Comments on: Beating the Drum On Bain

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:08:48 +0000

Justin – Excellent summary, one with which I am in complete agreement. I would note, however (and at the risk of repeating myself), that the particular frame that Obama is choosing – that Romney as vulture capitalist bears responsibility for the current economic crisis – is based on a specific fundamental: the bad state of the economy during Obama’s first term. To use a favored social science word, the strategy is “endogeneous” to the economic context; Obama chose it because the economy sucks and he needs to explain why. It is pretty much the best strategy he could use. Our forecast models assume that both sides choose the best frame they can, given the particular fundamentals. The question becomes, as you note, is how many voters Obama’s frame persuades to vote for him that otherwise were likely to vote for Romney, keeping in mind that Romney is spinning his own frame. Our general answer is: “Not many”. Of course, Obama’s frame may also help to active voters who otherwise may not have voted. The bottom line is that campaigns matter, but because both sides realize this, the campaign may not be as consequential in terms of advantaging one side or the other as much as the media focus on controversies, such as Bain, would have one believe.

By: JustinP

JustinP — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:06:35 +0000

Yes, that makes perfect sense and I totally agree. For observers like me (and probably you) the framing battle is one of the more interesting public aspects of the campaign. I also agree with your point about partisanship being the lens through which observers weigh and judge ads.

I simply wanted to make the point that the importance of the Bain/tax attack and, therefore, the value of the ad is that it implicates Romney in the fundamentals which are clearly not good.

These ads are a way of turning Bain and therefore Romney into the culprit for the economic maladies plaguing politically vital areas of the country. If these areas of the country are inhabited by people who are already predisposed to be skeptical or hostile toward of moneyed interests and financial Masters of the Universe – and the Obama team is betting that they are – then these ads have the capacity to tap that predisposition.

Now maybe the “Obama is a tax and spend liberal” predisposition/frame is stronger and can therefore negate the influence of this line of attack. I just think that if successful, these ads may work against the typical “fundamentals” argument by allowing Obama to deflect some of the punishment that he might otherwise have incurred for a crappy economy.

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:49:53 +0000

Vijay – two quick cautionary responses: I don’t think the Republican Party elders like Graham have any influence over Mitt’s campaign. Second, all loopholes advantage some of the others – like many Americans, I benefit from two big one: child tax exemptions and the mortgage deduction. Is it fair? Not to those who have no children and don’t own homes! Now, whether taking advantage of loopholes is politically advisable is a different, and perhaps more important question.

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:46:05 +0000

Nick – Note that Vermont’s own Senator Patrick Leahy purportedly has a starring role – so I think it will probably be a plus for Democrats!

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:42:26 +0000

Justin,

You are absolutely correct re: the intended effect of the ads: to portray Romney as a vulture capitalist and thus implicate him somehow in the economic downturn. That is clearly the frame that Obama is going to put on this campaign,and I think it is an effective one, given the material they have to work with.

What you are forgetting is that these Reagan Democrats – middle-to-lower income workers who are feeling the brunt of the recession – are also hearing another “frame”: that Obama’s “big spending, big government” ways have set record deficits while at the same time failing to bring down unemployment (and let’s not get started on Obamacare!). So voters consider these competing frames in the context of what they see and hear about the actual state of the economy. How are they going to respond to these frames? For the most part, in terms of their prior dispositions. My point here is not to say that the ads, collectively, don’t matter. They do – but not in a way that will advantage one candidate more than the other, given the fundamentals. The problem that partisans of both sides have is that when they see their own candidate’s ad, they say, “Wow, what a devastating indictment of the other guy! This is powerful stuff!” But when they see the other guy’s ad, they dismiss it out of hand as propaganda. This is why we see little independent impact on the vote from campaign ads, despite what the daily media coverage would have us believe.

Does this make sense?