Examining the 2012 Campaign Character Narratives: Obama vs. Romney

[russ_watters]

By the end of the convention, the transformation was complete. It was process of confession (why the economy hasn't rebounded as fast as people would hope), and then a transition to a focus on why Obama is the person we need to solve the problems left by the previous administration - which also happens to be Obama's, but they somehow created a feeling that our current problems were Romney's fault and that it was Romney that failed to solve our economic problems.

In fact, the economy took on the feel of a war - a war that's been tough, but we've turned the corner and are finally triumphing over... who? The Republicans? Or is it class warfare between the middle class and the 1%, of which Romney is definitely a member?

Even a cynical person could laugh, just because they pulled it off so well.

It's a good play, for sure: 'Romney's a member of the 1% and it's the 1%'s fault we're in this mess, so do you really want him to be president?'

But Romney can counter with: 'But I got to be in the 1% by being really really good at fixing dying companies, which makes me perfect for this job -- and Obama's shown us he can't do it.'

It is often the case that one Presidential candidate has an easy hook with no defense for the opponent, but it looks to me like this one is going to come down to who does a better job selling their message -- and if we're buying. Obama is a superstar at spin and motivation, but that act can wear thin the second time around. Romney will have better facts, but he's nowhere near as likable a persona as Obama and doesn't have an "us vs them" message to sell against Obama.

 

[OmCheeto]

...for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Now that is an interesting story. I'd have done the same thing in his position. (I am part human, and am prone to letting people fall on their own swords.)

But that's a whole thread in itself. It took me weeks to figure out what actually happened.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's a good play, for sure: 'Romney's a member of the 1% and it's the 1%'s fault we're in this mess, so do you really want him to be president?'

I've gotten into a lot of trouble on Facebook by pointing out that a lot of our troubles are caused by, um, us.

Cue the music...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHTTr9y9ObE

Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let's see.
But that's not right - oh no, what's the story?
There's you and there's me

People get really mad when I tell them that shopping at big box stores is a cause of unemployment.

 

[Angry Citizen]

But then again, being President during this economy should do a pretty good job making Obama look weak.

Only in America can a man be blamed for not cleaning up someone else's mess fast enough.

General response to thread: The idea that "the Democrats held total control over the legislature" is false. The Democrats are famously a herd of cats. They range from vast extremes, up to and including Bernie Sanders (a self-avowed socialist) and Joe Lieberman (more conservative than some Republicans). If they held such total control, they would've passed Obamacare with the public option and everything they wanted within a month after it was first proposed. No, the Republicans fought them on every key issue (up to and including Obamacare), and forced them to obtain absolute party loyalty in the Senate. Again, for the Democrats, this takes a small miracle.

What needed to happen was a second stimulus. However, by the time it became clear that Obama and company had underestimated the depth of the recession, guess who was back in charge of the House and had seven more seats in the Senate? Oh yes, the Republicans, whose accomplishments include voting to repeal Obamacare over a dozen times and voting down Obama's jobs bill.

The Republicans are dead. They are a dying party, and rather than evolve to the left, they've gone screaming to the right. Nate Silver predicts Obama has nearly a 4 in 5 chance of winning in November, and FiveThirtyEight has never made such an egregious error to date. The polls also suggest that a return to a Democratic House is not out of the question; and with Tea Party fools running rampant in Senatorial elections once again (Missouri, Indiana, etc), we can be reasonably confident that the Republicans will not retake the Senate. The Dems might even pick up a net gain, given that the senator from Maine retired and Warren just got one of the best advertising opportunities anyone could possibly hope for in a senate race - by which I mean a prominent speaking role just prior to a speech by Bill Clinton.

And before you say this is colored by my political leanings, I can support every single one of my claims with the exception of my prediction of a Warren victory. That is my one off-the-wall prediction this election. A hunch, if you will.

 

[Angry Citizen]

But Romney can counter with: 'But I got to be in the 1% by being really really good at fixing dying companies, which makes me perfect for this job -- and Obama's shown us he can't do it.'

In your estimation, his success had nothing to do with his father's enormous wealth and experience in politics? Besides, Bain is one of the many things wrong with this overly capitalist economy. It's just not a good selling point to anyone. If Romney had built a business whose sole existence was not preying on other businesses, the businessman angle might be helpful. Hell, I'd be willing to listen to such a person's arguments. I might even vote for a man like 2007-era Romney if he were pitted against a man like Clinton. But I won't vote for this crazy, radicalized Romney who thinks restructuring companies by laying off workers and rehiring them without pensions and fewer benefits is good experience at "creating jobs" and "stimulating the economy".

 

[russ_watters]

In your estimation, his success had nothing to do with his father's enormous wealth and experience in politics?

No, I never said any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I didn't. Hence the question mark. I also didn't say you said that. I asked if you had estimated that, as in, thought it.

 

[russ_watters]

General response to thread: The idea that "the Democrats held total control over the legislature" is false. The Democrats are famously a herd of cats.

That the Democrats had total control over the legislature is a straightforward fact -- it is most certainly not false. That they were unable to fully exploit this total control may also be true, but it doesn't change the fact. I also don't consider that a positive attribute (had control, failed to utilize it), though I'm glad they couldn't get their act together.

The Republicans are dead. They are a dying party...

And before you say this is colored by my political leanings, I can support every single one of my claims with the exception of my prediction of a Warren victory.

And, of course, pure opinions don't require substantiation.

Nate Silver predicts Obama has nearly a 4 in 5 chance of winning in November...

Published today and reflecting a convention bounce. Lotta time left, though:

...and FiveThirtyEight has never made such an egregious error to date.

And by "never", you mean in the one Presidential election and one midterm election he's predicted and using his predictions from the day before the election? Yeah, sounds a little less sure when you put it in context.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't. Hence the question mark. I also didn't say you said that. I asked if you had estimated that, as in, thought it.

So are you just bad at grammar then? The statement was declarative, but you added a question mark to it. I'm not a believer in convenient typos.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Published today and reflecting a convention bounce.

FiveThirtyEight's model accounts for this by offsetting the polls by a few points. Nate Silver is not as dumb as you think he is. Furthermore, no polls have come out with a sample size after the convention. Gallup's, for instance, is a seven day running poll that took data mostly from before the DNC (during Romney's bounce-that-never-was). Rasmussen's has data from three days prior to Thursday night and has a huge, well-known Republican house effect. In short, if there was a convention bounce, it was showing up damned early and was erasing Romney's convention bounce quick fast and in a hurry.

That the Democrats had total control over the legislature is a straightforward fact -- it is most certainly not false.

Again, the "Democrats" did not because the "Democrats" are not the "Republicans". Republicans are much more adept at party-line votes than Democrats (which says rather a lot about the Republicans). Simple as that. Would that folks like Lieberman weren't Senators during this crucial time.

And, of course, pure opinions don't require substantiation.

I would be happy to substantiate any 'opinion' you would like me to substantiate, with the exception of the Warren victory. I would be happy, however, to give you several reasons why I suspect Warren's victory is likely.

And by "never", you mean in the one Presidential election and one midterm elections he's predicted and using his predictions from the day before the election? Yeah, sounds a little less sure when you put it in context.

I'd bet money on it at this point. If the election were closer, I'd be more willing to accept that perhaps his model is inaccurate this far away from election day, but it's not. It's really, really not close at all.

 

[Angry Citizen]

So are you just bad at grammar then? The statement was declarative, but you added a question mark to it. I'm not a believer in convenient typos.

The statement becomes interrogative with the use of a question mark. English is malleable. That is its strength. I'll be sure to keep an eye on all your future posts for grammatical errors I can exploit, because surely that is the mark of a strong argument.

 

[BobG]

What needed to happen was a second stimulus. However, by the time it became clear that Obama and company had underestimated the depth of the recession, guess who was back in charge of the House and had seven more seats in the Senate? Oh yes, the Republicans, whose accomplishments include voting to repeal Obamacare over a dozen times and voting down Obama's jobs bill.

It would have helped if the first stimulus was solely focused on stimulating the economy. While good overall, the first stimulus had quite a few parts more focused on revising health care than on stimulating the economy.

Not that that's unique. An effective President uses the tools at his disposal to advance his goals and Obama effectively used the stimulus to start revisions to the health care system.

However, the first stimulus could have had the same effect for less money or it could have had a greater effect for the same money - if Obama and company (and almost everyone else including Republicans) hadn't underestimated the depth of the recession.

In fact, I found it somewhat encouraging that Obama used the stimulus the same as any other President would have. It was a sign that the economic crisis wasn't quite as serious a threat as a few economists claimed. If it were, politics as usual would stop for a bit and the President and Congress would set about doing the job they were hired to do.

Perhaps that was a somewhat naive view.

 

[Angry Citizen]

It would have helped if the first stimulus was solely focused on stimulating the economy. While good overall, the first stimulus had quite a few parts more focused on revising health care than on stimulating the economy.

I think Obama/the Democrats thought of healthcare as part of the economic woes of America. Certainly that seems to be true. An enormous sum of money is paid into the healthcare industry, part of which would be more useful elsewhere. One method of reducing these costs is to move closer to a European-style healthcare system. Obamacare will make for a nice transition to such a system, which I think is inevitable. Without Obamacare, healthcare costs would continue to rise out of control. Whether they do so regardless remains to be seen, of course, but the Democrats' logic on the matter checks out from the standpoint of deficit reduction and economics. It's just a less-obvious path of growing the economy in the long-term.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You think we don't know you're wrong?

 

[camjohn]

That the Democrats had total control over the legislature is a straightforward fact -- it is most certainly not false. That they were unable to fully exploit this total control may also be true, but it doesn't change the fact. I also don't consider that a positive attribute (had control, failed to utilize it), though I'm glad they couldn't get their act together. And, of course, pure opinions don't require substantiation.
Published today and reflecting a convention bounce. Lotta time left, though: And by "never", you mean in the one Presidential election and one midterm election he's predicted and using his predictions from the day before the election? Yeah, sounds a little less sure when you put it in context.

That most certainly is false. Yes they had a majority, and yes they failed to utilize it, but that was a direct result of not having "full control," steming from the Conservatives in the Senate; your first three points contradict each other. The democrats never had "total control." What they did have was a majority in Congress for the first two years of Obama's presidency. People mistakenly assume that this therefore means Democrats could have essentially passed any bill they wanted to do during this time as if the world was in the left's hands; anything not done can't really be blamed by Conservatives because the Democrats really just failed to get anything done.

The problem with this is that the Conservatives in the senate have been so stubborn that they have fillibustered more than 400 times in the last six years. Many of Obama's efforts -- some that include transportation funding act, a job creation act, middle and lower class tax cuts, extending food stamps (during one of the worst weeks for unemployment) among man others -- were simply brought into the painfully unproductive fillibuster process where Conservatives brought Obama's efforts to help the economy and the country to die. That the democrats use Conservative refusal to cooporate as an excuse is a perfectly legitimate one.

 

[russ_watters]

That most certainly is false. Yes they had a majority, and yes they failed to utilize it, but that was a direct result of not having "full control," steming from the Conservatives in the Senate; your first three points contradict each other. The democrats never had "total control." What they did have was a majority in Congress for the first two years of Obama's presidency. People mistakenly assume that this therefore means Democrats could have essentially passed any bill they wanted to do during this time as if the world was in the left's hands; anything not done can't really be blamed by Conservatives because the Democrats really just failed to get anything done.

The problem with this is that the Conservatives in the senate have been so stubborn that they have fillibustered more than 400 times in the last six years.

They may not have had it long, but they most certainly did have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. That's what enabled the passage of Obamacare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

 

[ThinkToday]

9/11 got Bush re-elected. It was a positive for him. Did I misunderstand your post, it seems you were saying 9/11 was bad for him. He started the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush

Seriously! I can't imagine the thought process that would see this a positive for anyone. I don't know if any other President has done something lilke this "The Times notes that people familiar with Bush's routine say he has written letters personally to every one of the families of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq. The task has taken a toll, and Bush has relied on his wife, Laura, for emotional support, he said.""Bush has met with more than 500 families of troops killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, often during private sessions, White House spokesman Carlton Carroll told the newspaper." Source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/22/report-bush-spent-hundreds-hours-comforting-families-fallen-soldiers/ I seriously doubt that any President would look at this as a positive. I doubt FDR considered Pearl Harbor a positive for re-election. I also doubt Lincoln saw anything positive about the civil war. IMO, you need look no further than LBJ, when it comes to war and re-election or even the desire to run again. LBJ didn't start Viet Nam, that was JFK's war, but LBJ was stuck with it. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/lbj-decision.htm IMO, no one alive in those days could miss the significance of the toll that took on LBJ, and I don't think any President would or could.

IMO, it takes a pretty different way of thinking to get to your position. For example, let's take Bush 41 after the first Iraq war. His popularity was high http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgehwbush/ , but in the end, Clinton won because of the economy. IMO, it seems to almost always be the economy, except for Viet Nam perhaps. Also, 9/11 was at the start of the Bush 43 term, and by the end of Bush's 1st term, Afghanistan was dragging out and people were wanting out. 9/11 trashed the economy and put us back spending money on war, instead of working to improve our economy at a time when the Clinton dot com bust trashed the economy already. And, IMO, "He started the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan." is flat wrong; UBL started that one. We just finished it.

IMO, if you think about things people hate Bush for, the big ones can trace to 9/11, e.g. Patriot Act, Gitmo, Axis of Evil speech. I doubt there would have been a War on Terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror without 9/11. So, no, I don't see a major positive re-election aspect to 9/11. IMO, much more down side than up side. As you remember, the country was very polarized at that point. Hardly a positive. As a practical matter, when it came to war in Afghanistan, Bush did what I think any President in any party would have done. IMO, Bush was re-elected because the Democrats ran a weak candidate.

 

[Evo]

Seriously! I can't imagine the thought process that would see this a positive for anyone.

IMO, if you think about things people hate Bush for, the big ones can trace to 9/11, e.g. Patriot Act, Gitmo, Axis of Evil speech. I doubt there would have been a War on Terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror without 9/11. So, no, I don't see a major positive re-election aspect to 9/11. IMO, much more down side than up side. As you remember, the country was very polarized at that point. Hardly a positive.

Wow are you wrong! You're forgetting how people thought in 2004. You should do some research before you IMO yourself deeper into misinformation.

Opinion about the war on terror consistently favored President Bush’s reelection. A Gallup poll in late August (23–25) found Bush to be favored over Kerry in handling terrorism by a margin of 54 to 37 percent. The exit polls similarly found that Bush was more trusted to handle terrorism by a margin of 58 to 40 percent. NES data indicate that voters approved of Bush’s handling of the war on terror by a margin of 55 to 45 percent. When asked which party would do a better job in handling the war on terror, voters favored the Republicans over the Democrats by a margin of 45 to 27 percent (with 27 percent saying that they thought both parties would handle it about equally well). The war on terror, along with the fact that Bush’s general political perspectives were viewed by more voters as being more ideologically acceptable than Kerry’s, were decided advantages for President Bush before and
throughout the campaign.19

<snip>

As an issue, the economy was expendable to the Bush campaign because it could be largely neutralized and ultimately trumped by the terrorism issue

http://www.polsci.buffalo.edu/contrib/faculty_staff/faculty/documents/PolSciQElection2004.pdf

CBS News Exit Poll results suggest that the Bush campaign strategy was relatively effective in blunting the potential damage of the issues of the economy and Iraq.

When voters were asked which of several issues mattered most in deciding their vote, roughly equal numbers picked the Bush campaign's main issues of moral values (22 percent) and terrorism (19 percent),

Mr. Bush's efforts to portray himself as taking clear stands and as being a strong leader—characteristics he said were necessary for fighting the war on terror—appeared relatively successful. Among voters who said that being a strong leader was the most important candidate quality in their decision (17 percent), Mr. Bush was favored by 86 percent to Kerry's 13 percent. Among voters who said that taking a clear stand was the most important candidate quality (17 percent), Mr. Bush was favored by 78 percent to Kerry's 21 percent

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-653238.html

They gave him a 53 percent approval rating, higher than we had seen during the campaign, but still very divided over the Iraq and felt badly about the way the economy was going, certainly didn't rate the economy very well, but in the end came to the view that they were more comfortable, certainly more comfortable with President Bush than they were with Sen. Kerry.

They were mostly comfortable on the leadership and character dimension. Every single element in this campaign that related to leadership and character, President Bush won by an 8-1 margin, and in the end, even on questions of Iraq, which was divisive, the public went, the voters went along with the way the Bush people saw it, for example, they saw the war in Iraq as a majority of them said it was an integral part or a part of the war on terrorism.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/exitpolls_11-03.html

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously! I can't imagine the thought process that would see this a positive for anyone.

I don't think you reacted to that logically. It isn't about a candidate thinking about the war as a positive, it is about the voters view of how the candidates would handle the war. That's all -- don't read into it any more than that. And on that, I'm sure both Bush's team and Kerry's team probably were aware of the general truths that:

1. Voters tend to favor Republicans over Democrats on issues of defense/war.
2. Voters tend to favor incumbents over challengers on issues of defense/war. (Incumbents get to make speeches about war that make them look stern and Presidential. Challengers can either agree with the incumbent or go against him and risk looking anti-patriotic.)

 

[lisab]

I don't think you reacted to that logically. It isn't about a candidate thinking about the war as a positive, it is about the voters view of how the candidates would handle the war. That's all -- don't read into it any more than that. And on that, I'm sure both Bush's team and Kerry's team probably were aware of the general truths that:

1. Voters tend to favor Republicans over Democrats on issues of defense/war.
2. Voters tend to favor incumbents over challengers on issues of defense/war. (Incumbents get to make speeches about war that make them look stern and Presidential. Challengers can either agree with the incumbent or go against him and risk looking anti-patriotic.)

Since the parties have evolved and changed so much over the last 50 years, I don't think we have enough data to make those statements definitively.

 

[russ_watters]

Since the parties have evolved and changed so much over the last 50 years, I don't think we have enough data to make those statements definitively.

I don't know about the last 50 years, but certainly the last 20 or 30. Evo provided some data. I'll have to do some digging to find a lot more, but here's some:

I'm having trouble finding data for today's polling on national defense -- doesn't seem to be on Gallup's radar. But this poll says says Republicans (not the specific candidates) poll better on Afghanistan and national security: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
Now that doesn't speak to Obama's polling on terrorism, which presumably is pretty good due to him getting Bin Laden.

In 2008, candidate Obama had favorable marks on defense/war on terror, but was still way behind McCain: http://www.gallup.com/poll/109189/views-obama-international-matters-little-changed.aspx

In 2004, despite believing we were losing the war on terror, a slim majority still favored Bush over Kerry on terrorism (though it apparently went back and forth a little): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46366-2004Jul13.html

Bush had a healthy lead on Gore in national defense polling: http://articles.cnn.com/2000-07-27/politics/cnn.poll_1_al-gore-gop-congressional-candidate-george-w-bush?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Dole outpolled Clinton on foreign policy: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index2.html

Having trouble finding 1992 data, but this article points to foreign policy as a weakness for Clinton but not much of winning issue for Bush because our foreign policy situation at the time was so good. Ironically, that made him a victim of previous success: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/George-Bush-Defeat-in-1992.html#b

And before Bush, of course, we had Reagan.

 

[BobG]

Interesting take on the election campaigns: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/2012_campaign_character_narratives

2008 was unique in that the narrative (ads, news, etc) on Obama was mostly positive.

2012 is an extremely negative campaign - as negative as the 2004 campaign.

Part of the reason is that journalists have less impact than they have in the past. The campaigns themselves (or their Super Pacs) have a lot more to do with shaping the narratives than the news media.