PLANK JULY 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
In my continuing search for evidence that the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital are significantly changing the presidential race, I reviewed three surveys released in the past 24 hours. Once again, there are few signs that it has—so far.
Consider first the latest CBS/NYT national survey, which shows Romney leading Obama 47 to 46. In both April and May, this survey gave Romney 46 percent of the popular vote. In short, there has been no statistically significant movement in Romney’s support during the past three months.
But the underpinnings of his campaign have improved somewhat. Three months ago, only 27 percent of the people thought that Romney says what he believes most of the time. Today, that’s up 10 percentage points to 37 percent—not great, but moving closer to Obama’s 45 percent. During that period, the share of the electorate professing confidence that Romney’s policies would improve their own financial situation rose from 28 to 32 percent. By contrast only 26 percent believe that Obama’s policies would improve their lot, while 39 percent say that they would make it worse. When voters are asked which candidate they think would do a better job dealing with the economy and unemployment, 49 percent say Romney, versus 41 percent for Obama.
Other indicators have moved against the president as well. April’s CBS/NYT gave the president a 48 percent job approval, versus 42 percent disapproval. Today, that measure stands at 44-46. During that same period, the share of the electorate that thinks the country is on the wrong track rose from 61 to 64 percent while the percentage believing that the economy is getting better declined from 33 to 24 percent. Not surprisingly, the share approving of Obama’s handling of the economy declined from 44 to 39 percent. In an intriguing finding, as of last fall only 41 percent of the voters thought that a president could do “a lot” about the condition of the economy, while 53 percent regarded it as “beyond a president’s control.” Now that has reversed, with 51 percent saying that the president can do a lot and only 40 percent taking a more fatalistic view.
The bulk of the anti-Romney advertising has run in swing states, so if it’s working, one would expect to see the evidence there if anywhere. A bipartisan team (Democracy Corps and Resurgent Republic) has just released a national survey with a swing-state oversample. As of now, the survey finds, Obama leads Romney 47-45 nationally while the swing states are in a dead heat, 46-46. And more detailed questions suggest that the underpinnings of the president’s support may not be as solid in the swing states as they are elsewhere. For example:
Nationally, the right track/wrong track measure stands at 32/60; in the swing states it’s 31/65.
The president’s job national job approval/disapproval stands at 49/48; in the swing states it’s 48/49.
Finally, the president’s signature Affordable Care Act—an important issue for many voters—enjoys significantly less support in the swing states than elsewhere. Nationally, the survey finds 43 percent approve, while 48 percent disapprove. In the swing states it’s worse: 39 for, 52 against. And the survey shows that swing state voters are less likely than others to respond affirmatively to Obama’s strongest arguments in favor of the legislation.
Capping this trio of surveys is the latest Quinnipiac poll on Virginia, one of a handful of evenly poised states whose votes will determine the winner of this year’s election. In March, Obama led Romney 50 to 42 percent. In June, it was 47 to 42. Today it’s a dead heat, 44-44. Since March, the share of Virginia voters with a favorable view of the president has fallen from 51 to 46 percent, while his job approval has fallen from 49 to 45 percent. Only 47 percent of Virginians think that he deserves to be reelected (down from 49 percent), while those who don’t have risen from 47 to 50 percent of the electorate. In March, 47 percent thought that Obama would do a better job handling the economy, versus 45 percent for Romney. Now it’s Romney who leads, 47 to 44 percent. There is a single piece of evidence that Obama’s attacks might be having some effect: the share of Virginians with an unfavorable view of Romney has risen from 37 to 42 percent over the past month. But as we’ve seen, this shift hasn’t noticeably affected Romney’s electoral support.
There are two kinds of argument the Obama campaign could make to deflect these findings. First, they could offer a boxing analogy: The Bain attacks are designed as body blows, not knock-out punches. Although the adversary remains on his feet and appears undamaged, in fact he has been weakened and made more vulnerable in the later rounds of the bout. How do we know? Because experience shows that’s the way the sport works. To this point, it would be useful for the Obama team to offer examples from presidential elections over the past few decades that actually followed this arc—that is, attacks that had no measurable effects for a month or more but that ended up making a difference.
Second, the Obama team could offer a counterfactual claim: Without the Bain attacks, the negative effects of the slowdown in growth and jobs would have been even worse. Maybe so, but it’s hard to see how we’ll ever know. Perhaps this is where politics leaves off and religion begins. After all, we read, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
11 comments
The concluding sentences in the NYT article about the CBS/NYT national survey: "Asked which candidate they believed would do a better job handling the economy and unemployment, 49 percent said Mr. Romney, 41 percent Mr. Obama. The drop in Mr. Obama’s economic approval ratings is consistent with a downturn in the percentage of Americans who believe the economy is getting better. While 33 percent said they saw improvement in April, 24 percent say they do now. Nearly half of voters say the current economic plight stems from the policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, which most voters expect Mr. Romney would return to." WHAT!
- rayward
July 19, 2012 at 3:00pm
I suppose Obama should immediately pivot to demanding a deficit deal.
- subterra
July 19, 2012 at 3:10pm
Polls are undeniably interesting to a campaign. Mother's milk and all that. Campaign strategies can be created from facts leeching out of recent poll data. Depending on the content of the polls, a campaign might decide to discourage or encourage voting. But I wouldn't know how to do that so I don't expect to work for a political campaign.
- Doug12
July 19, 2012 at 3:28pm
Look at the Swift Boat attacks on Kerry in the summer of 2004 and see if they had an impact on his favorability -- turns out, they did not have one at all. Come September 2004, Kerry started falling behind and stayed there as the Swift Boat criticism sunk in with swing voters and the Bush re-elect amplified it by tying it to actual policy. So let's all revisit the Bain attacks in two months, after Obama has tied them to Romney's positions on Cut, Cap and Balance and the Ryan budget. After all, the Obama campaign isn't expecting Bain attacks to move the needle now, so why should anyone else?
- wildboy
July 19, 2012 at 3:50pm
I agree with wildboy. Unanswered negative attacks sink in slowly. This happened both with Kerry and, recently, Gingrich, who were both lulled into a false sense that the attacks were not working and didn't see the need to respond to them. Then, when the next strong punch lands and a candidate tries to get his footing, they stumble and fall.
- Nusholtz
July 19, 2012 at 4:12pm
As a physician and medical-microbiologist-in-training who is used to basing his recommendations on statistical science, reading these poll-focused posts of Galston's is frustrating. What would it mean for the Bain attacks to "work"? Galston seems to think that if the attacks were working, Obama's favorability ratings would be trending upward and he would be attracting more support in opinion polls, but how could that possibly be the case? The point of the attacks--of ANY attack--is to dampen enthusiasm for one's opponent. The fact that Obama's numbers have slid--in tandem with confidence in the economy as WG aptly notes--says exactly nothing about whether or not the Bain attacks are working. Are they working? I wouldn't presume to conclude so, but on the basis of the data presented here, I wouldn't presume to conclude that they aren't.
- AaronW
July 19, 2012 at 5:21pm
Aaron, thanks for your comment. Galston's poll-based conclusions are incredibly frustrating, and consistently lack any understanding of what statisitics can or cannot show.
- subterra
July 19, 2012 at 6:25pm
Me3; the Bain ads have in fact been informative. They and the dialogue about Bain-type corporations are educating people, including me, about what some of our Job Creators actually do. That's important. We need to have this discussion. We should have had it before now, but, like "class warfare," we've been pretending we don't have a problem, and/or that it's impolite to discuss it. Let's take outsourcing, domestic variety. Well, simply from the vantage point of a worker who's often been temporary, reflecting Lean & Mean corporate policies, the net effect on workers has been dreadful and often doesn't show up immediately. For example at the time you're happy to be employed at all and the hourly wage isn't bad. It isn't until years later you realize you have no nest egg, no health care and no job security - and you're in your fifties, meanwhile the economy tanks. This is all very important and it MUST be out in the open. People need to have information, we need facts, we need to find out who's profited from what in order to form a moral philosophy let alone in order to know who a candidate really is. PS Ann Romney says we've gotten all the financial information we need. Uh huh. She cites Mitt's 10% tithing to the Mormon Church as an example of his rectitude. Some of us, for example those in favor of gay rights, might have an issue with that and with the dismissive attitude toward finances, the "common people" and our need to know what. So sure, Mr. Galston, let's just shut up about money, corporate power and class.
- Sophia
July 19, 2012 at 6:48pm
Galston: "To this point, it would be useful for the Obama team to offer examples from presidential elections over the past few decades that actually followed this arc—that is, attacks that had no measurable effects for a month or more but that ended up making a difference." It would be useful for a TNR analyst to do just the smallest bit of research himself, as those posting here have done, to learn about Bush's swift boating of Kerry from way back in 2004.
- Thunderroad
July 19, 2012 at 8:01pm
How does Galston get away with printing the same column over and over again? Follow-through is one thing; being a one-note horn is another.
- misterpibb
July 19, 2012 at 9:55pm
Second Thunnderroad. Instead of asking the Obama campaign to reveal their internal strategies (!), perhaps Galston can regale us with examples of negative attacks from years past which caused the support for the attacker to bump in the timeframe Galston is expecting?
- Nari224
July 20, 2012 at 7:20am