Romney and the Go-for-Broke Election
WASHINGTON — Here are the two great campaign mysteries at midsummer: Why does Mitt Romney appear to be getting so much traction from ripping a few of President Obama’s words out of context? And why aren’t Romney and other Republicans moving to the political center as the election approaches?
Both mysteries point to an important fact about the 2012 campaign: For conservatives, this is a go-for-broke election. They and a Republican Party now under their control hope to eke out a narrow victory in November on the basis of a quite radical program that includes more tax cuts for the rich, deep reductions in domestic spending, big increases in military spending, and a sharp rollback in government regulation.
In the process, the right hopes to redefine middle-of-the-road policies as “left wing,” thereby altering the balance in the American political debate.
What should alarm both liberals and moderates is that this is the rare election in which such a strategy has a chance of succeeding. Conservatives have their opening not because the country has moved far to the right but courtesy of economic discontent, partisan polarization and the right’s success in defining Obama as standing well to the left of where he actually does.
The Obama campaign is trying to disrupt this narrative on multiple fronts. Why did Obama respond so quickly and forcefully to Romney’s effort to use the president’s “you didn’t build that” quotation as a way of casting him as an enemy of small business? It’s not that the attack was true. In fact, it was blatantly false, given that in the same speech Obama praised “hard work,” “responsibility” and “individual initiative.”
The words did, however, play to a stereotype of Obama as an advocate of big government who mistrusts business. The distortion resonated, said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, because key voter groups that Romney is trying to win suspect the four words reflect “secretly what he [Obama] believes.”
Moreover, Republicans want to recast the Obama campaign’s most effective line of attack — that Romney is a very wealthy out-of-touch financier who “pioneered” the outsourcing of jobs, kept a lot of money in foreign accounts, and refuses to release additional tax returns — as being less about Romney than about the president’s supposed hostility to “success” and to business. Much is riding on the interpretation (or willful misinterpretation) of a short sentence in a long speech.
The go-for-broke strategy has a chance for another reason: In this election, the number of genuine, middle-of-the-road swing voters is very small. For both candidates, this puts a premium not only on high turnout among party base groups but also on very large victory margins within them. McInturff thinks we may be moving from an electoral model based on swing or undecided voters to a world of what he calls “committed versus elastic” voter groups.
For example, it is widely agreed that white working-class voters will support Romney. But much depends upon Romney’s margin among them. If Obama holds Romney’s lead in the white working class to around 15 points, he likely wins. Romney can win if he pushes his advantage with these less well-off voters to 25 points or more. Obama’s Bain/tax returns offensive against Romney is aimed directly at this constituency.
Similarly, Romney will lose the Latino vote by a landslide. But holding his deficit to, say, 30 points instead of 40 will matter. And by portraying Obama as anti-business, McInturff said, Romney could gain ground among college-educated white men. In the pollster’s terms, what matters is the “elasticity” in all these constituencies.
The potential flaw in the conservative strategy could turn out to be reality itself. Obama’s actual record is neither left wing nor anti-business. Public opinion is strongly hostile to many items on the conservative agenda. Most voters, for example, reject the idea that more tax cuts for the wealthy are central to future prosperity. Much of the domestic spending that Republicans would reduce has strong support, one reason Romney avoids budget specifics.
Republicans want to play down the implications of what they would do in power and paint Obama as someone he isn’t. Normally, this strategy wouldn’t work. But this is a moment when abnormal levels of economic turmoil are feeding a profound mistrust of government. Conservatives are making a large bet that if ever there was a year when they could mainstream out-of-the-mainstream ideas, this is it.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
Share This
Interesting…thanks
Wonder what you think about women voters.. don’t believe Romney will do well with the women voters, except the far right.
The women i know have a tendency to vote on substance of character which is often shown with how the words and actions are embodied or not.. Romney’s boast is so large he is not residing in his body.
A little difference between Romney and Howard Dean. One had a scream and the other leaves many women with the silent scream.
During the last depression, FDR was elected three times. During the current depression, the same may apply. The fat cats are the same, the economic stress is less only for those who have not lost jobs, homes, and life savings. Safety nets put in place since the last depression are having gaping holes being ripped ever larger by State governments.
The one big difference this time is the ethnic character of the candidate and any difference in voting patterns may be affected by that fact alone. Mr. Dionne touches on what I call Merkin’s law: [(The) greater aim is to advance the falsehood that Obama doesn’t deserve to be President, that he is an usurper. If the point that you are making is a lie it doesn’t matter … if the so-called facts that you use to support it are also lies, only that they sound like something that a not a real American would do to further degrade and demean the office.] (I hope you don’t mind, Merkin, but I think you have encapsulated the truth in those two very concise sentences so succinctly they need to be repeated over and over.)
If the Republican party is betting the farm on this election’s showing that we are not in a post-racial, post-tribal, post-McCarthy era, I can only hope they fail so badly that more than one moderate party emerges.
@The_Ohioan
what I call Merkin’s law: [(The) greater aim is to advance the falsehood that Obama doesn’t deserve to be President
This law postulates without question that the candidate you like deserves to be president, and as such is highly subjective and not much of a law. It’s really just groupthink/echo chamber stuff.
@The_Ohioan..Please don’t compare FDR to Obama. Anyone who studies FDR will realize that Obama could not even be FDR’s press secretary, let alone be mentioned in the same breath as FDR.
For one, compare FDR’s Nw Deal work programs with Obama’s work programs. The WPA and CCC, along with other programs put people back to work. Much of Obama’s spending on the economy did little to put people back to work. Much of that money ended up on Wall St in the pockets of the big banks that are still not lending those funds to individuals that need help staying in their houses or saving a business from going bankrupt.
FDR was a liberal, but with a small “l”. Those that needed help got it, but they also gave something in return. Obama is something much different.
I’m with RP on this one. Obama is a watered down version of FDR in a time when we need a full blown version of him. Actually even a watered down version would work, because FDR had to come up with the New Deal policies from scratch, while Obama merely has to walk us back to them. On managing the many billions spent to put this economy back on track I give the Obama administration a D+ at best. On reigning in the rat bastards who put us in this mess I would give him a D-. While I would like to vote for someone who will address these issues, it doesn’t appear any such person will be running for office in 2012.
As to why the GOP is getting so much traction with their current misrepresentation of Obama’s soundbite, is that really a surprise? I mean, we are talking about a voting group that still has 1/4 to 1/3 of them that thinks Obama is a Muslim. Only a slightly smaller share thinks he isn’t a citizen. When you are dealing with people so gullible why would you waste time trying to do your research and basing your talking points in fact? A huge chunk of the GOP still think deregulation and tax breaks for the wealthy are a way to make more jobs and fix the economy. Clearly all they have to do is tap into the conservative subconscious and poke that with a sharp stick to get the votes you want.
@slamfu
While Obamama isn’t FDR, no one could ever be another FDR, Mittens is a joke. Mittens is more like a dime store version of Herbert Hoover. Can the middle class survive the Trckle Down Econ on steroids of a Romney and rand paul?
EJ’s article and Joe G.’s post about Sarah Palin and the Texas senatorial primary makes me wonder:
Are conservatives & TPers so emboldened by their wins within their own party that they are arrogantly assuming they will win everything using that same game plan? Have they looked in their own mirror so long they think the whole world looks like them?
It’ll be fascinating to watch whether or not this strategy holds up to the end.
It could end up no more than a Race of Bases: he who brings the most friends wins, because there’s no way the lazy people in the audience (independents & moderates) will take the field.
Yes, Barky, as far as I can tell since most of the people they talk to agree with them they are quite certain that they are in reality the majority of Americans. Nothing will convince them otherwise, including electoral losses in general elections. Of course I do think that if Cruz wins the primary in Texas he will win the general election as well. It is Texas, after all.
Leaving aside the fact the dubious assumption that Obama’s campaign is any more fair than Romney’s and answering the putative questions. The fact is that neither candidate appears to be getting any traction in polls that don’t seem to be more. This is probably because voters are becoming increasingly inured to vilification ads and, a swarm of ads not withstanding, aren’t paying that much attention this early.
As to why he isn’t “moving to the center”, other than the fact that this author has defined “the center” as “the democratic platform”, the fact is that the “my opponent is a horrible person” ads that both are running to nothing to move you anyplace since the don’t even address issues.
DG
It can be called a law, a premise, or a postulation; it’s not acceptable that if you consider candidate (insert any name) a usurper that doesn’t deserve to be president therefore any lie is ok to be used. Further “so-called facts that you use to support it (that lie) are also lies, only that they sound like something that a not a real American would do to further degrade and demean the office.”
It’s the wrong thing to do and only degrades the politial process. It has nothing to do with what the opposition thinks about whether the candidate is deserving or not, it is aimed at the possible proponents of the candidate. Insert any name you please, and the validity of the statement is the same.
RP
Of course I was not comparing FDR to Obama; I was comparing the conditions surrounding the election: a depression, the failing of safety nets which is deepening that depression, and the fat cats that are doing very well.
To compare FDR to Obama you would have to include the current Congress, the current Supreme Court, and the laws that have been put in place in the last 80 years. There will be some books doing just that, I’m sure. My observation was simply about the election, not the men involved. However if grades are being accepted, I’d give Obama A B on the auto bailout, a C- on the Bank bailout, a C on the stimulus, a B on the ACA, a D on privacy concerns, a D- (so far) on justice for war crimes, and a C (also so far) on handling an obsteperous Congress. If he is reelected, he will have to do some heavy hauling to get those grades up.
“It’s the wrong thing to do and only degrades the politial process. It has nothing to do with what the opposition thinks about whether the candidate is deserving or not, it is aimed at the possible proponents of the candidate. Insert any name you please, and the validity of the statement is the same.”
Should read:
“Its the wrong thing to do, whether the candidate is deserving or not, and it is aimed at misleading the possible opponents of that candidate. Insert any name you please, and the validity of the statement is the same.”