PLANK JULY 24, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The emerging conventional wisdom among many Democrats takes the form of two equations: 2012 = 2004, and Bain = Swift Boats. There’s also a supporting narrative: The negative campaign against John Kerry fatally weakened his candidacy, securing the victory of an incumbent who could not have won based on his own record. And so, the idea goes, a president whose performance the public doesn’t much like can power his way to a narrow, less than pretty win by eviscerating his challenger.
But the evidence in favor of all of these propositions is remarkably thin. The basic structure of the 2004 campaign differed fundamentally from the one we’re now enduring. The available evidence suggests that even in the short-term, the attacks on Romney have been measurably less successful than were those on Kerry. And Obama’s supporters seem to have forgotten that the reason Bush prevailed was because enough Americans ended up approving of his record and leadership in the areas they cared about the most.
In 2012, there is a single dominant issue—the economy. The people are trying to decide whether Obama has managed our economic challenges well enough to deserve another four years and, if not, whether Romney’s economic experience and plans make him an acceptable alternative.
In 2004, by contrast, there was no single dominant issue. An NBC/WSJ survey published a few days before the election found 24 percent naming terrorism as the single most important issue, followed closely by the economy (22 percent), the war in Iraq (also 22), and social issues and values (17). A CBS/NYT survey conducted not long after the election asked the respondents to name the one single consideration that had mattered the most as they cast their votes. The answers were all over the map. At the top was George W. Bush himself, with 13 percent, following by war (12 percent), Iraq (11), the economy and jobs (9), terrorism (8), and moral values (6).
Indeed, the 2004 election featured a struggle to define the agenda. Democrats focused on the economy and health care, while Republicans emphasized terrorism and values. In mid-September the public was split down the middle, 44-44, on the relative importance of these two baskets of issues. The people saw Bush as significantly more able to handle the former, and Kerry the latter. So the fact that by the eve of the election fully 50 percent had come to see the issues where Bush was strong as more important contributed to the late surge that put him over the top. 52 percent of the people thought that Bush would do a better job dealing with terrorism and homeland security, versus 29 percent for Kerry; they preferred Bush on Iraq, 50 to 37; on moral values, by 47 to 29. Kerry led 48 to 32 on jobs and unemployment and by an even wider margin of 51 to 28 on health care, but by election day those issues didn’t top the concerns of enough voters.
But what about the notorious “Swift-boating” of the decorated Vietnam veteran who headed the Democratic ticket? Most surveys suggest that it did drive down Kerry’s support in August of 2004. The RealClearPolitics survey average showed a decline from 48 percent at the beginning of the month to 45 percent at the end. But according to a detailed Pew report released in mid-September, the effects of that attack waned significantly in the two weeks after Labor Day. Kerry continued his gradual climb throughout the remainder of the campaign, finishing with a share of the popular vote slightly higher than his early August peak in the polls. Moreover, many of the negative impressions of Kerry were long-standing, not the product of the Republicans’ summer assault. For example, as early as mid-March Bush led Kerry by 52 to 34 percent as a strong leader and by 63 to 27 percent in his perceived willingness to take and maintain an unpopular stance. According to CBS/NYT survey released on the eve of the election, 60 percent of respondents felt that Kerry said what he thought people wanted to hear rather than what he really believed. But that can’t be attributed to the mid-summer Republican attacks, because 61 percent felt that way as early as April and never changed their minds. (By contrast, 60 percent felt that Bush said what they believed—again, an impression they formed early on and never revised.)
Because the Republican assault on Kerry focused so heavily on his service in Vietnam and subsequent anti-war activities, one might have expected it to undermine the public’s confidence in his ability to serve as commander-in-chief. But the evidence suggests that just the reverse occurred during the course of the campaign. In May, only 34 percent expressed confidence in Kerry as a potential commander-in-chief, while 61 percent expressed reservations ranging from moderate to intense. But Kerry’s stature grew steadily, even during the summer-long attack on his military record. By mid-October, the share of the electorate who felt confident in him had grown to 44 percent while the share with worries fell by 13 points, to 48 percent.
The real story of the 2004 isn’t that attacks disqualified Kerry as a potential president—they didn’t—but rather that in the two months from Labor Day until the election, the incumbent persuaded just enough people that his record warranted reelection. (His unwavering support of the war in Iraq temporarily halted the erosion of public support for his decision, despite its unexpectedly difficult aftermath.) During that period, the right track/wrong track numbers moved up, and the public’s assessment of Bush’s record on foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the economy all improved. On the eve of the election, his overall job approval averaged about 50 percent, up from less than 48 percent in mid-summer and closely predicting the 50.7 percent share of the popular vote that he received.
Obama now faces a similar task. In the fourteenth quarter of his presidency, which ended July 19, his job approval averaged 46.8 percent—a bit higher than Gerald Ford’s 46.0 percent in mid-1976, but more than a percentage point lower than Bush’s 47.9 percent. While inductive generalizations are not necessary truths, the fact remains that no incumbent has ever been reelected with a job approval below 50 percent. The most recent CBS/NYT survey illuminates the challenge Obama confronts. Not only is his job approval down to the levels of last fall and winter, before four months of good economic news pushed them up, but also other indicators—such as right track/wrong track and management of the economy--are moving in the wrong direction. The people have noticed the difference between 225 thousand new jobs per month and 75 thousand, and they’ve drawn the obvious inference: Only 24 percent of Americans think the economy is improving, down from 33 percent in April.
So the president has some work to do, and he can’t get the job done simply by attacking his adversary. Indeed, as I’ve argued in previous articles, the evidence that the all-out assault on Romney record at Bain Capital is making a difference remains thin at best. Since July 1, while Obama’s survey average has declined from 47.5 to 46.0 percent, Romney’s has actually edged up slightly, from 44.1 to 44.7 percent. A Gallup/USA Today survey released July 24 finds 63 percent of Americans believing that the challenger’s “background in business, including his time as head of Bain Capital,” would cause him to “make good decisions . . . as president in dealing with economic problems that U.S. will face over the next four years.” Only 29 percent disagree. This helps explain why Romney leads Obama by 10 points, 51 to 41, on managing the economy and by 6 points (50-44) on creating jobs.
The survey goes on to suggest that Obama still runs even with Romney because of his perceived edge in character. He leads Romney by 30 points on likeability and by 11 on understanding the problems American face in their daily lives. If the election comes down to these differences, Obama might well win a narrow victory. But there’s one other personal characteristic that tilts in the other direction: Romney has a 5-point edge over the president as a leader who can “get things done.” If the voters care more about efficacy than empathy as they enter the polling booths, Nov. 6 could be a long night for Democrats.
15 comments
The "Swiftboating" of John Kerry was clearly an attack on his character - not an attack on his capabilities as Commander in Chief. It played right into the characterization of him as "being for it before he was against it". That one line is what made the "Swiftboating" effective, his flip flopping could be shown all the way through his career. He was (rightfully) proud of his heroism in Vietnam, but ultimately he did it for a cause he abandoned. Obama is doing the same thing to Romney on his time at Bain, he isn't raising questions about his ability to crunch numbers, he's questioning his integrity. He'll continue to do so on many issues beyond Bain. It will work not because it fits a narrative of Romney being an out of touch flip flopper, it will work because Romney IS an out of touch flip flopper with no serious policy proposals. I also think the exit polls referred to are misleading. If you lump "Iraq", "War", and "Terrorism" together there is a clearly one issue that dominated the 2004 election. Many, if not most, voters did lump those three things together. Iraq won the 2004 election for Bush, and Galston (along with many others at this magazine) played along. "unexpectedly difficult aftermath" my ass, anyone who looked at the hubris and lack of planning by the Bush administration saw the "difficult aftermath" as a given.
- Attrill
July 24, 2012 at 9:44pm
Heroism will endear you to the public, comparing the actions of the US Army with Genghis Khan will not. The fact that such an incredibly weak candidate as Kerry even came close shows the real misgivings the public had about W, even before the economic catastrophe and the miserable outcome of the Iraq war. I think the Bain attacks will help marginally with the working class. The central problem, however, is selling swing voters BHO's record. The ACA, Dodd-Frank, getting Bin Ladin, a modest stimulus, student-loan reform, getting out of Iraq, are simply not enough to offset a stagnant economy, stagnant wages, high unemployment, and a severely depressed housing market. And it ain't gettin' any better. BHO, likable or not, should be getting creamed. What keeps him afloat, like W, is an incredibly weak challenger.
- Vogelfam
July 25, 2012 at 12:05am
I don't know, Vogelfam. I saw on the Bloomberg channel recently that the housing market is starting to come back, new construction, etc. If any market comes back, that'll be the one. In fact, there are already signs that we're headed for another re-fi bubble. I'm getting regular robo-calls prompting me to refinance, and I don't currently own a home. The human race never learns.
- magboy47.
July 25, 2012 at 2:43am
The recent (last week) CBS/NYT national survey revealed that a majority of those surveyed believe Romney would be better for the economy than Obama. A significant majority of those surveyed, however, blamed Bush policies for the current poor economic conditions. And yet most of those surveyed simultaneously believed Romney would adopt the same economic policies as Bush. Those three findings cannot co-exist, not unless voters are hopelessly stupid. That, I believe, is what makes the Bain attacks very different from Swift Boating of Kerry: the Bain attacks are intended to help voters make the connection, a connection they already hold, between the Bush/Romney policies and the current economic conditions, whereas the Swift Boating of Kerry had no educational value but was simply intended to confuse and deceive.
- rayward
July 25, 2012 at 6:48am
rayward I think your poll analysis is interesting, but I see a parallel between the swift-boat attack and the Bain attack in the sense that they both attempt to convert the strength of the opponent into a weakness (a war hero for Kerry and business acumen for Romney). The same happened with Rove tarring Gore as a liar which would diminish his integrity. The parallel I see between the 2004 and 2012 campaigns is that getting out the vote will be the bottom line. Rove used Gay Marriage and now we have the battle of voter I.D.
- Nusholtz
July 25, 2012 at 8:24am
One thing that is very similar to 2004 this time around: the challenger is a stunningly bad politician who is unable to communicate to the public what makes him tick. One of the few things that W. and Obama have in common, by contrast, is that each gives the impression that they believe what they're saying. W. got points for authenticity (even if he was just an authentic dumbass). Obama will get points for authenticity too. The man is comfortable in his own skin.
- interloper
July 25, 2012 at 8:48am
Is it just me, or does Galston's constant argument that Bain attacks don't work and won't work simply a reflection of his own discomfort at the attacks on people with whom he eats lunch? On the Gallup numbers and all those others that suggest Romney's negatives are not rising, you need to distinguish national numbers between numbers in swing states. A voter who doesn't live in a swing-state media market is hardly affected by the anti-Bain ads unless that voter is actively interested in the election today -- which is almost always the mark of a voter who has already made up his mind about the election. Even in swing states, most voters are already partisans where the Presidential election takes place and are unlikely to change their minds significantly no matter what advertising says. We're talking about a relatively small swathe of the electorate that could be persuaded not to back Romney because of the Bain critique, probably a smaller swathe of the electorate than those suspicious of Democrats on military and anti-terror policy in 2004 who were the targets of the Swift Boat ads.
- wildboy
July 25, 2012 at 9:40am
"Is it just me, or does Galston's constant argument that Bain attacks don't work and won't work simply a reflection of his own discomfort at the attacks on people with whom he eats lunch?" Galston is painfully obviously carrying water for his rich friends with this series of monotonous columns. There is literally nothing else to write about in politics in July 2012? Nothing at all? What a clown.
- misterpibb
July 25, 2012 at 10:09am
I continue to reject the ad hominem attacks on Galston. Better to deal with the merits of his argument and later for the dismissive characterizations. It strikes me that the bane in this analysis starts from the way overstated premise: ....The emerging conventional wisdom among many Democrats takes the form of two equations: 2012 = 2004, and Bain = Swift Boats... I hardly think that this idea represents "the" conventional wisdom. And I doubt whether Obama's big strategic thinkers are any less nuanced than Galston in their appreciation of the differences between 2004 and now and of the swift boating of Kerry and the swift Baining of Romney. From the centrality of Galston's overstated premise grows the flaw in his analysis. Gotta' run: just ran out of juice...
- basman
July 25, 2012 at 11:48am
The Bain attacks may or may not have worked--but Presidential approval is not the metric to judge them by. So in a technical sense Galston is wrong. In the larger sense, Galston is right: the President will have to, at some point, improve his own numbers rather than just tear down (or soften up) Romney's.
- polcereal
July 25, 2012 at 12:21pm
Just a few days ago, your colleague put out a column indicating that there is some evidence that the Bain attacks were working: http://www.tnr.com/blog/electionate/105201/ohio-the-place-where-bain-might-be-paying Regarding Obama's approval rating, it is between Bush's and Ford's at this point. Bush won by a fair significant 2.5 percent margin (allow only by one state in the electoral college). Ford lost by two points, but ran in the aftermath of Watergate, the pardon and suffered a significant gaffe in the debate (stating that Poland was not in the Soviet orbit). My own theory is that both 2004 and 1976 show that the incumbent has a significant, built-in advantage. Carter started with a 33-point lead and barely won. Bush's (and the Iraq wars) popularity was waning by 2004, but he still won. The only challengers to beat incumbents in the last 60 years are Carter, Reagan and Clinton. In Reagan and Clinton's cases, you have two of the most talented politicians of the 20th century. Both also had the benefit of 3rd party candidates helping them batter the incumbent. In Carter's case, as cited above, you had an unelected president who faced an insurgency in his party plus a confluence of events -- Watergate, the pardon, inflation etc. -- that made it a poor year for the party in power. My own view is that Romney has to do more than be "not Obama" -- and I'm not sure he has the political skills to do that.
- PeteM
July 25, 2012 at 2:05pm
Forget incumbancy-- or Bain or Seamus. It's the economy in October, stupid, that'll largely determine who wins. It's hardly likely to improve. If it stays at current recession levels that tnr writers and posters seem to find quite acceptable, it's probably BHO and a Repub House and Senate and SCOTUS--good luck with that combo, Dems, for future elections. If unemployment rises and GNP falls, its Mittens time-- with a Repub sweep of all gov't branches -- good luck with that combo, Repubs for future elections. Those that do not learn the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them. The comparison to make is not 2004, but 1928. Dems really lost big time when Al Smith didn't win?? You want the real disaster scenario-- BHO wins and the economy collapses shortly thereafter. Both Dems and the country lose for a generation to come. Be careful what you wish for. Have any of you a plausible scenario with a Progressive outcome if BHO wins in November.?? Every one I can think of has much less chance of succeeeding than a Mittens win in November.
- drofnats1
July 25, 2012 at 6:39pm
Agreed, the analogy between 2004 and 2012 is inexact--as are all such comparisons. But is it really the case that this is "the emerging conventional wisdom among many Democrats"? And didn't Galston invite this comparison when he suggested that there was no past election when attack ads had little immediate effect on polls but a significant effect on the election result? I doubt that anyone on the Obama team is paying too much attention to 2004. Galston is hearing a lot about 2004 simply because Galston asked for it. The other thing is that Galston has consistently failed to make a case as to why the Bain attacks are bad. Maybe, if you read the polls the way he does, you could come to believe that the attacks are neutral--although, as other posters have noted here, he is likely paying too much attention to the national numbers and not looking closely enough at the ads' effects in states like Ohio--but why so actively bad? When Obama wins--as I predict he will--his victory will challenge all sorts of CW, that incumbents can't win in times of high unemployment, that incumbents win on the strength of their own record and not the suitability for office of their challengers. The question as to whether the Bain ads played a role in his victory will still be open for debate, but at present Galston has yet to make a case as to why Obama should abandon these attacks other than to cite past precedence that almost certainly has little to say about the present.
- AaronW
July 25, 2012 at 6:55pm
You never know what tomorrow's headlines will bring. The economy probably won't change rapidly (unless manna falls from Heaven). We are more prepared than before 9-11, but defense is always more difficult than offense, and there are lots of people who hate us, are willing to use their lives and bodies as the anarchist-fanatic equivalent of nuclear energy, and have nothing better to do with their time than to scheme and scheme and scheme. So...a big terror attack (successful or unsuccessful) changes the ball game. Or a big weather disaster (Katrina, Galveston, etc.) Or an asteroid hitting the earth. The article and the comments all assume tomorrow will be like yesterday.
- skahn
July 26, 2012 at 4:49pm
2:16 pm, 8/1/2012. I am used to comment posters posting twice. (I have done so myself.) But why does this article appear twice? Come on, starving interns. if you can fix the italic monster and other HTML curses, you can count how many times an article has been posted at TNR online.
- skahn
August 1, 2012 at 5:19pm