PLANK JULY 24, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Last night, I had the good fortune to be part of a small gathering of reporters assembled by a quartet of top political scientists who have embarked on an effort to analyze voter opinion in the 2012 election at a level of depth and nuance beyond what we’ve managed in past years. A centerpiece of the effort is their attempt to gauge voter response to the ads that are already crowding the airwaves in battleground states. And their initial findings go a long way toward explaining why people in Richmond and Dayton and Denver are going to be seeing so much of Mitt Romney singing "America the Beautiful."
Under the ad rating project—a coordinated effort between Vanderbilt University and the YouGov polling outfit—voters are shown presidential campaign ads and later asked for their responses to them and their candidate preference after viewing the ad (an approach that the researchers concede has its flaws—for one thing, there is no baseline of voters’ candidate preference prior to viewing the ad). One noteworthy finding so far has been that voters are hardly more favorably inclined toward positive ads than negative ones—they find positive ads no more believable, for one thing. Most striking of all though, for the purposes of understanding the state of the race, was the relative impact of the two campaigns’ ads. The researchers are trying to zero in on the impact of the ads among "pure independents," independent voters who, unlike so many purported independents, say they do not lean to one party or the other. Among this sample, Romney generally holds a roughly 15 point edge. This edge moves up slightly among voters who have viewed a positive Romney ad or a Romney ad attacking Obama, and it drops slightly among those who’ve seen a positive Obama ad. But this edge drops sharply, to only three points, among voters who have seen an Obama ad attacking Romney. And most effective of all, the researchers found, was Obama’s "America the Beautiful" ad. The unusually strong impact of Obama’s negative ads is not necessarily just a commentary on their quality, but rather a reflection of Romney’s relative lack of definition in the public eye. Since more voters have formed impressions of Obama, ads attacking him seem to have less impact than those attacking Romney. The goal of the Obama campaign, as laid out well by John Heilemann a few weeks ago, is plain: to make Romney an unacceptable alternative at a time when swing voters might be inclined to vote for the Republican out of frustration with the slow economic recovery under Obama.
"The [Obama strategists] have these kinds of data—this is what’s driving the campaign," said Vanderbilt political scientist John Geer. "It’s very much like ’04. The Bush people did not plan, at least if you believe [Bush strategist] Alex Castellanos, Alex says ‘we did not plan to run a super negative campaign. But we found out after a couple of months that we could not move President Bush’s numbers, but we could move Kerry’s.’ So they turned from what they thought would be mix of negative and positive to a very negative campaign because that was the only thing that mattered."
Other YouGov polling results presented by George Washington University political scientist John Sides (and first discussed in a cover story I did back in January) gave further context for why the Obama attacks on Bain Capital and Romney’s offshore bank accounts and investments may be effective. Voters, Sides noted, are far more likely to judge Romney a very wealthy man than they are to say that of Obama, and they also judge him less committed to helping the middle class than Obama. And there is a strong correlation between voters judging Romney a very wealthy man and their assessment of his interest in the middle class. This could help explain what Sides sees as a very crucial sliver of the electorate—the six percent of Obama voters who disapprove of his performance but who think that he "care more" about them.
But the political scientists also presented plenty of numbers that should give Obama pause. UCLA’s Lynn Vavreck, for one, presented data showing just how dour voters’ assessments of the economy are—and showing that the correlation between voters’ assessment of the economy and their presidential preference has been steadily rising over the past year, an ominous trend for Obama. "This is going to be a close election," Vavreck said.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
8 comments
I attempt to explain the impact of negative ads in the following allegory. The Republican legislators ate nothing but beans for weeks and after entering the chamber where President Obama sat, silently spoiled the air and attributed it to the President (despite arguments to the contrary, no physical evidence can dispute this accusation). Having no such smell attributed to him, Romney gains that edge to start. Tarring Romney with a stink is necessary to equalize these circumstances. I hope this helps.
- Nusholtz
July 24, 2012 at 2:59pm
"The goal of the Obama campaign...is plain: to make Romney an unacceptable alternative at a time when swing voters might be inclined to vote for the Republican out of frustration with the slow economic recovery under Obama." I'm tempted to say, Duh!, but I won't. This is a well-written post and gives us some actual reportage in support of its analysis unlike some others' who shall remain nameless. (Hint: gall stone.)
- AaronW
July 24, 2012 at 3:05pm
He who smelt it, dealt it, Nush!
- AaronW
July 24, 2012 at 3:07pm
So, we have a clueless, rich, out-of-touch, unsympathetic Romney, who's policies continue to favor the rich, and who continues in his appearances to say things that reinforce that picture. Not to mention he keeps pointing to his Bain experience as proof that he'd be a greater President than the one we have. So when Obama and his people point out that he's a rich, out-of-touch, unsympathetic person, and that his Bain experience indicates he'd be a terrible President, this is considered Swift-boating? This is "negative campaigning"? Obama's not making anything up, here, instead he and his people are clarifying Romney's otherwise vague record. This isn't "politics as usual", this isn't "making up lies and propaganda". If Romney wants to lie about his record, while pointing to his record as proof, I think it's perfectly fair to take him at his word and bloody well examine his record.
- AllanL5
July 24, 2012 at 4:53pm
"(Hint: gall stone.)" Good one, AaronW. The guy always seems like he's passing one.
- magboy47.
July 24, 2012 at 5:35pm
I live in Richmond. I've never been more thankful not to have cable.
- cspencef
July 24, 2012 at 8:24pm
Allan writes: "So, we have a clueless, rich, out-of-touch, unsympathetic Romney, who's policies continue to favor the rich, and who continues in his appearances to say things that reinforce that picture." Last I checked, Obama is rich. Not Romney rich. Yet. But he's got millions upon millions in the bank. And like Clinton and Gore, he will use the decade after his presidency to sit on boards and give speeches, and drive his net worth to well over $100M. Just like Bush. Wait, never mind. Bush just retired, kept his mouth shut, and went to help kids in Africa. Not as sexy as Clinton hanging out with porn stars in London, but hey. Now, where was I. Ah yes. "policies that favor the rich" . Check. The poor are doing worse than ever under Obama. Black unemployment is at a 20 year high. The middle class have lost 40% of their net worth. And the wealthy are...doing just fine. And it's been a banner investment few years for everyone in congress. They somehow know how to pick the right stocks, don't they? Meetings records show Obama has spent just 4% of his work week on the economy, and that includes meetings to celebrate something related to business. That is less than he's spent golfing and going to basketball games and having parties. At least Bush gave up golfing. I'd consider spending anything less than 30% of the week on fixing the economy to be "out of touch." The president's #1 goal is to make people optimistic about the future--aka fixing the economy. Optimism is what causes people to invest. Pessimism is what causes them to sit on piles of money and do nothing. When the president spends all his time talking about how hard he's going to hurt businesses, it causes them to be pessimistic and sit on their money and not hire. That is the wrong thing to be doing right now.
- seattleeng
July 25, 2012 at 2:41am
"Meetings records show Obama has spent just 4% of his work week on the economy, and that includes meetings to celebrate something related to business. That is less than he's spent golfing and going to basketball games and having parties." I thought it was 0.01% of his work week on the economy, and 50% of the work week on basketball, or at least hanging out with other lazy black people? I was reading comments at RedState, where are you getting your information?
- misterpibb
July 25, 2012 at 8:28am