared to answer whether he would support Rubio’s version of the Dream Act with Rubio on the stage with him. Romney’s immediate challenge is to introduce himself to the American public in a positive light before the Obama campaign can define him.
The primary narrative of Obama will be that “Romney represents the people who are becoming rich playing by different rules than the rest of us have to follow. He is out of touch with the typical American. You know he likes to fire people.” There will be an effort to define Romney before the Romney campaign can define him. There may be attempts to Swift-Boat Romney through activities at Bain Capital. There appears to be a debate in the campaign whether to paint Romney as a flip-flopper or a severe conservative. Currently the severe-conservative message is the one they are playing. It may be a trap set for Romney. When he tries to soften his conservative stands, then the Obama campaign can claim flip-flop. Obama is obviously trying to energize the students by enjoining the student-loan issue. Obama will also try to retain his current advantage with the Latino community with Spanish-language ads. This narrative is unlikely to be successful if it can’t incorporate a positive message about the Obama record. Well, it’s not as bad as it could be is unlikely to be a winning strategy.
We then turned our attention to the media which has a major role in defining the terms of the election process. A small ad buy that captures the attention of the media, like the Swift-Boat veterans ad in 2004, can be replayed on the free media many times more than the original buy. There will be the themes of leadership versus being out-of-touch which could be a double-edged sword for both candidates. We had a spirited debate as to who gets the credit, the President or the Governor if they are in opposite parties, in states where the state outperforms the national economy. Likewise, who gets the blame when the state economy lags behind the federal recovery? One point of view was that credit or blame depends on effective messaging within a state. The other view that the economy is generally a Presidential issue if there is no gubernatorial election occurring at the same time. How the media treats any issue, however, is critical to its interpretation by the electorate.
Some other topics discussed included the major changes in tracking polls from day to day. Both Gallup and Rasmussen three-day averages can vary as much five points from one day to the next. Gallup is a not likely voter poll while Rasmussen is. It was pointed out that most polls have weighted averages based on the daily sampling. We also mentioned the importance of the scandals such as GSA and Secret Service in the election. We agreed that single scandals in and of themselves probably have little effect, but if associated with a lack of leadership, government waste and/or an out-of-control Washington, Romney will receive some benefit.
Back to the narratives described above, some game-changers for this election could be those that reinforce the opposition narrative (“see Gore exaggerates everything” in 2000) or goes against a campaign’s personal narrative (Carter not coming across as a nice guy at times in 1980).
Next week we will be looking more carefully at the Electoral College.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – April 18, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – April 18, 2012
We started with an exchange of views on the Hilary Rosen/ Ann Romney event last week. Most of us concluded that it was a gaffe for the Democrats and that it was a plus for the Romney campaign. One person advanced the theory that it opened up fault lines among women between stay-at-home moms and employed moms as well as between moms and women without children. On this basis, it was suggested that when Ann Romney spoke for stay-at-home moms she would have credibility, but that if she continued to speak out for all women she would be called on it. The Obama team is already playing Mitt Romney’s hard stand as MA governor forcing welfare moms into the workforce. The broader point was that the apparent winner in a political skirmish can become limited by a change in the terms of discussion it establishes. The group in general did not buy the theory.
The talk then shifted to other aspects of the Romney campaign. We noted that Ed Gillespie had been hired as a strategist. He is a former RNC Chairman and has a record at going after the Hispanic vote, suggesting some change in strategy on that front. Romney’s biggest liability, however, is the flip-flop charge. He is still trying to shore up his base before he turns back to the middle. We generally agreed that the Hilary Rosen comments were helping him in shoring up his base, but he still has a way to go. The Republican Party has had much less experience with divided loyalties in the past than the Democratic Party. Mitt Romney tends to get defensive and out of control when asked questions he doesn’t like. His interviews have generally with friendly interviewers, but he will need to go out to “Meet the Press” and similar eventually. Will he be able to resist the $10,000 bets, bragging about his rich friends and liking to fire people? He will also need some good answers on stand-your-ground laws, contraception and other hot-button issues where the attitudes of the base and the swing vote are not in agreement. It will be difficult to finesse these issues without looking like a flip flopper. It is interesting that the Democrats seem to be doing better on messaging on many of these issues than the Republicans who have shown their superiority in recent campaigns.
Next we discussed potential running mates. Rob Portman is bubbling up to the top of the possibilities. He would be a safe choice garnering respect across the Republican spectrum, but he lacks charisma. Others discussed were Paul Ryan, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. Ryan would be the most dynamic choice for the campaign. Since Romney appears to be embracing the Ryan budget, it would make sense to have someone who could clearly articulate the details. The downside to a Ryan candidacy is that the Obama team might be able to turn the election from a referendum on the Obama record to one on the Ryan budget. Pawlenty may be the most charismatically challenged politician in the country, but he could help solidify the Republican base. We tried to envision a Biden-Pawlenty VP debate where one candidate could not talk for any length of time and the other could not stop talking. Daniels has a credible policy record, but Romney doesn’t need the distraction Cheri Daniels would bring to the campaign. It was pointed out that it would be good if Romney could find a running mate with some foreign policy experience beyond Russia and the Cold War, but there are not any obvious candidates out there. Selection of Jon Huntsman would double down on the Mormon, moderate ticket. Richard Lugar might be available if he loses his primary, but he is also too moderate and has just turned 80. Nobody thought that John Bolton was viable.
Paul brought out the article by Andrew Kohut on “Economy or Personality” he had circulated earlier that had been sent to him by Jayeun. According to Kohut (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/economy-or-personality/), Romney’s campaign appears to be doomed due to his high favorable/ unfavorable (29/51) ratings at this point in the campaign. No other major party presumptive nominee has even been close. The leader in favorability at this stage is not a good indicator of who will win, but none were negative at this point. Significant increases in favorability are unlikely. With respect to unemployment, however, no President with unemployment above 8.0 close to the election has been re-elected, presumably dooming Obama. Reagan in 1984 was in danger at this point in the campaign, but the economy was getting much better and unemployment dipped to 7.3 by election time. The unemployment rate is going down, but not like it was in 84. Paul pointed out that there have been many truisms in Presidential campaigns that have been proven untrue in subsequent elections, but there are clear warning signals for both candidates.
The UGA discussion group came up with some clear recommendations for Mr. Romney’s campaign. Are you paying attention up there in Boston? The campaign needs to develop a strategy that maintains a consistency in messaging. There needs to be one person in charge of strategy, perhaps Ed Gillespie or someone like Haley Barbour. The strategist and candidate must be on the same page with coordinated daily and weekly themes. Messaging must focus on the economy, Obama’s “failed” record, and a rosier future than what we have now. The campaign needs to be flexible enough to respond to current events. Issues that divide the base and the swing voter must be avoided as much as possible to avoid that squeeze and expose potential flip-flops. Romney can’t be seen as moving in two directions simultaneously.
Romney will need to start introducing himself to the part of the country that has not yet started paying attention. The Obama campaign will be working on defining Romney before he has a chance to define himself. Probably the greatest unifier of Republicans is Obama and his policies.
The GSA and Secret-Service scandals this week in of themselves are not necessarily damaging to the Obama campaign, but an accumulation of events like this will begin to reflect on his leadership capabilities and the mess that is in Washington that he has failed to clean up. The “Fast-and-Furious” hearings did not seem to touch him, but an accumulation of small events could start sticking and do damage to his campaign.
We started with an exchange of views on the Hilary Rosen/ Ann Romney event last week. Most of us concluded that it was a gaffe for the Democrats and that it was a plus for the Romney campaign. One person advanced the theory that it opened up fault lines among women between stay-at-home moms and employed moms as well as between moms and women without children. On this basis, it was suggested that when Ann Romney spoke for stay-at-home moms she would have credibility, but that if she continued to speak out for all women she would be called on it. The Obama team is already playing Mitt Romney’s hard stand as MA governor forcing welfare moms into the workforce. The broader point was that the apparent winner in a political skirmish can become limited by a change in the terms of discussion it establishes. The group in general did not buy the theory.
The talk then shifted to other aspects of the Romney campaign. We noted that Ed Gillespie had been hired as a strategist. He is a former RNC Chairman and has a record at going after the Hispanic vote, suggesting some change in strategy on that front. Romney’s biggest liability, however, is the flip-flop charge. He is still trying to shore up his base before he turns back to the middle. We generally agreed that the Hilary Rosen comments were helping him in shoring up his base, but he still has a way to go. The Republican Party has had much less experience with divided loyalties in the past than the Democratic Party. Mitt Romney tends to get defensive and out of control when asked questions he doesn’t like. His interviews have generally with friendly interviewers, but he will need to go out to “Meet the Press” and similar eventually. Will he be able to resist the $10,000 bets, bragging about his rich friends and liking to fire people? He will also need some good answers on stand-your-ground laws, contraception and other hot-button issues where the attitudes of the base and the swing vote are not in agreement. It will be difficult to finesse these issues without looking like a flip flopper. It is interesting that the Democrats seem to be doing better on messaging on many of these issues than the Republicans who have shown their superiority in recent campaigns.
Next we discussed potential running mates. Rob Portman is bubbling up to the top of the possibilities. He would be a safe choice garnering respect across the Republican spectrum, but he lacks charisma. Others discussed were Paul Ryan, Tim Pawlenty and Mitch Daniels. Ryan would be the most dynamic choice for the campaign. Since Romney appears to be embracing the Ryan budget, it would make sense to have someone who could clearly articulate the details. The downside to a Ryan candidacy is that the Obama team might be able to turn the election from a referendum on the Obama record to one on the Ryan budget. Pawlenty may be the most charismatically challenged politician in the country, but he could help solidify the Republican base. We tried to envision a Biden-Pawlenty VP debate where one candidate could not talk for any length of time and the other could not stop talking. Daniels has a credible policy record, but Romney doesn’t need the distraction Cheri Daniels would bring to the campaign. It was pointed out that it would be good if Romney could find a running mate with some foreign policy experience beyond Russia and the Cold War, but there are not any obvious candidates out there. Selection of Jon Huntsman would double down on the Mormon, moderate ticket. Richard Lugar might be available if he loses his primary, but he is also too moderate and has just turned 80. Nobody thought that John Bolton was viable.
Paul brought out the article by Andrew Kohut on “Economy or Personality” he had circulated earlier that had been sent to him by Jayeun. According to Kohut (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/economy-or-personality/), Romney’s campaign appears to be doomed due to his high favorable/ unfavorable (29/51) ratings at this point in the campaign. No other major party presumptive nominee has even been close. The leader in favorability at this stage is not a good indicator of who will win, but none were negative at this point. Significant increases in favorability are unlikely. With respect to unemployment, however, no President with unemployment above 8.0 close to the election has been re-elected, presumably dooming Obama. Reagan in 1984 was in danger at this point in the campaign, but the economy was getting much better and unemployment dipped to 7.3 by election time. The unemployment rate is going down, but not like it was in 84. Paul pointed out that there have been many truisms in Presidential campaigns that have been proven untrue in subsequent elections, but there are clear warning signals for both candidates.
The UGA discussion group came up with some clear recommendations for Mr. Romney’s campaign. Are you paying attention up there in Boston? The campaign needs to develop a strategy that maintains a consistency in messaging. There needs to be one person in charge of strategy, perhaps Ed Gillespie or someone like Haley Barbour. The strategist and candidate must be on the same page with coordinated daily and weekly themes. Messaging must focus on the economy, Obama’s “failed” record, and a rosier future than what we have now. The campaign needs to be flexible enough to respond to current events. Issues that divide the base and the swing voter must be avoided as much as possible to avoid that squeeze and expose potential flip-flops. Romney can’t be seen as moving in two directions simultaneously.
Romney will need to start introducing himself to the part of the country that has not yet started paying attention. The Obama campaign will be working on defining Romney before he has a chance to define himself. Probably the greatest unifier of Republicans is Obama and his policies.
The GSA and Secret-Service scandals this week in of themselves are not necessarily damaging to the Obama campaign, but an accumulation of events like this will begin to reflect on his leadership capabilities and the mess that is in Washington that he has failed to clean up. The “Fast-and-Furious” hearings did not seem to touch him, but an accumulation of small events could start sticking and do damage to his campaign.
Monday, April 16, 2012
4/11/2012
Campaign Discussion Group 4-11-2010
With Santorum out of the race, Romney is the presumptive nominee, although he still has to deal with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has transformed from a viable, office-seeking candidate (after winning South Carolina) to an advocacy candidate, promoting an anti-Obama agenda and lower gas prices.
Santorum likely exited the race for fear of losing his home state to Romney, which was becoming more likely based on polling data and the fact that Romney’s campaign was gearing up for a media “carpet bombing” of the state next week. There has been talk of Santorum possibly returning to his home state to reclaim his prior Senate seat.
Barbara Norrander’s 33 percent Delegate Margin model seems to have been spot on in predicting Santorum’s exit, with Romney now more than 400 delegates ahead. We didn’t, however, get far enough to test her 36 percent Gain-Deficit Ratio model.
It was suggested that Santorum dropping out in such a subtle manner did not help Romney in establishing himself as the presumptive nominee. It would be most beneficial to Romney if Gingrich drops out after a large loss, making it a big event and signaling to voters that Romney is the Republicans choice.
There was general consensus that the campaign is now in “general election” mode.
Potential major themes of the election were discussed:
Democrats will want to convey the message that 1) things are getting better, you shouldn’t change horses in the middle of the race, 2) General Motors is Alive, Bin Laden is Dead (emphasizing Obama’s successful economic and foreign policies), and 3) that Romney is a flip-flopper.
Republicans will want to emphasize that 1) things are bad, and a change should be made, 2) the deficit, debt, and spending are out of control, and 3) that Romney is pro-Israel (a possible way to cope with Obama’s advantage on foreign policy). It was also noted that Romney is advantaged by his “presidential look” and that his VP choice is paramount and will potentially shape debate.
It has been suggested that Obama might accuse Romney of being an extreme conservative, forcing him to identify himself as a moderate or conservative, at which point the left will attack him as a flip-flopper no matter which choice he makes. Romney has also supported the Ryan budget over the past two years, giving the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition against him. Obama can pick out specific programs that the Ryan budget plans to cut, which will turn those benefactors against Republicans.
Romney, on the other hand, would benefit from the “look at Europe” argument, pointing out the problems that Europe is having as a result of its social programs and that that’s where Obama is taking America. Obama could say that the Ryan budget’s proposal to cut things like Medicare/Medicaid could cause domestic unrest in the U.S., similar to what has been seen recently in countries like Greece.
Emphasis was given to the idea that during the primary Romney was the “safe” choice in relation to the other candidates, but he must now convince everyone that he is “presidential”.
It was also pointed out that candidates have in the past matured politically throughout the campaign and that Romney could do the same. He is very coachable and could overcome the shortcomings seen during the primary, becoming a good candidate by the fall.
Also, it is unclear where the female vote stands with regards to Romney. It seems likely that minority females will support Obama, but educated and suburban female support is less clear. Recent polls have shown Romney down 19 points against Obama with female voters, a gap that must be closed for Romney to be competitive. There was also disagreement on what constitutes the “female vote”.
Finally there was talk of a potential third party candidate. It was considered unlikely, but most conceded that if one were to emerge it would likely be Ron Paul and that he wouldn’t be very successful.
With Santorum out of the race, Romney is the presumptive nominee, although he still has to deal with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has transformed from a viable, office-seeking candidate (after winning South Carolina) to an advocacy candidate, promoting an anti-Obama agenda and lower gas prices.
Santorum likely exited the race for fear of losing his home state to Romney, which was becoming more likely based on polling data and the fact that Romney’s campaign was gearing up for a media “carpet bombing” of the state next week. There has been talk of Santorum possibly returning to his home state to reclaim his prior Senate seat.
Barbara Norrander’s 33 percent Delegate Margin model seems to have been spot on in predicting Santorum’s exit, with Romney now more than 400 delegates ahead. We didn’t, however, get far enough to test her 36 percent Gain-Deficit Ratio model.
It was suggested that Santorum dropping out in such a subtle manner did not help Romney in establishing himself as the presumptive nominee. It would be most beneficial to Romney if Gingrich drops out after a large loss, making it a big event and signaling to voters that Romney is the Republicans choice.
There was general consensus that the campaign is now in “general election” mode.
Potential major themes of the election were discussed:
Democrats will want to convey the message that 1) things are getting better, you shouldn’t change horses in the middle of the race, 2) General Motors is Alive, Bin Laden is Dead (emphasizing Obama’s successful economic and foreign policies), and 3) that Romney is a flip-flopper.
Republicans will want to emphasize that 1) things are bad, and a change should be made, 2) the deficit, debt, and spending are out of control, and 3) that Romney is pro-Israel (a possible way to cope with Obama’s advantage on foreign policy). It was also noted that Romney is advantaged by his “presidential look” and that his VP choice is paramount and will potentially shape debate.
It has been suggested that Obama might accuse Romney of being an extreme conservative, forcing him to identify himself as a moderate or conservative, at which point the left will attack him as a flip-flopper no matter which choice he makes. Romney has also supported the Ryan budget over the past two years, giving the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition against him. Obama can pick out specific programs that the Ryan budget plans to cut, which will turn those benefactors against Republicans.
Romney, on the other hand, would benefit from the “look at Europe” argument, pointing out the problems that Europe is having as a result of its social programs and that that’s where Obama is taking America. Obama could say that the Ryan budget’s proposal to cut things like Medicare/Medicaid could cause domestic unrest in the U.S., similar to what has been seen recently in countries like Greece.
Emphasis was given to the idea that during the primary Romney was the “safe” choice in relation to the other candidates, but he must now convince everyone that he is “presidential”.
It was also pointed out that candidates have in the past matured politically throughout the campaign and that Romney could do the same. He is very coachable and could overcome the shortcomings seen during the primary, becoming a good candidate by the fall.
Also, it is unclear where the female vote stands with regards to Romney. It seems likely that minority females will support Obama, but educated and suburban female support is less clear. Recent polls have shown Romney down 19 points against Obama with female voters, a gap that must be closed for Romney to be competitive. There was also disagreement on what constitutes the “female vote”.
Finally there was talk of a potential third party candidate. It was considered unlikely, but most conceded that if one were to emerge it would likely be Ron Paul and that he wouldn’t be very successful.
Friday, April 6, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – April 4, 2012
It was announced that the Presidential nomination has now been officially clinched by Barack Obama. It was also noted that there seems to be a theme of redemption on the Republican side as Julie Mason of POTUS stated: Romney to redeem his father’s failed run for the White House and Santorum trying to redeem his 18 point loss in the 2006 Senate race. The Republican race is essentially over so we will focus on the Fall contest.
Paul then took us through an exercise about assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. By assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign, each candidate can develop a strategy to win. In 2000 the issues favored the Democrats, the parties were equal as were the candidates. Thus George W. Bush acknowledged that the economy was good focusing on what we could do with the abundance of what we have. He then won by insisting that you can’t trust Al Gore because Clinton cheated on his wife.
Starting with the parties, Obama would appear to have the advantage. The Democrats are united; the Republicans are in the middle of a bruising campaign with the Tea Party fighting the moderates; and it is not clear that Romney has the skills to reunite the Republicans.
Paul prefaced the conversation on issues and ideology by saying that issues do not usually matter much but sometimes they do. Romney and the Republicans can hammer Obama and the Democrats on the growing debt/deficit problems and gas prices if they remain high. Obama and the Democrats can emphasize social issues (particularly with respect to women’s issues and those of interest to the Hispanic community), foreign policy (unless it turns bad and Obama is seen as weak) and the entitlement cuts proposed in the Ryan budget. The wild card is the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Heath Care Act and its political fallout. We described the three most likely outcomes of the court decision (total overturn of the law, overturning the mandate but leaving the rest of the law intact, upholding its constitutionality) each of which could hurt Obama and help Romney, or help Obama and hurt Romney, or not matter much of all. In other words, we came to no consensus on the issue, but it will make for great discussions in the group between the end of June and the opening of the conventions. We left the economy out of this part of the question as we relegated it to the nature of the times.
With respect to the candidates, Obama is favored by his leadership abilities and charisma in addition to the flip-flop reputation and elitist image of his opponent. Romney has the advantage in that he is perceived as a competent manager based on experience in business, government and at the Olympics. He also is from outside Washington which appears to intoxicate anyone who has ever spent time there. Both Romney and Obama have run successful nomination campaigns, but Obama has the advantage of having run a successful Presidential campaign.
The economy is obviously the big elephant in the room. If the economy continues to improve appreciably, most of what was discussed above will have little consequence with a clear advantage to Obama. If the economy goes into another slump (a triple dip) we can look forward to President Romney, #45. A modest improvement in the economy or stagnation foretells a close election where the court decision, price of gasoline, the gender gap, and other factors could become decisive. Perhaps even more important will be the mood of the country between June and November with optimism about the future favoring Obama and pessimism favoring Romney.
Based on this assessment, Obama’s best strategy would appear to define Romney as a flip-flopping Massachusetts politician who is rich and out of touch while stoking the divisions within the Republican party. Romney’s winning strategy appears to be to describe Obama as in over his head and what the country needs is a competent manager who understands how the economy works.
Somebody mentioned that Romney has suggested that Obama is a closet atheist. We do not believe that Romney should be one throwing stone on religion as he is vulnerable on that issue. The President’s statement on the Supreme Court on Monday was also discussed. Some of us thought it was a big deal and not smart to dare the court to overturn it at their peril. Others thought it wasn’t that critical. We also discussed the potential role of negative advertisements in voter suppression. It was pointed out that the most negative campaign in recent history was in 2004 and that the vote was not suppressed. Also mentioned was that the political science literature suggests that negative ads either do not suppress the vote or are over-rated in their effect. Possible third party runs were considered, but they were generally discounted.
In reviewing Presidential elections since 1960, the turnout in millions and % of the voting population was
2008 132.6M 56.8%
2004 122.3M 55.3%
2000 105.6M 51.3%
1996 96.5M 49.1%
1992 104.4M 55.1%
1988 91.6M 50.1%
1984 92.7M 53.1%
1980 86.5M 52.6%
1976 81.6M 53.6%
1972 77.7M 55.2%
1968 73.2M 60.8%
1964 70.6M 61.9%
1960 68.8M 63.1%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Paul then took us through an exercise about assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. By assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign, each candidate can develop a strategy to win. In 2000 the issues favored the Democrats, the parties were equal as were the candidates. Thus George W. Bush acknowledged that the economy was good focusing on what we could do with the abundance of what we have. He then won by insisting that you can’t trust Al Gore because Clinton cheated on his wife.
Starting with the parties, Obama would appear to have the advantage. The Democrats are united; the Republicans are in the middle of a bruising campaign with the Tea Party fighting the moderates; and it is not clear that Romney has the skills to reunite the Republicans.
Paul prefaced the conversation on issues and ideology by saying that issues do not usually matter much but sometimes they do. Romney and the Republicans can hammer Obama and the Democrats on the growing debt/deficit problems and gas prices if they remain high. Obama and the Democrats can emphasize social issues (particularly with respect to women’s issues and those of interest to the Hispanic community), foreign policy (unless it turns bad and Obama is seen as weak) and the entitlement cuts proposed in the Ryan budget. The wild card is the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Heath Care Act and its political fallout. We described the three most likely outcomes of the court decision (total overturn of the law, overturning the mandate but leaving the rest of the law intact, upholding its constitutionality) each of which could hurt Obama and help Romney, or help Obama and hurt Romney, or not matter much of all. In other words, we came to no consensus on the issue, but it will make for great discussions in the group between the end of June and the opening of the conventions. We left the economy out of this part of the question as we relegated it to the nature of the times.
With respect to the candidates, Obama is favored by his leadership abilities and charisma in addition to the flip-flop reputation and elitist image of his opponent. Romney has the advantage in that he is perceived as a competent manager based on experience in business, government and at the Olympics. He also is from outside Washington which appears to intoxicate anyone who has ever spent time there. Both Romney and Obama have run successful nomination campaigns, but Obama has the advantage of having run a successful Presidential campaign.
The economy is obviously the big elephant in the room. If the economy continues to improve appreciably, most of what was discussed above will have little consequence with a clear advantage to Obama. If the economy goes into another slump (a triple dip) we can look forward to President Romney, #45. A modest improvement in the economy or stagnation foretells a close election where the court decision, price of gasoline, the gender gap, and other factors could become decisive. Perhaps even more important will be the mood of the country between June and November with optimism about the future favoring Obama and pessimism favoring Romney.
Based on this assessment, Obama’s best strategy would appear to define Romney as a flip-flopping Massachusetts politician who is rich and out of touch while stoking the divisions within the Republican party. Romney’s winning strategy appears to be to describe Obama as in over his head and what the country needs is a competent manager who understands how the economy works.
Somebody mentioned that Romney has suggested that Obama is a closet atheist. We do not believe that Romney should be one throwing stone on religion as he is vulnerable on that issue. The President’s statement on the Supreme Court on Monday was also discussed. Some of us thought it was a big deal and not smart to dare the court to overturn it at their peril. Others thought it wasn’t that critical. We also discussed the potential role of negative advertisements in voter suppression. It was pointed out that the most negative campaign in recent history was in 2004 and that the vote was not suppressed. Also mentioned was that the political science literature suggests that negative ads either do not suppress the vote or are over-rated in their effect. Possible third party runs were considered, but they were generally discounted.
In reviewing Presidential elections since 1960, the turnout in millions and % of the voting population was
2008 132.6M 56.8%
2004 122.3M 55.3%
2000 105.6M 51.3%
1996 96.5M 49.1%
1992 104.4M 55.1%
1988 91.6M 50.1%
1984 92.7M 53.1%
1980 86.5M 52.6%
1976 81.6M 53.6%
1972 77.7M 55.2%
1968 73.2M 60.8%
1964 70.6M 61.9%
1960 68.8M 63.1%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)