It's pretty clear that Mitt Romney either receive a small (1-2%) bounce from his convention or none at all. A large bounce was unlikely for structural reasons, but a 3-5 point bounce seemed most likely coming in for those same structural reasons. Any theory of what went wrong?
At best, the Romney Camp played it too safe.
ReplyDeleteThere’s broad concern in the electorate that there’s something fundamentally wrong with the way our economy works. Not only was there little attention paid to this, but the constant American Greatness mantras made it sound like the GOP was either ignoring the problem or just trying to wish it away. I know the idea is that you have to be relentlessly positive to win, but it’s hard to get the anti-incumbent vote if you come across as clueless yourself.
Seconded.
DeleteAlso, they did not make the path forward obvious and appealing. We all know where we want to go - how will your plans take us there? It doesn't have to be detailed, but it does have to make some sense.
I think you've nailed it in your other posts: The conventions act to corral the wandering flock. Voters who *should* vote for your candidate fall into line because of the convention.
ReplyDeleteBut Romney already consolidated his support before the convention. There just wasn't much further for him to rise.
The fact is: Obama won 53% of the vote in 2008. Undecided 2008 Obama voters are more likely to fall into Obama's camp than Romney's. It's really tough to defeat a sitting President, especially one who won in a landslide and has a decent approval rating.
I don't think anything went wrong. I just think this is a really tough year for Republicans to win the White House.
Might I suggest asking your wife/daughters/sisters/cousins if they think 'anything went wrong?'
DeleteI'd be interested to here what they have to say.
Oh, believe me: I'm not a conservative, and I can see why many people would find his views repugnant. But that's sort of my point: The major factor preventing Romney from winning is the fact that Obama is still popular. But other minor factors keeping Romney down in the polls include his awful policy positions and his flaws as a candidate.
DeleteI'm not a conservative, but I'll chime in anyway to suggest that it's possible that Romney had a bounce that went away quickly because the two conventions were so close to each other. Then again, if that were true, it would imply that Obama's bounce should be bigger too.
ReplyDeleteIANAC, but what Kal said. The Republicans are maxed out. And any real effort to appeal to Obama-disappointed swing voters by playing up 'more in sorrow than in anger' would risk dialing down the base energy. They won't want 'disappointment;' they want red meat.
ReplyDeleteI'll go a step further: Was the RNC even really designed to get a bounce? From what I've read here and elsewhere, it was most effective at showcasing potential 2016 prospects. Which makes sense if the GOP smart money has more or less written Romney off, and instead is looking ahead.
I wonder what 'looking ahead' really means to (and for) the RNC.
DeleteI read with interest the thoughts of Jon Chait that this was an 'all-in' event for Republicans, the last chance demographics are going to be even marginally on their side w/o some radical alterations and soul-searching in scope and message. By 2016, the electorate, modern realities are just going to force things on the RNC.
As Clinton said, arithmetic still matters.
I think another four years of intractable politics and obstinate denial of plain political, policy, and demographic realities could doom Republicans to a twilight minority status, empowered only by Madisonian instruments. It took a Nixon to craft the Southern Strategy, a Reagan to make it sunny; I just don't see that kind of political cognition on display in the modern GOP.
Not a conservative but maybe an entire convention aimed at small business owners didn't really speak to a big slice of the electorate.
ReplyDeleteChristie's speech was weak and didn't push Romney much, and the Eastwood lead-in to the Romney speech was a distraction and somewhat stepped on Romney's message. It would have better to get the Mormon tributes to Romney into prime time and leave Clint Eastwood out.
ReplyDeleteWas GOP spooked by narrative that Romney has weak personal appeal? Voters already know Romney decent family guy, smart businessman & not a great stump speaker. GOP needed to explain what he would do to fix country, Romney is not problem GOP+Bush legacy is?
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote in my blog, I think Romney is in dangerous territory as even the "likely voter" models show a 4 point advantage for Obama at the moment. However, Romney is sitting on a lot of cash at the moment and there are four debates scheduled. http://centerviewpolitics.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteKal is half right I think.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably true:
"Romney already consolidated his support before the convention. There just wasn't much further for him to rise."
But this is probably not:
"I just think this is a really tough year for Republicans to win the White House."
Thing is, this should be a really easy year for Republicans to win, except that they decided to double down on nihilism after 2010 and (further) undermined the credibility of their only non-crazy candidate.
Agreed. Maybe I should have said "I just think this is a really tough year for this Republican party to win the White House."
DeleteIf we were in a recession, even Rick Santorum would have a great chance of winning. But going against a sitting President in an expanding economy? You need to hit all of the little things, including having a flawless campaign and a great, moderate candidate.
They didn't have a coherent message that could appeal to gettable voters. There are alot of voters with reservations about the president, but they didn't hear anything that might close the deal. If regulation is stifling, what are the regulations that are problematic and what is Romney's alternative? If jobs are a problem, how will Romney create them? If Romney's the economic fix it guy, what exactly are his solutions? More tax cuts don't sound like much of an answer to skeptical voters after Bush, the Obama tax-cutting stimulus.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that Republicans are stuck in 1980 when taxes were 90% and liberals looked inept in foreign policy. They keep thinking that they are running against Carter and they simply aren't, which is why their arguments fall flat on anyone who isn't already on the team.
The DNC, on the other hand, probably did a lot to reinvigorate pessimistic Democrats and shine a different light on Obama for those that like him personally but have reservations given the mediocre economy. There was a coherent theme of we are on your side, but we need more time, and those other guys are crazy anyway. That problably seems about right to the Obama voter who is skeptical about the president's performance.