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.

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – June 6, 2012

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – June 6, 2012

Paul introduced us to the PollyVote website (http://pollyvote.forcastingprinciples.com) which provides a summary of predictive models for the Presidential election. The models at this point give Obama a slight edge (51.9 vs. 48.1), but it appears that it will be a very close election. We noted that it is very early to make conclusions. Campbell indicates that polls in June tend to be off by about 7.5% and that the lead of the frontrunner narrows about 2%. Dick Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan’s pollster, claimed that strategists assume that it will be close election. If it is to be a landslide, there is little that the campaigns can do to change the outcome. Thus, the strategists are looking how to ensure a narrow victory.

We then headed to a website we had visited earlier (www.270towin.com). The site has 217 electoral votes for Obama, 191 for Romney and 120 undecided (PA, NC, NV, FL, VA, OH. NH, CO, WI). We played with the model by coloring NC red and PA blue. That makes FL and OH critical states for Romney. There are few scenarios that give Romney the win without those two states.

We looked at the Gurian model based on past performance by party in federal elections 2000-2008, revised from that described in the May 2 post on this blog. He has 7 states leaning to the Republicans (NC, AZ, MO, VA, FL, OH, CO) and 11 to the Democrats (ME, WA, MI, OR, NM, WI, PA, MN, NH, NV, IA). The states for each party are listed from the most likely to win to the most problematic. The analysis puts CO as the pivot state, meaning it would put Romney over the top for winning the election if each party holds on to the leaners. Any win by Obama in one of the Republican leaners would lead to his victory if he holds on to all of his leaning states. In other words, it looks like an incredibly close Electoral College battle at this point. It is entirely possible that one candidate could win the popular vote and lose the election. Are you listening Al Gore?

Next we talked about the Wisconsin recall election and the implications for the Presidential contest. This morning Chuck Todd indicated on Morning Joe that there was little chance Wisconsin would put Romney over the magic 270, i.e. it would not be the pivotal state as discussed above. If Romney wins Wisconsin, he will win the election. He also suggested that Barrett was a poor candidate in that he allowed the Republicans to rerun the 2010 election and point the finger at the Democrats for being divisive. Another candidate might have been able to paint the Republicans as the divisive party. Another factor in favor of Walker was the money advantage which was not as much as advertised if you consider the labor money, but it was still an advantage. The role of extra money might portend the race in the Fall.    

The rest of the session was devoted to a grab-bag of topics. How much will the fairness/ envy issue play a role in deciding the election? The press is beating up Obama over his ads on Romney at Bain Capital. Many pundits say it is a losing strategy to bring up the wealthy, but attitudes against wealthy athletes, Tea Party resentment of Wall Street and the bailouts seem to suggest something else. Both candidates may be trying to excite their base before going after the Independent/ Swing voters. Also, the press narrative is that the campaign will be a very negative one, and the Obama ads are negative fitting into that narrative. We know who Obama is, but neither campaign to this point has been able to define Romney. We agreed that the Obama campaign has been ineffective to this point, and that Clinton has had both a positive and a negative impact on the Obama effort. The other thing that has been happening is that the negative ads the Obama campaign is running are affecting his likeablity scores. At the same time Romney is becoming more likeable. In this respect, Obama reflects Carter who went negative on Reagan and suffered as a result. Romney, however has been avoiding the mainstream media and seems to be getting away from it. He has not demonstrated Reagan’s ability to come across well when the media spotlight is on him. There was some suggestion that Obama might do better staying in Washington and looking Presidential. This year may not be the best one to be associated with Washington, and apparently Obama gets depressed when sequestered in the White House. He gets pumped up when he is out campaigning.

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May16, 2012

We started this week where we left off last week – gay marriage and its effect on the campaign. There are several questions arising from Obama’s announcement to support gay marriage last week. Was he out of his mind? Was it intentional and all pre-planned. Was Biden floating a trial balloon or did he disclose the campaign position prematurely? Particularly puzzling is the rollout of his pro-gay messages since his announcement such as his graduation address at Barnard College linking Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall in the battle for civil rights (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-cites-both-selma-and-stonewall-examples-what-young-people-can-do). Apparently he is trying to energize his base and improve his funding situation from the LGBT community. The evolved position is likely to appeal to some independents and young people, but is it an issue that will turn red votes blue or bring blue votes to the polls that would otherwise stay at home? It is almost like he is trying to use gay marriage as a wedge issue forcing Romney to avoid alienating the Log Cabin Republicans while not disappointing Gary Bauer and Rick Santorum who want to use the issue as a weapon.

Another sidelight of the media frenzy last week, is where it places Biden in the Obama campaign. He has been campaigning very hard in recent weeks. Considering his past history with brain aneurysms, will he be able to withstand the brutal schedule? If something happened to him, would there be a constitutional crisis in confirming a replacement via the 25th Amendment with the current environment in Washington? Is Biden’s schedule a confirmation of the administration’s confidence in him or is he auditioning for continuing on the ticket this Fall? If Obama decides that Biden is too much of a liability to continue on the ticket, how would he handle it? The obvious replacement would be Hillary Clinton. Ed Rendell was also mentioned as a possible replacement. Most at the table thought that replacing Biden would be perceived as a desperation move, but he might be that desperate by the convention.

A look at the numerous indicators of a victory in November for either party, it appears to be an election on the edge. Several indicators point to an Obama re-election while others suggest a likely defeat. Developments in the economy between now and the election, major national or international events, candidate performance on the trail or at the debates, and the Supreme Court decisions announced this summer are among the factors   could sway the election. Defining Romney is the most critical activity for both campaigns right now. The Republicans were very successful in defining Dukakis in 1988, but unsuccessful in defining Clinton in 1992. Republicans will be defining Romney as a successful businessman, competent manager, a man of faith and a family man. Democrats paint him as severely conservative, someone who likes to fire people and has no concern for the working class. The Bain Capital ads running now in selected markets are reminiscent of the Swift Boat ads. Romney’s likability ratings are improving once his major rivals have suspended their campaigns. Will he be able to improve on these ratings or at least hold on to them as the campaign goes on? Are his improved ratings due to the long-shot effects described by Bartels in Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4229.html)? Are some of his problems with the press due to his experience as a boss with little or no second-guessing of his decisions?

We also wondered what direction the Tea Party is going. It appears that they will vote against Obama in the general election but that they are funneling resources into Congressional races. Another curious development is the eruption of the debt-ceiling debate. We were not able to see how raising this issue now helps Obama, Boehner, or incumbents in Congress on either side of the aisle. It is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but there appears to be little will in Congress to really solve it. It also does not seem to be a decisive issue in the election relative to jobs.

Finally we talked about the bullying issue. It is a hot topic in suburbia with the recent movie release, and the story about Romney in high school may have some resonance. Democrats are saying that once a bully always a bully, while Republicans are asking to give them a break when compared to cocaine use and commie friends.   

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May 9, 2012

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May 9, 2012

We returned to the exercise we conducted in our April 4 session on assessing campaigns. There are four main factors that affect a campaign: the parties, the issues, candidate evaluation and the nature of the times. With respect to parties, Republicans appear to be getting behind Romney and the Democrats are behind Obama. The issues remain a mixed bag, but the issues don’t seem to make that much of a difference in most elections apart from party. For example, the American public is no longer supportive of the Afghanistan War. Obama’s stance is not popular, and Romney does not want to touch the issue. It is doubtful that many voters will decide their vote on the basis of Afghanistan. The candidate evaluation appears to favor Obama, while the nature-of-the-times favor Romney.  This analysis suggests that Obama needs to focus the campaign on candidates and the difference in the economy since 2008. Romney needs the focus of his campaign on the state of the economy in the last two years. Campaign themes should take into consideration these four factors. Successful campaign themes in the past have been Trust by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 and Hope and Change for Obama in 2008.  Obama’s theme this year is Forward that talks about not going back to the Bush years. Romney will settle on the jobs and the economy.

In getting a glance at tactics in the Fall campaign, it appears that Obama plans on setting small fires to get Romney distracted. To this point, Romney has not been good at avoiding the distractions. Two weeks ago it was on college loans. Romney tried pre-emption, but Obama commanded all the press with Romney’s statement noted as an after-thought. When the national campaign begins in earnest, Romney’s pre-emptive tactic may work better. Last week was the killing of bin-Laden anniversary. Romney took several positions during the week before trying to limit his damage. Obama was apparently sending a message to Romney that any criticism of current foreign policy will be met with overwhelming force. Romney’s quick criticism of the handling of the blind, Chinese dissident situation looks like it will turn out well for Obama. Romney may also come to regret the use of the need to be adding 500,000 jobs a month since the last time we accomplished that level was in 2010 during the Obama administration and it has only happened 10 times since 1950. See

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-10/romney-s-500-000-monthly-jobs-in-u-s-anything-but-normal.html

This week Romney failed to criticize the questioner who accused Obama of treason and claimed credit for the auto bailout. As we were meeting Obama stepped on the Romney bailout story by announcing his support of gay marriage. This announcement posed the question as to whether the Biden endorsement of gay marriage on Sunday was a trial balloon or a major gaffe. Another question raised was whether evolution on an issue amounts to a flip-flop.

There has been some indication that Romney is still fighting the primary battle rather than turning to the general election. The situation is ironic as he appeared to be turning to the general election during primary season and getting ambushed by Santorum. Part of his problem is that he never was the front runner until close to the end. The big task for each campaign right now is to define Romney. The Republicans want to define him as competent and experienced with the economy with the Democrats defining him as a rich flip-flopper. Experience did not work too well for Hillary Clinton in 2008. Romney seems to be running away some from his experience as he pushed for earmarks when turning around the Olympics and RomneyCare as his major accomplishment in his tenure as Massachusetts governor.  One of Romney’s surrogates suggested earlier this week that his economic plan was an update of the Bush plan, something that could benefit the Obama campaign. We stressed that it is early in the campaign, and not many people are paying that much attention now, but the moves now give us insight into what could happen in the future.

The elections this week may provide some glimpses. The NC results do not bode well for Obama’s gay-marriage position, particularly in a swing state. The IN results suggest that experience is not as important as ideology, owning a house in the home state, and age. The turnout in WI suggests a big battle in a month on the recall. The WV primary does not bode well for Obama flipping that state. The French election was anti-incumbent, anti-moderate and anti-austerity. Not good for Obama during the election nor for a President Romney in January. It was pointed out that Greece is experiencing real austerity, but France is just curbing increases in spending and not true austerity. Can Romney sell the Ryan budget as President or the Rubio immigration plan in the election and as President? Obama will be trying to make sure that he can’t.

If Obama and Romney have trouble energizing their bases, then money and volunteer time in swing states may be diverted to Congressional races. Questions raised included, “Do the Tea Party choices for Senate such as Murdock in IN and Mandel in OH damage Republican chances in November?” and “Will there be reverse coattails in swing states with close Senate races?” We also discussed the Independents or Swing Voters and whether there really are swing voters. The modelers such as Campbell and Abramowitz tend to limit the true swing vote to less than 10%, but wave elections suggest that voters swing. An interesting commentary on this topic appeared after the session in Larry Sabato’s newsletter 

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/do-independent-voters-matter/

We are pleased to report that the discussion was “frank and fruitful.”

Two books that were mentioned during the discussion are

Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. 2009. Regina Lawrence and Melody Rose.
https://www.rienner.com/title/Hillary_Clinton_s_Race_for_the_White_House_Gender_Politics_and_the_Media_on_the_Campaign_Trail

The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents. 2012. Linda Killian
http://www.tnr.com/book/review/swing-vote-untapped-power-independents-linda-killian

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May2, 2012

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – May2, 2012

Our session this week diverged from past sessions. We pulled up the site at www.270towin.com. It has an electoral map of the states. Any state that is at least leaning toward one party as designated by Real Clear Politics and Larry Sabato are designated red or blue accordingly. At present 23 states are designated red for a total of 191 electoral votes and 18 states plus DC are colored blue for a total of 227 electoral votes. That calculation leaves 9 swing states (NV, CO, IA, OH, PA, VA, NC, NH & FL) for 120 electoral votes that are up for grabs. We looked at possible states that could flip such as AZ & MO from red to blue and WI, MI, OR & MN which could flip from blue to red. We noted that WV has been reliably blue but is now solidly red. When both Democratic Senators announcing that they would have trouble voting for Obama, I guess we can’t expect much else from the state. By exploring some options we concluded that Obama wins if he can win 2 of the big 3 states (FL, OH, PA), and Romney needs 2 of those 3 plus VA to win.

Paul had a different prediction based on historical data of adjusted margins from the 2000, 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections by the two parties. The states with less than 10% margins in favor of the Republicans are NC (8.7%), AZ (8.4%), MO (4.7%), VA (2.9%), FL (1.9%), OH (1.1%) and CO (0.8%).  States favoring Democrats are MI (8.4%), OR (7.3%), NM (5.4%), WI (5.1%), PA (4.8%), MN (4.6%), NH ( 2.8%), IA ( 2.7%) and NV (2.7%). It is not a coincidence that all the swing states and all but MI that we listed above are included in the 16 states from Paul’s historical list.

The importance of this analysis is to see which states the campaigns and their superPACs will funnel their money. Early on, most if not all of the 16 states in the previous paragraph will be in play. Polling data will be used to see if other states will be targeted or if a campaign plans to pull out of that state. Most campaigns are interested in making sure they get to the 270 electoral votes. Some candidates look to roll up big majorities in the Electoral College to gain a mandate, but the campaigns are looking for the majority.

Romney’s choice for VP was discussed; Rob Portman and Marco Rubio were considered because of their ability to potentially bring their home states with them, both of which are critical swing states. It was debated whether Rubio would resonate with Latino voters generally, or if his appeal is limited to Cuban Americans. The consensus was for the latter. Also, Rubio seems to have a number of small issues that would be exposed during the vetting process, potentially dominating the news cycle for some time. Therefore, timing was considered; if Romney chooses Rubio early he can get the vetting process out of the way and continue campaigning, if he waits until just before the convention, the media won’t have as much time to research and scrutinize his past. Plus the media will have something else to cover, taking some of the focus from Rubio.

Portman seems like a much safer choice, but not necessarily the best one.
It was also suggested that Romney would benefit from choosing someone with a defense background, since that is one area where his campaign is lacking, and doing so could potentially help him win Virginia and Nevada. It is becoming clearer that Obama will play up his foreign policy accomplishments, and Romney will need someone to help him with defense conservatives. One strategy could be to continue pushing the narrative, “Obama is trying to distract you from the real issue – the economy”.

There was general consensus that Romney is still defining himself, that most aren’t following the campaign closely, and that because of this his VP choice is critical. Obama’s probable strategy was discussed - Call Romney a moderate or a radical conservative, forcing him to take a position and then labeling him a flip-flopper either way. “Trust” is the theme.  

UGA Presidential Discussion Group – April 25, 2012

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.  

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.

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.