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.