UGA Campaign Discussion Group – August 29, 2012

Our main topic today was a deconstruction of the Tuesday night speeches at the Republican National Committee. Ann Romney’s speech was good, but at times it was a little too cute and was not specific. It was almost like we were asked to trust her that Mitt was a good guy. She does help humanize her husband, but we still did not feel like we really got to know Mitt. Her target market was obviously married women, particularly mothers. She definitely held those women who are leaning toward the Republicans, but it is not clear that she was able to reach to swing voters in this segment. We admit that there was no one in the group that fits this demographic, but we plan to interview mothers and wives to see what they thought. The speech was good PR for the campaign but probably did not undo the damage inflicted by the Todd Akin comments.

Chris Christie probably became a victim of high expectations. It was a mediocre speech that was overly negative, more about himself than about the ticket, and tended to lack specifics. He did a decent job in distinguishing between the Democrats and Republicans, but his emphasis on telling the truth and indicating the need for sacrifice did not seem to resonate with what we have seen in Mitt Romney. He dinged Obama for being too sensitive to the polls, but Romney seems to be more sensitive to polls and conservatives than Obama is to the polls and the liberals. We noted that Chris Christie did not mention the unemployment rate as NJ is now higher in unemployment than MI. We got back into the argument as to whether the President of the Governor gets the blame/credit for the unemployment rate. Peter Eubanks earlier found articles that supported the contention that governors are held accountable for state unemployment while senators and the President are held accountable for national unemployment. See

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=101&sid=c474984d-d42f-482e-b266-2c04da8d8ada%40sessionmgr111

From what we have heard on the Internet, conservatives were thrilled with Ann Romney, Artur Davis and Nikki Haley but disappointed in Chris Christie. There was some concern about  how the two talks did not mesh well with Ann talking about love and Christie talking about respect, but we noted that the two talks were originally scheduled on separate nights rather than back-to-back. We wondered about the mystery guest speaker on Thursday night. Our best guess is Clint Eastwood, but Tim Tebow and Sarah Palin are other possibilities.

Projecting to the rest of the week we anticipate that Paul Ryan will be speaking to the base, the base, the base. One of us thought he would try to broaden that base. He will be providing red meat to the audience, but we were divided whether he would attack Obama or be more positive as he probably has ambitions beyond the Vice-Presidency. He will probably try to introduce himself in a positive way, fashioning himself as a serious policy person. It will be interesting if he follows Christie’s theme of telling the truth and talking about sacrifice. Also, we feel that he will mention Medicare but use the same line as Christie that they wish to save Medicare for the younger generation. A generational divide appeared on Medicare as the younger members stated that Romney wouldn’t touch the program for those 55 and over. The older members of the group wondered where the money was coming from for those 55 and older and concerns about the children and grandchildren of those 55 and older. We all thought Mitt Romney will try to provide a positive vision, coming across as a technocrat and that we need to trust him. He will obviously turn to the economy and jobs.  He will try to come across as a statesman and look the part.

Some of the major themes of the speeches have been small businesses building it not the government. It has been surprising that the Republicans have used that phrase, somewhat out of context, but the Democrats have not used the liking to fire people nearly as much. The Democrats tend to step on their message; while the Republicans, Todd Akin excepted, tend to magnify their message. It will be interesting to see how well Biden and Obama will respond to the Republicans. Biden is unlikely to become a victim of high expectations. We all agreed that the Democrats are much more likely to attack the Republicans next week than to highlight accomplishments. With the conventions back-to-back this year, it will be difficult to tease out the bumps from each convention. This year the Democrat convention will be followed by the jobs report the day after the Obama speech. A bad report will hurt any bump he could get from his speech; whereas a good report could help overcome a lackluster performance.  We disagreed on the effect of this year’s 3-day convention on the duration of future conventions. Some thought it would lead to 3-day conventions while others thought they would remain at 4 days. We also talked briefly about David Brooks strange biography of the real Romney. We tend to like David Brooks, but he may need a long vacation to get some perspective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/opinion/brooks-the-real-romney.html

UGA Campaign Discussion Group – August 22, 2012

Our first point of discussion was the Ryan bump or lack thereof. Among the three people present we had four theories: (1) there was little or no bounce, (2) the national polls are tightening, (3) the national polls don’t mean as much as the state polls, (4) the state polls are not as reliable as the national polls. Generally it is difficult to separate the VP selection bump from the convention bump as there is usually not enough separation time between the two to get a meaningful measure. Someone mentioned Carter’s selection of Mondale in 1976, but that was questioned by another. Further research indicated that Carter had an in-depth, public- interview process, but he did not announce Mondale as his selection until just before the convention in New York.

Very different media strategies are being pursued by the two campaigns. Obama is following his television ads in recent weeks with radio spots individualized by swing state (Congress cutting back on highway money that could alleviate traffic congestion in VA and MediScare in FL). Romney is putting TV money into the same swing states but with the same message. He has what appears to be an excellent ad with normal people who say they like Obama or even that they voted for him in 2008, but he hasn’t lived up to expectations. It lets leaners to Obama off the hook so they are free to vote for Romney.

We discussed the Chuck-Todd theory- who has recently posited that Romney's candidacy is being driven down by  a negative "branding" of the Republican Party. Romney's inability to pull ahead of Obama is more a function of that, than a function of his candidacy. Todd argues that public opinion data shows that many voters indicate discontent with the party, particularly with congressional Republicans. Additionally, Romney and other Republicans are being tarnished by the Todd Akin controversy. Or it may be that Romney is just not a very good candidate and that he is the beneficiary of an incredibly weak primary field analogous to Bill Clinton and the weak Democratic field in 1992. It must be pointed out that Clinton did win that election. Romney is hampered by a more conservative base this year while Clinton was not as bound to the liberal base in his first run. Whatever the cause, thus far, Romney has not managed to gain traction in the race and polls have been mostly stagnant since he unofficially secured the nomination in late May. 

With respect to Joe Biden putting “y’all backing chains” we found it hard to distinguish the difference beween shackels and chains. Biden’s performance to date has not been particularly effective (the recent ebook out by Politico says that Obama was even more upset by Biden’s gay marriage comments than was previously indicated). Republican wailing over the back-in-chains statement, however, seems to be over the top, particularly for Republicans who have made some rather graphic attacks themselves this campaign.

We understand that the President has 30-35 people involved in scheduling his appearances. We wonder why none of them seemed to understand that Obama’s acceptance speech was scheduled at Bank of America Stadium on the date of the opening of the NFL season. Are there no NFL fans on among the schedulers? The NFL graciously moved opening night to Wednesday to get around the problem. The Democratic Party then promptly chose Bill Clinton to nominate Obama during the Cowboy-Giants game. Who is in charge here? One of us still thinks there will be an August Surprise on Friday morning, the 31^st by the President to make up for Palin announcement the morning after Obama’s triumphant speech in Denver.

Some big events coming up in the next eleven weeks include the debates. It was suggested that Obama would be favored. He has not had any experience debating since 2008, unlike Romney who has had several opportunities in the last year. The expectations game will favor Romney. Obama needs to pin Romney down to specifics or show that he is unwilling to commit to any. On the other hand, Ryan could be a victim of the expectations game against Biden. The Democrats are getting better at messaging, but they are still not as effective as they should be. Rebates for ObamaCare start going our September 1, and that should help the Obama campaign. Finally, forecasting models were mentioned. Nate Silver had a column on them a few weeks back

(http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/models-models-everywhere/) with 10 of the 13 predicting an Obama win. The Campbell model was not included, but he may not have one this year. Two articles that have come out since that reflect some of what was talked about in our discussion are linked below:

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/the-cook-report-the-presidential-race-shouldn-t-be-close-20120823

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/24/why_the_weak_economy_doesnt_doom_obama.html

UGA Campaign Discussion Group – August 15, 2012

The obvious discussion point was on the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney’s running mate. It came as a surprise to all of us present. We were leaning to Portman and Pawlenty. Was Ryan a good selection? We definitely rated him above Quayle and Palin, but that is a low bar. Ryan is definitely someone who would be more fun to have a beer with than Romney. He is an ideological pick which is generally not a good idea, defying standard political-science thought. 

The primary problem since the roll-out has been lack of a consistent answer on the Medicare question. Part of the problem could be the emphasis on secrecy by the Romney campaign. The two did not have time to hammer out a joint position. There is still time to recover from the early concerns, but we concluded that the Democrats win if the election is fought on the Medicare issue. Some of the Republican senatorial candidates are not pleased with the Ryan selection as they have been trying to distance themselves from the Ryan budget. The Ryan choice may also have the effect of turning the campaign from a referendum election to a change election, abandoning a persuasion campaign in favor of a mobilization campaign and undermining the "outsider" image of Romney with the super inside-the-beltway image of Ryan. It was also mentioned that Ryan talks very fast and his voice is grating and not soothing. The futures trade has seen a slight decrease in the Obama lead. We will not get a handle on the effect of the nomination until about this time next week. A bump for the Romney ticket would be expected; a decrease in the numbers for the Republicans would be bad news.

One of us was reminded of the 1964 campaign between Johnson and Goldwater. Two reasons given for the Goldwater loss were that Goldwater had not been tested in the primaries and that his positions were too radical. There may be some parallels between that election and this one, particularly if the Republican fortunes start dropping. Other elections that we have mentioned as possible models for 2012 are those in 1948, 1988 and 2004.

Our last major topic was on the conventions. We listed possible functions of modern conventions as candidate selection is not a major consideration. Obvious functions include a major advertisement for the party, identification of key issues, a blueprint for the coming campaign, and introduction of the ticket through unfiltered speeches. Conventions also serve to build excitement among party identifiers, provide a visible demonstration of the coalition (or become disasters ala the Democratic conventions in Chicago in 1968 and Miami in 1972), introduce rising stars of the party to the country (Obama in 2004 and possibly Christie this year), and developing networks between state operatives in places like IA, NH, SC & NV and future candidates.

  

We are looking forward to setting up a teleconference between UGA and Davidson. Josh Putnam will be attending both conventions and should have some interesting perspectives for our discussion group.

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – August 8, 2012

Before getting down to the campaign Paul outlined the plan for the rest of the campaign. We will meet this semester at 11AM on Wednesdays in the current room until further notice. Paul will be leaving for his orientation next Wednesday. He and Josh will work on setting up a videoconference to connect us with them at Davidson. We may set up this meeting at the Miller Learning Center. Stay tuned to this site for further details. Josh will be at both party conventions and will report back to us.

Two interpretations for the recent poll data were advanced. One perspective was that the polls have been remarkably stable. There will be major changes in the polls coming out of the conventions. Typically, the first convention (this year the Republicans) gets a bigger bounce than the second convention. Also, typically the Republicans get a bigger bounce than the Democrats. This year look for a 6-8% bounce for the Republicans after their convention and a 3-5% bounce the other way after the Democratic convention. The decay from these bounces tends to be slow with about 33-50% of the bounce carries through to the election. The main effect of the conventions is to bring the weak partisans back to the party reminding them why they associated with their preferred party. The true swing voters are not as persuaded by the partisan nature of the conventions. There are more undecided voters out there than the current polls suggest. The alternate perspective advanced is that there has been a small, but consistent, trend toward Obama and away from Romney in the last two weeks coinciding with the latter’s trip to London, Jerusalem and Warsaw. This perspective claims that Obama’s ads in the swing states in May and June has defined Romney with the negative ads linking him to Bain Capital and the 1%. Thus, Romney’s strategy to go negative on Obama is not working because Americans have made up their mind about Obama but not about Romney. This perspective is consistent with pundits who suggest that there is a very small percentage of the population is truly undecided. The next four weeks may provide a critical test of these two interpretations. Major changes in the polls after each convention will provide strong support for the first interpretation. Little or no change in the polls during the next few weeks will provide support for the second interpretation.

Many things could happen between now and November that could affect the outcome. Possible factors beyond the conventions are the debates, a foreign event, a major change in the economy, and more pressure to release of tax returns. We don’t think Congress can make that much difference at this point, although the looming fiscal cliff probably helps Romney and the Republicans more than Obama and the Democrats. It has been surprising that Obama has not run against the Do-Nothing Congress more than he has, but introducing the topic now, probably would hurt his campaign more than help it. At the convention Romney must be able to introduce himself to the American public or he could end up like John Kerry. A questions was raised about Romney holding on to his base. Polls indicate that 95% of the Republicans are inclined to vote for their candidate while about 87% of Democrats are inclined to vote for Obama. Biden is looking weaker and may not be able to fulfill the typical role of a VP candidate as attack dog. We generally agreed that there may be better VP candidates for the Democrats at this point, but any change now would be interpreted as an act of desperation. Ed Rendell was suggested as a possibility if a change were to be made.

It looks like the Republican VP candidate will be introduced soon, probably associated with the VA/NC/FL/OH bus trip to start this weekend. Three of the potential candidates come from these swing states. Rubio was the flavor of the week last week, but pundits seem to be swinging to Ryan. Those in our group willing to speculate still think it will be Portman. Important factors in selecting a VP candidate include personal chemistry with the top of the ticket, qualifications to step in as President if necessary, and electoral considerations. The value of a VP candidate is considered to be a bump of 2% in his/her own state. It is also the first major decision that is visible for the nominee.

Some other issues that were discussed included the voter-ID battles in PA/FL/TX/OH. We expect a ruling in PA soon, but no ruling is likely to affect the vote count in November. Both sides are lawyering up for potential post-election battles based on the cases of FL in 2000 and OH in 2004.Hopefully the dialogue this fall will go beyond Romney Hood and Obamaloney. Obama has used executive orders effectively this year to score political points, but it may be too late in the campaign to use them with effect now. Look for Obama to pull an August surprise the morning after Romney’s convention speech to make up for the Palin announcement the morning after Obama’s speech in Denver in 2008. The next three weeks will be critical for both campaigns. It looks like PA is not currently considered to be a swing state as both campaigns are pulling out their ad dollars. It is surprising how few swing states are left at this stage of the election.