ELECTIONATE AUGUST 6, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
According to conventional wisdom, a majority of voters are prepared to replace the President and are just waiting to determine if Romney will pass basic competence and viability thresholds. This reasoning is understandable and justifiable; Obama’s approval rating is beneath 50 percent, and he doesn’t hold 50 percent in the polls. While the Romney campaign espouses this view publicly, their ad strategy doesn’t align with that assessment of the race. Rather than build up their candidate’s image, the Romney campaign and their Super PAC allies have focused on attacking the President. That’s either a big mistake, or a sign that the Obama campaign is doing better than some think.
By all accounts, attacks on the President are unlikely to move the polls. Obama has been president for four years and a public figure for longer, so voters probably have a pretty settled impression of his character and performance. The stability of Obama’s approval ratings are highly consistent with an electorate that has largely made up its mind about the President. A recent poll even shows that the public knows it’s made up its mind: According to Pew Research, 90 percent of registered voters say they already know what they needed to know about Obama.
In contrast, Romney is largely undefined at this early stage, so emerging impressions are more malleable. Most voters know little about Romney, and a large number of Americans frequently indicate that they “don’t have an opinion” or are “undecided” about whether they have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the former Massachusetts Governor. The Pew Research poll, which showed that 90 percent of voters believe that they knew what they needed to know about Obama, reported that just 69 percent felt similarly about Romney. And research by the Vanderbilt/YouGov Ad Rating Project suggests that these numbers aren’t just abstractions. According to their analysis, attacks on Romney can cause plenty of independents to swing back into the undecided column, while attacks against Obama don’t move his numbers at all.
So voters are looking to learn more about Romney, but, for now, Obama and his allies are the only ones feeding them information. None of it especially flattering to Mr. Romney, so what’s Boston doing? I’ve been mulling this question since I first saw those Vanderbilt/YouGov numbers, and it’s a tough one. As a general rule, I am not inclined to assume that campaigns are simply making wildly unstrategic choices. While campaigns are prone to tactical errors, I would not expect a campaign to fundamentally miscalculate something as central as “should we attack Obama, or build up our own guy?”
What considerations undergird team Romney’s attacks on Obama? It’s worth recalling a New York Times piece from a few months ago on the soft tact taken by Crossroads. Based on focus groups conducted in Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Missouri, Crossroads concluded that harsh attacks against the President backfired. Undecided voters had deep reservations about his performance, but they were unmoved by especially ideological attacks because they liked him personally. As a result, Crossroads decided to run advertisements focused on Obama’s disappointing tenure as President. While that might seem simple enough, there’s a very important but implicit acknowledgement underlying that choice: These voters were not clamoring to fire Obama. Instead, Crossroads talked to very conflicted voters, and decided it was necessary to air advertisements that reinforced their disappointment. There were clearly plenty of undecided voters who were frustrated by Obama’s tenure, but they might not have been prepared to vote for someone else, at least at that point.
With that in mind, consider the counter-intuitive but rational explanation for Romney’s ad strategy: 50 percent of voters are not yet ready to vote against President Obama. While that might initially seem surprising, it’s not at all implausible and it might even be true. No, Obama’s approval rating isn’t above 50 percent. But you know what? His disapproval rating, something which gets less attention, isn’t above 50 percent, either. And a majority of voters usually say they have a favorable opinion of Obama. While it’s tempting to look at approval ratings at the expense of net-approval or favorability ratings, there’s a solid empirical relationship between all of them and election outcomes, and it might not be wise to unduly privilege any of these data points at the expense of others.
Are there alternative explanations? We’ve heard a few. One is that the Romney campaign thinks they have the race in the bag, so why do anything other than keep Obama pinned down with negative advertisements. Of course, in that scenario, the chance that Obama could disqualify their candidate would be the only way Romney would lose, so it’s unclear why Boston wouldn’t guard against that contingency. Another holds that the Romney campaign just doesn’t have a response to Bain. But that’s not a reason to avoid positive advertisements about Romney more generally, and there’s obviously a positive case to be made on Romney’s behalf, even if you don’t like it. It's also possible that Romney plans to build-up Romney's image, just later in the race. But given team Romney's financial advantage, it's unclear why they wouldn't start sooner—especially considering the risk of being defined early. Then again, Romney recently aired their first positive advertisements during the Olympics, so maybe they really did just miscalculate, only to realize now that low favorability numbers are putting the race in jeopardy.
Reading too far into campaign strategy isn’t always a good idea. But in this instance, the overwhelmingly negative character of team Romney’s early efforts requires an explanation. While the conventional wisdom holds that a majority of voters are simply looking for a viable alternative to the president, a broad set of evidence suggests it’s more complicated. On the other hand, if voters are really geared up to vote Obama out of office, then Romney should fire his staff for political malpractice. Failure to vigorously contest Obama’s negative advertising is endangering his chances.
11 comments
I agree -- going back in history, the candidates that succeeded in defeating incumbents -- Reagan, Clinton, Carter built their images up in the public eye. Carter campaigned as an honest reformer, Reagan radiated optimism and promised to restore American power, and Clinton focused on the economy and expressing concern for the middle class. All of these campaigns had a critique of the incumbent built-in to their arguments, but they started from the candidate's strengths (Reagan didn't just say that Carter was a weak, pessimist -- he portrayed himself as the opposite). I don't see that with the Romney campaign. We don't hear much about his business career, his personal bio or much about his gubernatorial term. David Plotz at Slate said that a doormat could beat the President because of the economy and that almost appears to be the Romney strategy -- to beat the president with nothing.
- PeteM
August 6, 2012 at 1:10pm
Nate, read your colleague Alex McGillis. What's Romney going to boast about? His religion? Nope, net negative. His business experience? While he still has to say that he wasn't around when the company he built pioneered outsourcing? His success? When he won't release his tax returns? (And what's up with the Swiss bank account?) The Olympics? After his trip to Britain? His term as governor of Massachusetts? After Obamacare? Really, what's the guy got except nice pictures of his family (so long as you can't see the car elevator)? Romney is completely boxed in. The remarkable thing isn't Obama's low polling, it's that Romney is polling as high as he is--presumably only because he's Not Obama.
- timteeter
August 6, 2012 at 1:33pm
"According to conventional wisdom"... Say what? According to CONSERVATIVE "conventional wisdom", sure, but leaving out that one word turns a distortion into "common knowledge". Conservatives would LIKE that to be "conventional wisdom". But last I looked, it's not the job of TNR to confirm Fox News propaganda. Frankly, I put Obama's less-than-majority approval ratings directly at the feet of Fox-News and Romney, who characterize an amazing turn-around and success of Keynesian stimulus as "A Failure". If the American Electorate knew what was good for it, it would be demanding expiration of the Bush Tax-Cuts for everyone, immediately. And would be champing at the bit to throw out those proud do-nothing Tea-Party know-nothings. Instead, we think we're choosing between a President who did too little, and a candidate who'll take us back to 2008 as fast as he can. This is not a happy choice, but certainly TNR shouldn't be on the side of Fox News by confirming it.
- AllanL5
August 6, 2012 at 2:00pm
Timteeter, I agree. He's boxed in. Bio--Hi, I'm a rich, privileged, Mormon. Bain--Hi, I'm a rich vulture capitalist with bank accounts all over the world so I don't have to pay taxes. Governorship--Hi, I invented Obamacare, but have changed my position on everything I stood for as governor. Family--Hi, I have five privileged boys, none have served in the military, and my wife enjoys dressage with her horse for which I took a 77k tax deduction. But by far the worst thing about Mitt as a candidate is that he is a gaffe prone, bumbling, rube, with the charm of a broom handle. Outside of his numbers crunching business world, he is simply stupid. Better to be lucky than to be good. And BHO is one lucky guy.
- Vogelfam
August 6, 2012 at 2:15pm
MacGillis is an excellent reporter, but his personal dislike for Romney sometimes is an impediment. I'd say the same for Chait. But Chait does repeatedly make a very good point: voters don't like Romney's policies (tax cuts for the wealthy, cuts in safety net programs, etc.). They may not know Romney (Nate Cohn) but those who do don't like his policies (Chait). If that's correct, then it makes perfect sense to focus on Obama rather than himself. [Similar to timteeter's comment.]
- rayward
August 6, 2012 at 2:20pm
Interesting post and discussion. Is it possible that the Romney camp simply feels that one or more of the factors and tactics are appropriate: most voters aren't paying much attention over the summer; they'll accordingly build up Romney and blast Obama later in the campaign, after Labor Day; that whatever attacks they have against Obama are best left for relatively late in the campaign, when they can perhaps dominate some news cycles and Obama won't have as much of a chance to rebut them; the "Romney as successful business man" strategy not having done so well, the campaign is still figuring out how to repackage him; that the repackaging might be presented in coordination with the announcement of the VP pick; and/or that Romney will do will enough in the debates to dispel enough folks doubts about him?
- Thunderroad
August 6, 2012 at 3:43pm
Then there is this from Chait from something Romney said, on video: The people of America recognize that the slowdown in jobs that occurred during the early years of the Bush administration were the result of a perfect storm. And an effort by one candidate to somehow say, 'Oh, this recession and the slowdown in jobs was the result of somehow this president magically being elected' -- people in America just dismiss that as being poppycock. All Obama and his team have to do is edit out the word Bush and run that video from here on out pointing out from the depths of the recession millions of new jobs have been created.
- blackton
August 6, 2012 at 4:13pm
Then there is this from Chait from something Romney said, on video: The people of America recognize that the slowdown in jobs that occurred during the early years of the Bush administration were the result of a perfect storm. And an effort by one candidate to somehow say, 'Oh, this recession and the slowdown in jobs was the result of somehow this president magically being elected' -- people in America just dismiss that as being poppycock. All Obama and his team have to do is edit out the word Bush and run that video from here on out pointing out from the depths of the recession millions of new jobs have been created.
- blackton
August 6, 2012 at 4:13pm
If they think the election's in the bag, I'm afraid it's because they plan to steal it. Otherwise, Romney is a very unlikeable character and his plans for America, Ryan's plans, and his stance on taxes, the so-called safety net - oy. He's such bad news.
- Sophia
August 6, 2012 at 4:38pm
Perhaps they realize that his bio is pretty weak. Rather than rolling out the "build him up" ads early on, where Team Obama could spend months gleefully tearing him back down, Team Romney plans to blast out the positive ads at very end in hopes that there will be no time remaining to dilute the bump. To succeed, this strategy would require Team Obama to forego their own attacks on Romney's character. That might have been a reasonable gamble given Obama's prior campaign. Alas, Team Obama did not cooperate with the strategy, and have been all alone in defining Romney to the electorate.
- mowencarp
August 6, 2012 at 4:53pm
I don't think Romney has an appealing story to tell. He was born into privilege, talks of privilege and advocates for government benefits for the privileged. When a woman speaks to her problem of paying for an education, he responds that she should go shopping as if her problem was not enough shopping for an education. Bush at least Bullsh*tted about "compassionate conservatism" and being "a reformer with results". Who can trust someone to balance the budget when they have overtly indicated their preference for the suffering of the underprivileged?
- Nusholtz
August 6, 2012 at 5:47pm