Kicking it off...bits of hints of good news on the economy: I wouldn't say at all that they mean a surge is coming, but my impression is that a real dip before the election (and perhaps at all) became less likely this week.
As far as not mattering, I'm sticking with the idea that the out-party candidate just doesn't matter that much, so the Bain flap probably doesn't matter very much. I do think that Mitt Romney's position on tax returns isn't going to work, and he's nuts to try it -- I doubt there's anything horrible in them, but yeah, he should have just bit the bullet back in April or May and been done with it. I very much doubt that whatever he's hiding, if anything, is worse than what he's going to continue getting now. However, while uncomfortable for him, I just can't see it affecting vote choice in November.
So that's what I'll start with. What do you have? What do you think mattered this week?
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think this week mattered. Team Obama's strategy is pretty clear:
ReplyDeletePhase 1: Paint Romney as a really rich guy who's business history was all about making himself and his partners rich at the expense of workers. Plus a guy who doesn't play by the rules when it comes to taxes.
We are now in phase 1. Around the convention begins...
Phase 2: Show that Romney's policy prescriptions - the Ryan plan, tax policy, spending policy, etc.- really favor the mega rich at the expense of the middle class.
The ammunition is definitely there for Phase 2- Romney has committed himself to lots of positions on taxes and spending that poll as being unpopular with the electorate. But Phase 2 is only going to be effective if Phase 1 is properly executed.
This week Phase 1 went better than Team Obama could have possibly hoped.
To figure out what "matters", I think it's useful to try to bring things back to specific scenarios, even hypothetically:
DeleteDo you think that if all this hadn't happened--either because the Obama campaign had a different tactic, or Romney or whoever the Republican nominee was had a different history--that Obama would be favored to lose, but now he's favored to win? Or that it'd be a toss-up, but now he's favored to win? Or that it turned a near-certain loss into a toss-up?
What kind of an impact are we talking about?
Very good insight
DeleteSo if the out candidate, and the attacks on him, don’t matter that much, then do you think that if the Swift Boating of John Kerry had never happened, that he still wouldn’t have been able to get over the top in his 4 closest losses, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, and Nevada? there are 5 ways for him to win the presidency there. I think if the Swift Boat lies never surfaced, and so he was not seen as weak in failing to respond for so long, that he could have won. Maybe not. Maybe he still would have had to run harder against Iraq, despite his votes, and not so topheavy on his military valor bio. But that still would mean the out candidate mattered.
ReplyDeletePlain blogger has pointed out before that, if you go by the prediction models that some political scientists use, which use economic data and incumbent approval ratings, Kerry actually did better than those models thought he would have. Maybe you're right and a few Ohioans were swung by Swift Boat and that's why Kerry lost... But is there any data or evidence? BTW those prediciton models current have Obama winning In November by a very slim margin.
DeleteWhat anon says. You don't even need the models; you just have to assume incumbents are hard to beat during even fairly good economic times, and that by November '04 the combination of September 11, Afghanistan, and Iraq were at least a net push.
DeleteGranted, it's possible that the Swift Boat stuff hurt Kerry but other campaign/candidate things helped him even more.
Actually, Abramowitz has a new model where he argues that our partisan polarization limits the effects of incumbency, so in that model, Kerry in 2004 runs just about right on the prediction.
DeleteThat said, yes, that does feel an AWFUL LOT like curve-fitting (for those unaware, if you look at data and add simple variables every time your predictions are off, you can quickly make models more accurate, while not actually understanding anything...all you're doing is tricking the math). Which bothers me more than a little, since Abramowitz's original model was both my favorite AND the one that had the best theoretical justification for its variables.
anon: not just that some in OH might have been swung, but that even more there and in the other close states might have been convinced to *stay home* by the Swift Boat attacks, and Kerry's ineffective defense/counterattack.
DeleteNo, I have found no data.
The new brokerage firm scandal out of Iowa matters in the sense that, in addition to JP Morgan and Libor, there's increasing evidence that the lack of oversight and restraint in the financial sector is a very real problem.
ReplyDeleteI'll buy what you're saying about attacks on out-party candidates not mattering (assuming that the constant clumsy lying and Bain aren't disqualifying qualities), but I think Romneys Bain-a-paloza week mIght matter if it hurts GOP enthusiasm for the candidate and GOTV efforts. In general the whole episode exposes how clumsy, slow-moving and clueless Romneys campaign tends to be when confronted with conversations it doesn't want to have. Might matter, especially if he wins and brings these incompetents into his Administration.
There were some Syrian defections that could matter, as well as some more massacres coming to light.
ReplyDelete@JB will "What Mattered This Week" move to focus on electioneering/media cycle stuff more as we move into the fall? I know you've say that that's really when "campaign" stuff starts to have an impact in terms of votes, but when should we really start paying attention? After Labor Day? And how much does campaign stuff really matter even in October?
Hmmm...well, in the current format, the focus is more up to commenters than me.
DeleteGenerally, I'd say that to the extent that campaign stuff matters, it's far more likely to matter in the final few weeks than earlier. John Sides had a good post on that this week.
And it's also still possible that earlier things matter; it's just that it's harder to find evidence for it.
Question:
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the things that "matter" in campaigns are those that have tangible electoral consequences, which is not the case for most gaffes/narratives/ads/etc. in general presidential elections.
The other things that matter are those that affect governance, like what a candidate promises during a campaign.
So is it not possible that the campaign trivia that have a negligible effect on electoral outcomes can still matter by influencing the type of promises that a candidate ends up making?
Yes.
DeleteRomney is getting attacked by the left for associating with anti-Israel elements in his party. What did Romney do? Nothing. But the RNC hired a former Ron Paul spokesman (who, for the record, is black and has never said anything about Israel that anyone knows of):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/pro-israel-voices-blast-rncs-hire-of-paul-staffer
I always thought the left wanted an open and honest debate about our Israel policy, without demagoguery or prejudice? Now, anyone who’s ever been associated with Paul is automatically “anti-Israel.” And the GOP is attacked for not “dealing in any effective way with Ron Paul” (Read: Purge all his supporters). The funny thing is, much of the GOP establishment (including elements of the Romney campaign) are working mightily to purge any Paulite influence from their ranks. It’s interesting to know that there are Democrats who will cheer them on.
Next up: Why won't Romney do something about all those drug traffickers and terrorists from the Ron Paul campaign?
What makes this story more than trivial in importance? The story quotes two representatives of pro-Democratic groups (one of whom was formerly with AIPAC) criticizing this hire. Republicans have blasted the Obama Administration as being insufficiently pro-Israel. This is just some return fire (albeit with a squirtgun).
Deletecgw - Calling for the blacklisting of all Ron Paul supporters is of trivial importance? Call me crazy, but I thought that liberal Democrats were a little more liberal and a little more democratic than that.
DeleteThe latter part of the week sees a dramatic increase in the stock exchange due to positive financial news.
ReplyDeleteIn real estate blogs I see increase in prices for Florida real estate, New York Real Estate and real estate all over the country.
This all goes well for Obama. I am willing to bet that unemployment numbers will be below 8% before election day.
I disagree with you about the importance of the Bain thing. I mean, why would the Obama Campaign be pounding the issue to this extent if it was so irrelevant? I think the reason it's signficant politically is that Romney wants to run for President as the bland, but shrewd businessman who knows how to get companies hiring again. He has not run on his record as Gov. from MA because so much of what he did during that time would inflame the Right. And don't rorget he only served one term, having decided not to run for reelection.
ReplyDeleteSo back to why Bain matters- it's probably true that people won't vote against Romney because of the Bain stuff, but people who are on the fence between R and O will be FAR less impressed by Romney's business bacground if his tenure at Bain Capital is viewed negatively. Romney wants to say "I understand the private sector, I'm a businessman." Yet it's getting harder and harder for him to make that argument as this Bain thing goes on, leaving him with very little to campaign on at all.
The Bain thing is also a useful framing device. Obama economics to be viewed through a prism of fairness. Highlighting the exploits or fich private equity guys like Romney helps a lot.
I don't know if Bain works more than a few weeks (or days), because inevitably the media is going to turn to something else in election news and in any case the vast majority of voters aren't paying attention yet (and prob won't till after summer). Why would Obama engage in the attacks if they might not matter? Because they keep the election focused on whether or not Romney is a liar instead of some other issue that might not play as well for Obama.
DeleteYeah, remember "the private sector is doing fine" or "I like being able to fire people"? How many voters remember either of those things except partisans who like knowing all thw jokes theyes can make about the other candidates?
DeleteI think there's a distinction to be made, though, between "a good line of attack" and "an attack that matters."
DeleteI was thinking about this yesterday, when people were praising/commenting on the new anti-Romney ad which talks about outsourcing, and tax shelters while Romney sings "America the Beautiful." People were calling it ruthless, a great ad, etc, and I was feeling doubtful.
It's not that it's a bad ad-- indeed, as a liberal I basically agree with it, at least in a fair-game political spin kind of way. It's reasonably tough and I could see how it might damage the perception of Romney in the minds of a few swing voters. But is it really going to PERSUADE anyone? I have a hard time imagining anyone saying, "I was going to vote for that Romney guy, but now that I know he keeps money in the Caymans, no dice!"
So I think it's perfectly possible for the Bain stuff to be a good tack for Obama to take against Romney-- even effective in the sense of working about as well as anything else would-- while still not really moving the dials overall. Whether that means it "matters" is largely a function of how you define the term.
I think if voters on the fence start to have decidedly negative feelings about Romney's time as a businessman, the Romney Campaign either a)risks further alienating those groups; or b) tries to find some other way to sell their candidate. Inherent in option "b" is a late campaign image makeover, which is something that would make Romney look desperate and would pull him off message. That's why it matters.
ReplyDeleteThe outsourcing/Bain theme may matter. Candidates over-perform and under-perform relative to a model's expectations. If the basic models say that Obama will win, the next question is whether the margin of an Obama victory matters. Can there be isolated or general coattails, or impacts on subsequent legislative activities? The outsourcing/Bain theme could play in both areas if voters appear to prefer one side of a debate between "company outsourcing for cheap labor benefits you" versus "company outsourcing for cheap labor impoverishes you."
ReplyDeleteI tend to divide the Bain business into two aspects: the substantive and the political. On the substantive side, I think the jury is still out but I suspect it won't develop into much. The one big point still hanging out there is the charge made by an Obama staffer that Romney signing those documents as president, CEO, and sole shareholder constituted a felony if it wasn't true. Now, of course, broadcast news being what it is, every radio and TV discussion I've heard on the subject (which, granted, hasn't been many) referred that question to a journalist or a campaign surrogate from one side or the other. Is there no expert in the law available for comment on these things? I'd like to hear a comment that does not begin with "Well, I'm no expert, but . . ."
ReplyDeleteOn the political side, I think the Bain business feeds the growing image (growing for me, at least) that on the few occasions that Romney says something specific, it isn't true.
I disagree that the events that happened this week were inconsequential in the overall race. Sure, more voters are going to be voting based on the economy in November than on personal qualities, but they won't vote for someone they don't trust.
ReplyDeleteThe Obama campaign is very cleverly painting Romney as not just a flip-flopper, a 1%er, or a vulture capitalist; they are succeeding in portraying him as a liar. They are making the case that he has something to hide. By not releasing his taxes, Romney is opening himself up to those types of attacks all the way until November, and those attacks will sway at least a share of the electorate, and that's all President Obama really needs.
What if the attack sways a share of the electorate, but it's smaller than what Obama needs to win? Is the idea that the election, right now, is such a 50-50 tossup, that any campaign strategy by Obama that persuades anybody anywhere is necessarily going to lead to his victory?
DeleteNo, I think the idea is that Obama is leading right now, but just barely. There has been a great debate this election cycle about wether personality matters, and I personally think it does. The American public isn't going to vote for someone they don't trust or don't like. That is the basis of Obama's attacks. They are trying to build the framework to be "the better of two evils".
DeleteIn an election that is promising to be as close as 2012, every voter (in the swing states) counts.
If he's leading, then why does he need to sway additional shares of the electorate?
DeleteSo if Obama is leading now, then why does he "need" to sway additional shares of the electorate? Presumably, you think his lead might not last--but what if it degrades by more than these attacks help him?
DeleteAll I'm saying is, again, we should at least think about the potential magnitude of effects.
(Sorry, some server screw-up.)
DeleteCheck out "The Gloves are Off" at gloverman.blogspot.com, great stuff on the Libor scandle and "Tax Case of the Week"
ReplyDelete