Debate One

What did we learn from the first debate?

Romney had energy, and frankly, he had to show some kind of emotion.  He could not go folksy because that doesn't seem quite him.

President Obama appeared like he wanted to be somewhere else.

Jim Lehrer probably wanted a bit more control over the debate, but his questions were wide open and created real back and forth between the candidates.  In past debates it seemed as if the candidates could have had the debates on separate nights.  For me it was refreshing.  For others, it may have been off putting.

Couple that with how wonky the debate was.  Fact Checkers rejoice: you will be earning your pay today.  From the $5 trillion tax plan to the 716 billion in "cuts" or "savings" to Medicare, whichever you like, there was a steady stream of numbers and statistics that may have moved many to bang their heads against the wall.  Who's right?  Probably both, just to certain degrees.

The debate was a win for Romney.  But from most analyses, debates matter little.  What seems to have a greater effect is the coverage in the news media.  This is more complex now than it was twenty years ago because the American public seems to be sorting itself into partisan media diets.  That is to say that Republicans tend to hear from fellow Republicans and Democrats hear from fellow Democrats. 

I'm just wanting to see what Saturday Night Live does.  That may be more important than the actual debate.

 

Romney's Challenges

This election shouldn't be this close.  From several economic indicators such as the unemployment rate, Mitt Romney should be running away with this election.  At least this is what Charlie Cook has argued in a recent analysis of the 2012 Presidential Election.

However, Governor Romney and his campaign have a few challenges that they must confront if he's going to win in November.

A Failure to Connect

Governor Romney must connect with the voters.  It's a broken record, but true.  This has plagued him since he ran in 2008 and has continued to weigh him down in 2012.  On top of this, his remarks two weeks ago with the protests and riots in Middle East and how the 47% video do not help his campaign.

A recent survey from Pew reveals more troubling news for his campaign.  Even after the Republican convention and the efforts to appeal to a wider swath of the American electorate, especially women, Romney has the worst favorability rating of any recent Presidential candidate.

This perception of Romney is not going to make it any easier to win in November.  Voters want to have some sort of connection with their elected officials, and they want to feel that their elected officials is looking out for their best interests.  It's a two-way street.

From Pew's data, favorability matters quite a lot.  With the exception of Vice President Al Gore, the candidate with the favorability advantage won the election.  Compounding this, the bad news for Romney is that he has a -5 net favorability, he is the only recent candidate to be in negative numbers in the September before the election.

In addition, according to Pew, only 23% of voters think that Romney "connects well with ordinary Americans" better than President Obama.  This perception and the negative favorability numbers are not going to get any better as the effect of the 47% video spreads.

Bad news begets bad news . . .

Along with the favorability data, Pew shows a widening margin for President Obama in the national head-to-head match up.  To make matter worse for the Romney camp, Romney has no advantage on any issue associated with the economy except for reducing the federal budget deficit, hardly a salient issue with voters.

These national data are important, but what is critical to the 2012 Presidential Election is Ohio.

Ohio and the Economy

A recent Ohio Newspaper Poll shows a 5 point margin for President Obama, a bit wider than the 3 point margin found last month before the conventions.  This gap not insurmountable, but the numbers are moving the wrong way for the Romney camp.  The bad news for the Romney campaign is that the likely voters in Ohio see President Obama as better fit to fix the economy than Romney.  Last month Romney had a 7 point advantage over the President, now there's been an 11 point swing.

The economy was supposed to Romney's; throughout the primary it was the heart of his campaign; however, in Ohio, a critical Battleground state, he is not only losing ground in the head-to-head match up, he's losing ground in the area that was going to his ticket to the White House.

Good News?

The good news for the Romney campaign is that it's only September and that there are four debates from now until Election Day.  Plus, a lot can happen outside of the campaign that will throw a wrench into anyone's predictions.

At this time in the 2008 campaign, McCain was ahead of Obama in Ohio.  Obama moved ahead in Ohio during the last month and a half in part because of the debates, the Palin interviews, and the economy tanking the same day Senator McCain said, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Is the election over?  Hardly.  But the last six weeks of the campaign will be a lot like riding an old wooden roller coaster, so hold on tight.

What Partisan Press?

This past week's news media have focused on the "47% video" of Romney from way back in May of 2012.  Then, in response to this problem for the Romney campaign, FOX News and the Romney campaign reveal the video recording of President Obama talking about redistribution in 1998.

Claims of media bias have been lobbed from news network to news network.  It's a bit like Groundhog Day.

To make sense of all of this, it is critical to pin point what is meant by "the media."  Second, but equally as critical, we must zero in on what we mean by bias.

In this case, we are talking about the news media as "the media:" network news, newspapers, cable news networks, and online news sources.

Bias is trickier: most claim some overriding ideological bias in news that favors liberalism over conservatism.  But this is not as straight forward as many would like it to be.  For example, the news media goes to great lengths to maintain confidence in the American political institutions, a indication of conservatism, to be sure.  Media criticism tends to focus on the individuals, those representatives within government.  The bias that is most evident in the news media is, ironically perhaps, the elite bias.  This bias favors the voices of the powerful: Republicans and Democrats, business leaders, labor leaders, etc.  There is a bias for the sensational: man bites dog rather than dog bites man.  And, the news media has a short attention span: squirrel! 

The effect on the public conscious of a short attention span and a tendency towards the sensational is notable: how is life in New Orleans since Katrina or the rebuilding efforts in Haiti?  Squirrel!

But back to the question of bias.  In an extensive study from May 29, 2012 to August 5, 2012, the Project for Excellence in Journalism tracked how media covered Governor Romney and President Obama.  What they found illustrates the complex nature of media bias, and underscores that talking about "the media" as one giant Leviathan is misguided to say the least.

Here's some data:

From the first piece of data we see that the coverage this year is more like 2004 than 2008 or 2000.  But more importantly this reveals what the next two charts underline: the news media is critical of presidents and those who want to be president.

For those who claim that "the media" is in the tank for Obama, these data do not support such claims.  What to watch for is the old adage: good news begets good news.  Since the Democratic National Convention the Obama campaign has been riding high.  But good news for Obama means bad news for Romney. 

"Poor" Romney, he can't catch a break.  He too has seen consistently negative coverage.  Couple this with the recent campaign missteps, and his campaign narrative will continue to take a beating.  Bad news begets bad news.  From these data, "the media" does not seem to be biased towards either candidate.

However, when we take a look within "the news media" to the fragmented segments, especially within the cable news universe, we see what can be considered bias.

The FOX News cable network has been "fair and balanced" in its coverage of Mitt Romney, but certainly not balanced in its coverage of President Obama.

MSNBC shows its bias.  It is the mirror image of FOX or FOX is the mirror image of MSNBC (it doesn't really matter).  Their coverage of Mitt Romney is as negative as FOX's coverage of Obama.

Thus, it is easy to see why many Liberals and Democrats view FOX as the media wing of the Republican Party and Conservatives and Republicans see MSNBC as the media arm of the Democratic Party.

What is important to note from these data, and something that should be discussed in diverse groups of people, is whether this new version of the partisan press is bad for democracy.  Academics write about this and spend time thinking about this stuff, but the public is not engaged in this question.  The partisan press is almost as old as our republic, but what is different now compared to then is that public is less likely to have face-to-face discussions today.  TV and the Internet have made leisure time increasingly private.  We may be less aware of what others think.

Cable news and the Internet has democratized our news media choices but at a cost to public dialogue.  From looking at cable news viewing habits, Republicans pick multiple shows from the FOX News channel, while Democrats pick shows from MSNBC.  We run the risk of creating a bubble; a bubble, yes a bubble.  In the process, narrowing our view of the world.  In an increasingly global world, this is bad.

Many people self-select news media that confirms rather than challenges what they believe.  Compounding this behavior is the "Hostile Media Phenomenon:" people with highly committed points of view, such as strong Democrats and strong Republicans, perceive impartial news stories to be biased in favor of their opponents.  We have a role in the mess within the news media.

To paraphrase Pogo: "We have met news media bias, and it is us."

A Student's Experience

One of my students, Daniel Rajaiah, had the opportunity to attend the Democratic National Convention.  Below is his thoughts about his experience during that week.
..................................................................................................................................................................

On Sunday September 2, 2012 I was privileged to be invited by members of the Ohio Democratic Party to attend and briefly speak to the Ohio delegation at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC. Realizing the importance of this opportunity I quickly purchased a one way flight to Charlotte for the following morning and emailed all my professors at UD to explain to them the situation.

After landing in Charlotte on Monday evening I took a shuttle to the Hilton suites where the Ohio delegation was staying at. I met my friends Nick Haneck and State Representative Jay Goyal in the lobby and explained my situation to them and they agreed to let me sleep in their hotel room. That same night Rep. Goyal introduced me to several other state legislators and we all took a shuttle to the John Legend concert and cocktail event at the NASCAR hall of fame. On the shuttle many of the legislators were talking about sports and other things that were not related to politics. Even though I have had pretty close contact with elected officials I have never seen this personal side of them before.

The convention was truly an eye opening experience. It was cleverly tailored to appease different section of the American voting public. Some examples of this include the way the convention was structured. During the afternoons and early evenings of the days during the convention the DNC would sponsor events for specific demographics. For example I was invited to a youth caucus event with Dr. Jill Biden, a women’s caucus event with all the female Democratic senators, a Hispanic luncheon with Secretary Hilda’s. These events were truly exciting. It was a true honor to stand next to Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Red fern when he dedicated all of Ohio’s electoral votes to elect Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s nominee for President of the United States.

The best experience of mine at the convention was sitting on the convention floor listening to various elected officials speak about the importance of re-electing President Obama and moving America forward. It was a truly amazing experience to see the passion that so many fellow Democrats had. It felt that no matter where I went I was always bumping into famous elected officials. I remember sitting on the convention floor the day Barack Obama accepted the party’s nomination thinking to myself how I was sitting where history was being made. This truly made me realize the significant roll politics and conventions play in the United States.

I am very fortunate to have this experience and look forward to working hard to make sure President Obama and Senator Brown are re-elected this fall.

Ohio: The Heart of it all

If you've been living in Ohio over the past six months and watch television at any time, you probably noticed that there's an election going on.  For those new to Ohio this can be quite overwhelming, educational, annoying, fascinating, or some combination of these.

The fact of the matter is the Ohio has been a key battleground state in Presidential Elections, and this year is no different.

One of the first places Mitt Romney came after accepting the Republican nomination was Cincinnati, OH.  Paul Ryan visited his alma mater in Southwest Ohio soon after being picked as the VP.  In 2008 Candidate Obama had 17 campaign events from June until Election Day, and on Labor Day President Obama spent part of his time in Northwest Ohio.  Just by looking at the campaign activity of the candidates, they are not only saying that Ohio is important, they are spending time and money campaigning here.

Let's make an assumption as we examine why the candidates keep coming to Ohio and inundate our airwaves with campaign commercials: candidates are rational.  By rational I am saying that they weigh costs and benefits before making a strategic decision.  They act in their own self-interest, and their main interest is cobbling together more votes than the other candidate.  Consequently, they are going to put money and effort where is will matter most, and Ohio matters quite a lot.

The importance of Ohio in 2012 is the synergy of its bellwether status, the state's competitiveness in Presidential Elections, and it's 18 electoral votes.

Over the past 100 years Ohio has voted for the loser in a Presidential Election only twice, 1944 and 1960.  What is more: No Republican has ever won the White House without also winning Ohio.  So the saying, "As Ohio goes, so goes the Nation," is not only catchy but it's accurate (more accurate than many of the campaign ads).  Connected with the bellwether status of Ohio is it's competitiveness in Presidential Elections.

According to the Ohio Poll, the 2012 Presidential Election looks like it's going to be a nail biter again.  This highlights the closeness of Presidential Elections in Ohio.  When we take a look to the 2004 and 2008 elections, the competitiveness is clearer.  Daniel Coffey and his colleagues at the University of Akron report in Buckeye Battleground that Ohio was the most competitive state in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections. Ohio had the lowest average margin of victory across the two elections - 3.3 percentage points.

For the candidates the message is clear: Turnout is key.  In close races you must win the turnout campaign. And, the campaigns are hard at work trying to ensure that their partisans don't stay at home.  The Romney camp is planning a "Buckeye Blitz" this month, and the Obama team is tapping into its organization that they set up four years ago and canvassing neighborhoods in targeted areas.

The winner-take-all design of the Electoral College makes Ohio's 18 electoral votes a prize worth time and effort.  Either candidate can win in Ohio but only one will, and the one that does is likely going to the White House.

Like it or not Ohioans, Ohio is at the heart of Presidential Elections.

(Ann) Romney for President

Well, I was looking forward to Ann Romney's speech and it wasn't what I thought it would be.  It was more celebration of women and the role women play in America.  This is a true and an important message for all women, but a message that should not be limited to one night. 

Ann Romney's life story is an impressive, to be sure.  But she did not deliver a clearer picture of Mitt Romney.  Even though he "made [her] laugh" he remains two dimensional. 

Below is recent polling data from the Washington Post/ABC News poll. 

Clearly Governor Romney has a personality problem (-16 net favorability) and Mrs. Romney's speech could have helped make a dent in that, but it was weak in humanizing Mitt Romney.

From tonight's speech, I'm more impressed with Ann Romney than her husband.

Ann Romney: the most important speech of the convention?

On the NewsHour Monday night David Brooks said he was looking forward to Ann Romney's speech, which is set for Tuesday in prime-time.

I'm looking forward to that speech, too.  It's not a policy speech nor an overtly political speech, but it carries with it something more important: Ann Romney's speech can help redefine the caricature that Mitt Romney has become.

As a point of comparison, watch First Lady Laura Bush's speech at the 2004 Convention.  That speech was remarkable because of how it humanized President Bush.  It was a time of war and she recalls a moment that only a wife could: "... I remember sitting in the window of the White House, watching as my husband walked on the lawn below. I knew he was wrestling with these agonizing decisions that would have such profound consequence for so many lives and for the future of our world."

Ann Romney's challenge is different and difficult.  She must convince people that Governor Romney can relate to ordinary Americans and that he understands their economic troubles.

The irony of the polls and the reality for the Romney campaign is that recent polls find that voters think that President Obama more than Governor Romney "cares about the needs and problems of people like" them, and that Obama "better understands the economic problems people in this country are having."  Other surveys, including the Ohio Poll from the University of Cincinnati, show that Romney has an advantage with voters on the economy.

Ann Romney's speech may be the most important speech for the Romney campaign.  If Romney leaves this Tampa without moving his favorability numbers higher, then his quest for the White House will not get easier.

The etch a sketch Week

After an unscripted week, Republicans, and the Romney campaign in particular, must be looking forward to their scripted National Convention week.  The past week started off with Romney’s campaign being forced off message by the “legitimate rape” comments of the once unknown House member and current – yes, he’s staying in the race – Senate candidate Todd Akin.  The week ended with a self-inflicted wound: Mitt Romney’s “joke” that “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.”  It’s the economy, stupid!

The Republican National Convention could not come too soon.  But damn the weather: Tropical Storm – soon to be upgraded Hurricane – Isaac is making his way up the Florida coast.

The start of the convention is delayed a day because of the weather, but the GOP has nothing to fear.  Let us not forget that the first day of the 2008 GOP convention was essentially delayed a day because of Hurricane Gustav. The McCain campaign still got a 6 point bounce in the polls.

The Gallup Poll shows that from the conventions from 1964 to 2008, the median “bounce” from a convention is 5 points.  The bounce alone is not very predictive of electoral success, in 1980 Carter’s bounce was 10 points were as Reagan’s was 8 points and in 2008 McCain’s bounce was 6 to Obama’s 4.  So, we need to add another layer to this puzzle. 

The Gallup Poll reported that “[s]ince 1964, the first election year for which Gallup could reliably measure convention bounces, there have been only two examples in which one candidate consistently trailed until the time of his party's convention, but took the lead after and never relinquished it. Those occurred in 1988 for the elder George Bush and 1992 for Bill Clinton.”  They added: “[t]he most common pattern has been for one candidate to consistently lead prior to both conventions, and to maintain a lead during the convention period, even if his opponent got a convention bounce.”  (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110110/Gallup-Daily-McCains-Bounce-Gives-Him-5Point-Lead.aspx) 

So, as the conventions roll along it is essential to watch the national tracking polls, but more importantly to watch the state polls in critical battleground states such as Ohio (but that's for another posting).

Related to bounce, the convention week gives the campaigns an opportunity to introduce the candidates to the American public, or at least the public paying attention.  And for Romney this week is critical.  The question that the Romney campaign needs to answer is: Who is Mitt Romney?   

In answering this question, the Romney campaign must make connections between the candidates and the viewing public.  The problem for Romney is that President Obama not only leads him in most polls, Obama also leads Romney in the "favorability" category.  Sure, the Presidential Election is not, and shouldn’t be, a popularity contest, but voters find it difficult to vote for someone that they can’t connect with or they don’t like.

The highest hurdle for Romney is that he does not have a strong personal narrative that can be used to connect with most Americans.  Just by looking at the last three presidents we see strong personal narratives used in connecting to voters.  Obama and Clinton told similar biographical stories: raised by their mother and grandparents, worked their way through school or took out loans, and wanted to give back to the community so they bypassed high paying jobs on Wall Street.  For George W. Bush the narrative was somewhat different: quite literally a born-again narrative.  Bush was a "compassionate conservative," and his faith was central to his life; he had been down and out but he had worked his way to being a successful governor of Texas.

Romney needs a lasting bounce . . . so, what will be the story that Romney tells?