Ideas Don't Run for President
Let me tell you about SAGNOF. It’s a fantasy baseball term – it means Saves (or Steals) Ain’t Got No Face. In other words: it’s worth picking up an anonymous player off the scrap heap just by virtue of being a team’s closer, or being a steal-happy utility player. It doesn’t matter whether you know his name or record or have ever even seen him play: these stats are worth enough in the game that the faceless are the difference between victory and defeat.
For some context, consider this: It’s almost two decades after the 1992 campaign documentary The War Room, and Bill Clinton is reflecting on his performance in the 1992 primary, talking about having hundreds of people show up at a New Hampshire event where a good showing was 50 people when he was fifth in the polls, fueled by a detailed policy plan he’d put out about his agenda if elected – something only he and Tsongas had done – combined with a narrative about the needs of the middle class that cut across traditional faultlines to reach Reagan Democrats: “When people hire you to be president, like hiring you for any other job, they want to know what you're going to do.” Dan McLaughlin is fond of saying that ideas don’t run for president, people do. You have to have a face. Mitt Romney’s face, for all intents and purposes, was defined by President Obama’s team.
Romney’s 2012 campaign, upon reflection, was as close to a SAGNOF approach to politics as we’ve seen in the modern era. The presumption that the bad economy would be enough to drive people to the polls for anyone who stood up in opposition to President Obama infused the entire campaign effort. The first time many people learned about Romney’s personality was in videos and speeches from people who knew him in Massachusetts, kept out of the prime time convention broadcast, which were genuinely moving. Throughout the last month of the campaign, like clockwork, every time reporters began to live-tweet a Romney event, one of them would note that the campaign was playing “that video” – a well-crafted exposition on Romney’s life which was probably the best thing the campaign produced – which was never seen by the overwhelming majority of voters: instead, they saw Clint Eastwood. Instead, Obama’s negative ads worked. The big bet that the Obama campaign made in the summer to use their atomic bomb on destroying Romney in the Midwest seems less risky in retrospect given the lack of interest on the part of the Romney campaign in pushing back and his lack of funds at the time. The result? Eighteen percent.
In practice, SAGNOF is a too-clever-by-half strategy that typically backfires – by being bland and playing it safe, you lose control of the narrative of a campaign, and cede to your opponent the opportunity to define you and your intentions. We saw this with Romney’s policy team again and again, but we also saw it – more importantly in my view – in the arena of communications. The assumption that white voters in the worst parts of the economically devastated Midwest would come out to vote despite Obama’s negative ads proved completely false.
The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator … Where things drop off are in the rural portions of Ohio, especially in the southeast. These represent areas still hard-hit by the recession. Unemployment is high there, and the area has seen almost no growth in recent years. My sense is these voters were unhappy with Obama. But his negative ad campaign relentlessly emphasizing Romney’s wealth and tenure at Bain Capital may have turned them off to the Republican nominee as well. The Romney campaign exacerbated this through the challenger’s failure to articulate a clear, positive agenda to address these voters’ fears, and self-inflicted wounds like the “47 percent” gaffe. Given a choice between two unpalatable options, these voters simply stayed home.
So the Ohio voters Romney struggled with stayed home. And Ross Douthat’s suspicion back in August proved correct. While Paul Ryan may not have been right on target in wanting to campaign in the inner cities, it’s unfortunate his desire to talk about poverty and focus on reaching the economically depressed was reportedly ignored by Team Romney.
Romney’s decision to go far right in the primary in his attacks against Rick Perry cost him dearly. We may be looking at the worst historical performance for any modern Republican among Hispanics – in Florida, Obama crushed Romney among Puerto Ricans and even beat him among Cubans.
An exit poll by Bendixen & Amandi International, a Democratic polling firm that has worked for Obama, found a slightly different but still significant breakdown of Cuban-American support, with 48 percent for Obama and 52 percent for Romney. “It’s a historic figure, an unprecedented figure, a real eye-popping figure when it comes to support for a Democratic candidate,” said pollster Fernand Amandi. Obama got 35 percent of the Cuban-American vote in 2008 … The exit polling in the Puerto-Rican community should concern Republicans even more. Bendixen & Amandi pegged Obama’s support at 83 percent, an astonishing number considering that Puerto Ricans have backed Republican candidates in the past.
Romney’s policy position and his multiple gaffes on priority issues for Hispanics, combined with a severe lack of outreach to these ethnic communities, are not the mark of a well-run campaign, one that sets up significant problems for Republicans as the nation grows more diverse. Then again, considering the operational failure of Project ORCA, the question may be: what, other than the debates, was Romney good at?
This essay was adapted from The Transom, a daily email newsletter for political and media insiders, collecting news, notes, and thoughts from around the web.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
I used to wonder if James of England was a paid Romney operator. Now I wonder if he was an Obama plant.
Just kidding. I think.
Nov '12
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
I have to know, what in the world did Romney see in Stuart Stevens? Why in the world did he let this ignoramus run his campaign. He did virtually everything wrong.
May '12
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
Ben, we're looking to blame Romney for this loss and yes, he does share in some of the blame. However, I want to know who was advising Romney because their advice sucked. Was it just Stuart Stevens?
As Laura Ingram pointed out, if you can't beat Obama with his record, foreign policy, and this economy, you should just quit politics.
I'm not sure how involved Mike Murphy was in Romney's campaign but it reminded me in many ways like the one he help run for Meg Whitman which was even more sucktacular.
I mean, if the Mike Murphy's of the political world can't help you beat a guy who has already proven himself to be the worst governor in California history, perhaps it's time to find another career.
Also, who even let Republican barnacle-losers like Tommy Thompson & George Allen even run again?
Edited on November 10, 2012 at 12:05amMay '11
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
I suspected we'd lose after reading this Stuart Stevens profile. Remember Steve Schmidt too? We sure know how to pick 'em.
May '11
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
I'm starting to get the impression most of these GOP consultant types are simply unimaginative and have a tendency to be binary in thinking about how to position a candidate. I never understood the "Obama is a nice guy, our polls show most voters think so, therefore let's not attack him" approach. How about trying to change voters' minds on that? They think he's nice because no one has told them otherwise.
Beside, is it impossible to attack him-his worldview and not just his policies(if only that were effectively done!!!)-with a smile? He attacked Romney's honor as a business man in direct, personal and reprehensible ways and you couldn't push back with a mention of his only known business dealing-that fancy sweetheart scheme with the convicted felon, Tony Rezko? You couldn't mention that in a sad, disappointed tone while quickly pivoting back to the economy and dropping a little line(even if a stretch) about how deals like that make it impossible to reform fannie mae & freddie mac for the common man e.g Chris Dodd?
Dec '10
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
Right you are, Ben. Ideas don't run for office, people (with or without ideas) do. Romney came off as two dimensional to me the entire campaign. Even in one of his best moments, after the "you didn't build that" comment, he fell completely flat. He was building up to a killing blow then completely deflated his own attack with "and it's wrong." That is not an argument. It's barely even an assertion. I stated from the beginning that he was the wrong candidate, and even though there were no better alternatives (maybe), I stand by that assessment of Romney. If you can't excite the Republican base against Barrack Obama you should not be the Republican nominee for dog catcher, let alone for president.
Sep '12
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
Pensworth and others here are dead on accurate -- and the headline of this post says it all. One of the many mistakes we on the right make is we believe that we can win elections -- or even win political arguments -- by using logic and common sense. After all, we think, how could anyone disagree with the obvious observation that centralized, statist control invariably makes things worse, not better? It's so obvious. History and our own eyes tell us so, right?
But if you've ever tried using logic with most liberals you know how pointless that is. We forget that the electorate these days is composed primarily of a bunch of sheep. I know that sounds like just arrogant grousing, but face facts: Ask any random group of adults about the latest episode of Survivor or American Idol, and you'd get hours of informed discussion. Ask them about Benghazi and they'll ask you what show he's on.
The Dems know this. We keep thinking we'll win the war of ideas. But the Dems aren't even fighting that war, except on a few talk shows. They're fighting the war of celebrity charm...
Sep '12
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
... So what's the solution? Obviously we need intelligent candidates who think straight. But that's not enough. They absolutely must be witty, charming, and able to convey that "they care." Outside of Pat Sajak, who else comes to mind?
Plus, they must be willing to fight back ferociously and as viciously as necessary, the instant someone tries to malign them.
Rubio might be able to do that. Any others?
May '12
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
I would be more persuaded by the "Romney lost Hispanics because he moved to the right in the primary" argument if I thought that most Hispanics were paying attention to the primary.
Aug '10
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
Logistically-speaking, is there any way Romney could have fought back against the Obama campaign's early attack blitz considering that election laws forbade him from spending any money until he'd officially been named the candidate at the convention?
Could conservative Super-PACS have actively promoted Romney prior to his official nomination, legally-speaking, or were they legally restricted to talking about issues and/or attacking the president?
Jan '11
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
In 1992 every Democrat had the same problem: most voters thought they were patsies for blacks: soft on crime, soft on welfare and scared to do anything but fawn at obvious frauds like Jesse Jackson. (Kind of like how people see Republicans and rich Wall Streeters and vulture capitalists today.)
How did the smartest Democrat overcome that impression? Did he have his wife say he really, really believed in equality? Did he have friends from his past say he could be demanding of his black employees? Did he cut a video about "the content of one's character?"
Sister Souljah.
On a dais alongside Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton criticized a small-time rap artist and poet named Sister Souljah who had written an inflammatory song about the police. Clinton's speech made headlines, it infuriated Jackson, and it separated Clinton from the field. It also provided him with a defense from the fatal charge of being a lackey for the blacks.
What did your English teacher tell you, Ben - Show, don't say, right?
Romney could have EASILY done the very same thing as Clinton.
Just ask me how. I'll tell you.
Edited on November 10, 2012 at 3:07amOct '10
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
"So the Ohio voters Romney struggled with stayed home."
The article behind that little blue link speaks volumes about the campaign (along with that shocking 18% stat). Romney simply didn't try hard enough to connect with rural white voters. Nor did he fight back when Obama ran clips of him calling coal plants poisonous.
We laughed at the ad where the garbage collector said "Mitt doesn't care about people like me." Turns out the Dems knew exactly what they were doing.
Apr '11
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
Mitt had a decent enough tactical approach to the campaign he accomplished his target with independents winning or tieing in most cases; however he feel short of McCain in drawing in republicans, which is shocking. In the end he had the wrong strategy. So whether or not his tactics were correct of flawed mattered little. Or to put it another way. The reason he is shocked by the outcome is he ran and lost executing well if not perfectly his strategy for the race.
Nov '11
Re: Ideas Don't Run for President
Most weren't.
But that doesn't matter.
Once an idea gets tossed into the pool of collective consciousness, it ripples through. So all Hispanics didn't have to be paying attention. Enough were paying attention to spread the message that Romney and the GOP didn't respect Hispanics. Right or wrong, that's the message that got through.