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.