Since early last week, the polls have been a string of bad news for Mitt Romney. Both in swing-state polls and in national ones, President Obama is pulling ahead. There may be some nuggets of good news in states like Colorado, but overall, in must-win states like Ohio, Virginia and Florida, things are looking dire for the Republican nominee. Is it time for Romney to radically alter his campaign or its strategy? Is he due for an ad-spending blitz to try to buoy his numbers going into the fall?
Last summer, pundits debated how long it would take Rick Perry to clinch the Republican nomination. Would he sweep every single primary? How long would it take before his opponents just threw in the towel? His peak was mid-September 2011 in the polls, when according to the Real Clear Politics average, he led the next-most popular candidate, Romney, by more than ten points. He had yet to participate in a debate. Perry’s record as governor of one of the most prosperous states in the union brought him to the lead, and unfortunately, Perry’s less-than-stellar performance in debates was what quickly undid his candidacy. By early October, his lead over Romney disappeared, and his popularity only continued to sharply decline until his withdrawal from the race in late January.
There were two defining moments for Perry in the debate cycle. In his premier debate on September 7, Perry came off as far too aggressive in his efforts to be heard above the seven other voices on stage. A few days later, polls began to register the response to the debate and his numbers sank even with Romney’s. The second moment was so painful I muted the television as it was unfolding live. In a debate on November 9, Perry struggled to name all of the governmental agencies he would cut as president and, after he realized he couldn’t, he ended by saying “Oops!” On that debate performance Alana wrote,
A presidential contender forgetting the name of an agency he wants to cut is pretty awful, but momentary memory lapses happen. But as you can see, there were so many escape hatches that other politicians – smoother communicators – would have taken. Perry should have dropped the issue when Paul gave him a chance, moved on, changed the subject and tried to recover. Instead, he stood onstage for almost a full, excruciating minute, fumbling for an answer that never came to him.
If all Perry lacked was substance, he might still be polling in the double digits right now. Look at Herman Cain. Perry’s big problem is that he also lacks style. And in today’s media and political culture, that’s unforgivable.
After that November 9 debate, Perry lost any hope of regaining momentum, and soon he was an afterthought in discussions about the primary in the media. While few people were watching these endless strings of debates, the buzz after them permeated the consciousness of Republican voters. Tales of Perry’s poor debate performance impacted the perception of voters who weren’t even bothering to tune in yet, and soon Newt Gingrich rose on the back of his strong debate performances. Gingrich’s poor campaigning and checkered past couldn’t keep him in the running, but for a brief time in both December and January, he gave Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum a run for their money. Before Perry’s star took off, Tim Pawlenty saw the end of his campaign based on one moment in an early debate: his refusal to call ObamaCare “ObamneyCare” — tying Romney’s healthcare program in Massachusetts while he was governor to ObamaCare. Pawlenty’s nice guy moment put the end to his consideration as a serious contender for the nomination.
The first of three scheduled presidential debates comes in a little over a week. Historically, presidential debates have been unable to move the needle in favor of a candidate; generally the only way a candidate’s future has been decided is through a gaffe. While Romney’s numbers aren’t solid going into them, strong showings in the debates could help turn his campaign around, giving him the buzz necessary to get a boost among voters. Romney’s campaign isn’t failing, but it isn’t going to get him over the finish line first either. Totally revamping his campaign will only show signs of desperation and will surely fail to give the candidate a meaningful jump among voters. Only one thing can save Romney: himself.
Commentary is joining the ranks of the doomssayers……The polls have moved- slightly- towards Obama but to say-as Bethany writes- "that it is dire for Romney" is juts not true. Campaigns are marathons and there is an ebb and flow. Right now, the Romney campaign is at an ebb- time to ramp it up!
I hope that the number of ads (10 to 1 advantage, supposedly over the rest of the campaign) that Romney's team and pac supporters are supposed to start running will solve the problems you hope the debates will — because, as you pointed out, the buzz is more important than the not-too-many who will actually watch the debates (the top rated TV shows are like 30-40 million viewers, aren't they … and the Super Bowl is near a 100 million??). And the problem in 2012 is that the MSM, and it's guaranteed ahead of time, is going to write story after story about how bad Romney was. They're probably framing out their stories already. So, it's going to rely on street buzz (or like how Eastwood created enough buzz what he did got through). That is, let's not put all our eggs/hopes in any basket the MSM gets to carry!
Bethany is absolutely correct, and her last line underscores the problem: Romney himself. What to do for the debates? He absolutely must avoid snark and sarcasm. He must control his breathing; often in the debates he sounded like he was hyperventilating. He cannot get listeners lost in a bunch of statistics. Select a few important ones and hammer them all evening. But, these recommendations do not mean he cannot be very direct, pointed and sharp. He has to paint Obama as a failure and to present his programs as sound alternatives that are sharply different from Obama's policies. Memorize a few of Obama's quotes, and throw them back at him. Tie Obama to the Democrats in the Senate who have not even moved on a budget. Obama must be kept on the defense throughout. If he can achieve the aforementioned, he won't lose. A win? Who knows how the public will judge. If he wins, will the debates help? Given the direction he's been moving in, debate wins can't hurt.
Romney should debate well with all the experience he received in the primaries and the constant media attacks. However, the media bias is already baked in; "Romney looses". Also, let's anticipate the questions: "Mr. Romney, please explain how your Medicare plan won't leave seniors dying in the streets?" verses "President Obama, Do you like puppies?" President Obama will have to have a Rick Perry moment for Romney to be the perceived winner of the debates. Therefore, the campain has to spend massively until election day (their last check should bounce), focus on state by state GOTV efforts and be bold. The base will crawl hands and knees over a field of broken glass at this point to vote Obama out, but the base is not enough; we need independents.
The true polling situation, as demonstrated by the existence of a "longest trend" saying the same thing month in and month out since the Spring, is that the race is a dead heat. That means that Barack Obama is going to lose and to lose big. Most of the electorate (i.e., more than 50%) agree with some variant of the proposition "the Obama presidency has been on balance a serious failure," to say no more. There is no arguing with that, and everyone knows it. Thus, probably 5–10 percentage points drawn from those choosing "Obama" as the answer to a polling question today can be persuaded to change their preference by Election Day, if they are given any reason to, and in fact WILL change their mind. By "any reason to" I really mean "ANY reason to." The debates alone will provide that reason if Romney doesn't embarrass himself. And that's ALL he needs to do, namely, to show up and speak reasonably on the issue concerning which, as I said, quite enough voters already agree: Obama has been an enormous, even a spectacular, flop. As how might they fail to notice? n nOne debate did not lead to an enormous Reagan win in 1980 because of the stellar performance he put in. True, Reagan did very well, but he was definitely NOT a Daniel Webster who seized voters by their lapels, as it were, in a display of forensic brilliance. No it was NOT, nor COULD it have been, a single debate that produced a landslide. To believe it might have is implausible. The election of 1980, in other words, was not so much a landslide as it was an enormous and collective sigh of relief—"Thank God, we have an alternative!"—that blew James Earl Carter into a well-earned retirement. n nIn 1980 well over 50% of the electorate simply wanted a reason, any plausible excuse, to evict Jimmy Carter from the White House. That included a lot of Democrats who had voted for him in 1976. I have the distinct recollection that the campaign that ended in Carter defeating President Ford exhibited numerous happy-faced and empty-headed rhetorical excesses—alá 2008! It was Obama's defeat of John McCain avant la lettre, including, but not limited to, the press—then being impersonated by Walter Cronkite and others of his ilk—oohing-and-aahing, all but drooling in fact, when Jimmeh and Rosalyn strolled down Pennsylvania Avenue after the inauguration to the roar of the crowd (exhibit A: Chris "Tingles" Matthews, who served in the Carter White House). Those same giddy Carter Democrats happily became Reagan Democrats four years later. n nSomething very similar is in the air now, I'd argue. The press definitely suspects it, too, which is why they are in panic-provoked overdrive, defending Obama like a crack whore protecting her stash. Obama is, however, making their task much more difficult, by the hour it seems, which has added a comic zaniness, not to mention brazen unshamability, to the media assault on Romney. There are simply too many disasters from which they must avert their collective gaze. North, South, East, and West—it doesn't matter where you look—offer scant relief from gloom. Whether from the economy or foreign affairs, looking away has become impossible! There are only 360 degrees in a circle after all. Their desperate antics have, curiously, acted on public opinion anesthetically and have become truly decadent; which is to say, more and more bilge-spewing is having less and less effect. The polls are essentially static. n nThere exists such a thing as political inertia. A voter will continue to vote in the way he has previously voted unless acted upon by an outside influence. In 2012, when it comes to swaying a voter from blue to red, that influence doesn't have to be all that much. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will do nicely.
> Historically, presidential debates have been unable to move the needle in favor n> of a candidate; generally the only way a candidate’s future has been decided is n> through a gaffe. n nI am not so sure if this true, Bethany. John Kerry's surprisingly strong performance in the first debate in 2004 all but erased GW Bush's six point lead in the polls. And the election stayed close until election day. But Romney certainly does not wish to emulate Michael Dukakis, whose support continued to dwindle following uninspiring performances in the debates. On the other hand, successful challengers Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all performed well in the debates against more experienced but less well-liked opponents from the incumbent party. All three kept gaining in the polls following the debates as well.
Aside from “coaching,” to prepare for a debate one needs to read, reflect, and most importantly, to write, and write — starting with just about anything. nNeither candidate can do this when bouncing from place to place, or when constantly at the beck and call of others. nBoth President Obama and Governor Romney should, therefore, tell their handlers to let them be — so they can rest, collect their thoughts, and reflect on the issues facing our country. nWe expect a good debate next Wednesday and they should try to deliver. nDespite the polarized electorate, this election transcends politics and is ultimately one about the future of our country.
As usual, NOTHING substantive in ML's scribbling. Zero. No analysis, reasoning, premises, or conclusion. Just flat, bald assertion unencumbered by ANYTHING of interest, naked question begging. n n"Heh"? "Hee-haw!" would be more appropriate. The braying of a donkey. Why does the donkey bother?