PLANK JULY 17, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In the eyes of the media and most political observers, the past week has been a large negative for Mitt Romney. After all, they say, each day spent talking about Romney’s record at Bain rather than Obama’s record on job creation is a plus for the Obama campaign. That’s Chapter 1 of the negative campaigning manual, and it sounds completely plausible.
The difficulty is that, thus far, it’s surprisingly difficult to find evidence that this exchange is changing voters’ minds. In the first place, the national tracking polls haven’t budged. One could argue, of course, that those surveys aren’t the right place to look, because the Obama campaign’s advertising has focused on the swing states; one might then counter, however, that the story went national very quickly because the free media took it over and amplified it many-fold.
But for the sake of argument, let’s accept the proposition that the swings states are ground zero for the Ban controversy. What are people in those states thinking?
The latest Purple Poll, released on July 16, offers some insight. Across the 12 swing states, Obama leads Romney 47 to 45, essentially unchanged from last month’s 48 to 46. Among independents in those states, Romney’s edge stands at 5 points, essentially unchanged from his 6-point edge a month ago.
This month’s survey broke out four states—Florida, Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio. Here’s how they stand: Florida, 48-45 Romney; Colorado, 45-44 Obama; Virginia, 46-44 Obama; Ohio, 48-45 Obama. Of the four, Ohio appears to be the swingiest: two months ago, Obama led by 5 points; a month ago, Romney led by 3; today, Obama leads by 3.
What about new information, and how is it affecting the voters’ views of the candidates? Sixty-two percent of voters say they’ve heard new information about Romney during the past month. That sounds ominous for the Republican candidate. But then again, 60 percent say they’ve heard new information about Obama. 38 percent say the new information is making them less favorable toward Romney, which sounds bad, but even more—40 percent—say it’s making them less favorable toward the president.
It’s not hard to guess what news swing state voters have been getting about Romney. But the survey makes it clear that the news they’re getting about Obama centers on the economy, and they don’t think the news is good. As recently as March, 39 percent of swing state voters believed that the economy was getting better. Today, only 28 percent feel that way, while the share of voters who think it’s getting worse has moved up to 42 percent. During that same period, the share of wing state voters with an unfavorable view of Romney declined from 56 to 49 percent, while those with a favorable view went from 29 to 41 percent. During the past month, as the Bain attacks have intensified, Romney’s unfavorables haven’t budged.
As of today, anyway, the voters in these key states are balanced on a knife’s edge. Forty-six percent believe that Obama is unable to improve the economy, while 45 percent doubt that Romney could do a better job. Forty-four percent think that Obama is a failure as president; 44 percent think that Romney is too out of touch to be president.
The following is a summary of key state findings:
Colorado
Virginia
Ohio
Florida
Obama job approval
45
45
46
43
Romney favorable
37
41
37
47
Obama a failure
44
42
45
50
Romney too out of touch
45
42
46
41
BHO can’t improve economy
46
47
45
50
Romney couldn’t do better
45
43
46
40
News less favorable for BHO
42
39
40
44
News less favorable for Mitt
42
37
38
33
Of these four crucial states, Romney is clearly strongest, and Obama weakest, in Florida. Indeed, I’d be willing to bet that Romney will carry the state in November.
But that’s only a necessary condition for the success of his campaign. There’s a narrow path that leads to Obama’s reelection without passing through Ohio; there’s no such path for Romney. No Republican has ever been elected president without carrying Ohio, and Romney won’t be the first. The Obama campaign understands that if they can keep that state out of Romney’s hands, they win, and the president has just about taken residency there.
Meanwhile, the Romney campaign needs to decide what to do about the Bain attacks. I know nothing about debates among his top advisors. But sight unseen, I’d bet that some are citing statistics along the lines of the ones I’ve presented to argue for a steady-as-you-go strategy. “This isn’t hurting you among real voters,” they may well be saying, “and the media fire will fizzle out for lack of new oxygen. So why add fuel by releasing more tax returns?” Other advisors, though, could argue that the costs of downplaying the danger could be very high if the optimists have guessed wrong. “Remember Dukakis and the Pledge of Allegiance?” they can ask. “Remember Kerry and the Swift boats?” Refute the Bain allegations now, whatever it takes, and then pivot to the offensive.
In the past week, we’ve learned that the Romney campaign was not adequately prepared to reply to a charge they must have known was coming. In the week to come, we’ll learn a lot more about the gut judgments that Romney brings to the fray.
27 comments
I think Romney always anticipated the Bain issue, had nothing and has nothing in response.
- Nusholtz
July 17, 2012 at 1:46pm
It's too early to judge the success of Obama's "Bain" strategy. It has already prompted Republican quips of "Swiss-boating". It has put them on the defensive. Romney's evident history of all-too-clever tax sheltering and simple unwillingness to reveal his pre-2010 tax returns are quite egregious and deserve exposure and attack. The tax avoidance issue is potentially more damaging than the question of when he actually left Bain.
- amidut
July 17, 2012 at 2:04pm
Among the things that political genius Galston fails to know or understand is how many repetitions it takes in order to make a meme stick. Just a part of why he is a political failure. Let's hope that the Romney campaign takes Galston's advice, steady as she goes, doesn't release any more tax returns, etc. As long as Romney follows Galston, he is dead meat. I mean, as long as anyone follows Galston's political advice he is dead meat. Romney is no exception. As amidut points out, the tax avoidance and Bain shenanigans are all of a piece. Repeat, repeat, repeat and the meme will form and stick.
- roidubouloi
July 17, 2012 at 2:18pm
Just imagine if managing a political campaign were as simple as Glaston imagines: "Say X. Read tomorrow's polls. See bump or not. If bump, repeat X. If not, say Y."
- roidubouloi
July 17, 2012 at 2:20pm
Either candidate may be happy to win any state by any margin that avoids a recount. Long live the electoral college. Mr. Mitt's instruction for the day is "never leave home without your fire extinguisher". Expect more from Mr. Mitt as the campaign goes on.
- Doug12
July 17, 2012 at 2:22pm
I would argue that the data presented demonstrates precisely that the Bain attack probably IS working. Given the miserable job picture and the lousy economy overall, BHO should be sinking like a stone. He's not. Nobody thinks these ads will produce a landslide. BHO is extremely vulnerable, any way you cut it. These make him credible, when otherwise he would not be. Also, the impact is going to be cumulative. The ads are defining Mitt. This will be absorbed over time, especially by the swing low info voters. Like everyone, I enjoy a good contrarian piece, it just happens to be faulty analysis. Also, the reaction of the pundits is irrelevant. Ordinary people don't listen to them. What will have an impact is the cumulative repetition of the attack over mainstream media outlets. It's way, way early to indicate the final impact. Propaganda works through repetition. Recognition of the basic psychology at play here is in order.
- Vogelfam
July 17, 2012 at 2:29pm
In the main I agree with Galston. I recall more than one Presidential election where Stephen Hart interviewed a focus group of voters pre and post election. The majority in every case expressed their preference having been based on their assessment of the candidate's prospects of making a difference in the next four years, to improve (yes, stupid) the economy.
- Tgossard
July 17, 2012 at 3:20pm
Oh, it's working all right. Sununu has just called Obama "unAmerican," for all intents and purposes. This is a slander of last resort.
- Sophia
July 17, 2012 at 3:44pm
Sorry, TG, but these sorts of self-reports are wildly unreliable. Of course this is what people are going to say. They all want to be seen as serious people who are thinking about the welfare of the country and important stuff. No one is going to say, Sure, I responded to name-calling and incendiary attacks. PLUS the framing becomes the background within which people interpret the "issues." Once you successfully hang your frame on the other guy, then the interpretation of the issue disagreements falls your way, and people think they are responding to the issues when they are not. Obama is doing just the right thing. He needs to drill it in and find every possible bit of "evidence" that can be used to support the same meme. This is how real politics is played in America for some time now. Galston has been living in a political fantasy world of his own making at least since the Mondale campaign and probably long before that.
- roidubouloi
July 17, 2012 at 4:18pm
roid: "Among the things that political genius Galston fails to know or understand is how many repetitions it takes in order to make a meme stick. Just a part of why he is a political failure. Let's hope that the Romney campaign takes Galston's advice, steady as she goes, doesn't release any more tax returns, etc. As long as Romney follows Galston, he is dead meat. I mean, as long as anyone follows Galston's political advice he is dead meat. Romney is no exception. As amidut points out, the tax avoidance and Bain shenanigans are all of a piece. Repeat, repeat, repeat and the meme will form and stick." Exactly. Lots of voters, particularly low information voters, choose on the basis of who they like more (or dislike less). The meme the Obama team is building establishes Romney as stylistically a Richie Rich removed from everyday Americans' realities (unlike George Bush, whom for all of his faults people felt they could have a beer with) and substantively as one of the guys who got us into the economic mess to begin with. I also think that Vogelfam makes a good point in that in view of the economic news it's surprising that Obama isn't sinking in the polls. In any event, expect Obama to keep hammering away on these themes, regardless of whether Romney's Bain track record remains the specific focus. The whole tax issue remains to be heavily mined, either due to Romney refusing to release his returns or what will come out if he does release them.
- Thunderroad
July 17, 2012 at 4:21pm
Galston is dead wrong, I remember Perry maintained his high poll numbers for quite a while until the bottom fell out for him...TNR itself was puzzled how Perry seemed to be idiotproof of his own idiocy. Granted I don't think the bottom will fall out for Romney, I know a lot of people would vote for Satan himself over Obama, so expect big poll swings is unrealistic, what Obama is doing is making pulling the lever for Romney untenable for a lot of people who might have voted for Romney, who might just go 3rd party or skip the vote altogether. And what the hell does Galston imagine Obama should do instead? Make Romney toxic is the best strategy, and if the job numbers perk up then Obama can pivot to winning Congress too. If the economy craters, well we are all pretty much screwed anyhow, and might as well let Romney go down with the ship.
- blackton
July 17, 2012 at 5:19pm
"In the eyes of the media and most political observers, the past week has been a large negative for Mitt Romney. " -- You know, this is not the strongest recommendation for your title "New Proof that the Bain Attacks Aren't Working". In fact, by contradicting your title in the very first paragraph of your article, you reveal an amazing amount of chutzpah by selecting that title at all. In fact, your last few articles have worked so hard to turn cherries into lemons, that I wonder what you'd do if you actually DID get some truly negative data. Give it a rest, go on vacation, do something totally unrelated to politics. Then in September you can come back with your doom-and-gloom position, and it might make more sense then.
- AllanL5
July 17, 2012 at 5:25pm
roidubouloi-- I agree: it's way too early to tell if the attacks on Romney this past week are working. The Obama campaign is laying the groundwork for a general perception about Mitt that may eventually become common among a large chunk of swing state voters: that the GOP nominee is not to be trusted, that he's a tax evader, that his company shifts jobs overseas, that the one supposed asset he brings to the table (his years as a successful businessman at Bain) is tainted, that he is lying--either to us or to the SEC--about his involvement with Bain. This is similar to what happened to Kerry when he was hit early in the election year, and didn't respond. The attacks on his character took hold after months of endless repetition, and Kerry couldn't fight his way out of the general perception which had been imposed upon him. The same thing may happen to Mitt, especially if he does nothing, and lets the attacks stand. In fact, Romeny is already backing away from his involvement with Bain--in other words, he's distancing himself from the one major asset he's touted throughout the primaries. Which, one might argue, is at least one early sign that the attacks may have already started to work.
- BenNevis
July 17, 2012 at 9:08pm
Don't believe Romeny's people aren't responding (and of course add to that the pube slime machine is pouring more fuel on the fire). I keep seeing TV ads locally bashing Obama's truthfulness with the ads stopping barely short of calling him a liar. And to top it off they have Hillary Clinton from the 2008 campaign with the famous 'Shame on you Barack Obama!' video clip. At least this time the Democrat isn't a pushover like the Galston and his ilk would have them play. I hope the Obama campaign's hardball gets harsher, Mittens deserves nothing less.
- tmmats
July 17, 2012 at 10:18pm
Bill Galston, the poor man's Joe Lieberman.
- AlanVann
July 17, 2012 at 11:03pm
Galston is a closet PUMA. What a clown - TNR should be embarrassed by the monotony of the failed Slate pitches it keeps publishing from him.
- misterpibb
July 17, 2012 at 11:13pm
This misses much of the point of these attacks, which is not to move poll numbers now. Romney needs to convince small numbers of undecided voters, who tend to consciously tune into the campaign late in the game, to shift to him. His main selling point is his prowess as a businessman. These attacks are making it all but impossible for Romney to utter the word "Bain" or mention what he did in the business world without triggering negative images in the minds of voters and sparking skeptical questions from journalists. It also sets the frame for Obama to paint Romney's policy proposals as being of a piece with rigged über-capitalism for the greedy .001%. Moreover, Romney's squirrely answers about retirement fit with his record of saying anything politically convenient and taking both sides of issues, to make him look decidedly unpresidential. Galston is looking at the speck of road directly in front of his toes, and the Obama campaign is looking at the whole path from feet to the shiny goal on the horizon.
- interloper
July 18, 2012 at 4:27am
More proof that Galston doesn't understand the electorate very well. Roid has a good example of how facile this utterly poll driven thinking is. Which might explain Galston's rather dismal record of political success. The Bain ads, now distributed far from their targeted markets by the news and talking head shows, are getting people to pay attention. Up until now you would not have thought there was an election coming if you talked to anyone but a political junkie. Now people are interested. These ads are just going to be the teaser to start the conversation, define the frame and put Romney on the defensive. Check, check and check.
- Nari224
July 18, 2012 at 7:11am
Sure the Bain attacks might appear to have little affect at this particular moment in the election cycle with regards to poll numbers but remember, the focus of these attacks is not to convince your base to vote for you but to persuade the undecided voter that Romney is bad for America. Convincing the UV "that IF you vote for Romney this is what he will to do you, us, America - run up the debt with tax cuts for the rich, cut services for the middle class and poor, force us into bankruptcy and then sell it off in pieces to the highest bidder. He'll out-source America instead of investing in America's future. Romney isn't for investing in America, Romney is for investing elsewhere like his Swiss bank accounts, off-shore tax havens, and exotic tax sheltering capabilities so that he doesn't have to be a responsible citizen." "Romney doesn't tell us what he's for, he tells us what he's against. He's against everyone having access to health insurance. He's against the wealthy paying their fair share. He's against America investing in a cleaner, safer future for our children and grandchildren. Romney...bad for you, bad for us, bad for America."
- singlspeed
July 18, 2012 at 11:28am
I tend to put more stock in Nate Silver and in this case, I think he is more accurate; http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/is-romney-overreacting-to-bain-attacks/
- miceelf
July 18, 2012 at 12:43pm
The question is not whether the attacks are generating a large Obama lead, but whether they are preventing a Romney surge. After the crappy June jobs and manufacturing report, I expecting Romney to take 3-5 point lead that Obama would have to chip away at with his convention, the debates etc. Instead, Obama is holding onto leads in the swing states, and in some cases his lead is increasing. In the national polls, there were number showing Mitt up 1-3 points a few weeks ago, and now the opposite is true. If nothing else the Bain/tax returns debate distracts attention from the economy/Europe etc.
- PeteM
July 18, 2012 at 1:11pm
Interloper has it exactly right. Obama is salting the ground to prevent a gradual buildup of Romney's popularity over time. He's making it impossible for Romney to slowly "introduce himself" to the part of the electorate that doesn't pay attention until after the conventions, or after Labor Day. Combine this with a pissing match in Tampa over whether Palin gets to speak and what she gets to say, and you have a magic formula for electoral disaster. Just remember back a few years how well the "culture war" speeches at the GOP convention of 1992 played with the American public. Landslides start with a slow cracking of weakened soil. Bold prediction--Obama wins the electoral college by a margin of at least 100 votes. Possibly takes every top 10 state except Texas.
- gwcross
July 18, 2012 at 1:23pm
In my gut, I know this piece is right, and that people don't want or expect this kind of irrelevant mud-slinging campaign from a sitting president. (Romney, of course, is only making it worse for himself by his bumbling and guilty-sounding responses.) Still, it's hard to believe these minute, statistically insignificant changes or non-changes actually prove anything.
- mlottman
July 18, 2012 at 1:26pm
Of course, mlottman, these would be the same "people" who didn't want the "irrelevant mud-slinging campaign from a sitting president" against John Kerry in 2004? Or not? I'm confused. Or perhaps you just don't like it when Democrats get a handle on the opponent's strong point that turns out to be a weak point?
- ironyroad
July 18, 2012 at 3:37pm
People both want and expect what the political pundits consider "irrelevant mudslinging." Contra Galston, they are not much interested in policy, it bores them to tears. They want to know whether they guy they vote for "gets them" and will therefore do what they want done if they knew enough to know what they want done which they know enough to know they don't. There are a bunch of means of signalling that the candidate "gets it" and the other guy doesn't. This is a big piece of what framing is about. The other piece is persuading the public that the issues on which you are strongest are the ones they care about most, that these are the issues that the campaign is "about." If you have successfully framed the other guy and the issues you want as being those that matters, you win, regardless of the specifics about which the public cares not at all. The winner of the framing battle magically sees the public interpretation of issues, and pretty much everything else, fall his way. Victory is then a foregone conclusion. Once the framing battle is won by one side or the other, then the polls will suddenly shift and the battle is actually over as it is too late for the loser of the framing battle to recover. This happens time after time in the course of campaigns. While the framing battle is still being fought, you don't see much movement, or you see very erratic movement. This also happens time after time and is the reason why Galston's article is silly. I do find it hard to believe that anyone who has been involved in political life as long as Galston could be so thoroughly ignorant about the way political rhetoric, political communications, and election campaigns actual work or fail to work.
- roidubouloi
July 18, 2012 at 6:22pm
"Proof"?
- subterra
July 19, 2012 at 6:28pm
LOL
- subterra
September 26, 2012 at 11:21am