Paul announced that we would continue to meet on Wednesdays at 2:15 until we find a new time for the summer.
The main topic for today’s session was the major narratives for each campaign in the general election. We can expect some trial balloons and feints to get the other campaign to react.
The primary narrative of the Romney campaign is likely to be that “Obama is a nice guy but in over his head. The economy is the issue. Anything else that the Obama campaign brings up is a mere distraction from his record on the economy.” This narrative has a good chance of working if the economy does not improve dramatically and the Romney campaign can keep the media from being distracted. It appears that Romney’s strategy will be to pre-empt Obama pronouncements and then follow-up after the event. It could become tricky determining when to pre-empt and follow-up and when to avoid the issue so it does not become a distraction. The Republican super-PACs will be able to respond to issues Romney doesn’t want to address by himself. That Romney needs some practice with this narrative and strategy as he wasn’t prepared to answer whether he would support Rubio’s version of the Dream Act with Rubio on the stage with him. Romney’s immediate challenge is to introduce himself to the American public in a positive light before the Obama campaign can define him.
The primary narrative of Obama will be that “Romney represents the people who are becoming rich playing by different rules than the rest of us have to follow. He is out of touch with the typical American. You know he likes to fire people.” There will be an effort to define Romney before the Romney campaign can define him. There may be attempts to Swift-Boat Romney through activities at Bain Capital. There appears to be a debate in the campaign whether to paint Romney as a flip-flopper or a severe conservative. Currently the severe-conservative message is the one they are playing. It may be a trap set for Romney. When he tries to soften his conservative stands, then the Obama campaign can claim flip-flop. Obama is obviously trying to energize the students by enjoining the student-loan issue. Obama will also try to retain his current advantage with the Latino community with Spanish-language ads. This narrative is unlikely to be successful if it can’t incorporate a positive message about the Obama record. Well, it’s not as bad as it could be is unlikely to be a winning strategy.
We then turned our attention to the media which has a major role in defining the terms of the election process. A small ad buy that captures the attention of the media, like the Swift-Boat veterans ad in 2004, can be replayed on the free media many times more than the original buy. There will be the themes of leadership versus being out-of-touch which could be a double-edged sword for both candidates. We had a spirited debate as to who gets the credit, the President or the Governor if they are in opposite parties, in states where the state outperforms the national economy. Likewise, who gets the blame when the state economy lags behind the federal recovery? One point of view was that credit or blame depends on effective messaging within a state. The other view that the economy is generally a Presidential issue if there is no gubernatorial election occurring at the same time. How the media treats any issue, however, is critical to its interpretation by the electorate.
Some other topics discussed included the major changes in tracking polls from day to day. Both Gallup and Rasmussen three-day averages can vary as much five points from one day to the next. Gallup is a not likely voter poll while Rasmussen is. It was pointed out that most polls have weighted averages based on the daily sampling. We also mentioned the importance of the scandals such as GSA and Secret Service in the election. We agreed that single scandals in and of themselves probably have little effect, but if associated with a lack of leadership, government waste and/or an out-of-control Washington, Romney will receive some benefit.
Back to the narratives described above, some game-changers for this election could be those that reinforce the opposition narrative (“see Gore exaggerates everything” in 2000) or goes against a campaign’s personal narrative (Carter not coming across as a nice guy at times in 1980).
Next week we will be looking more carefully at the Electoral College.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, April 16, 2012
4/11/2012
Campaign Discussion Group 4-11-2010
With Santorum out of the race, Romney is the presumptive nominee, although he still has to deal with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has transformed from a viable, office-seeking candidate (after winning South Carolina) to an advocacy candidate, promoting an anti-Obama agenda and lower gas prices.
Santorum likely exited the race for fear of losing his home state to Romney, which was becoming more likely based on polling data and the fact that Romney’s campaign was gearing up for a media “carpet bombing” of the state next week. There has been talk of Santorum possibly returning to his home state to reclaim his prior Senate seat.
Barbara Norrander’s 33 percent Delegate Margin model seems to have been spot on in predicting Santorum’s exit, with Romney now more than 400 delegates ahead. We didn’t, however, get far enough to test her 36 percent Gain-Deficit Ratio model.
It was suggested that Santorum dropping out in such a subtle manner did not help Romney in establishing himself as the presumptive nominee. It would be most beneficial to Romney if Gingrich drops out after a large loss, making it a big event and signaling to voters that Romney is the Republicans choice.
There was general consensus that the campaign is now in “general election” mode.
Potential major themes of the election were discussed:
Democrats will want to convey the message that 1) things are getting better, you shouldn’t change horses in the middle of the race, 2) General Motors is Alive, Bin Laden is Dead (emphasizing Obama’s successful economic and foreign policies), and 3) that Romney is a flip-flopper.
Republicans will want to emphasize that 1) things are bad, and a change should be made, 2) the deficit, debt, and spending are out of control, and 3) that Romney is pro-Israel (a possible way to cope with Obama’s advantage on foreign policy). It was also noted that Romney is advantaged by his “presidential look” and that his VP choice is paramount and will potentially shape debate.
It has been suggested that Obama might accuse Romney of being an extreme conservative, forcing him to identify himself as a moderate or conservative, at which point the left will attack him as a flip-flopper no matter which choice he makes. Romney has also supported the Ryan budget over the past two years, giving the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition against him. Obama can pick out specific programs that the Ryan budget plans to cut, which will turn those benefactors against Republicans.
Romney, on the other hand, would benefit from the “look at Europe” argument, pointing out the problems that Europe is having as a result of its social programs and that that’s where Obama is taking America. Obama could say that the Ryan budget’s proposal to cut things like Medicare/Medicaid could cause domestic unrest in the U.S., similar to what has been seen recently in countries like Greece.
Emphasis was given to the idea that during the primary Romney was the “safe” choice in relation to the other candidates, but he must now convince everyone that he is “presidential”.
It was also pointed out that candidates have in the past matured politically throughout the campaign and that Romney could do the same. He is very coachable and could overcome the shortcomings seen during the primary, becoming a good candidate by the fall.
Also, it is unclear where the female vote stands with regards to Romney. It seems likely that minority females will support Obama, but educated and suburban female support is less clear. Recent polls have shown Romney down 19 points against Obama with female voters, a gap that must be closed for Romney to be competitive. There was also disagreement on what constitutes the “female vote”.
Finally there was talk of a potential third party candidate. It was considered unlikely, but most conceded that if one were to emerge it would likely be Ron Paul and that he wouldn’t be very successful.
With Santorum out of the race, Romney is the presumptive nominee, although he still has to deal with Newt Gingrich. Gingrich has transformed from a viable, office-seeking candidate (after winning South Carolina) to an advocacy candidate, promoting an anti-Obama agenda and lower gas prices.
Santorum likely exited the race for fear of losing his home state to Romney, which was becoming more likely based on polling data and the fact that Romney’s campaign was gearing up for a media “carpet bombing” of the state next week. There has been talk of Santorum possibly returning to his home state to reclaim his prior Senate seat.
Barbara Norrander’s 33 percent Delegate Margin model seems to have been spot on in predicting Santorum’s exit, with Romney now more than 400 delegates ahead. We didn’t, however, get far enough to test her 36 percent Gain-Deficit Ratio model.
It was suggested that Santorum dropping out in such a subtle manner did not help Romney in establishing himself as the presumptive nominee. It would be most beneficial to Romney if Gingrich drops out after a large loss, making it a big event and signaling to voters that Romney is the Republicans choice.
There was general consensus that the campaign is now in “general election” mode.
Potential major themes of the election were discussed:
Democrats will want to convey the message that 1) things are getting better, you shouldn’t change horses in the middle of the race, 2) General Motors is Alive, Bin Laden is Dead (emphasizing Obama’s successful economic and foreign policies), and 3) that Romney is a flip-flopper.
Republicans will want to emphasize that 1) things are bad, and a change should be made, 2) the deficit, debt, and spending are out of control, and 3) that Romney is pro-Israel (a possible way to cope with Obama’s advantage on foreign policy). It was also noted that Romney is advantaged by his “presidential look” and that his VP choice is paramount and will potentially shape debate.
It has been suggested that Obama might accuse Romney of being an extreme conservative, forcing him to identify himself as a moderate or conservative, at which point the left will attack him as a flip-flopper no matter which choice he makes. Romney has also supported the Ryan budget over the past two years, giving the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition against him. Obama can pick out specific programs that the Ryan budget plans to cut, which will turn those benefactors against Republicans.
Romney, on the other hand, would benefit from the “look at Europe” argument, pointing out the problems that Europe is having as a result of its social programs and that that’s where Obama is taking America. Obama could say that the Ryan budget’s proposal to cut things like Medicare/Medicaid could cause domestic unrest in the U.S., similar to what has been seen recently in countries like Greece.
Emphasis was given to the idea that during the primary Romney was the “safe” choice in relation to the other candidates, but he must now convince everyone that he is “presidential”.
It was also pointed out that candidates have in the past matured politically throughout the campaign and that Romney could do the same. He is very coachable and could overcome the shortcomings seen during the primary, becoming a good candidate by the fall.
Also, it is unclear where the female vote stands with regards to Romney. It seems likely that minority females will support Obama, but educated and suburban female support is less clear. Recent polls have shown Romney down 19 points against Obama with female voters, a gap that must be closed for Romney to be competitive. There was also disagreement on what constitutes the “female vote”.
Finally there was talk of a potential third party candidate. It was considered unlikely, but most conceded that if one were to emerge it would likely be Ron Paul and that he wouldn’t be very successful.
Friday, April 6, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – April 4, 2012
It was announced that the Presidential nomination has now been officially clinched by Barack Obama. It was also noted that there seems to be a theme of redemption on the Republican side as Julie Mason of POTUS stated: Romney to redeem his father’s failed run for the White House and Santorum trying to redeem his 18 point loss in the 2006 Senate race. The Republican race is essentially over so we will focus on the Fall contest.
Paul then took us through an exercise about assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. By assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign, each candidate can develop a strategy to win. In 2000 the issues favored the Democrats, the parties were equal as were the candidates. Thus George W. Bush acknowledged that the economy was good focusing on what we could do with the abundance of what we have. He then won by insisting that you can’t trust Al Gore because Clinton cheated on his wife.
Starting with the parties, Obama would appear to have the advantage. The Democrats are united; the Republicans are in the middle of a bruising campaign with the Tea Party fighting the moderates; and it is not clear that Romney has the skills to reunite the Republicans.
Paul prefaced the conversation on issues and ideology by saying that issues do not usually matter much but sometimes they do. Romney and the Republicans can hammer Obama and the Democrats on the growing debt/deficit problems and gas prices if they remain high. Obama and the Democrats can emphasize social issues (particularly with respect to women’s issues and those of interest to the Hispanic community), foreign policy (unless it turns bad and Obama is seen as weak) and the entitlement cuts proposed in the Ryan budget. The wild card is the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Heath Care Act and its political fallout. We described the three most likely outcomes of the court decision (total overturn of the law, overturning the mandate but leaving the rest of the law intact, upholding its constitutionality) each of which could hurt Obama and help Romney, or help Obama and hurt Romney, or not matter much of all. In other words, we came to no consensus on the issue, but it will make for great discussions in the group between the end of June and the opening of the conventions. We left the economy out of this part of the question as we relegated it to the nature of the times.
With respect to the candidates, Obama is favored by his leadership abilities and charisma in addition to the flip-flop reputation and elitist image of his opponent. Romney has the advantage in that he is perceived as a competent manager based on experience in business, government and at the Olympics. He also is from outside Washington which appears to intoxicate anyone who has ever spent time there. Both Romney and Obama have run successful nomination campaigns, but Obama has the advantage of having run a successful Presidential campaign.
The economy is obviously the big elephant in the room. If the economy continues to improve appreciably, most of what was discussed above will have little consequence with a clear advantage to Obama. If the economy goes into another slump (a triple dip) we can look forward to President Romney, #45. A modest improvement in the economy or stagnation foretells a close election where the court decision, price of gasoline, the gender gap, and other factors could become decisive. Perhaps even more important will be the mood of the country between June and November with optimism about the future favoring Obama and pessimism favoring Romney.
Based on this assessment, Obama’s best strategy would appear to define Romney as a flip-flopping Massachusetts politician who is rich and out of touch while stoking the divisions within the Republican party. Romney’s winning strategy appears to be to describe Obama as in over his head and what the country needs is a competent manager who understands how the economy works.
Somebody mentioned that Romney has suggested that Obama is a closet atheist. We do not believe that Romney should be one throwing stone on religion as he is vulnerable on that issue. The President’s statement on the Supreme Court on Monday was also discussed. Some of us thought it was a big deal and not smart to dare the court to overturn it at their peril. Others thought it wasn’t that critical. We also discussed the potential role of negative advertisements in voter suppression. It was pointed out that the most negative campaign in recent history was in 2004 and that the vote was not suppressed. Also mentioned was that the political science literature suggests that negative ads either do not suppress the vote or are over-rated in their effect. Possible third party runs were considered, but they were generally discounted.
In reviewing Presidential elections since 1960, the turnout in millions and % of the voting population was
2008 132.6M 56.8%
2004 122.3M 55.3%
2000 105.6M 51.3%
1996 96.5M 49.1%
1992 104.4M 55.1%
1988 91.6M 50.1%
1984 92.7M 53.1%
1980 86.5M 52.6%
1976 81.6M 53.6%
1972 77.7M 55.2%
1968 73.2M 60.8%
1964 70.6M 61.9%
1960 68.8M 63.1%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Paul then took us through an exercise about assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. By assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign, each candidate can develop a strategy to win. In 2000 the issues favored the Democrats, the parties were equal as were the candidates. Thus George W. Bush acknowledged that the economy was good focusing on what we could do with the abundance of what we have. He then won by insisting that you can’t trust Al Gore because Clinton cheated on his wife.
Starting with the parties, Obama would appear to have the advantage. The Democrats are united; the Republicans are in the middle of a bruising campaign with the Tea Party fighting the moderates; and it is not clear that Romney has the skills to reunite the Republicans.
Paul prefaced the conversation on issues and ideology by saying that issues do not usually matter much but sometimes they do. Romney and the Republicans can hammer Obama and the Democrats on the growing debt/deficit problems and gas prices if they remain high. Obama and the Democrats can emphasize social issues (particularly with respect to women’s issues and those of interest to the Hispanic community), foreign policy (unless it turns bad and Obama is seen as weak) and the entitlement cuts proposed in the Ryan budget. The wild card is the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Heath Care Act and its political fallout. We described the three most likely outcomes of the court decision (total overturn of the law, overturning the mandate but leaving the rest of the law intact, upholding its constitutionality) each of which could hurt Obama and help Romney, or help Obama and hurt Romney, or not matter much of all. In other words, we came to no consensus on the issue, but it will make for great discussions in the group between the end of June and the opening of the conventions. We left the economy out of this part of the question as we relegated it to the nature of the times.
With respect to the candidates, Obama is favored by his leadership abilities and charisma in addition to the flip-flop reputation and elitist image of his opponent. Romney has the advantage in that he is perceived as a competent manager based on experience in business, government and at the Olympics. He also is from outside Washington which appears to intoxicate anyone who has ever spent time there. Both Romney and Obama have run successful nomination campaigns, but Obama has the advantage of having run a successful Presidential campaign.
The economy is obviously the big elephant in the room. If the economy continues to improve appreciably, most of what was discussed above will have little consequence with a clear advantage to Obama. If the economy goes into another slump (a triple dip) we can look forward to President Romney, #45. A modest improvement in the economy or stagnation foretells a close election where the court decision, price of gasoline, the gender gap, and other factors could become decisive. Perhaps even more important will be the mood of the country between June and November with optimism about the future favoring Obama and pessimism favoring Romney.
Based on this assessment, Obama’s best strategy would appear to define Romney as a flip-flopping Massachusetts politician who is rich and out of touch while stoking the divisions within the Republican party. Romney’s winning strategy appears to be to describe Obama as in over his head and what the country needs is a competent manager who understands how the economy works.
Somebody mentioned that Romney has suggested that Obama is a closet atheist. We do not believe that Romney should be one throwing stone on religion as he is vulnerable on that issue. The President’s statement on the Supreme Court on Monday was also discussed. Some of us thought it was a big deal and not smart to dare the court to overturn it at their peril. Others thought it wasn’t that critical. We also discussed the potential role of negative advertisements in voter suppression. It was pointed out that the most negative campaign in recent history was in 2004 and that the vote was not suppressed. Also mentioned was that the political science literature suggests that negative ads either do not suppress the vote or are over-rated in their effect. Possible third party runs were considered, but they were generally discounted.
In reviewing Presidential elections since 1960, the turnout in millions and % of the voting population was
2008 132.6M 56.8%
2004 122.3M 55.3%
2000 105.6M 51.3%
1996 96.5M 49.1%
1992 104.4M 55.1%
1988 91.6M 50.1%
1984 92.7M 53.1%
1980 86.5M 52.6%
1976 81.6M 53.6%
1972 77.7M 55.2%
1968 73.2M 60.8%
1964 70.6M 61.9%
1960 68.8M 63.1%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
Thursday, March 22, 2012
UGA Presidential Discussion Group – March 21, 2012
Paul started our discussion
with some data. We had talked about the Norrander proposition on when the last
challenger the last two sessions. The
two measures of that are most predictive are the percentage of delegates that
separate the frontrunner and the lead challenger (the trigger is 33%) and the
gain/ deficit ratio (gain in a week divided by the number of delegates the
winner needs to clinch the nomination). Justin Pinkerman has been collecting
data since the beginning of the year. As of March 13, Romney led Santorum by
22% in pledged delegates and 19.5% in unofficial delegates. On Super Tuesday
Romney had a 27.8% gain/ deficit ratio in pledged delegates and 35.5% (close to
the threshold) for unofficial delegates. Although there are different delegate
counts, these data suggest that Romney is coming close to wrapping up the
nomination.
It was pointed out that
Santorum would need almost 70% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination
and that Romney needs from 45-50% of them. This discussion assumed that there
would not be a major collapse or scandal for Romney. While such a situation is
not impossible, we concluded that Romney is sufficiently clean and unexciting
that he is unlikely to have any late surprise.
We concluded that the Puerto
Rico and Illinois primaries were both a boost for Romney and a major setback
for Santorum. If there is such a thing as momentum in this campaign, Romney has
it, but this has not been a momentum contest. When Romney wins, he stresses his
inevitability and pivots to attacking Obama. Then Santorum wins and steps on
his economic message by discussing social issues. Santorum was particularly
ineffective in these last two contests, but he has a chance to come back in
Louisiana on Saturday and Wisconsin on April 3. A loss in either one will be
devastating for him.
We moved to Gingrich and
questioned whether he was still relevant. Our general conclusion is that he is
fading fast. He may gain some delegates in Louisiana, but prospects are poor in
other states on the calendar. There are two schools of thought on his effect on
the race. Some say he is helping Romney by preventing a one-on-one race with
Santorum. Others indicate that Santorum’s only chance is to prevent Romney from
getting to 1144 with a swing to him at the convention. If Gingrich keeps
fading, he becomes irrelevant unless he is keeping Santorum from reaching
thresholds at the state or district level in proportional primaries. The
question becomes if Romney fails to clinch the necessary delegates before the
convention will it turn to Santorum. It would seem unlikely if Romney has a
clear advantage in delegates, popular votes in this year’s contests, total
number of states won and number of swing states won.
We then turned to process and
how the delegates were being selected. Santorum may do better than currently
projected, but it probably will not be that meaningful for the nomination. The
proportional distribution of delegates has been blamed for extending the
season, but one person’s rough calculation of winner-take-all states suggest
that the race would be closer than with the proportional distribution. Another factor is the Citizen’s United
decision that has permitted Gingrich and Santorum to stay in the race longer
than they probably would have otherwise. Citizen’s United permits super PACs to
pay for advertise, but they still need day-to-day operating money. Gingrich may
be very low in operating funds as he doesn’t seem to be travelling to states in
play.
Despite his third-place finish
in Illinois, Ron Paul is not doing as well as many expected. He may have been
handicapped by Spring Break at the University of Alabama last week and the
University of Illinois this week. A discussion followed about how long current
students would stick with the Pauls (Ron and Rand). Some of us thought that a
gradual accumulation of students over time would come around to their view
while others say that politics tend to change as students transition to the
real world. Libertarian views combining fiscal conservatism, social liberalism
and pacifism may be a hard sell, but a centrist party with the fiscal
conservatism and social liberalism might be successful in the long run.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Post-Super Tuesday Meeting 3/7/12
Paul suggested that we start
our discussion with what happened last night – Super Tuesday. Two of us thought
that Romney had a very good night. Others suggested that he did what he had to
do but the results were mixed. Also, when most of the East Coast went to sleep,
Romney was behind in Ohio with results from Idaho and Alaska still out. Thus,
Romney missed the good headlines, but headlines may not be as meaningful with
the Internet and television.
We reached no consensus on the
implications of Super Tuesday. At this point there are no debates scheduled as Mitt
Romney and Ron Paul opted out of the CNN Ohio/Georgia debate scheduled last
week, and CNN cancelled it. At this point Romney has no incentive to get back
in, but there might be pressure applied to him if Gingrich should drop out and
it becomes a one-on-one Santorum/Romney race. There was talk of a brokered
convention as described on CNN in a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but Paul
is not buying it. He proposed two scenarios: (1) Romney keeps on winning
delegates with Gingrich and Santorum eventually dropping out for the good of
the party when it becomes obvious that Romney is going to win and (2) Gingrich
(or Santorum) drops out after next week’s contests and the race comes down to a
one-on-one competition. It will be interesting to see if the not-Romney
candidate (presumably Santorum) actually starts picking up Tea Party
endorsements. The Norrander proposition on when the last challenger drops out
as we discussed last week will probably come into play when one candidate
amasses a substantial number of needed delegates.
Then we moved on to Romney’s
major gaffe last week on being against the Blunt-Rubio amendment before he came
out for it hours later. The gaffe reinforced Romney’s predilection to
flip-flopping, whether he really is really a conservative and whose team he is
on. His gaffe, however failed to get much attention as it shifted to the Rush
Limbaugh comments. Rush appeared to step on the Republican message on freedom
of religion making it more about contraception. We then got into a heated
discussion as to whether the bishops would close the Catholic hospitals in
protest of the Obama policy and the possible reaction by the public.
Moving on from that discussion
we talked about the Obama press conference which not so coincidentally was held
on Super Tuesday. He is definitely in full campaign mode. Obama put the
Republican candidates on notice to be careful on their statements on Iran. Foreign
policy appears to be a strength for Obama, but there are many hot spots that
could blow up on him. It was generally agreed that there would be a rallying
around him if there was a national crisis, but he could become vulnerable if he
is not decisive or if things start going badly. When something happens like an
Israeli bombing of Iran, it is not clear how long a honeymoon period he would
get. Gas prices will be a factor and whom you really trust will be critical in
November if we are still in crisis mode.
Barring an international
crisis, November still will come down to the economy. The unemployment numbers
coming out on Friday will be an indication. If it is a Romney/Obama race,
neither one will probably be able to capture blue-collar workers. All three
primary Republican candidates are sitting at 14% of the Hispanic vote. Many
Republican strategists suggest that their candidate has no chance of winning
with less than 35% of the Hispanic vote. This situation helps the potential VP
candidacies of Susan Martinez and Brian Sandoval. Then why are the candidates
are making statements that are alienating the independent voters? The answer
probably is an appeal to the base to get the nomination. The old Nixon strategy
that you run to the right during primary season and then run like hell to the
center for the fall campaign appears to be appropriate, but can Romney pull it
off? To paraphrase a classic debate line “I knew Dick Nixon. Dick Nixon was a
friend of mine. Governor, you are no Dick Nixon.”
Monday, October 31, 2011
10/27/11 Meeting
The meeting opened with a discussion about the 2 articles Paul emailed group members about Herman Cain. The first article discussed Cain in the context of the conventional (but often wrong) wisdom that the front runner in the invisible primary in the polls usually secures the nomination (think Giuliani and Clinton). The second article, written by Nate Silver on his FiveThirtyEight Blog, talks about how Cain lacks many of the fundamentals seen as critical to winning the nomination. In order to analyze this, Silver runs some simple correlations to measure how quintessential fundamentals such as organization and fundraising prowess (which he combines to form what he calls the candidate's GPA) correlates with poll standings in November back to the 1992 primaries. He finds that his GPA correlates with poll standings at .80-a relatively strong value. There is, however, one data point that is a considerable outlier: showing a weak non-polling GPA of 4.0 with an usually strong polling GPA of 8.0. And that data point belongs to none other than Herman Cain.
We then discussed one critical variable in Silver's non-polling GPA: the puzzling paradox of Cain's current strong showing in Iowa polls (see the latest Des Moines Register poll of likey caucus particpants http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/cain-and-romney-top-iowa-poll/ despite the fact that he has virtually no presence in the state. Only 2 months out from the election, Cain still isn't actively campaigning in Iowa, focusing instead on his national book tour and on appearances on political talk shows. Meanwhile, Romney's substantial organization in Iowa has yet to result in pushing him to front-runner status, nor in more than 23% in most polls. (For interesting and quick analysis of how support breaks down by demographics see The Des Moines Register caucus analysis page.
This led to a discussion of what might happen should Cain win Iowa without engaging in the traditional boots-on-the-ground retail politics long seen as vital to winning the state. With Santorum spending 65 days thus far in Iowa, and scheduled to make his final appearance in the 99th of Iowa's 99 counties (the only candidate to do so thus far) yet failing to make any headway in the Register poll between June and now-some group members opined that a Cain victory might have 2nd and 3rd tier candidates questioning the effectiveness of the the retail politics strategy in future contests. It certainly didn't work for John Edwards in the 2008 cycle. He literally moved his whole family to Iowa for the year before the caucus only to come in 3rd in the caucus and to drop out of the race.Still, pre-contest organization and retail politics is one thing but the real importance of organization becomes apparent on caucus day. Because of the complexities of the caucus system, candidates need to have caucus experts and insiders on hand to wheel and deal for delegates, as well as the organization to get potential supporters to the caucus. Lacking these resources, it is quite possible that the candidate leading in the polls (Cain) will not ultimately prevail on election day. This is why despite the fact that Romney has not yet spent a great deal of time actually in Iowa, he has a substantial organizational presence there.
Other topics discussed: the chatter regarding Perry floating the idea of not participating in anymore debates (which most group members and pundits alike think would be a fatal decision), Cain's flub on the abortion issue, and Romney's flip-flopping on several issues in the lat 2 years. The group agrees that Romney's triangulation is substantive and not similar to Kerry's mistake of trying to explain congressional procedure which led to his infamous quote which was levied as an effective weapon by the Bush campaign team of being "for [the bill] before being against it." In contrast Romney has changed positions on several key issues and not over long period of time. Some of this is a result of Romney's tenure as the governor of Massachusetts, a liberal stronghold. The rest is a result of the sharp turn to the right the Republican Party has taken over the course of the last decade, which has forced Romney to waffle on issues as he tries to address his conservative shortcomings, which ironically are some of his best weapons against Obama should he win the nomination and they are both fighting for the coveted Independent vote. Regardless of the rationale behind these policy position changes- voters may be wary of supporting a candidate seen as blowing whichever way the wind blows and just as his fellow GOP contenders are doing, Obama's team will certainly highlight the issue during the general election.
So, that's what you missed at this week's meeting. Only 2 months out from the first contests, the meetings are heating up. Hope to see some new folks there this week! (Thursdays 2:15-3:15, room 302 Baldwin Hall).
We then discussed one critical variable in Silver's non-polling GPA: the puzzling paradox of Cain's current strong showing in Iowa polls (see the latest Des Moines Register poll of likey caucus particpants http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/cain-and-romney-top-iowa-poll/ despite the fact that he has virtually no presence in the state. Only 2 months out from the election, Cain still isn't actively campaigning in Iowa, focusing instead on his national book tour and on appearances on political talk shows. Meanwhile, Romney's substantial organization in Iowa has yet to result in pushing him to front-runner status, nor in more than 23% in most polls. (For interesting and quick analysis of how support breaks down by demographics see The Des Moines Register caucus analysis page.
This led to a discussion of what might happen should Cain win Iowa without engaging in the traditional boots-on-the-ground retail politics long seen as vital to winning the state. With Santorum spending 65 days thus far in Iowa, and scheduled to make his final appearance in the 99th of Iowa's 99 counties (the only candidate to do so thus far) yet failing to make any headway in the Register poll between June and now-some group members opined that a Cain victory might have 2nd and 3rd tier candidates questioning the effectiveness of the the retail politics strategy in future contests. It certainly didn't work for John Edwards in the 2008 cycle. He literally moved his whole family to Iowa for the year before the caucus only to come in 3rd in the caucus and to drop out of the race.Still, pre-contest organization and retail politics is one thing but the real importance of organization becomes apparent on caucus day. Because of the complexities of the caucus system, candidates need to have caucus experts and insiders on hand to wheel and deal for delegates, as well as the organization to get potential supporters to the caucus. Lacking these resources, it is quite possible that the candidate leading in the polls (Cain) will not ultimately prevail on election day. This is why despite the fact that Romney has not yet spent a great deal of time actually in Iowa, he has a substantial organizational presence there.
Other topics discussed: the chatter regarding Perry floating the idea of not participating in anymore debates (which most group members and pundits alike think would be a fatal decision), Cain's flub on the abortion issue, and Romney's flip-flopping on several issues in the lat 2 years. The group agrees that Romney's triangulation is substantive and not similar to Kerry's mistake of trying to explain congressional procedure which led to his infamous quote which was levied as an effective weapon by the Bush campaign team of being "for [the bill] before being against it." In contrast Romney has changed positions on several key issues and not over long period of time. Some of this is a result of Romney's tenure as the governor of Massachusetts, a liberal stronghold. The rest is a result of the sharp turn to the right the Republican Party has taken over the course of the last decade, which has forced Romney to waffle on issues as he tries to address his conservative shortcomings, which ironically are some of his best weapons against Obama should he win the nomination and they are both fighting for the coveted Independent vote. Regardless of the rationale behind these policy position changes- voters may be wary of supporting a candidate seen as blowing whichever way the wind blows and just as his fellow GOP contenders are doing, Obama's team will certainly highlight the issue during the general election.
So, that's what you missed at this week's meeting. Only 2 months out from the first contests, the meetings are heating up. Hope to see some new folks there this week! (Thursdays 2:15-3:15, room 302 Baldwin Hall).
Monday, October 24, 2011
10/20/11 Meeting
The meeting opened with a discussion of the latest polling from
RealClearPolitics.com. A poll from Iowa showed Cain with a modest lead over
Romney with 26% to Romney’s 22%. The latest polling from NH reflects Romney’s current
surge with the establishment and more moderate wing of the party with Romney at
40% and Cain at 18%. The SC poll shows that Cain leads Romney by 9% with 31% to
Romney’s 22%. Finally, Florida’s poll shows Romney and Cain in a virtual tie
with Romney at 31% and Cain at 29%.
Paul provided an interesting update regarding the primary
schedule by sharing with the group recent developments of counties in South
Carolina refusing to stage a primary due to budgetary concerns. The state is in
the process of challenging this in court. Paul opined that the state’s
Republican Party would likely receive substantial assistance from the national
GOP to stage a party-sponsored primary rather than see the important SC primary canceled.
The rest of the meeting focused on the (at the time) latest
debate in Viva Las Vegas. Unfortunately for Romney, what happened in Vegas
definitely didn’t stay in Vegas as the airwaves replayed Perry’s and his chest-pointing
“fight” over immigration and Perry’s charge that Romney used illegal immigrants
as landscapers. But by and large, the debate focused on Herman Cain’s 9-9-9
plan. The debate opening with each
candidate ripping it to shreds leaving Cain affable but flustered as he tried
gamely to defend his plan using an apples and oranges analogy that reminded
viewers of Perry’s poorly executed “flip-flopper” attacks on Romney in the
previous debate. The criticisms were buoyed by a recent analysis from The
Heritage Foundation (among other groups) that found Cain’s original plan (he has since been
trying to modify it) would result in a net tax increase for 86% of all
Americans: making it dead on arrival to the rest of the field as well as the
congressional Republicans.
Although this developed after Thursday’s meeting, Cain has
also come under fire from the other candidates for comments he made in an
interview regarding the government’s proper role on the abortion issue. Cain
committed the cardinal sin of trying to stay consistent with conservative
orthodoxy on limited government by taking a quasi-pro choice position on
abortion-leading some to speculate that he has committed political suicide, particularly
in Iowa. The base of the Republican Party has not often embraced candidates
with moderate stances on abortion-particularly at the presidential primary
level. Although they begrudgingly got behind John McCain in 2008 (his efforts
to appease them by debating Obama with Pastor Rick Warren seemed to help
somewhat) the primary is not a good time to wax philosophical about limited government
in private matters, although it was probably well-received by Ron Paul
supporters. As the polling discussed at the
beginning of this post was released before this story broke and before the
critiques of the 9-9-9 plan were widely covered, it remains to be seen whether
Cain will still be the front runner in Iowa by the time the next major debates
are held on November 9th and 12th.
That’s what you missed-hope to see you next Thursday in room
302 of Baldwin Hall at 2:15pm.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
9/22/11 Meeting
* I apologize for the delay in getting this post up. I had to let my dog (my
very best friend in the world for the past 15 years) go on Monday night and was
unable to do a post.
The 9/22 meeting was focused on the fallout from the Florida Tea Party debate and Rick Perry’s fall from frontrunner status due to his lackluster debate performance. Discussion centered on Perry’s inability to articulate his points contrasted with Romney’s polished performance which looked even more so against Perry’s blunders. Clearly, Romney is benefitting from the experience factor of having competed in the 2008 cycle and the numerous debates he participated in. In 2008, Romney was seen as the frontrunner in the invisible primary period and as such, most of his fellow contenders were focused on him. This has no doubt better prepared him for this cycle’s debates. One group member posited that it was strange that Bachmann, Cain, and especially Hunstman focused their attention on Perry, who came into the debate with a modest lead on Romney in some polls. He argued that despite this modest lead, the other candidates should focus on Romney because he has been consistently competitive, has the best organization, and of all the candidates (aside from Huntsman), he has the best appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents. This point was countered with the argument that the candidates tend to focus on whoever is leading in the polls going into the debate in a classic “attack the frontrunner” strategy and that now that we know beyond a doubt that the field is settled (even though Palin still refuses to publically state that she is not running, the filing deadlines are this week and next) we can expect that debates will focus on trying to mitigate the lead of the frontrunner, which has now reverted to Romney.
However, the most interesting result of the debate is the surge in the polls by Herman Cain, who was identified by the FL caucus members as the winner of the debate. Cain’s surge is largely comprised from people fleeing Perry and switching their support to Cain, who is now the strongest Tea Party candidate in the field. We discussed how Cain’s lack of political office experience and his race might affect Republican primary voters in the early states and in the general against Obama. Because the Tea Party movement has made “outsider” status an asset and not a curse, some group members feel that his lack of elective office experience will only help him with TP Republicans. Additionally, he has an extensive business resume including his time as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, so as he gains exposure to the masses, more moderate Republicans may dismiss his more extreme right positions and focus on his business credentials as this election cycle will be all “about the economy, stupid.” I opined that Cain has an advantage over Romney in IA and SC because he is an evangelical Christian whereas Romney is a Mormon. Although some of the mystery about his Mormonism will be tempered by the fact that it was a key issue in the ’08 cycle, it is not clear if social/religious conservatives will be comfortable with his religion. This will be hard to determine because they may reject him purely on the basis of his relatively moderate social issue positions. How this plays out will be one of the more interesting aspects of the primaries should Romney stay in the top tier. Rob pointed out that Romney understood and made good use of the debate rules. He rarely referred to other candidates, particularly Perry, by name because doing so immediately allows that person a 30 second response. However, Perry did not seem to be aware of this, or if so could not discipline himself to not say Romney’s name. This allowed Romney to get a lot of extra talk time, which he used to his advantage.
The group also discussed the potential role of race should Cain win the nomination. If this happened then we would again have a historic election as there would be two African-American candidates as the major party nominees. Should Obama win-his legacy as the nation’s 1st black president extends to a 2nd term. Should Cain win, then we would have consecutive black presidents representing both sides of the political spectrum, neither of whom had substantial experience coming into the Oval Office- a tantalizing situation for scholars of presidential politics. Would Cain’s presence on the ticket neutralize the race factor for Obama? Might it also help to neutralize it for the element of the TP that were (and in some cases still are) in the “birther movement?” Would Cain be able to pull any of the solidly Democratic black votes away from Obama or would it have the inverse affect of galvanizing the black vote like in ’08 as black voters become aware of Cain’s decidedly conservative social and economic positions? As far as the primary goes, the group was divided on whether Cain would be attractive to black voters. Statistics on the black vote show that 95+% of black voters cast their ballots for Democrats in most cases. However, if Cain was able to pull even 5% away from Obama it could be decisive in a few cases.
These issues and more are sure to be discussed in this week’s meeting on Thursday, October 6th at 2:15 in room 302 of Baldwin Hall. Be there or be square. However, I’ll be tailgating in the parking lot of Autzen Stadium in Oregon, so the nest 2 weeks will be blogged by a guest blogger. Should you have any interest in doing the blog for both or either of those weeks-please talk to Paul Gurian.
The 9/22 meeting was focused on the fallout from the Florida Tea Party debate and Rick Perry’s fall from frontrunner status due to his lackluster debate performance. Discussion centered on Perry’s inability to articulate his points contrasted with Romney’s polished performance which looked even more so against Perry’s blunders. Clearly, Romney is benefitting from the experience factor of having competed in the 2008 cycle and the numerous debates he participated in. In 2008, Romney was seen as the frontrunner in the invisible primary period and as such, most of his fellow contenders were focused on him. This has no doubt better prepared him for this cycle’s debates. One group member posited that it was strange that Bachmann, Cain, and especially Hunstman focused their attention on Perry, who came into the debate with a modest lead on Romney in some polls. He argued that despite this modest lead, the other candidates should focus on Romney because he has been consistently competitive, has the best organization, and of all the candidates (aside from Huntsman), he has the best appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents. This point was countered with the argument that the candidates tend to focus on whoever is leading in the polls going into the debate in a classic “attack the frontrunner” strategy and that now that we know beyond a doubt that the field is settled (even though Palin still refuses to publically state that she is not running, the filing deadlines are this week and next) we can expect that debates will focus on trying to mitigate the lead of the frontrunner, which has now reverted to Romney.
However, the most interesting result of the debate is the surge in the polls by Herman Cain, who was identified by the FL caucus members as the winner of the debate. Cain’s surge is largely comprised from people fleeing Perry and switching their support to Cain, who is now the strongest Tea Party candidate in the field. We discussed how Cain’s lack of political office experience and his race might affect Republican primary voters in the early states and in the general against Obama. Because the Tea Party movement has made “outsider” status an asset and not a curse, some group members feel that his lack of elective office experience will only help him with TP Republicans. Additionally, he has an extensive business resume including his time as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, so as he gains exposure to the masses, more moderate Republicans may dismiss his more extreme right positions and focus on his business credentials as this election cycle will be all “about the economy, stupid.” I opined that Cain has an advantage over Romney in IA and SC because he is an evangelical Christian whereas Romney is a Mormon. Although some of the mystery about his Mormonism will be tempered by the fact that it was a key issue in the ’08 cycle, it is not clear if social/religious conservatives will be comfortable with his religion. This will be hard to determine because they may reject him purely on the basis of his relatively moderate social issue positions. How this plays out will be one of the more interesting aspects of the primaries should Romney stay in the top tier. Rob pointed out that Romney understood and made good use of the debate rules. He rarely referred to other candidates, particularly Perry, by name because doing so immediately allows that person a 30 second response. However, Perry did not seem to be aware of this, or if so could not discipline himself to not say Romney’s name. This allowed Romney to get a lot of extra talk time, which he used to his advantage.
The group also discussed the potential role of race should Cain win the nomination. If this happened then we would again have a historic election as there would be two African-American candidates as the major party nominees. Should Obama win-his legacy as the nation’s 1st black president extends to a 2nd term. Should Cain win, then we would have consecutive black presidents representing both sides of the political spectrum, neither of whom had substantial experience coming into the Oval Office- a tantalizing situation for scholars of presidential politics. Would Cain’s presence on the ticket neutralize the race factor for Obama? Might it also help to neutralize it for the element of the TP that were (and in some cases still are) in the “birther movement?” Would Cain be able to pull any of the solidly Democratic black votes away from Obama or would it have the inverse affect of galvanizing the black vote like in ’08 as black voters become aware of Cain’s decidedly conservative social and economic positions? As far as the primary goes, the group was divided on whether Cain would be attractive to black voters. Statistics on the black vote show that 95+% of black voters cast their ballots for Democrats in most cases. However, if Cain was able to pull even 5% away from Obama it could be decisive in a few cases.
These issues and more are sure to be discussed in this week’s meeting on Thursday, October 6th at 2:15 in room 302 of Baldwin Hall. Be there or be square. However, I’ll be tailgating in the parking lot of Autzen Stadium in Oregon, so the nest 2 weeks will be blogged by a guest blogger. Should you have any interest in doing the blog for both or either of those weeks-please talk to Paul Gurian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)