UGA Campaign Discussion Group – September 19, 2012

Mitt Romney’s 47% comment was the first topic of discussion. We wondered why the Democrats waited so long to release the video tape. It was in the possession of Jimmy Carter’s grandson who might have run out of patience with Romney’s bashing of his grandfather or it might have been part of the Obama game plan of endless distractions. Much of Romney’s wounds appear to be self-inflicted. Romney apparently approved of the Clint Eastwood stunt. He had poor timing on criticizing the Administration’s response to the Egypt and Libya situation then doubled-down on his follow-up the following day. The 47% remark was back in May, but his hurried response late in the evening seemed poorly worded that did not help his cause. We suspect that it will hurt Romney as it feeds into the narrative of the out-of-touch rich guy. We agreed that the Democrats are still not doing well at messaging. They talk about the poor and not the working poor.  David Brooks had a highly critical commentary of Romney this week. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?_r=0). The comment was reminiscent of the Obama “cling to their guns and religion” remark. The major difference was that Obama clarified his statement when heard in context while the Romney one seemed to reinforce his misstatement. We noted that Randy Newman has a new song out “I’m dreaming of a white President.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvLeQbwuKys

The quote of the day came from David Brooks as well in The Social Animal was “In fact, you’re more likely to find that people become Democrats first, then place increasing value on equal opportunity, or they become Republicans first, then place increasing value on limited government. Party affiliation often shapes values, not the other way around.” It certainly challenges our assumptions. Rachel indicated that her dissertation will argue that several factors including microtargetting will discredit the view of David Brooks.      

We visited the forecast models that appeared in Larry Sabato’s newsletter last week http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/forecasting-the-presidential-election-other-crystal-balls/.  Of the thirteen models eight favor Obama and five favor Romney, but the average of the two-party vote gives Obama only 50.3%. Models favoring Romney give him a higher percentage of the vote than those that favor Obama. We noted the Holbrook model that heavily emphasizes the economy only gives Obama 47.9% of the two-party vote which suggests that the campaign matters. We also noted that Campbell’s model favors Obama. His model favored McCain in 2008.

In looking at the changes in the RCP polls in the last week, most likely to reflect the situation in the Middle East, Michigan has gone back to the Democrats. Romney closed the head-to-head race by 0.5% (now 48.1 to 45.4) and has decreased the differences in favorable ratings by 0.6% (48.1 t0 45.4). Obama opened up the difference in unfavorable ratings by 0.7% (43.7 for Obama to 44.2).  The biggest movement was Intrade which swung to Obama by 12.5 points (67.9 to 32.5). While the national polls show a close race, the battleground polls are tilting those states more to Obama. Obama is even edging close to Romney as to who is best to handle the economy. We think that barring a major change in events the absolute critical state for Romney is Florida.

We are unable to understand why Romney is spending more of his time in safe states raising money than in swing states campaigning. We are also awaiting his campaign advertising blitz. Obama has a very strong ground game built in the 2008 primary season. The question is whether he can re-instill the level of enthusiasm his supporters exhibited in 2008. We also debated as to whether either candidate would get more positive votes than negative ones against his opponent. It looks like it will be more of a base election.

The debates are gaining more and more importance, particularly for Romney. Obama’s biggest liabilities are arrogance, condescension and disdain. Romney is vulnerable when he goes unscripted. Obama will try to get under Romney’s skin. As Paul has indicated in the past, visual overrules verbal.

Once again Israel became a topic. Netanyahu walked back his apparent endorsement of the Romney campaign saying some nice things on Meet the Press about Obama. He would obviously prefer a Romney Presidency. One of wondered why Obama is not stonger on messaging about what we are doing in Iran, but the rest of us think the less he says about Iran and ObamaCare the better. Neither is a winning issue for the Democrats.      

 

UGA Campaign Discussion Group – September 12, 2012

We began our discussion on the convention bounces. With respect to head-to-head Real Clear Politics averages, the Republicans received a 0.9% bounce from their convention and the Democrats a 3.1% bounce. Rachel was too modest to claim credit for her very accurate prediction of the bounce last week. The best speech at the DNC was probably the one by Bill Clinton, 40% of which was not in his prepared remarks. Obama was probably a victim of high expectations.  

Romney’s appearance on Meet the Press was not auspicious. When he is vague on specifics he gets hammered. When he is specific, like being for all the positive aspects of ObamaCare but wants to repeal the bad parts, he gets hammered worse and has to issue clarifications. Despite the criticisms that he is not specific enough, his best strategy may be best to stick with broad generalities. While Mitt was getting softball questions from David Gregory, his running mate was being aggressively questioned by Nora O’Donnell. Paul Ryan’s lack of specificity is even more apparent than Romney’s, which is strange for someone who has a reputation for openness and candor. Some of us thought Ryan is just not as smart as his reputation, while others think he is being muzzled by the Romney team. It was noted that Paul Ryan has never even run a statewide campaign and may be somewhat out of his element. Apparently he is putting money into his Congressional campaign as his district might not be as safe as previously assumed. We wondered why Romney’s campaign do not seem to be heeding public advice from Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove.

Unrest in Libya and Egypt was the next main topic with particular emphasis on Romney’s criticism of Obama’s handling of the situation. Generally it is not a good idea to criticize a President during a foreign crisis. Instead of backing off in the morning press conference, Romney double-downed on his criticism. One viewpoint is that his no-apology approach is the only way he has to burst the Obama foreign-policy bubble. Others felt that this position was a major gaffe for the Romney campaign. We all agreed that he was a victim of poor timing and that he is not facile with policy statements. We also think that his foreign policy is held captive by the neocons.

The situation is also colored by the situation in Israel. Danny Danon, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, indicated on Morning Joe this morning that they were ready to bomb Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu is upset with Obama’s apparent snub of him during the UN addresses. Netanyahu is getting dangerously close to inserting himself into the Presidential campaign because of his former association with Romney. We mentioned the role that the Hasidic Jews play in the politics and military aspects of Israeli life.

Discussion shifted to the broader picture in the Middle East and raised many questions. Is this merely a single incident that will be gone in a week or two or is it the beginning of something that outlasts the American election? What effect will the Middle East have on the Presidential election? Are we dealing with radical Islamists in these countries or are they more moderate? Was the movie the real reason for the uprising or was it just an excuse?  In this discussion it was noted that one word was not mentioned – Russia.

We have three weeks until the first debate.

UGA Campaign Discussion Group – September 5, 2012

We analyzed the first night of the Democratic Convention. Someone mentioned the headline from FOX News – CASTRO ADDRESSES THE DNC! The most effective parts of the night before the excellent speech by Michelle Obama were the speeches by Deval Patrick, Lilly Ledbetter, and Julian Castro and the tribute to Teddy Kennedy. By following the twitter feed at the convention, you get a very different perspective than just watching it on TV. It was particularly noticeable after the Clint Eastwood performance last week. The contrasts to this point of the two conventions are that the Republicans were speaking to the small business owner and the Democrats to the workers. Both conventions are aiming at their base and not independents. The Democrats seemed to be more upbeat and enthusiastic on their first night than the Republicans. Their talks were better coordinated on the first day in Charlotte than on the first day in Tampa, but part of that was the result of scheduling problems brought on by Isaac. There also seem to be more emphasis on accomplishments and abortion than expected in Charlotte and less on attacking the Republican ticket than we had anticipated last week. The Republican enthusiasm seemed to build from Day One to Day Three. The Democrats must avoid having enthusiasm wane during their three days.    

The question “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” is hanging over the Democrats. They muffed the question on the Sunday morning shows, but Biden’s bumper-sticker statement that “Bin-Laden is dead. General Motors is Alive” seems to be shoring up their answer. In the twitter world the hash tag “rubetteroff” seems to be backfiring on the Republicans as more Democrats seem to be paying attention this week than Republicans. The jobs report on Friday will be critical. We disagreed on whether maintaining the current unemployment rate is good enough for Obama or if he needs a drop in at least 0.1%.

The big talk is about convention bounces. It is difficult to calculate a bounce with the conventions back-to-back. If we look at the RCP numbers since August 15 (the Wednesday after the Paul Ryan announcement in Norfolk) and today Romney-Ryan has put MI and WI in play for a 16 electoral-vote bounce, the head-to-head RCP average has shrunk from an Obama lead of 3.7 to 0.1 for a 3.6% bounce, a drop of 0.5% favorability rating for Obama and a jump of 1.5% favorability for Romney for a 2.0% bounce, a 0.1% increase in Obama’s unfavorability rating of 0.1% and decrease in Romney’s unfavorability rating of 1.4% for a Romney bounce of 1.5%, and finally an increase of 1.6%  in Intrade Real Time Quotes for Obama and a decrease of 0.1% for Romney leading to a dip of 1.7%. Thus, Romney has seen a bounce in four of these five measures. Possible reasons for the Intrade results may be that it is a more sensitive measure than the others and the Tampa convention did not live up to expectations of the traders. A comparable period will be between now and September 26 to see if Obama can bounce back. If he doesn’t get at least some of the electoral votes and head-to-head advantage back by then, he is in trouble. If he gets all of it back, Romney is in trouble. One of us predicted that the Democrats would get a significant bounce out of Charlotte. The rest of us were more guarded.

The topic of Super PACs came up. Most of us thought that the Republicans will have a significant advantage in money to spend, but one of us stated that the difference would be much smaller than currently believed. Wall Street seems to have deserted Obama due to his anti-business rhetoric and his policies. If Romney has the monetary advantage with the high unemployment rate as it is, we will have to re-evaluate many of our previous assumptions about Presidential elections if Obama wins. A recent article claims that Obama hasn’t had a tough GOP opponent to this point. Will Romney be that tough GOP opponent? The results will probably settle that issue. If Obama wins, Romney will become a weak opponent. If Romney wins, then he will be the only tough opponent Obama faced.

We are looking forward to Bill Clinton’s (the comeback vegan) talk this evening. Some questions raised include – Will he redefine the election as a choice instead of a referendum on Obama? Can he bring the party back to the center? Will his emaciated appearance detract from the substance of his talk for those who have not kept up with his weight loss?

Parting shots included Paul Ryan’s statements on his marathon times in and of itself is not a problem, but it feeds into a narrative (sorry, Justin) that he exaggerates or shades the truth coming from his statements on the GM plant in Janesville and Medicare savings in his Tampa talk. It turns out that John Edwards and Sarah Palin have better marathon times than Paul Ryan, but he did beat Al Gore’s time. See
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/paul_ryan_marathon_which_politician_had_the_fastest_marathon_time_a_slate_interactive_.html
The press will look at his statements more carefully now to see if it fits the narrative. A similar narrative hurt Al Gore. The next two weeks will be critical for the Obama campaign. Dell pointed out that Carter and Mondale have lived longer after leaving office than any other President-VP combination. In second place are Adams and Jefferson. Also, the last time we had three Presidents complete two terms consecutively was from 1801-1825 with Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.    

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. 

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – July 11, 2012

Our first discussion point was on the campaign doldrums we appear to be in at the time. It was noted that Obama is spending money in the swing states. The success of this spending is being judged two ways: (1) Obama is defining Romney in key states before Romney has a chance to define himself and (2) Obama is wasting his money as the prime purpose for advertising at this point in the campaign is to generate more money, but Romney is out-raising Obama. The first argument is being advanced by the political types and the second by the ad people. We may see who is right later. Romney is spending money in NC, while Obama seems to be conceding the state, at least right now.

Obama and Romney seem to be quarreling over outsourcing, in-sourcing and offshoring. The fight over economics seems to be boiling down to economic nationalism, which would favor the Democrats, vs. economic recovery, which favors the Republicans. With respect to booing at the NAACP convention, we concluded that they would not hurt Romney. Also, the Quinnipiac poll suggests that the race is tightening at the national level, but the battle in the swing states is more important. We talked about the ability of the President to set the agenda which can be a very useful technique in the campaign. Obama may attempt to use foreign policy to hurt Romney. He probably can’t do too much domestically beyond the immigration policy he instituted last month. Something like the McCain announcement of Palin as VP candidate right after the Democratic convention in 2008 might be in the Obama playbook. 

We talked again about the VP selection process. We concluded that Chris Christie would not be the selection as Romney did not like it with Christie’s poor punctuality, and he would probably overshadow Romney. Portman still seems to be the best possibility, particularly if he could bring in Ohio. The Condi Rice balloon does not seem to hold water, to mix metaphors, as she brings the baggage of the Bush administration, particularly with respect to the Iraq War. On the Democrat side, it looks like Biden is on the ticket to stay. There seemed to be some movement when the VP pre-empted the President’s gay- marriage position, but Biden has avoided gaffes lately. There appears to be a real battle about voter suppression/voter fraud efforts in FL and TX. The Republicans appear to be winning that battle.

In previous sessions, we have looked at possible models for this election. Earlier the 1980 and 1948 elections appeared to be models, but we have concluded that Romney is no Reagan and Obama is no Truman. The 1992 and 2004 Bush re-election efforts might be more appropriate. GWB had 9/11 to his benefit in 2004, but his popularity was beginning to wane. Karl Rove was very effective at micro-targeting in 2004. Axelrod and Plouffe seem to have more experience with it than the Romney managers, but it is not clear that they will be as successful as Rove. Obama probably cannot count on the 18-21 vote this year as he did in 2008. The more important demographic group, however, may be 22-25 of those who voted for Obama in the last election. Will they come back for Obama or have they become disillusioned?

Our final discussion was about the ObamaCare decision by the Supreme Court. Romney calls it a tax; Obama, a penalty. That brought on a rant about the hypocrisy of both sides. During the legislative debate, Obama said it wasn’t a tax, and the Republicans said it was a tax. On the second day of the oral arguments, the Solicitor General called it a tax and the opponents argued that it was not a tax. The four dissenters on the Court said it was not a tax, the four liberals said it didn’t matter whether it was a tax or not. Only the Chief Justice called it a tax, which became the justification and deciding vote for ruling the individual mandate would not be overturned. Romney is now saying it was a penalty in MA but is a tax at the national level. Kudos to Rachel who said in an earlier session that oral arguments before the Court would not make that much difference in the decision – a comment that was not considered worth mentioning then but turned out to be very perceptive!

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – June 20, 2012

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – June 20, 2012

There were only two of us present today, making it a dialogue rather than a discussion. The issue of the week was immigration. Obama’s political announcement last week has put Romney in a bind between the Tea Party that wants an anti-immigration policy and the swing voters who like the Obama position. This move seems to be part of a broader strategy for the Obama campaign to distract Romney from focusing on jobs and the economy. Romney had to disrupt his bus tour to address the new immigration policy. We expect a series of social issues paraded out by the Obama campaign such as birth control and student loans to keep the Romney campaign distracted.

We talked a little about the VP selection process. It does not bode well for Rubio, when the top of the ticket has to announce that even though they don’t discuss the process but rumors of Rubio not being vetted are false. We keep waiting for the Supreme Court rulings. It is difficult to tease out the political implications. The issue of the day was the committee vote charging Eric Holder for contempt of Congress and Obama’s response citing executive privilege. It seems that invoking executive privilege is not politically advantageous for the President unless this move is another one to distract the Republicans. There are many situations that could confront Obama that would be beyond his control including Middle East powder kegs of Egypt, Syria and Iran as well as the European money crises. If Obama continues respond quickly and decisively, he probably gains popularity and if not, Romney will benefit. To be successful, the Democrats must get better at messaging.

Barack Obama: The Story by David Maraniss is sure to stir up controversy. Maraniss suggests that much of what Obama wrote in Dreams of My Father was exaggerated or untrue. Republicans are citing the book as another example of Obama’s lies, while Maraniss stated that it takes literal license to reveal a deeper side of the man. We think that it will probably energize the bases but have little effect on the election. We also discussed superPAC money, the effect of reapportionment on the House elections, the debates, voter suppression in Florida, and when, if ever Georgia will become a swing state. Little came out of this series of topics that had not been covered in previous sessions.

Paul will be out again next week. Del Dunn will be back next week and willing to dialogue or discuss the election at the regular time. There will be no discussion on Wednesday, July4, but we will resume our discussions on July 11.

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – June 13, 2012

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – June 13, 2012

The discussion started on the memo to the Obama campaign from Greenfield, Carville and Seifert suggesting that he needs to refocus his efforts. Based on focus-group data including non-college-educated swing voters in Ohio and college-educated suburbanites of Philadelphia, they indicate that he needs to outline two possible visions of the future. This position expands on the statements of Bill Clinton made earlier. They state that the public acknowledges that Obama inherited the problems with the economy, but they believe that the economy is stuck. He needs to stop saying that things are not that bad or that they are improving, but he needs to explain how we are going to get out. The emphasis must be on the future. The same focus groups say that Romney is out of touch and only understands the wealthy. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the Bush campaign in 2004. In that year the economy was going well. He focused not on the past but what we can do in the future to benefit from the booming economy. Obama should develop a message that shows that he empathizes with the problems of the middle class and that he wants to secure Social Security and Medicare.

We pointed out that there are limits to focus-group data. Focus groups are great at revealing the range of perspectives but are not good at drawing distinct conclusions. It was also pointed out that the authors are Democratic strategists who are currently on the sidelines in this campaign. On the other hand, Carville has skills to screen out irrelevant information to focus on the key information, what the political scientist Robert E. Lane “listening with the third ear.” Lee Atwater was able to get critical information by listening to clientele of biker bars, and David Broder got his information in other venues.

Discussions moved to Romney and taxes and some of the questions raised. Can Obama tie Romney to the negative aspects of the Ryan budget? How vulnerable is Romney in his immigration policy? The Supreme Court decisions on Obamacare and immigration will be announced in the next two weeks. Someone stated in the group a few weeks ago said that the ruling on ObamaCare will hurt Obama irrespective of the result and that the immigration ruling will hurt Romney. We indicated last week that the polls in June have little predictable value for November. We also noted that the national head-to-head polls and the Presidential approval ratings have been very stable indicating a very close election. The Obama campaign is data-rich and great at micro-targeting, used very effective by Karl Rove in 2004. Obama’s strategy will attempt to energize the base and mobilize it to get to the polls. Romney is noted for data mining in business, but it is not clear that he is effective in micro-targeting when it comes to politics. Fortunately he has Karl Rove to help him out here.  How important will the debates be? Romney has been successful at isolating himself from the Mainstream Media recently limiting his gaffes. Will that hurt him in the debates when Obama uses his superior oratorical skills OR will Romney benefit by exceeding low expectations?

The Obama gaffe and Romney response were discussed. The “just fine” private economy reinforces the anti-Obama voters while cutting back on “police, firemen and teachers” feeds the pro-Obama folks. Neither statement is likely to reach the level of having “voted for the war before I voted against it.” Thom Mazloom of the M Network which analyzes campaign ads has said that swing voters know Obama’s things-are-bad-but-are-getting-better position and view the attack ads as political opportunism. Two of us had seen a commentary recently without remembering the source that shows that the undecided voters are leaning to Romney while those not registered to vote lean to Obama. There appear to be at least three structural differences in this election from previous ones. First, there is a concerted campaign in Florida to clean up the voter rolls, perceived by Republicans as fraud prevention and by Democrats as voter suppression. From a strategic standpoint it would appear to help the Republicans when the number of registered voters decreases and aid Democrats as they expand. There has been some talk about the Justice Department suing Florida over the issue. That might be a politically risky strategy in a key swing state. Second, the campaign financing in light of Citizen’s United could be a major factor in the campaign. It is widely perceived that the ruling favors the Republicans, particularly with the unlimited PAC funds. It is not clear that the advantage will be enough to sway the election, but outside money spent on ads could free up funds in the Romney camp to devote to getting-out-the-vote effort in November. Third, innovations in the way we vote – early voting, mail-in ballots such as in Oregon, and being able to vote in locations in the same state other than the registered precinct – all can affect the way to approach the electorate. These innovations are not completely new to 2012, but they are much more of a part of the system now than they have been in the past. The explosion of social media in this year’s campaign will also be an important factor. 

Paul announced that he would miss the next two weeks. Rob Shewfelt will facilitate the discussion next week. We are looking for a volunteer for Wednesday, June 27.