THE STUMP JANUARY 13, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
My colleague Tim Noah, a Twitter neophyte like myself, noted in a tweet earlier this week an interesting tidbit in the New Hampshire exit polls that many others have overlooked. Mitt Romney did substantially better among the 40 percent of voters who described themselves as "angry" toward the Obama administration than he did among the electorate as a whole -- he got 46 percent of the angries, and only 39 percent of voters overall.
This figure only further confirms something I've been arguing since the Iowa caucuses -- that pundits are wrong to generalize Romney's supporters as the more "moderate" Republican primary voters in opposition to the more "extreme" or "angry" voters supporting his seemingly more conservative rivals such as Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul. Ezra Klein was one of many to assess the race in this vein this week, taking some assurance from the fact that Romney is, "of the Republicans running for president, the least extreme in his policy proposals, and also the most likely to capture the nomination. If Huntsman counts as a moderate, then so does Romney -- and so, in their presidential preferences so far, do a plurality of Republican primary voters. They have, after all, not only backed Romney, but they have decisively rejected Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, the candidates aimed most squarely at Tea Party wing of the GOP."
Sure, Romney's proposals are more moderate than those of the others -- unlike Paul, he's not proposing to abolish five federal departments or allow Americans to use new currencies in competition with the dollar, and unlike Rick Santorum he is not talking openly about a social conservative vision for rebuilding the American family. But this doesn't mean that the voters supporting Romney are necessarily "moderate." As I reported in this post from Iowa, it is at Romney events that I have found voters who are most caustic and even vitriolic toward Barack Obama. They are voters who are not necessarily evangelical or "tea party," and so would not be rated as conservative or extreme in a pollster's survey. But they really, really loathe Obama and just want to get him the heck out of the White House, which leads them to support the Republican who they figure has the money and profile to get the job done: Mitt Romney. Whereas a Santorum supporter will go on at length about how they like this or that element of Santorum's family values shtick or his case for revitalizing American manufacturing, you tend to get a far more brusque and expedient reply from Romney voters: he'll get rid of Obama. It's an appeal that Romney is doing his best to encourage, with his hard-edged talk about Obama's socialist, Euro-style plans for America and the need to "reclaim" the country from him. And it's something that the political press ought to be more mindful of before they reflexively put Romney and his supporters in the moderate box.
Follow me on twitter at @AlecMacGillis
10 comments
I expect those angry Romney supporters to just get angrier as the campaign progresses and their man keeps stepping in it, as he will invariably do, and starts lagging in the polls and swing states behind Obama. Lord knows how they will feel after Romney loses.
- wildboy
January 13, 2012 at 12:36pm
Doesn't this mean that, if Romney looks like he cannot beat Obama (because, for example, of Bain Capital), the angry birds will desert him as fast as you can say. . . . . Huntsman?
- rayward
January 13, 2012 at 12:57pm
Since the "angry birds" have first coronated, then deserted, candidate after candidate, I can't think this is much of a recommendation for a candidate. And if that really is the basis of Romney's "base", I can't think that will play well in the general election. "Vote Romney -- his propaganda about Obama really makes us angry!"
- AllanL5
January 13, 2012 at 1:07pm
This is the Romney Quandary: he could win, given the state of the economy, but the president's personal numbers hold up quite well, so the one thing he can't afford to do is to go after Obama with the kind of vitriol that's driving the angry birds. That will give Obama the opportunity to once again appear as the only savvy adult in the room, facing the snarling irrationality of the Republicans. Assuming he's not crippled by an increasing perception of phoniness or wounded fatally by the Bain/out-of-touch rich guy stories, Romney's best shot is the kind of thing he was doing effectively a few months ago: the president is a nice guy who wants to do well but he's in over his head -- whereas I am an experienced businessman who knows how to get stuff done. So his job is to offer himself as the vehicle of that anger while not giving expression to it. And interesting political problem.
- ironyroad
January 13, 2012 at 2:34pm
Why are so many people so angry? Is the American dream dead? Is there no toy inside the Cracker Jack box? Perhaps that can be the Republican slogan. Instead of a chicken in every pot, it will be a worthless toy with every vote cast.
- skahn
January 14, 2012 at 12:18am
There's nothing moderate about any Republican candidate, at least in public. Like MacGillis says, the angry birds are flocking to the guy they think can kick the hated Obama out on his can. But the angry birds don't really like Romney. If Obama beats him, they'll attack him like they did Tippi Hedren in Hitchcock's Birds. They'll mess up his Big Hair really bad.
- magboy47.
January 14, 2012 at 12:46am
Ya'll JUST dont get it. The economy sucks. It sucked in 2009-- and still sucks. BHO has had 3 years to fix it, and hasn't. And he could have..And while his proposals are better at present than any Repub, they are a fraction of what is needed -- equivalent to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic. That helps-- but not much. And he has maneuvered such that he can't get them passed. That means for many voters, it's already ABO time (Anybobody But Obama). And many of the angriest will gravitate to whoever seems to stand the best chance against BHO [FYI--I am no more anti-BHO than I am anti-Neville Chamberlain, Fillmore, Buchanan, Kerensky, Hoover, or Carter-- all nice, bright humanitarians who had inadequate policies and personalities to deal with the crises of their times. Some were followed by better, some by worse] Odds are on, the economy will be heading further south-- both unemployment and GNP--this summer. And REALLY further south if the EU continues to opt for for an austerity-induced severe decline-perhaps disintegration [In both cases, the Keynesian calculations take 7th grade math.] It will REALLY be ABO time in that case -- TinkerBell or Attila the Hun time-- anyone promising to do something drasticallly different. Since no Keynesian TinkerBell will challenge BHO, if any of you are really Progressive Democrats, then start planning how to survive for four years with Attila Repubs controlling all three branches of government. And start the realization process that you helped put them there by constantly giving cover to BHO who gave cover to them. Even if BHO manages to win re-election because the economy thoroughly collapses in 2013 instead, he will simply give cover to Repub policies-- similar in many ways to whoever is President of Russia giving cover to Putin for the last four years. In brief, Progrssive Liberals cannot win much of anything-- and the US will NOT change its trajectory-- until politicians supporting Progressive policies in general, and Keynesian on economics in particular, are elected. And those politicians are NOT BHO and many Senate Blue Dog type Dems. 2012 is lost, no matter who currently running is elected Prez -- or in many Senate races. The House is a different matter.
- drofnats1
January 14, 2012 at 8:01am
Please note, BHO is NOT responsible for the coming EU disaster. [Albeit he sure hasn't provided a good role model for the Keynesian policies he asks THEM to adopt.] The US, however, and the rest of the world are in a perilous economic state. The collapse of a major economy (US, EU, or China) will severely affrect the other two. Care to bet that all three avoid a severe decline? That's a worse bet than betting all three will decline because if one goes the other two follow, but one not declining will not save the other two. The sad and frustrating part is that either the US (or EU) could produce strong economic growth within 6-12 months by simply applying a strong Keynesian stimulus. It is like seeing an astreroid heading for earth that could be easily intercepted and destroyed or moved to a different course if only the intercepting rockets were programmed such that F=ma, E=mC2, and gravity is a Newtonian or Einsteinian function of mass and distance... but almost all politicians supported by many Vatican priests and Latter-Day missionaries insist on making planetary plans based on F=mv, E=mC4 and gravity forces disappear once rockets leave the stratosphere. Good luck with that.
- drofnats1
January 14, 2012 at 8:31am
Terrific post. This a real insight I've not seen elsewhere. Thanks
- mcmahon.an
January 14, 2012 at 10:53am
Romney plans repeal of the estate tax, which, if repealed, will save his heirs $84 million (on a $250 million dollar estate -- the tax is currently 35% of married estates over $10 million on the second death). That may be a lot of money, but the savings of $84 million for Romney's kids gets paid by the rest of our kids. That is the type of tax policy expected from a guy who thinks nothing is wrong by profiting off of the misfortunes of others. The estate tax helps lower income tax rates or pay the debt and the estate tax impacts little on the economy. Few, if anybody, will refuse a fortune for themselves because after they die, the kids will get only 65% of it over $10 million.
- Nusholtz
January 15, 2012 at 2:30pm