It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
We have to endure many more months of the presidential race. But as we near the All-Star Break, what do you think of the Romney campaign's general approach? My sense is that people are mostly satisfied with the campaign, but that they're also a bit frustrated.
Bill Kristol reminds us that Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were candidates who lost winnable presidential elections:
So, speaking of losing candidates from Massachusetts: Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he's running?
Adopting a prevent defense when it's only the second quarter and you're not even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy. But his campaign's monomaniacal belief that it's about the economy and only the economy, and that they need to keep telling us stupid voters that it's only about the economy, has gone from being an annoying tick to a dangerous self-delusion.
Kristol says that "the economy" is not an automatic path to victory, even if it does provide a favorable backdrop to the campaign. Kristol thinks Romney's comment to a reporter yesterday ("As long as I continue to speak about the economy, I'm going to win") is somewhat patronizing to voters, who need to know precisely what he's going to do about the economy. He should explain his economic growth agenda, his deficit reform agenda, his health care reform agenda, his tax reform agenda, his replacement for Dodd-Frank, etc. He ends:
The Romney campaign will answer that they're imitating Bill Clinton in 1992, who famously focused on "the economy, stupid." But Bill Clinton was a full spectrum presidential candidate, with detailed policy proposals on welfare reform, health care, education, and foreign policy. He also made real efforts to convince the voters he was different from the losing Democratic candidates who preceded him ("a new kind of Democrat," "ending welfare as we know it," a hawkish-sounding foreign policy, Sister Souljah, etc.). So far, the Romney campaign doesn't resemble the Clinton campaign. It seems to be following more comfortably in the tradition of the five post-Cold War Republican presidential candidates who preceded Romney. They received 37.5 percent, 40.7 percent, 47.9 percent, 50.7 percent, and 45.7 percent of the vote, respectively. The average GOP presidential vote in these last five elections was 44.5 percent. In the last three, it was 48.1 percent. Give Romney an extra point for voter disillusionment with Obama, and a half-point for being better financed than his predecessors. It still strikes me as a path to (narrow) defeat.
By the way, Romney made his comment about speaking about the economy on July 4th—a date that might suggest there's more to the American experiment than the economy.
Over at the Wall Street Journal, the editors argue that Romney's response on the ObamaCare mandate reveals larger campaign problems. The campaign's initial approach of arguing against other Republicans who said that Obama had raised taxes on the middle class has made the fight against ObamaCare more difficult, they say:
Why make such an unforced error? Because it fits with Mr. Romney's fear of being labeled a flip-flopper, as if that is worse than confusing voters about the tax and health-care issues. Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we've said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters.
Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters that Mr. Obama's spending ambitions are so vast that they can't be financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle class.
Democrats would point to the Massachusetts record, but Mr. Romney could reply that was before the Supreme Court had spoken, that he had promised Bay Staters not to raise taxes, and so now the right policy is to repeal the tax along with the rest of ObamaCare. The tragedy is that for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President.
The Journal says that the campaign's insular staff and strategy are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. They also think the focus on the generic "economy" isn't sufficient:
The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that "Obama isn't working." Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that.
They go on to say that Obama attacks on Romney as a wealthy, out-of-touch outsourcer of jobs should have been prepared for, since Romney's main narrative is that he can create jobs because he's a successful businessman and manager. Romney should instead focus on the biography that voters care more about: their own. He should tell them how is he going to improve their future.
OK, so those are some pretty serious critiques of Romney's campaign strategy. What do you think? Do they have merit? Should he keep his focus on economic malaise through November or should he learn from some of these criticisms?
And since it's early and the vast majority of undecided voters couldn't care one bit about the presidential race (wake them up in late October), what do you wish Romney would change while it's still safe to rethink strategy?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '12
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Gov. Romney frequently talks about lessons learned running against Sen. Kennedy in '94 - do not detail a specific conservative policy or the democrats and their media cohort will club you to death with it. It is a fair concern, but not a way to run a campaign.
At some point Gov. Romney needs to give everyone a reason to vote For him and not just against Obama. When is the right time: convention, Labor Day, Halloween? I don't know, but I agree with the critiques here - He can't win by just not being Obama. We vote people into office, not out.
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
I have said this before, and I will say it again. If Romney runs against Obama, saying only that, as an experienced businessman, he will be a better manager, he may well lose. Managerial competence is essential to success in politics, but it is not sufficient. Ultimately, the question posed is that of justice. Obama will lose if his agenda is exposed as unjust. If not, he might eke out a win.
I am inclined to think that Romney will pull his socks up. Unlike Bob Dole and John McCain, he really wants to win. But businessmen, when they turn to politics, are nearly always uninspiring. They tend to think that political problems -- which, in fact, turn on right and wrong -- have technical solutions.
I hope that my worst fears about the man are unfounded.
May '12
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
It's the first week of July, people need to take a deep breath. No one will be paying attention until the middle of August, if then. All the smart guys, like Kristol, have underestimated Romney and his campaign for a year now. One wonders when they'll learn.
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
I think that you err in this claim. Romney's campaign in the primaries was not impressive. He had to struggle mightily to defeat a disgraced former Speaker of the House and a former Senator who lost his seat by a margin of 18%. Romney won the nomination by default. The election is his to lose, and Republican candidates who eschew an appeal to first principles out of embarrassment tend to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Jun '10
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
That would be my wish: a steady, grown-up articulation of principles (preferably first or founding principles), and how those principles would apply in an Romney administration. Couple that with a stark and illuminating contrast of those principles against those apparently driving the current administration.
And the presentation of such principles and their application needs to appeal to basic common sense. I fear that fewer and fewer voters are actually motivated by principle, much less equipped with knowledge of America's founding philosophies. Wonky technobabble may have its place when talking certain subjects in controlled venues, but as an instrument for garnering mass appeal, it won't sell.
There is something to be said for a campaign that calls us to a greater national and individual character, rather than one whose policies would result in greater subservience to a growing oligarchy.
Because make no mistake, our nation's fiscal crisis - to include the economy - is very much a failure of character. In my opinion.
Edited on July 5, 2012 at 6:14pmMay '12
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Paul A. Rahe
Romney's campaign…was not impressive. He had to struggle…to defeat a disgraced former Speaker … and a former Senator who lost his seat by a margin of 18%.
Romney played it unconventionally not unimpressively. He didnt run to the right in the primaries as conventional wisdom urged. He also didn't abandon Romneycare as all the smart guys were advising. They said he couldn't win the nomination if he didn't repudiate his record as governor. Well, that was obviously wrong. Yes, it made winning the nomination more difficult, but it gave him more room to maneuver in the general election. It was a somewhat risky tack, but it showed discipline and an eye to the end game. Don't mistake taking he long view for foolishness or incompetence.
Well, I think we just saw Fehrnstrom taking the principled, conservative line on the healthcare ruling while also pointing out the terribly unprincipled, duplicitous stance of Obama, and instead of being rewarded, he is being flayed.
Edited on July 5, 2012 at 6:27pmMar '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
I'm sticking to my prediction that Romney loses. Not because Obama is that much more an attractive candidate, but because Romney is about as inspiring as drying concrete.
Dec '10
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
I'm in general agreement with the critiques. If Romney has a chance at winning this thing, it's mostly because Obama is so terribly bad at the job, is beginning to lose credibility with the mushy middle (he never had it with conservatives) due to policy and campaign missteps, and has peeled away voters from various voting blocks who voted for him last time (he'll never get 54% of Catholics again).
But, just being the least objectionable candidate is going to make this race uncomfortably close. After we clean up his campaign staff, can we do something about his motto? "Believe in America" -- Really? That's it?
Apr '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
The problem with running only on economic news is that you are such a hostage to fortune - for example, in the last week, Obama has had a run of good economic news, and according to today's reports, the coming jobs numbers will almost certainly not be as bad as initially feared. Most economists expect the economy to strengthen in the fall, right on schedule.
Apr '12
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Romney seems not to want to take the "bare-knuckle" approach against Obama that he took against his fellow Rebublicans in the primaries. Is it not in him? Is it too soon? He needs to act like he wants it.
Apr '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Romney's campaign has been the most aggressive and hard-hitting of any republican since Lee Atwater was running campaigns. You just don't run a general election campaign the same way you run a primary.
Mar '12
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Romney was not my choice. A disgraced former speaker, who had done big things in DC, was my choice. I am now watching to see if a business man has the cohones to do to O'Bama what he did to the former speaker and other Republican competitors. Not yet.
Dec '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
I've said it before, you can't win an election 4.5 months before it happens, but you can loose it. All the hand wringing from the Thursday evening quarterbacks needs to subside a bit. This far out, and a "playing not to loose" strategy is actually gaining ground you don't change course. We just have to trust that their is a "vote 4 me" strategy in a drawer ready to be deployed when the time is right. We also have to know that now is not the time.
Apr '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
There are two ways in which I recall Mitt's campaign being called bare-knuckle, the advertizing blitzes and the debates. Obviously, Mitt's bare knuckle debate performance against Obama, no matter how good it is, will not be visible before October. In advertizing blitzes, he held his fire until he opened up on Newt before Iowa, then held his fire again, had a second blitz against Newt in Florida, and a couple of smaller efforts against Santorum.
It's July. At this point in the Primaries (September 2010), his only notable attack on anyone was his joining the attack on Perry over heartless[ness].
Advertizing will pick up later this month with the Olympics, although that'll still be mostly positive stuff. Things will heat up with the conventions, particularly given the Democrat's drama and disunity. You want ads to confirm what people already know, so ads calling Obama an ideologue work better against a backdrop of blue dogs rejecting him.
Apr '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Paul A. Rahe
I think that you err in this claim. Romney's campaign in the primaries was not impressive. He had to struggle mightily to defeat a disgraced former Speaker of the House and a former Senator who lost his seat by a margin of 18%. Romney won the nomination by default. The election is his to lose, and Republican candidates who eschew an appeal to first principles out of embarrassment tend to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. · 4 hours ago
You're absolutely right that there were anti-Romney narratives that were responsible, reasonable, and accurate. Kristol's wasn't one of them. This isn't a Kristol who has learned from his mistake; this is a Kristol who has been saying the same thing for at least a year, and will continue at least until the election.
Apr '11
Re: It's Not Just The Economy, Stupid
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
I think that this is the most irritating portion of the article. Clinton did not, in 1992 have a detailed welfare reform policy. Romney does have detailed entitlement reform policies, which are heavily debated by proxy (they're pretty similar to the Ryan Plan). I don't believe that Clinton's education reform programs were as detailed as Romney's. Romney's healthcare plans seem similarly high profile to Clinton's. It's true that Clinton's NAFTA position got more profile than Mitt's foreign policy position, but this will change if he appoints ex-United States Trade Representative Portman as VP candidate.
And if you don't hear "change from Bush" in attacks on the deficit, big government education, amnesty, and from the claims that Republicans "lost their way", you're not listening.