The Confidence Game
Nate Silver has one of his usual clear-headed analyses of the two campaigns going forward — “A Referendum or a Choice?” Basically, Romney is running a referendum campaign on President Obama’s first term, and President Obama is running a choice campaign, challenging Americans to decide what America will be going forward.
As I’ve been saying this week, Romney seems to be marketing himself as the generic alternative to President Obama. This assumes voters are so disappointed by the President’s first term they will vote in just about anyone who seems suitable without asking many questions. Nate writes of the GOP convention,
Republicans spent some time trying to remedy Mr. Romney’s mediocre favorability ratings. The strong speech by Ann Romney, and the portions of Mr. Romney’s speech about his family, may have had a humanizing effect.
Even here, however, the intent seemed more to neutralize Mr. Romney’s perceived personal weaknesses — to make him an acceptable alternative under the referendum paradigm — than to offer an affirmative case for why Mr. Romney should be president under the choice paradigm.
Under this paradigm, it makes sense that the GOP is putting more energy into tearing the President down than in offering specifics about what a Romney Administration might do, because the pathetic fact is Romney doesn’t have much to offer in the way of the vision thing. He may have a vision, but it’s not one most Americans would like. Under this paradigm, the GOP wants America to think the President is alien and eeeevil and, you know, not white. But, hey, we’ve got this alternate candidate who has a pretty family and nice hair! So try him out! What could go wrong?
The President presents the election as a choice between two paths — we work together toward a better future or give the country back to the people who trashed it in the first place.
Obviously I think the second argument is more persuasive, but the electorate doesn’t always see things the way I do.
A confidence game is an attempt to defraud someone by first gaining their confidence. Essentially, Mitt needs to pull off a confidence game. To win, he has to persuade the electorate they can have confidence in him without letting them in on what he really intends to do.
This has been done before. Nate points to the 2000 election as a kind of choice-referendum tossup. Al Gore was a referendum candidate offering himself as the unexciting but responsible steward of the Clinton economy; and George W. Bush was a choice candidate, promising everyone tax cuts, free beer and a pony. And while the outcome of the election was not determined honestly, it has to be said that a very substantial minority voted for the pony.
The differences between then and now are that, first, then the electorate was complacent about the economy and possibly didn’t think the election outcome would make that much difference to it; and two, in 2000 the Right was tightly unified and totally dominated mass media to a larger degree than it does now. Plus the campaign journalists decided they didn’t like Al Gore, and it showed. So the narrative became that Dubya was a moderate and successful Texas governor and Al Gore was a space alien. But given everything going against him, Gore still won the popular vote.
Today the electorate is not complacent at all, the Democrats are unified while the Republicans are in a bit of a shambles, and while mass media still favors the Right, the Left is no longer completely shut out. Plus, the “choice” guy is likeable while the “referendum” guy is the space alien.
So, barring some unforeseen event that knocks the President off his game, IMO Romney has a much steeper hill to climb to win the election. And I don’t think just knocking down Obama alone is going to do the trick for him. He has to persuade voters they can trust him, that they can have confidence in him, and I doubt he’s got it in him to do that. I think voters are more on guard against being scammed than they were in 2000. And Mittens really is a space alien, you know.
The Bounce
Regarding bounces — there’s already a news story out saying that Obama isn’t getting a bounce. Ignore that; most of that polling took place before Big Bill spoke. We won’t know if the convention moved any numbers until next week. As Steve Kornacki said, if that convention didn’t create a bounce, no convention could create a bounce.
However, it’s possible there won’t be much of a bounce, because there appears to be only a tiny sliver of voters who are genuinely undecided.
But Romney needed a bounce more than Obama does. The electoral college scorecard has President Obama ahead. Romney needs to change more minds than Obama does.
The Blitz
The Romney campaign is launching a blitz of 15 new ads in eight swing states. The ads are targeted to both local and national issues. Here is the voice-over text to one ad:
“This president can ask us to be patient. This president can tell us it was someone else’s fault. But this president cannot tell us that you’re better off today than when he took office,” Romney says in the file footage.
Then the narrator kicks in: “Here in North Carolina, we’re not better off under President Obama. His economic and trade policies with China have destroyed thousands of jobs. The Romney plan? Stand up to China, reverse obama job-killing policies, create over 350,000 new jobs for North Carolina.”
I dunno. I think the part about standing up to China is weird, but whatever. What do you think?
“I dunno. I think the part about standing up to China is weird, but whatever.”
No Republican would “stand up to China”– that’s where they get their slave labor. Another Mitt lie.
I wish Obama was tougher on trade, but I expect he does the best he can under the circumstances. Clinton’s NAFTA did nobody any good, but it did look good on paper. I wish people wouldn’t buy into the “free trade agreement’ Kool Aid.
Stand up to China?
Who?
Mitt?
LOL!
You don’t bite the hand that took the jobs you fed it.
Business partners don’t do that to one another.
A couple of things:
-Yeah, Mitt has a tougher job selling himself than President Obama does. Plus, selling himself isn’t Mitt’s forte – buying others, and then selling them off, is.
-Second, if what I heard this morning is true, and it came from Charlie Cook who’s pretty reputable, Mitt’s team isn’t running any ads on Cable TV channels – and that might be a MAJOR mistake.
Who watches the Networks, and who watches Cable TV?
Network viewers skew much older than Cable ones do.
Which means, yeah, you get a much larger audience per ad – but in many cases, you’ll be spending more money to preach to those already converted.
Cable TV ad rates are much cheaper, and the programs are more likely to be watched by non-traditional/more independent viewers.
Now, maybe Rove and his 666 groups, are the ones who are slated to do ads on Cable. I don’t know. But if they’re not, the Republicans are potentially missing an opportunity to get his message out more broadly.
But putting SUPER PAC ads on Cable TV may not be likely. The uber-rich donors who want to topple representative democracy, if they watch TV at all, are more likely to watch the Networks than they are to watch programming as messy as this countries demographics, on Cable. Oh no – they’ll want to SEE what they’re paying for! Why watch for the ads you paid mucho dollars for on some crap like “Comedy Central,” when you can watch them on ‘CSI – Occupy Wall Street,’ and between your ads, hope no one solves the murders of the DFH kid protesters?
-Finally, to this point, for those who live in solidly Blue states, we don’t get anywhere NEAR the amount of TV ads that swing states do.
In the last Presidential, I lived in NC, and I got SICK of seeing political ads during EVERY break – to the point where, I was even to sick to death of Obama’s ads!
I think the Obama team is smart in concentrating more of their money on GOTV, and less on ads on TV.
First, with voter suppression, that may well be the key.
Second, barraging people with too many ads, makes them sick to death of you and your ads – and may actually act to suppress voters, who may say, “Feck MY guy. Feck THEIR guy! I’m tired of them both. I’ll sit home, I’m so sick of these ads!”
Btw, and OT – I think things are looking up.
The jobs numbers went UP for a 30th consecutive month – ok, not by much, but they WERE up!
And Europe looks like it will be relatively stable until November.
Neither are things the Republicans and Mitt wanted to see happen.
I caught the Virginia version of the new Romney ad this morning. Instead of accusing Obama of have job-killing China trade policies, this version denounces his supposed job-killing coal and energy policies.
I agree with Tom_B on the China stuff. I can’t see Mitt standing up to China on trade policy.
I guess the effectiveness of the ad would depend on how much people blame Obama for “killing” jobs rather than not bringing jobs back fast enough. Also, I didn’t think coal mining was that big a part of the Virginia economy any more.
Well, I don’t exactly recall O ever saying “it was someone else’s fault,” whether by “it” they mean the economy, climate change, or waterboarding. Way to be misleading and dim and projecting all at the same time, GOP ad-writers. And the China crap is just that, as noted by others.
“Better off” is an empty meme, and needs to be shouted down loudly and often. Economically, I’m about the same as in 2008. Otherwise, hey, I’m no longer angry or afraid all the time because the administration isn’t shockingly dishonest and destructive, as Bush II was. In an older person with high blood pressure, that counts as better off.
In sum, I thought the Dems (to my great surprise) put on one of the most successful conventions I can remember. I suspect the GOP’s ads over the next few weeks will reflect a sense of panic.
Speaking of a ‘bounce,’ one-third of Republican voters watched the RNC convention: One-third of Democratic voters watched the DNC convention: So, two-thirds of potential voters didn’t watch either convention. So much for the meaningful info polls reveal.
Completely off-topic but this ran at the bottom of my screen this morn – the US health care system in 2009 chalked up $750 billion as the cost of waste. Unbelievable, but I’ve seen the figure before.
Can’t speak to the accuracy of those numbers , as I don’t know the source. However, assuming they are correct, they are still good for Democrats, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by a sizable margin (over 25%). Republicans tend to vote more often, which is why Democrats don’t crush them in national elections. But as conventions are largely about exciting the base, even if both conventions did an equally good job at that this year (a laughable proposition), then Democrats would get a bigger bounce.
Besides, clips and transcripts from the conventions will be continue to be seen and shared by many who didn’t actually watch them live. I am fairly sure that Clinton’s speech will convince and fire up a lot more people than Eastwood’s performance art.
One thing I’ve noticed about Mitt Romney is that he doesn’t appear to know the difference between goals and plans. Well, that’s probably true of Republicans in general. Creating 350,000 jobs is a goal, not a plan. How exactly is Romney going to create 350,000 jobs in North Carolina? Climb up on a mountain top and say “Let there be 350,000 jobs”?
Oh right, he’s going to reverse Obama’s job-killing policies. Which policies? You know, the ones that are killing jobs. The ones Mitt Romney is going to reverse.
Several months ago, I made a trip to Tampa;I needed to hang some pictures and do a little trim carpentry. As luck would have it, I left my little claw hammer at home and had only a 2lb. sledge hammer and a mason’s hammer, either one would have mangled the wall and / or my fingers. So it was off to The Home Depot.
I picked out a suitable hammer, a sweet little claw for only $6.50.
I looked at the sticker on the handle; Made In China.
20 years ago, a similar Stanley hammer would have set me back about $18.00.
The Chinese can manufacture, ship, and still make a profit at WAY below what we can make it for here.(plus, Home Depot got their cut)
How do you compete with that? What’s more, we’ve offshored all the pollution associated with the manufacturing process.
I view this problem as systemic. Everybody wants a good deal. Everybody wants more profit. We have traded comfort today for a brick wall tomorrow.
As far as “standing up to China” goes, what’s Mitt gonna say? Raise your prices “or else”?
The real geopolitical problem with China is they don’t lecture their trading partners about human rights or morality, they just conduct business and help with infrastructure projects. Our government would rather use economic hit men, the CIA jackals and the military. Different strokes for different folks.
What do I think?
If I were a staunch republican who refused to vote for anybody but a republican, I’d be holding my nose if I had to vote for rommney.
The only thing he has going for him is he supposedly a christian and that’s even debatable in some religious corners.
He has flip flopped on so many issues I’d be worried that he forgot what he believed that day and vote against what I voted him in to do.
They don’t have a dick cheney as a VP for this choice. the republican party has got to be worried about what this guy and his vp choice will do.
If elected, they may destroy the republican party. Which as it stands, may not be a bad thing.
The Romney plan? Stand up to China
Squirrel!
How exactly is Romney going to create 350,000 jobs in North Carolina? Climb up on a mountain top and say “Let there be 350,000 jobs�
Perhaps he will put on his magical eyeglasses and decode the secret from the magical golden plates that are buried out back next to Seamus, the unfortunate Irish setter.
Or perhaps he will transport 350,000 North Carolinians to the planet Kolob, where cushy jobs await at the interplanetary spaceport.
They don’t have a dick cheney as a VP for this choice. the republican party has got to be worried about what this guy and his vp choice will do.
If elected, they may destroy the republican party.
I don’t think the Republican party works that way. When a GOPer becomes president, the job is really little more than being a front man, someone to take the rubes’ attention, while all the heavy lifting goes on behind the scenes. It’s almost entirely public relations – and GW Bush was the prime example. Ronald Reagan was the master at it.
I think it was Charlie Pierce who watched Mitt giving his speech in Tampa, and who was perceptive enough to see that Mitt was straining to be something that he wasn’t. He was told what to say, and how to say it, in other words. He couldn’t be himself. Being a GOP president is a lot like that.
There’s a memorable scene of W’s last day in the White House, where he basically let his hair down, and gave out a big sigh/gasp, as though a thousand pounds was just lifted from his shoulders. It was W at his most honest moment. The guy was acting the whole time, and now he could finally go home.
And much like public relations is a relatively minor part of any corporation, I believe that’s how Republicans see the presidency, even Mitt Romney. They’re just one critical part of the team, and not the most important part. They don’t have a clue about statesmanship, so wrapped up are they with enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Right, Moonbat!
Bush’s attention span was way back in the dust of Crawford. He just wanted to ride his bike and drive the pick-up truck around the ranch; being a “decider” is hard work.
His glory days ended when Saddam was strung up; dead men tell no tales, and Saddam had the deep secrets about Bush 41 and Poppy’s CIA ops before that. Gawd, what a mess….
Moonbat, you bring up an important point. Because the GOP has relied so much on puppetry the past 30 years, they assume the Democratic party works the same way. Perhaps, for a time, it did, if in fact defense contractors really did call the tune during the Vietnam years; or labor unions did in some lost honey-colored era when the U.S.A. was a workers’ paradise (intense snark, there)? It would’ve been before my time, anyway.
But the GOP’s M.O. explains the Right’s insane obsession with negligible groups like the late ACORN, or SEIU. Some of the signage and many references from the podium in Charlotte probably convinced GOP conspiracy theorists that the UAW still calls the tune, when in fact it has tragically little power anymore.
iirc, Obama set a fundraising record in September 2008, and comprised of gazillions of donations of $250.00 or less, from ordinary folks like me. That kind of monetary core, the GOP simply cannot understand. But they do know how to put a hand up the back of some dumb guy’s suit, and make him dance.
So try him out! What could go wrong?
If people didn’t learn from Bush’s presidency; than what more can be said?
It was a lesson I’ll never forget. And the greatest part of that lesson learned is that if you don’t pay close attention,and just treat it like a beauty contest —the results can disastrous..
The interesting to me about moonbat’s point is that I think it used to be that way, and to a large extent the party is still set up to be that way … but these days, I don’t think there’s anybody at the controls. Everybody who used to run the party is now either gone or deep in a hole somewhere hiding because they are all not nearly crazy enough to actually be in the modern GOP. It’s like a horse with a really nice saddle and bridle and blinders and the whole bit, but no rider … or a marionette with all the strings attached, but nobody holding them. Various factions occasionally get hold of one or another set of strings and the whole corpse jerks kind of spastically, but there is no purposeful movement.
The GOP either needs to rid itself of the reigns of external control or get some competent non-crazy people actually holding those reigns. Knowing them, I’m guessing they’ll go for door number 2, eventually.
-Ian
Bush’s attention span was way back in the dust of Crawford. He just wanted to ride his bike and drive the pick-up truck around the ranch; being a “decider†is hard work.
And even that part was phoney. As soon as his eight years ended, he sold the ranch and moved to I believe Dallas. I really think someone convinced him to get the ranch in order to be like Reagan.
Slightly OT – I was at Daily Kos for a few minutes, and came across a comment where someone used the phrase “GOP Lite”, as in the way Democrats formerly positioned themselves in relation to Republicans (whether they used that phrase or not). I am fascinated by phrases – how and when they enter our language and how and when they leave. It’s a lot like watching fashions in clothing or hairstyles.
For me, the most thrilling thing about this years DNC is how this cowardly-but-true epithet has all but disappeared from political writing. It is not a small thing that the Democrats have finally found their voice, and are clearly and forcefully articulating what they’re for – remember the long-running complaint that people never knew what Democrats were for? – and have come out from under the shadow of their arrogant and bullying opponents.
This is a seismic shift. Whether it’s enough to win the next election is an open question (but I am optimistic), but to no longer be seen as a pale imitation of the once mighty Republicans is huge.
I agree, and I hope it’s not snuffed out by cynicism.
moonbat.. I think that delineation has to be credited to Barack Obama’s leadership.
being a “decider†is hard work
In a perverse sort of way I kinda miss him. What an easy target!
“what an easy target!”
True, Swami; the scary part is he was the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military on the planet( which he enjoyed). Sadly, he had the intellectual grasp and attention span of a 10 year old boy.