The final sentence was hardly throwaway–it meant as much to me as the rest of them. As for evidence, I’ve seen endless discussions, both televised and in the blogosphere, about the problems Obama is facing generating enthusiasm for his re-election amongst both Democrats and independents. That will translate directly into lower turnout and vote defections.
I’m going to guess that it is going to come down a few key states. It looks like CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI seem to be in play. In a few months we’ll get a solid reading on those states.
The improving macro situation does seem to be favoring Obama. OTOH, Europe/China could, potentially, turn that around.
Followup: check out this Gallup poll from a few weeks back for an example of what I’m saying:
The contrasting conditions of the nation’s two major political parties — discouraged Democrats and resurgent Republicans — underscore how different Obama’s re-election campaign is from the contest four years ago.
Consider the math: In 2008, when Obama carried the swing states by 8 percentage points, Democrats there swamped Republicans in party identification by 11 points. Now, that partisan edge has tightened to a statistically insignificant 2 points.
And the “enthusiasm gap” that helped fuel a Democratic victory last time has turned into a Republican asset. Sixty-one percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47% of Democrats.
I just think Obama is way more likeable and genuine than Romney. Unless things are seen to be getting worse by election day, I don’t see how the broad middle won’t go with their gut on that. Also don’t see how say, Huckabee voters are going to be all fired up about getting out the vote for Romney. If there’s so much Republican energy out there this year, why was the turnout in Iowa not dramatically higher this year than it was 4 years ago when the GOP was in disarray?
Didn’t Kerry prove that you can’t run for president solely by not being the current president or does that rule only apply to democrats?
Republicans are not excited at all from what I see. Nobody likes Romney. Everyone knows this and everyone knew he was the only viable candidate on the platform, yet he still had to jump through hoops and get treated like a 3rd rate candidate because nobody likes him. He is severely disliked by the two most active parts of the republican party, the Religious Right and Tea party. I suppose the question is if they dislike obama more than a Morman liberal.
The way I see it, things aren’t really as bad as they were last election and McCain was probably a stronger candidate than Romney. Assuming democrats get their act together and get some good ads going, i think obama has a very good (although not certain) chance.
Especially if they reuse the vulture capitalist comments and other candidates criticizing romney for laying the ground work for obama care and then changing his mind.
Lorini
1586
Not to mention the fact that Obama has raised $68M so far and hasn’t really gotten the election machine going.
Gingrich’s Super-PAC made a hit piece, and it’s fairly brutal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BLWnB9FGmWE#!
Romney is presented as an absolute vulture. The white working-class does not like it when Wall Street assholes destroy jobs. This could hurt.
JeffL
1588
Don’t discount the motivation for Republicans coming from being anti-Obama. I know, it didn’t work for Kerry, but it’s there.
Yeah, jeffd, I get your mantra that election ads, etc. don’t matter, “it’s the economy, stupid.” I don’t disagree, my point is that is exactly what Romney will run on and what he will hammer Obama on and what he will make sure stays in the forefront of the election. And much as Bush 1 was unable to convince people that the country was actually coming out of the recession as he ran against Clinton, and Clinton was able to refute that by making it personal in debates, etc. (e.g. So, people, does it feel like the economy is good now? How’s that job search going?) I don’t think “moving in the right direction” is going to be enough. I don’t think anyone is projecting that there will be a massive drop in the actual unemployment numbers by November; even if it dropped to 7.8% it would be higher than when Obama took office (yeah, I know, but it is grist for the campaign grill.) Most places I’m reading don’t project a much lower rate than 8.5% by election time. One example:
If the deadlock in Washington ends up in February with the payroll tax cut ending and unemployment benefits being cut and cuts in federal spending, that’s going to take a toll on the growth rate in 2012. I don’t think the mess in Europe is going to be insignificant either. And I don’t think pointing fingers at the Republicans if they are the cause of Washington gridlock as the problem if that happens will be effective for exactly the same reason you (jeffd) says campaign ads, etc. don’t overshadow the economy.
People vote the economy, and the president gets more credit and blame than they deserve. In this case, I’m guessing that even if the unemployment rate drops some and things start looking better, enough people have gone through enough pain in Obama’s term that they are going to hold him accountable.
Hugin
1589
My comment really just meant I thought JeffL’s scenario where the Obama team’s entire anti-Romney strategy is “He’s a flip-flopper” was silly.
JeffL
1590
I was specifically responding to someone saying that the flip-flop accusations would be Romney’s Achilles’s heel.
Hugin
1591
Apologies then.
Here’s how I see it, basically:
Even people who find Obama (that is, among Obama’s natural base, I’m not talking about people who’d never vote for him anyway) frustrating or disappointing I think still want to like him. I think very few people actually like Romney even if they dislike Obama or agree with Romney’s policy positions.
I suspect that as the campaign goes into full swing, Obama will throw the base some meat (like this recess appointment stuff) that will make some people happy/hopeful again. The stories I’m reading indicate that Obama’s state operations/ground game, and fundraising are all very strong right now. The economy seems to be improving.
I have a hard time believing Romney will kick Obama’s ass in debates. And while “He’s a flip flopper!” in and of itself isn’t very compelling, I think Romney has enough stuff in his record that you can create a persuasive narrative about… well, basically a big empty suit who made a lot of money screwing over the little guy and now wants to be President because it’s there. I also have a moderate amount of confidence that between the two of them, Romney will say or do slightly more stupid/embarrassing things between now and the election.
Maybe I have blinders on, but I’m just not particularly worried, barring of course some obvious out of left field game changer.
jeffd
1592
The unemployment rate is 8.5% today; if it’s there in November that means it’s basically stalled, and the President is fucked.
The stuff I’ve read indicates that it’s not so much the headline rate as it is the rate of change six to twelve months before the election, i.e., now. The rate of change for the past two months has been pretty good, if that keeps up I think the President will probably be OK. Of course you’re right, the economy might falter (the Fed could do something stupid, Europe could implode, etc).
Also for what it’s worth, it’s not that I think “campaigns don’t matter.” It’s that they by and large cancel one another out. Romney might give a good speech, but so will the President. The President might cut a good ad, but so will Romney. The end result is that the campaigns don’t actually create a net gain in voters for either candidate, so the electorate ends up deciding things based on other circumstances.
jeffd
1593
Also I agree with JeffL, the flip-flopper thing will be largely irrelevant. Insofar as Romney may be vulnerable to campaign attacks, it’s going to be the Vulture capitalist thing.
Incidentlly, Rick Perlstein pointed out that the GOP has been doing the anti-capitalism-excess thing for about five minutes, won’t do it for more than another five minutes more, but has already come up with a better cathphrase (vulture capitalism) than Democrats have been able to come up with in like five years.
JeffL
1594
REPORTED (apologies not allowed in P&R) ;)
JeffL
1595
I agree with you (damn!) on the campaigns. Unless someone does something REALLY stupid in the campaigns, a couple of good politicians will change few minds with the ads. Of course, in a very close election, I would submit those very few votes could make a difference in truly undecideds. The issue is how many people really come into an election undecided (vs. telling a pollster they are undecided in an attempt to appear “fair” and unbiased.)
There are a few reports that say some of the recent upticks in employment have been non-sustainable (e.g. 40,000 of the 200,000 in December being temporary courier related hires.) I’m not seeing many people predicting much better than 8.5% by 12/12. Caveat - predicting unemployment rates is a dangerous business. But I think people dismissing Romney and stating that Obama will wipe him out, etc. are really underestimating just how much of a challenge this economy is going to present to Obama’s re-election bid.
Ah, but the “Romney is a stiff that can’t motivate his own base” narrative is at complete variance with this. His New Hampshire victory speech that challenged that narrative was the basis for my initial post. The fact that Romney gave a good speech is important precisely because it shows he has the potential to negate what was once viewed as a strong Obama advantage. If rhetorical ability is roughly tied, then the electorate does exactly what you say–it decides on the basis of other circumstances. If one candidate completely outclasses the other in speechmaking ability, that plays a role in voter choice.
jeffd
1597
Dave: I think you are way, way overestimating the value of speechifying. As long as a candidate meets a minimum bar for coherence and doesn’t say anything egregiously awful, the margins at which speaking ability matter are so incredibly small as to be irrelevant.
For fun: my rough mental model of US politics:
Some percentage of the voters are committed partisans (say 80%), split evenly between the two parties. They’re going to go out and vote their party no matter what. You might slice this slightly further into “committed partisans who always vote,” and “committed partisans who sometimes stay home.”
Some percentage of the voters (say, 15%) are what I call gut-check voters. They do a gut check on the state of the country and go from there. From what I can tell the gut check consists of four things: what’s the economy like for me and mine, are we losing any wars, and have the incumbents been caught in any nasty scandals recently, and how long have the current incumbents been running the show? Depending on which way the gut check goes, these 15% vote either incumbent or anti-incumbent. Note: the four items above are not always weighted equally.
Maybe 5% of the electorate are truly persuadable; they’re going to judge based on the campaigns. Ironically these 5% are probably fairly low information voters, despite the fact that they’re nominally independent and not making choices along partisan lines.
Note that based on this model, the campaigns and relative personal attributes of the candidates are largely irrelevant because they cancel one another out. I do think an obviously crazy/incompetent candidate could influence this model in unpredictable ways (say, Sarah Palin got nominated for the Presidency; I’d imagine her obvious incompetence might sway some of the gut check voters despite how they feel about the economy). That’s not the case with the likely match up we’re going to see (Romney vs. Obama); Mitt Romney meets a minimum bar for sanity/competence, so we’re back to a gut check about the state of the country deciding everything.
The kid (allegedly) watching the TV in horror as news of Kay Bee Toys’ bankruptcy is announced is a nice touch.
JeffL
1599
Where did you find those numbers and that information? Back in 08, before the first debate, the declared undecideds were around 18%, fwiw.
Also, how does this hypothesis fit with Gore losing to Bush 2?
My favorite low-information voter this cycle:
Marcy Nee, exiting the polls with her daughter, voted for Mitt Romney. “I like his social conservative positions,” she said. “He’s never flip-flopped on them.” (How I wish Romney’s strategists could have heard this.) It took her a while to decide, and she flirted with a Ron Paul vote, but decided that Romney was good enough.
Hilarious on so many levels.
You could search-and-replace this with Bush 2004, and note he still managed to get re-elected. It’s very hard for incumbents to lose. I also think you’re wildly overestimating the number of civil liberties independents.
The bulk of people who call themselves independents or undecided at any point in time aren’t; they end up voting for their “grudgingly preferred” party 90% of time.
