Category Archives: More

Rumors of Mitt’s Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

I know. I know. “Where have you been?!” I appreciate the email inquiries. The short answer is I’ve been trapped in my office, fending off an onslaught of students. Such is the life of a departmental chair at a nationally-ranked liberal arts college. There’s been other distractions as well associated with the start of the semester (teaching a new election class!), and with giving election-year talks. So that’s my excuse for the scarcity of posts. I’ll try to do better now as academic-related activities begin to slow.

Meanwhile, in my blogging absence, the presidential campaign has, apparently, all but ended, with Romney suffering an ignominious defeat. Or so the pundits tell me. Evidently, Mitt’s political “death” was precipitated by several causes. First there was the disastrous Republican convention, lowlighted by Clint Eastwood talking to a chair. That was followed by the brilliantly orchestrated Democratic Convention, highlighted by the Big Dog’s mesmerizing recitation of his…er….Obama’s accomplishments. Then Romney dug himself a deeper hole by seeming to politicize Libyan Ambassador Chris Steven’s death through some ill-timed remarks. Romney dumped the final shovelful on his own political grave by accusing 47% of voters – many of them presumably his own supporters – of suffering from an “entitlement ethos” that makes them overly dependent on government programs.

That last “devastating” gaffe was enough to convince several pundits (see here and here) that Romney had “lost the election.” Forgive me if I’m not persuaded, and why I think you should not be either. Not surprisingly, of course, the pundits who are certifying that the campaign is over are all Obama supporters. More importantly, however, is that the polling data, while indicating that Obama may have gained a couple of percentage points over Romney compared to the pre-convention polls, still show this as a tight race. The latest Pollster.com aggregate poll has Obama up by 3%, at 48.1%-45.1.%. On the day before the Republican convention, Obama led by 1.4% in their composite poll. At RealClearPolitics, Obama leads by 3.9%, 48.6%-44.7%. He was up by 1.4% there before the conventions. So there is evidence that the cumulative polling impact of the “devastating” period (for Romney) has cost him about 1.6%-2.5% in the polls. That’s not insignificant, particularly in a tight race, but I don’t see this as proof of Romney’s demise either.

In assessing the claims that we have just witnessed a turning point in the campaign, I suggest keeping several factors in mind. First, neither candidate got a huge convention boost as measured by historical standards although my read of the polls is that the net polling advantage in convention bumps went to Obama. Already, however, we see signs that some of that initial Democratic convention bump has dissipated.

Second , as John Sides argues, the shelf-life of presidential candidates’ rhetorical gaffes is surprisingly short. Here’s John’s chart showing just how little previous rhetorical gaffes, such as Obama’s “You didn’t build that” remark, have actually moved the polling needle. Romney may have gained a percentage point or two due to Obama’s statements, but it’s hard to say that permanently changed the race, particularly since Romney’s support dipped down again shortly after.

As I’ve discussed previously, these remarks tend not to have much impact largely because they are filtered through voters’ preexisting ideological beliefs. For this reason, I doubt Mitt’s 47% comment is the game changer that partisan pundits predict/hope it will be. Remember, campaigns tend not to change votes so much as they activate latent predispositions among voters. Yes, it’s possible this time will be different, and that Mitt’s remarks really are a turning point. But in the absence of evidence indicating why this time should be different, forgive me if I don’t take the partisan pundits’ words for it.

Already, the talking heads are debating just how bad a candidate Mitt is. But, while he may not be the most well-liked guy, it is not clear to me that he is underperforming the economic fundamentals by all that much, if at all, based on current polls. Much depends, of course, on which forecast model you believe. As I’ve discussed in several previous posts, more than one forecast model has Obama winning this race by a very close margin. Taken as a whole, as I’ll discuss in a future post, the forecast models see this race as a toss-up. And that’s not far from where the aggregate polling has it right now. Remember, whenever a candidate appears to be losing, media pundits invariably point to failures in candidate strategy and/or in the candidates’ perceived personal shortcomings. But that doesn’t mean that assessment is right. And I don’t think it is right this time either.

I Knew Artur Davis Before He Was A Republican – Or A Democrat

For most every teacher, I suspect, there are handful of classroom experiences that remain memorable long after the class is over, usually because of the mix of students in that class. For me one such experience came very early in my teaching career while I was still a graduate student. Fortunately, in the Harvard Ph.D program grad students were encouraged to teach as part of their training, and I put together a seminar based on my research into the White House staff (the subject of my first book). To my everlasting gratitude, the course attracted an outstanding group of undergraduates, many of whom I am still in touch with and all of whom went on to lead distinctive lives.

One of those students was Artur Davis.

If you don’t know Davis, you will after tonight. He is scheduled to give a prime-time address at the Republican National Convention. What makes this particularly noteworthy is that two years ago Davis, who was the first Democratic congressman outside Illinois to back Obama’s presidential bid, was considered a rising star in Democratic political circles. In 2002, he had bucked the Democratic establishment to win a seat in the House, representing a district in his home state of Alabama, and he later became one of Obama’s early political supporters. As a reward for that support in 2008 Davis was given the honor at the Democratic Convention of seconding Obama’s nomination to be president.

But in 2010, Davis lost his bid for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Alabama. His defeat was attributed in part by his decision, looking ahead to the general gubernatorial election, to position himself more to the ideological center by, for instance, voting against Obamacare – a strategy that some say cost him support among his core constituency during the primary. Shortly after his defeat he moved to Virginia and began a political conversion that will culminate in tonight’s major address.

If Davis’ is going to reboot his political career, tonight is a big moment for him. Polls indicate that few Virginians know who he is, and those few who do don’t particularly like him. But, as we all know, a primetime convention speech can do wonders for an aspiring politician’s career prospects.

As you might expect, Davis’ Road to Damascus moment is not sitting well with his former Democratic colleagues. The Congressional Black caucus released a scathing letter today, no doubt timed to blunt the impact of Davis’ speech, that basically accuses him of political treason. Liberal blogs have also taken Davis to task for his political apostasy while their conservative counterparts are applauding his new-found reason.

I would like to say that I had something to do with Davis’ decision to embark on a political career, if not necessarily his choice of this particular political path. But I would be lying. Davis came to my seminar with his political instincts already well honed. He was a smart student, but in a class of exceptionally bright undergraduates – (four went on to law school, one clerked for the Supreme Court, another served on Capitol Hill), he didn’t stand out for his academic prowess. Instead, what I remember most about Artur is his insatiable interest in political gossip and current events. When I discussed in class some of the findings from the White House interviews that I was conducting, Artur was most interested in knowing who was feeding me the information. Similarly he paid less attention to my discussion of principal-agent models as a means of understanding presidential-staff relations, but was all ears when it came to analyzing the current White House staff. It came as absolutely no surprise to me that he went into elective politics – it was clear that he was already a political animal.

Tonight is big night for Artur and, as I do with all my former students, I wish him well. This is not to say I endorse (or do not endorse!) his political conversion. But politics can be a harsh mistress, and Artur has already developed a noteworthy enemies list. There’s no need to add to the list. Instead, he should expect some moral support from a former teacher.

So, knock ‘em dead, Artur. I’m rooting for you.

Addendum 1:15 – Olivier Knox picked up this story at Yahoo.com.

Here is an additional reason why the Congressional Black Caucus is irked with Davis – he has come out in favor of stronger voter ID laws. In an editorial citing his support of strengthening voter identification law, Davis noted that he saw numerous instances of voter fraud in Alabama.

Addendum II 2:45 p.m. Another student from that illustrious class, Jeff Cooper, forwards me this youtube video created by the DNC showing the “good” Artur in anticipation of tonight’s speech.

[youtube watch?v=-Iol_ZMdMDk]

The Ryan Pick: On, Wisconsin?

It’s been almost two weeks since Mitt Romney announced his selection of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, which provides enough time to take a first look at Ryan’s impact on the race so far. In this vein, I think it is instructive to recall the pundits’ immediate assessment of the Ryan pick. Needless to say, the reaction evinced a distinct partisan slant. Romney supporters hailed the pick as Obama’s “worst nightmare”, a bold choice that offered voters a clear contrast between the President’s unsustainable big spending, deficit-enhancing policies versus a Romney-Ryan led return to fiscal prudence and economic growth. Moreover, by refocusing the campaign on how best to fix the economy, the Ryan pick shifted the media narrative away from Bain Capital and Romney’s tax returns and, not incidentally, put Wisconsin back in play. Obama’s backers, on the other hand, described the Ryan pick as a stunningly bad choice , one that not only exposed Romney’s weak electoral hand but also refocused the campaign from a referendum on Obama’s middling economic record to a debate over Ryan’s radical House-backed budget legislation, including politically controversial proposals to reform Medicare.

Anyone reading this punditry might wonder if they were describing the same man! Clearly, however, partisan pundits on both sides indicated that the Ryan pick – if not a “game changer” – was surely consequential in terms of the race. The divide was over whether it would help or hurt Romney.

There was a third possibility, of course, one that I proposed in a post written shortly after Romney’s pick was announced: that it wouldn’t have much impact on the race at all. As I wrote then: “There is always a tendency for the media, particularly in the news-starved period that is August, to overreact to these types of political events. Pundits have been quick to analyze what the Ryan pick tells us about Romney’s campaign strategy, and to assert that this high risk-high reward type of pick is destined to shake up the race. But we should not let the sheer volume of media analyses blind us to a third potential outcome: that the pick will be largely inconsequential. Romney, after all, still heads the Republican ticket and the economic fundamentals will still likely drive the decision for most voters.”

I based my prediction on the historical record. To begin, polls suggest that for most people in previous election the VP pick did not influence their vote choice for the top of the ticket. Moreover, Harry Enten shows the median impact of the VP pick on a candidate’s polling status prior to the convention is about 4%.

Those figures, moreover, tell us nothing about how long that 4% bump lasts. As you can see from Enten’s chart, three of the four biggest bumps came during losing efforts. Even that celebrated “game changer” Sarah Palin likely had a minimal impact on the outcome of the 2008 race. Although exit polls indicate that McCain won, 56%-43% among the 60% of respondents that said the Palin pick was “a factor” in their vote, it was not enough to swing the election his way.

All this suggested to me that despite the projections of the partisan punditry, the Ryan pick would have little lasting impact on this campaign. So far – with one potential caveat – I seem to be right. Stanford political scientist Simon Jackman’s analysis of polling data suggests the race remains virtually unchanged, with Obama leading Romney by about 46%-45%, as indicated in this graph.

That’s consistent with Mark Blumenthal’s assessment at Pollster.com.

This is not to say the Ryan pick was without consequences, however. To begin, it appears to have mobilized the Republican base which has responded by opening its collective pocketbooks and contributing to the Romney campaign. Perhaps of greater significance, it may have tightened the race in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin. As this Pollster.com chart shows, Romney has gained an average of about 3% in four Wisconsin polls of likely voters since the Ryan pick was announced, which narrows Obama’s lead there from about 5-6% to closer to 2-3%.

We can’t be sure, of course, whether this polling bounce will last, but for now it makes Wisconsin almost a tossup. If Romney were to win Wisconsin, and its 10 Electoral College votes, it provides him with a bit more flexibility in how to put together enough states to reach the 270 Electoral College vote threshold. Keep in mind, however, that states tend to move together; if Romney picks up the additional 2-3% needed to put him over the top in Wisconsin, he’s likely to do so in other battleground states as well. So we shouldn’t fixate on Wisconsin as the key to Romney’s electoral fortunes.

At this point, then, I stand by my initial assessment: the Ryan pick will likely have at best a marginal impact on the 2012 presidential election.

Meanwhile, On Wisconsin! (This one’s for you, Cason…..)

[youtube watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SOh-1fNGxBE]

Why I Might Buy Maureen Dowd A Miller Lite

Dear Maureen,

(May I call you that?) I understand that you probably don’t read my blog. You are a busy person, after all, with your column and all that goes with being a celebrity journalist (may I call you that?). Your time is undoubtedly precious. But do you read your own paper – the one that publishes your column? Not the whole paper, mind you, but maybe just the op-ed page. You know, that section that publishes opinion pieces (like yours)?

I ask because a reader sent me a link to your August 11 New York Times column, titled “Likability Index”. In it, you discuss whether President Obama and Mitt Romney are truly likable people. You claim that Obama is a lot more likable, at least when viewed from a distance, than is Mitt. This likability gap is important because, you suggest, it will determine who wins the presidential election: “The big difference, the one that will probably decide this presidential race, is this: Barack Obama is able to convey an impression of likability to voters. Given how private he is, an enigma even to some who are close to him, it’s an incredible performance.”

Yes, Obama “can be thin-skinned and insecure at times, but he radiates self-sufficiency, such a clean, simple aesthetic that he could have been designed by Steve Jobs — Siri without the warmth.” As for poor Mitt, well, here are your words: “Romney started out off-putting and now makes Willy Loman look like prom king. Obama is introverted and graceful; Romney is introverted and awkward.” Ouch!

I realize you have some data to back up your claim of a likability gap; as you note, there’s extensive polling evidence indicating that Obama has “better numbers on honesty, trust and empathy” in addition to enjoying a sizable advantage in likability. Your conclusion? “Once a candidate gains the advantage in ‘Who do you want to have a beer with?’ — even if he doesn’t drink beer — it’s very hard to reverse.”

Oh no! Not the beer test! I thought I debunked the myth of the beer test in this post, when – drawing in part on research by three prominent political scientists – I argued that there was no strong relationship between the candidates’ relative likability and the outcome of the presidential election during the period 1952-2000. I concluded: “The point here is one I’ve made before: presidential elections are driven by fundamentals – national conditions and candidates’ issue positions – far more than they are by the candidates’ personal qualities. Indeed, I don’t know of a single reputable presidential election forecast model that incorporates likability ratings.” Clearly, however, you aren’t a regular reader of my blog. But surely you read your own paper? If so, you might have run across this piece on your paper’s very own opinion page written by one of those prominent political scientists, in which he argues “that a candidate’s likability is a relatively minor factor in deciding modern presidential elections.”

Once again, in case you missed it when it was published in the Times, here is the summary data in graphical form:

It shows that, historically, the candidate rated higher on the personal dimension did not always win the election. Indeed, in 1996, Bill Clinton – the most negatively rated candidate of all during this period – trounced World War II veteran Bob Dole, while in 1980 voters soundly rejected Jimmy Carter despite his sterling personal qualities.

Of course, 2012 might be different. Maybe, in a very close election, enough voters’ choices will turn on whether they prefer to have a beer with Mitt (non-alcoholic, of course) or the President to swing the election one way or another. If that happens, here’s my promise to you Mo (may I call you that?): I’m buying the next round.

Do you drink Miller Lite?

Sincerely,

Matt

(Yes, you can call me that.)

Fareed Zakaria: You Didn’t Write This

As often happens with these cases, the initial plagiarism charge against Fareed Zakaria has prompted renewed scrutiny of his other work. The latest charge – one that Zakaria is vigorously defending himself against – is that he used a quote without attribution in his 2008 best-selling book The Post-American World that actually came from an interview conducted by Clyde Prestowitz for his 2006 book Three Billion New Capitalists. Meanwhile, the Washington Post announced on Monday that it will not run Zakaria’s columns this month. Presumably the paper is reviewing Zakaria’s previous columns for other instances of plagiarism. Five days ago, of course, Time Magazine suspended Zakaria for a month after he admitted plagiarizing passages from a Jill Lepore article on gun control that she wrote for the New Yorker magazine. Shortly after Time’s action, CNN – for which Zakaria hosts the cable news show Fareed Zakaria GPS Global Public Square – also suspended him indefinitely. Zakaria issued a public apology for his actions regarding Lepore’s New Yorker article, saying: “Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 23rd issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers.”

However, Zakaria is defending himself against the latest charge that he lifted a quote from someone’s else’s interview and used it in his own book: “As I write explicitly [in the book], this is not an academic work where everything has to be acknowledged and footnoted.” He points out that because of the sheer number of such quotes, including citations for each one would “interrupt the flow for the reader.”

Predictably, Zakaria’s critics have used the plagiarism charge as an opportunity to go after previous instances of sloppy reporting and other journalistic missteps that fall short of plagiarism, including the unpardonable sin of giving the same commencement address at different schools. But the criticism doesn’t stop there; others view this incident as a prime opportunity to renew their criticism of his policy positions.

Look, I have no idea how Lepore’s passages ended up in Zakaria’s column, although I can think of more than one innocuous reason to explain it. And I’ll leave it to others to debate the appropriate punishment for Zakaria’s sins, real and imagined. But I confess that I feel a certain amount of empathy for him. (Full disclosure: Zakaria’s and my career paths overlapped at Harvard; I was transitioning from doctoral student to junior faculty there while he was finishing his Ph.D. But I never had him in a class and I do not know him well.) That empathy is based on more than “old school ties”, however. Instead, it comes from understanding how easy it is, when writing a daily blog based in part on information available on the internet for anyone to use at the touch of a keyboard, to find oneself in Zakaria’s predicament. Indeed, the proliferation of news aggregators has made it easier to justify using other writers’ material without attribution.

I am not immune to this temptation. Almost every day I post an 800-1,500 word comment that more often than not is based in part on someone else’s research and/or insights. I work without an editor, and although I am careful to follow journalistic norms by citing other’s work (thanks to my year as a cub reporter for a daily paper, I have some journalistic training), I live in constant fear that I will have forgotten a link, or dropped a reference such as “As so-and-so said” in my blog post. And once I hit the send button, it’s very hard to make corrections. Fortunately, my posts don’t get nearly the same level of scrutiny as Zakaria’s. That doesn’t absolve me of the responsibility of following standard journalistic practices, something I take very seriously. But I would be a fool to pretend that slipups can’t happen.

Years ago, when I was set to publish my first book, I sent a draft of the manuscript to a well-known presidency scholar whose work had influenced mine to a considerable degree. In short order he sent back an email that said (and I’m paraphrasing slightly), “Ahem, I don’t quite know how to say this but…” and here he pulled up a sentence from the beginning of one of my chapters, followed by a page number from one of his books. When I followed his cue, I was shocked to find that my opening sentence was exactly the same as one from his book. I had repeated it without using either quotation marks or even a citation to his work. True, it was only one sentence, and I had cited his research in dozens of other places in my manuscript, but I was still mortified by my inexplicable error. All I could think was that I had transcribed a passage from my notecard to the text improperly. (To my students – yes, we used to do research using notecards.) Needless to say, when the book was published, the sentence was in quotes and properly cited. To this day I am grateful that I decided to send him the draft manuscript, and that he caught the error and notified me before the book went to press.

My point is this: I’m not trying to excuse Zakaria’s actions, nor condemn them. But I’m in no rush to judge the man based on this one incident.