We started this week where we left off last week – gay marriage and its effect on the campaign. There are several questions arising from Obama’s announcement to support gay marriage last week. Was he out of his mind? Was it intentional and all pre-planned. Was Biden floating a trial balloon or did he disclose the campaign position prematurely? Particularly puzzling is the rollout of his pro-gay messages since his announcement such as his graduation address at Barnard College linking Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall in the battle for civil rights (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-cites-both-selma-and-stonewall-examples-what-young-people-can-do). Apparently he is trying to energize his base and improve his funding situation from the LGBT community. The evolved position is likely to appeal to some independents and young people, but is it an issue that will turn red votes blue or bring blue votes to the polls that would otherwise stay at home? It is almost like he is trying to use gay marriage as a wedge issue forcing Romney to avoid alienating the Log Cabin Republicans while not disappointing Gary Bauer and Rick Santorum who want to use the issue as a weapon.
Another sidelight of the media frenzy last week, is where it places Biden in the Obama campaign. He has been campaigning very hard in recent weeks. Considering his past history with brain aneurysms, will he be able to withstand the brutal schedule? If something happened to him, would there be a constitutional crisis in confirming a replacement via the 25th Amendment with the current environment in Washington? Is Biden’s schedule a confirmation of the administration’s confidence in him or is he auditioning for continuing on the ticket this Fall? If Obama decides that Biden is too much of a liability to continue on the ticket, how would he handle it? The obvious replacement would be Hillary Clinton. Ed Rendell was also mentioned as a possible replacement. Most at the table thought that replacing Biden would be perceived as a desperation move, but he might be that desperate by the convention.
A look at the numerous indicators of a victory in November for either party, it appears to be an election on the edge. Several indicators point to an Obama re-election while others suggest a likely defeat. Developments in the economy between now and the election, major national or international events, candidate performance on the trail or at the debates, and the Supreme Court decisions announced this summer are among the factors could sway the election. Defining Romney is the most critical activity for both campaigns right now. The Republicans were very successful in defining Dukakis in 1988, but unsuccessful in defining Clinton in 1992. Republicans will be defining Romney as a successful businessman, competent manager, a man of faith and a family man. Democrats paint him as severely conservative, someone who likes to fire people and has no concern for the working class. The Bain Capital ads running now in selected markets are reminiscent of the Swift Boat ads. Romney’s likability ratings are improving once his major rivals have suspended their campaigns. Will he be able to improve on these ratings or at least hold on to them as the campaign goes on? Are his improved ratings due to the long-shot effects described by Bartels in Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4229.html)? Are some of his problems with the press due to his experience as a boss with little or no second-guessing of his decisions?
We also wondered what direction the Tea Party is going. It appears that they will vote against Obama in the general election but that they are funneling resources into Congressional races. Another curious development is the eruption of the debt-ceiling debate. We were not able to see how raising this issue now helps Obama, Boehner, or incumbents in Congress on either side of the aisle. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but there appears to be little will in Congress to really solve it. It also does not seem to be a decisive issue in the election relative to jobs.
Finally we talked about the bullying issue. It is a hot topic in suburbia with the recent movie release, and the story about Romney in high school may have some resonance. Democrats are saying that once a bully always a bully, while Republicans are asking to give them a break when compared to cocaine use and commie friends.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May 9, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May 9, 2012
We returned to the exercise we conducted in our April 4 session on assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. With respect to parties, Republicans appear to be getting behind Romney and the Democrats are behind Obama. The issues remain a mixed bag, but the issues don’t seem to make that much of a difference in most elections apart from party. For example, the American public is no longer supportive of the Afghanistan War. Obama’s stance is not popular, and Romney does not want to touch the issue. It is doubtful that many voters will decide their vote on the basis of Afghanistan. The candidate evaluation appears to favor Obama, while the nature-of-the-times favor Romney. This analysis suggests that Obama needs to focus the campaign on candidates and the difference in the economy since 2008. Romney needs the focus of his campaign on the state of the economy in the last two years. Campaign themes should take into consideration these four factors. Successful campaign themes in the past have been Trust by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and Hope and Change for Obama in 2008. Obama’s theme this year is Forward that talks about not going back to the Bush years. Romney will settle on the jobs and the economy.
In getting a glance at tactics in the Fall campaign, it appears that Obama plans on setting small fires to get Romney distracted. To this point, Romney has not been good at avoiding the distractions. Two weeks ago it was on college loans. Romney tried pre-emption, but Obama commanded all the press with Romney’s statement noted as an after-thought. When the national campaign begins in earnest, Romney’s pre-emptive tactic may work better. Last week was the killing of bin-Laden anniversary. Romney took several positions during the week before trying to limit his damage. Obama was apparently sending a message to Romney that any criticism of current foreign policy will be met with overwhelming force. Romney’s quick criticism of the handling of the blind, Chinese dissident situation looks like it will turn out well for Obama. Romney may also come to regret the use of the need to be adding 500,000 jobs a month since the last time we accomplished that level was in 2010 during the Obama administration and it has only happened 10 times since 1950. See
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/romney-s-500-000-monthly-jobs-in-u-s-anything-but-normal.html
This week Romney failed to criticize the questioner who accused Obama of treason and claimed credit for the auto bailout. As we were meeting Obama stepped on the Romney bailout story by announcing his support of gay marriage. This announcement posed the question as to whether the Biden endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday was a trial balloon or a major gaffe. Another question raised was whether evolution on an issue amounts to a flip-flop.
There has been some indication that Romney is still fighting the primary battle rather than turning to the general election. The situation is ironic as he appeared to be turning to the general election during primary season and getting ambushed by Santorum. Part of his problem is that he never was the front runner until close to the end. The big task for each campaign right now is to define Romney. The Republicans want to define him as competent and experienced with the economy with the Democrats defining him as a rich flip-flopper. Experience did not work too well for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Romney seems to be running away some from his experience as he pushed for earmarks when turning around the Olympics and RomneyCare as his major accomplishment in his tenure as Massachusetts governor. One of Romney’s surrogates suggested earlier this week that his economic plan was an update of the Bush plan, something that could benefit the Obama campaign. We stressed that it is early in the campaign, and not many people are paying that much attention now, but the moves now give us insight into what could happen in the future.
The elections this week may provide some glimpses. The NC results do not bode well for Obama’s gay-marriage position, particularly in a swing state. The IN results suggest that experience is not as important as ideology, owning a house in the home state, and age. The turnout in WI suggests a big battle in a month on the recall. The WV primary does not bode well for Obama flipping that state. The French election was anti-incumbent, anti-moderate and anti-austerity. Not good for Obama during the election nor for a President Romney in January. It was pointed out that Greece is experiencing real austerity, but France is just curbing increases in spending and not true austerity. Can Romney sell the Ryan budget as President or the Rubio immigration plan in the election and as President? Obama will be trying to make sure that he can’t.
If Obama and Romney have trouble energizing their bases, then money and volunteer time in swing states may be diverted to Congressional races. Questions raised included, “Do the Tea Party choices for Senate such as Murdock in IN and Mandel in OH damage Republican chances in November?” and “Will there be reverse coattails in swing states with close Senate races?” We also discussed the Independents or Swing Voters and whether there really are swing voters. The modelers such as Campbell and Abramowitz tend to limit the true swing vote to less than 10%, but wave elections suggest that voters swing. An interesting commentary on this topic appeared after the session in Larry Sabato’s newsletter
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/do-independent-voters-matter/
We are pleased to report that the discussion was “frank and fruitful.”
Two books that were mentioned during the discussion are
Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. 2009. Regina Lawrence and Melody Rose.
https://www.rienner.com/title/Hillary_Clinton_s_Race_for_the_White_House_Gender_Politics_and_the_Media_on_the_Campaign_Trail
The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents. 2012. Linda Killian
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/swing-vote-untapped-power-independents-linda-killian
We returned to the exercise we conducted in our April 4 session on assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. With respect to parties, Republicans appear to be getting behind Romney and the Democrats are behind Obama. The issues remain a mixed bag, but the issues don’t seem to make that much of a difference in most elections apart from party. For example, the American public is no longer supportive of the Afghanistan War. Obama’s stance is not popular, and Romney does not want to touch the issue. It is doubtful that many voters will decide their vote on the basis of Afghanistan. The candidate evaluation appears to favor Obama, while the nature-of-the-times favor Romney. This analysis suggests that Obama needs to focus the campaign on candidates and the difference in the economy since 2008. Romney needs the focus of his campaign on the state of the economy in the last two years. Campaign themes should take into consideration these four factors. Successful campaign themes in the past have been Trust by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and Hope and Change for Obama in 2008. Obama’s theme this year is Forward that talks about not going back to the Bush years. Romney will settle on the jobs and the economy.
In getting a glance at tactics in the Fall campaign, it appears that Obama plans on setting small fires to get Romney distracted. To this point, Romney has not been good at avoiding the distractions. Two weeks ago it was on college loans. Romney tried pre-emption, but Obama commanded all the press with Romney’s statement noted as an after-thought. When the national campaign begins in earnest, Romney’s pre-emptive tactic may work better. Last week was the killing of bin-Laden anniversary. Romney took several positions during the week before trying to limit his damage. Obama was apparently sending a message to Romney that any criticism of current foreign policy will be met with overwhelming force. Romney’s quick criticism of the handling of the blind, Chinese dissident situation looks like it will turn out well for Obama. Romney may also come to regret the use of the need to be adding 500,000 jobs a month since the last time we accomplished that level was in 2010 during the Obama administration and it has only happened 10 times since 1950. See
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/romney-s-500-000-monthly-jobs-in-u-s-anything-but-normal.html
This week Romney failed to criticize the questioner who accused Obama of treason and claimed credit for the auto bailout. As we were meeting Obama stepped on the Romney bailout story by announcing his support of gay marriage. This announcement posed the question as to whether the Biden endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday was a trial balloon or a major gaffe. Another question raised was whether evolution on an issue amounts to a flip-flop.
There has been some indication that Romney is still fighting the primary battle rather than turning to the general election. The situation is ironic as he appeared to be turning to the general election during primary season and getting ambushed by Santorum. Part of his problem is that he never was the front runner until close to the end. The big task for each campaign right now is to define Romney. The Republicans want to define him as competent and experienced with the economy with the Democrats defining him as a rich flip-flopper. Experience did not work too well for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Romney seems to be running away some from his experience as he pushed for earmarks when turning around the Olympics and RomneyCare as his major accomplishment in his tenure as Massachusetts governor. One of Romney’s surrogates suggested earlier this week that his economic plan was an update of the Bush plan, something that could benefit the Obama campaign. We stressed that it is early in the campaign, and not many people are paying that much attention now, but the moves now give us insight into what could happen in the future.
The elections this week may provide some glimpses. The NC results do not bode well for Obama’s gay-marriage position, particularly in a swing state. The IN results suggest that experience is not as important as ideology, owning a house in the home state, and age. The turnout in WI suggests a big battle in a month on the recall. The WV primary does not bode well for Obama flipping that state. The French election was anti-incumbent, anti-moderate and anti-austerity. Not good for Obama during the election nor for a President Romney in January. It was pointed out that Greece is experiencing real austerity, but France is just curbing increases in spending and not true austerity. Can Romney sell the Ryan budget as President or the Rubio immigration plan in the election and as President? Obama will be trying to make sure that he can’t.
If Obama and Romney have trouble energizing their bases, then money and volunteer time in swing states may be diverted to Congressional races. Questions raised included, “Do the Tea Party choices for Senate such as Murdock in IN and Mandel in OH damage Republican chances in November?” and “Will there be reverse coattails in swing states with close Senate races?” We also discussed the Independents or Swing Voters and whether there really are swing voters. The modelers such as Campbell and Abramowitz tend to limit the true swing vote to less than 10%, but wave elections suggest that voters swing. An interesting commentary on this topic appeared after the session in Larry Sabato’s newsletter
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/do-independent-voters-matter/
We are pleased to report that the discussion was “frank and fruitful.”
Two books that were mentioned during the discussion are
Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. 2009. Regina Lawrence and Melody Rose.
https://www.rienner.com/title/Hillary_Clinton_s_Race_for_the_White_House_Gender_Politics_and_the_Media_on_the_Campaign_Trail
The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents. 2012. Linda Killian
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/swing-vote-untapped-power-independents-linda-killian
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May2, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May2, 2012
Our session this week diverged from past sessions. We pulled up the site at www.270towin.com. It has an electoral map of the states. Any state that is at least leaning toward one party as designated by Real Clear Politics and Larry Sabato are designated red or blue accordingly. At present 23 states are designated red for a total of 191 electoral votes and 18 states plus DC are colored blue for a total of 227 electoral votes. That calculation leaves 9 swing states (NV, CO, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, NH & FL) for 120 electoral votes that are up for grabs. We looked at possible states that could flip such as AZ & MO from red to blue and WI, MI, OR & MN which could flip from blue to red. We noted that WV has been reliably blue but is now solidly red. When both Democratic Senators announcing that they would have trouble voting for Obama, I guess we can’t expect much else from the state. By exploring some options we concluded that Obama wins if he can win 2 of the big 3 states (FL, OH, PA), and Romney needs 2 of those 3 plus VA to win.
Paul had a different prediction based on historical data of adjusted margins from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections by the two parties. The states with less than 10% margins in favor of the Republicans are NC (8.7%), AZ (8.4%), MO (4.7%), VA (2.9%), FL (1.9%), OH (1.1%) and CO (0.8%). States favoring Democrats are MI (8.4%), OR (7.3%), NM (5.4%), WI (5.1%), PA (4.8%), MN (4.6%), NH ( 2.8%), IA ( 2.7%) and NV (2.7%). It is not a coincidence that all the swing states and all but MI that we listed above are included in the 16 states from Paul’s historical list.
The importance of this analysis is to see which states the campaigns and their superPACs will funnel their money. Early on, most if not all of the 16 states in the previous paragraph will be in play. Polling data will be used to see if other states will be targeted or if a campaign plans to pull out of that state. Most campaigns are interested in making sure they get to the 270 electoral votes. Some candidates look to roll up big majorities in the Electoral College to gain a mandate, but the campaigns are looking for the majority.
Romney’s choice for VP was discussed; Rob Portman and Marco Rubio were considered because of their ability to potentially bring their home states with them, both of which are critical swing states. It was debated whether Rubio would resonate with Latino voters generally, or if his appeal is limited to Cuban Americans. The consensus was for the latter. Also, Rubio seems to have a number of small issues that would be exposed during the vetting process, potentially dominating the news cycle for some time. Therefore, timing was considered; if Romney chooses Rubio early he can get the vetting process out of the way and continue campaigning, if he waits until just before the convention, the media won’t have as much time to research and scrutinize his past. Plus the media will have something else to cover, taking some of the focus from Rubio.
Portman seems like a much safer choice, but not necessarily the best one.
It was also suggested that Romney would benefit from choosing someone with a defense background, since that is one area where his campaign is lacking, and doing so could potentially help him win Virginia and Nevada. It is becoming clearer that Obama will play up his foreign policy accomplishments, and Romney will need someone to help him with defense conservatives. One strategy could be to continue pushing the narrative, “Obama is trying to distract you from the real issue – the economy”.
There was general consensus that Romney is still defining himself, that most aren’t following the campaign closely, and that because of this his VP choice is critical. Obama’s probable strategy was discussed - Call Romney a moderate or a radical conservative, forcing him to take a position and then labeling him a flip-flopper either way. “Trust” is the theme.
Our session this week diverged from past sessions. We pulled up the site at www.270towin.com. It has an electoral map of the states. Any state that is at least leaning toward one party as designated by Real Clear Politics and Larry Sabato are designated red or blue accordingly. At present 23 states are designated red for a total of 191 electoral votes and 18 states plus DC are colored blue for a total of 227 electoral votes. That calculation leaves 9 swing states (NV, CO, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, NH & FL) for 120 electoral votes that are up for grabs. We looked at possible states that could flip such as AZ & MO from red to blue and WI, MI, OR & MN which could flip from blue to red. We noted that WV has been reliably blue but is now solidly red. When both Democratic Senators announcing that they would have trouble voting for Obama, I guess we can’t expect much else from the state. By exploring some options we concluded that Obama wins if he can win 2 of the big 3 states (FL, OH, PA), and Romney needs 2 of those 3 plus VA to win.
Paul had a different prediction based on historical data of adjusted margins from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections by the two parties. The states with less than 10% margins in favor of the Republicans are NC (8.7%), AZ (8.4%), MO (4.7%), VA (2.9%), FL (1.9%), OH (1.1%) and CO (0.8%). States favoring Democrats are MI (8.4%), OR (7.3%), NM (5.4%), WI (5.1%), PA (4.8%), MN (4.6%), NH ( 2.8%), IA ( 2.7%) and NV (2.7%). It is not a coincidence that all the swing states and all but MI that we listed above are included in the 16 states from Paul’s historical list.
The importance of this analysis is to see which states the campaigns and their superPACs will funnel their money. Early on, most if not all of the 16 states in the previous paragraph will be in play. Polling data will be used to see if other states will be targeted or if a campaign plans to pull out of that state. Most campaigns are interested in making sure they get to the 270 electoral votes. Some candidates look to roll up big majorities in the Electoral College to gain a mandate, but the campaigns are looking for the majority.
Romney’s choice for VP was discussed; Rob Portman and Marco Rubio were considered because of their ability to potentially bring their home states with them, both of which are critical swing states. It was debated whether Rubio would resonate with Latino voters generally, or if his appeal is limited to Cuban Americans. The consensus was for the latter. Also, Rubio seems to have a number of small issues that would be exposed during the vetting process, potentially dominating the news cycle for some time. Therefore, timing was considered; if Romney chooses Rubio early he can get the vetting process out of the way and continue campaigning, if he waits until just before the convention, the media won’t have as much time to research and scrutinize his past. Plus the media will have something else to cover, taking some of the focus from Rubio.
Portman seems like a much safer choice, but not necessarily the best one.
It was also suggested that Romney would benefit from choosing someone with a defense background, since that is one area where his campaign is lacking, and doing so could potentially help him win Virginia and Nevada. It is becoming clearer that Obama will play up his foreign policy accomplishments, and Romney will need someone to help him with defense conservatives. One strategy could be to continue pushing the narrative, “Obama is trying to distract you from the real issue – the economy”.
There was general consensus that Romney is still defining himself, that most aren’t following the campaign closely, and that because of this his VP choice is critical. Obama’s probable strategy was discussed - Call Romney a moderate or a radical conservative, forcing him to take a position and then labeling him a flip-flopper either way. “Trust” is the theme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)