ELECTIONATE JULY 2, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Last week’s health care decision is poised to join a long list of supposed game changers that failed to fundamentally reshape the race—from the death of Osama Bin Laden to Obama’s support for same-sex marriage.
Why haven’t historic events changed the election? None alter the fundamentals of the race: poor economic conditions have lodged Obama’s approval rating beneath 50 percent, but Romney has not yet consolidated the pool of voters with reservations about Obama’s performance, at least in part due to his own deficiencies. Big successes or failures can temporarily inflate or deflate Obama’s approval rating, but Obama’s approval ratings return to their moors as soon as attention returns to the lackluster recovery.
While fewer than 50 percent of voters approve of Obama’s performance, not all are willing to support Romney—at least not yet. To some extent, Romney’s low standing with respect to the pool of available voters is inevitable, since a relatively unknown challenger must persuade undecided voters of their capacity to handle the Presidency, and so early opposition to the President need not translate to early support for Romney. On the other hand, Romney’s poor favorability ratings suggest that his problem extends beyond the traditional barriers for a challenger.
What could change the game? Not ideological battles, like gay marriage or health care, which reinforce existing partisan divides and energize voters who have already cast their ballots. Economic growth could accelerate and send Obama’s approval ratings over 50 percent, or the recovery could falter and send Obama’s ratings lower, but my suspicion is that the country’s economic performance will be slow to change, if at all, and perceptions of Obama’s performance will be slow to change, as well. Effective campaigning could nudge Obama’s approval ratings slightly up or down, but changes will be marginal and difficult to attribute to specific events if stagnant economic and job growth continues.
But while opinions of Obama’s performance are unlikely to lurch decisively in any direction, attitudes toward the Republican nominee are malleable at this early stage. For that reason, reports about the effectiveness of the Bain attacks must be taken seriously. The attacks strike at the core of Romney’s business message and provide the foundation for additional attacks on Romney’s policy proposals and primary gaffes. While they are unlikely to break the race open, the Bain attacks could plausibly make a lasting difference, unlike the big but transient news of the last two months.
Are the Bain ads working? Rick Klein asserts that the Bain ads are propelling Obama ahead in the battlegrounds without similar gains nationally, but the evidence is inconclusive at this stage. Klein cites recent polls from Quinnipiac University showing Obama ahead in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, but previous Quinnipiac polls have showed Obama leading by an even larger margin in Pennsylvania and Florida. Obama’s 9 point advantage in Ohio is certainly impressive, but other pollsters tell a different story. A PPP poll released at the same time as Quinnipiac’s poll showed Obama’s lead dwindling from 7 to 3 percentage points over the last two months, while the previous poll from Purple Strategies showed Romney moving into the lead.
This doesn’t mean that the Bain ads aren’t working. There are relatively few recent state polls, so Quinnipiac could prove the first of many polls showing Obama with a real advantage in Ohio. The Romney campaign’s behavior, including an effort to get the Washington Post to retract a Bain outsourcing story and an advertisement featuring Hillary Clinton decrying Obama’s attack ads in the 2008 primary, suggests that the Romney campaign believes it is necessary to more vigorously contest the Bain attacks.
Even if Obama doesn’t gain a decided advantage in the battlegrounds, the Bain ads might still be working. The Obama campaign does not need undecided voters to decide to shift to Obama in June, although Chicago might consider that optimal. Instead, the Bain attacks only need to reinforce existing unfavorable perceptions of Romney among undecided voters. This might not show up in the head to head polls in July, but it could in November. In that respect, the Bain advertisements are more significant than the supposed game changers of the last two months.
13 comments
Aren't some of the "game changers"--support for gay marriage and DREAM Lite, in particular--really more about turnout? I doubt that anyone on or off the Obama campaign thought that either intervention would give the president any boost in the polls. It's more about drawing a clear contrast between himself and Romney and working to encourage a few more Dem-leaning young people and Latinos to the polls.
- AaronW
July 2, 2012 at 9:27pm
If only the average voter were more educated on economics, he or she would know that success in handling a business does not translate to success in handling a national economy. Corporations, even international ones, have only a fraction of the variables to deal with that a government involved with the world's largest economy and the world economy in general has to consider. Corporations are concerned with microeconomics and governments are involved in macroeconomics. Governing a business, even a large one, is much simpler and easier than handling a national and world economy. Romney is not qualified to even get near a national economy. He keeps promising to deregulate Wall Street to the point that G.W. Bush did and let Wall Street criminals run wild again. And as Outsourcer-in-Chief he would punctuate the cataclysmic economic disaster he would bring upon America by slapping American employees in the face. If only the majority of American voters were more educated on economics! But the Bain ads are still working to some extent. There's hope.
- magboy47.
July 2, 2012 at 10:04pm
While it's way too early to call anything a game-changer, the Bain ads may feed into an anti-Romney message that extends beyond his economic competence and policies. The ads are also about Romney as an elitist, as someone who can't relate to ordinary Americans, as the same kind of guy as the Wall Street types who got us into this mess. In addition to the economy, the election may substantially hinge on whether and to what extent Obama can portray Romney in this way. The Bain ads fuel that image.
- Thunderroad
July 3, 2012 at 1:38am
I don't know. I wouldn't be so sure that the Bain angle is all that profitable. If you're going to go Bain make it later in the campaign as to avoid that angle being overcome and turning a liability into an asset. There are some practical successes that if given time to educate hazard the chance of Romney being able to showcasing from a platform that he has some claim of bona fides and competence. Giving him the opportunity to showcase intellectual authority from a comfortable position is something to be avoided. Yes. The whole country clubber nineteenth hole, not a hair out of place, pantywaist, never have I ever really been hungry for lack of resources kind of image is a liability but giving him a chance to explain and justify his activities at Bain might invite a nice little ju-jitzu opportunity. The guy really is better in the clinches than he gets credit for.
- jacko
July 3, 2012 at 7:18am
being able to showcase from a platform...... that should read.
- jacko
July 3, 2012 at 7:28am
jujitsu..... My editor is on vacation....
- jacko
July 3, 2012 at 9:36am
Actually, jacko, I don't think anyone is saying Romney is not reliable "in the clinches". He's done phenomenal work. It's just, if you take a closer look at the mountain of work he's produced, some startling details emerge, some of them rather unpleasant.
- GSpinks
July 3, 2012 at 12:01pm
Well alright GSpinks. All that I can say is that the way that he pounced upon the May unemployment numbers was quite impressive. If that was a little peek at what he is capable of I'm afraid he is going to show much better than I would have expected. Much to my surprise the guy has some chops. Heck, he won't even have to lie..... too much...... while painting a noble picture of his involvement at Bain. Opening the opportunity for Romney to properly school us about Bain does have its hazards. That's all I'm saying. It can flip and make the Obama campaign look dishonest. Of course these things are always at stake in political races.
- jacko
July 3, 2012 at 12:44pm
On the other hand, we could discuss his offshore accounts, his current income and his (ahem) taxes. Or lack thereof! Anyway, why this obsession with business? Is America a business? Reading the NYT about the privatization of government functions and the abuses stemming therefrom - including jailing people for inability to pay ever increasing fines, fees, fees on the fines, we really ought to be attacking (and suing) on these issues. I really think there's a fundamental conflict of interest therein; government isn't supposed to be run at a profit.
- Sophia
July 3, 2012 at 3:13pm
Believe it or not Sophia I do have a degree of sympathy with your sentiments. Not so much the offshore accounts or income or even lack of taxes. He isn't cheating. You better believe that if he were the IRS would demand its pound of flesh. Ostensibly those tax breaks are a legislatively provisioned channelling of funds on the proposition that investments to these favored ends is good for the economy or a developing economic interest.I really don't have a problem with the concept or the execution. Many parts of the accounting tax structure is designed to facilitate risk taking and advantaging the growth that comes with successful adventures. Now if we give Romney an opportunity to play on that turf in the campaign he is going to hold his own quite well. Obama has his own strengths in this regard. Much to my surprise he and his administration handled the historic 08-09 bank and investment meltdown as well as one possibly can. I give him serious props on this count. It was a problem that required some real grownups to prevail. They took care to say and do ( both were important and necessary. there wasn't any room for a Clintonesque 'we'll fix it later) all of the right things under the fluid and hazard filled circumstances. Umm. You can go populist but I think there is a stronger plan.
- jacko
July 3, 2012 at 4:19pm
<<<<<<<<<<<<< Many parts of the accounting tax structure is designed to facilitate risk taking and advantaging the growth that comes with successful adventures>>>>>> Gee, I wish that were true. The accounting tax structure is actually designed to reward the people who are already piggishly wealthy, while providing a fig leaf of risk/reward for them to hide behind. The riskiest position to be in during a Bain restructuring was on the company payroll, and the second riskiest place to be was to be an unsecured creditor. The Bain guys made out like bandits, even when their restructuring plans failed. As usual, the scandal is in what was legal, not what was illegal. Obama would do well by pointing out what a corrupt system this is. Unfortunately, he can't go after it too vigorously, because the system's beneficiaries inhabit his own party as well as the GOP. I'd love to hear him speak upp about FDR's "malefactors of great wealth" except I'd use a different MF word.
- gwcross
July 3, 2012 at 5:02pm
If average voters had better understanding of economics they might realize that in a global market environment you cannot long preserve either businesses or jobs that do not remain competitive. The companies and workers that either disappeared or prospered because of Bain would have had the same eventual fate if there had been no Bain. The best thing that Romney could do is to tell voters the facts of economic life: the old jobs aren't coming back, you are competing in a global job market in an increasingly automated world and only successful businesses offer the hope of good private sector employment. Electing a successful businessman as president might not be such a bad idea.
- rvogel
July 3, 2012 at 6:28pm
Except, rvogel, that entrenched corporations and industries also don't want to adapt to change - look at oil for example, the GOP's hysterical anti-science position with regard to global warming and their assertion that EPA "kills jobs," whereas rational people believe that breathing is a prerequisite to jobs and that energy should evolve into a sustainable model (or else). So, the "facts of economic life" must also include corporations and industries AND there is also an argument to be made for the support and creation of new jobs if old ones are lost, not to mention the fact that both government and industry have a responsibility to citizens and workers within their borders. Thus WPA type programs addressing real problems: energy, infrastructure, science, education and the arts are not only vital but desirable - leaving all to the "free market" results in catastrophic situations like the one confronting so many American workers today (which means the country, doesn't it - most of us aren't in the 1%.) Also, I don't think it's particularly admirable for companies to make money from the suffering of others.
- Sophia
July 4, 2012 at 4:26pm