Why horse-race stuff sometimes matters
A lot of In Boxers hate it when I drift into discussions of horse-racey stuff. Who’s up, who’s down, who’s got the most money or the biggest organization.
I understand why. In politics, things are most interesting when we’re talking about ideas, policies, the underlying currents of a society that are translated into visible form by a political campaign.
So why do I circle back so often to the tactical, strategic, “politics-as-strategy-game” stuff? Because it matters.
If American politics show us anything, it’s that ideas aren’t enough. Often, the most nuanced and sophisticated thinkers are marginalized because they can’t work within the vast, byzantine, weird system that is our democracy.
It can also be fascinating stuff. Take, for example, Mitt Romney, the on-again-off-again frontrunner in the GOP primary.
Here’s a guy who, on first blush, seems to have it all. He looks good on TV, and he has a photogenic family. He’s scandal-free. He has a nearly limitless supply of campaign cash, and a brilliant national political team.
He also has a platform that is a good, general fit for the modern Republican Party. It’s very conservative, but not whacky conservative.
But so far, the missing link has been a horse-racey element: Romney himself is a clunky campaigner. He hasn’t been able to find the rhythm and comfort-zone that builds into the energy that a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton projects.
And generally speaking you need that kind of intangible spark to topple a sitting president.
Consider Romney’s performance at the CPAC conference this week. You could feel him reaching for that elevating moment, that I’m-one-of-you-in-my-heart connection.
And then he dropped in one awkward tone-deaf word — “severely” — that reminded everyone in the room that whatever his politics, Mitt Romney just isn’t a natural.
“I was a severely conservative Republican governor,” he said.
It sounds innocent enough, but conservatives don’t like to think of themselves as “severe.” In their playbook, they’re the normal ones, the Americans who cleave to tradition and core values.
All politicians make gaffes. But great campaigners don’t commit so many of them that they keep tripping up their own energy, defusing the focus of their message.
This may be one reason Rick Santorum is surging. Whatever his politics, whatever the state of his fundraising and his organization, he looks comfortable up there. He looks like he’s having fun. He looks like he means it.
He might not have the pedigree. But right now, Santorum simply looks like a stronger, faster horse than Romney. And this is a race that once again looks very, very competitive.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.jpg)
I find the horse-racy stuff much more fun than the Poly-sci-220 stuff!
–Bob F.
Romney couldn’t close the deal. I still think Obama wants to run against Romney. I expect to see a media surge in pro-Romney comments.
I already heard how “normal” being a Mormon is.
I cannot imagine the same commentary on how “normal” being a Christian is.
“He also has a platform that is a good, general fit for the modern Republican Party. It’s very conservative, but not whacky conservative.”
I suppose it depends on how you define the modern republican party, but my observation is that the modern Republican Party IS whacky conservative… and trending whackier each year.
That is part of Romney’s troubles. He is just a plain old conservative… or at least what we used to call a conservative for the better part of the last half century. But that isn’t conservative enough for the modern Tea Party version of the Republican Party,
Other traditional and establishment Republicans are running into similar problems because of this.
Whacky, daffy duck Republicans. Since Romney doesn’t waddle like a duck, I guess he ain’t a Republican.
May the worst duck win the nomination so Obama wins four more years.
“He looks like he’s having fun. He looks like he means it.”
Exactly, maybe he really is and does?
I would vote for Santorum over Romney for that very reason, I think Santorum really believes, I think Romney thinks he is supposed to believe in what he is saying.
Besides that haven’t the Republicans had enough children of rich sob’s running their party?
“Here’s a guy who, on first blush, seems to have it all. He looks good on TV, and he has a photogenic family. He’s scandal-free. He has a nearly limitless supply of campaign cash, and a brilliant national political team.
He also has a platform that is a good, general fit for the modern Republican Party. It’s very conservative, but not whacky conservative.”
I agree.
I saw a poll that said that 97% of the CPAC folks (maybe whacky conservatives by this definition) said that they want someone who can beat the current president. There is only one option.
That is the problem; there is only one option and the two real options have no chance; Ron Paul and Rick Santorom.
Romney is not a real person, he is a fake, another guy who believes in nothing but himself and his destiny; springing from his elitist family. He would say anything.
Santorum is an actual man, a person who really believes in American Democracy, so is Ron Paul; both disagree pretty radically on issues but they are both real people who have something to say. As a conservative I actually think I will vote for either President Obama or Ron Paul if Romney is nominated.
This country must not go down the road of electing second generation rich kids to lead us.
There’s always Gov. Buddy Roemer. Don’t come crying to me later saying “but I didn’t even know he was running because the evil MSM wont cover him.”
It’s the Internet Age now and you can look him up and send him some money today.
http://www.buddyroemer.com/
Brian, It’s not that I hate the ‘horse-racy stuff’ so much as that it seems like that’s all the media pays attention to and that emphasis distracts the general population from the ‘issues’ (remember issues?) and an open debate of where we want to go as a nation rather than where this or that faction wants to take us.
As for Romney. My impression is that he is a sincere, charisma challenged rich guy who is clueless about the poor and middle class. He says he’s a self-made man but who among us would not be better off at his stage of life if we had started adult life with an advanced education, a car and a home but no debt courtesy of well-to-do parents. And that does not even take into account the advantages of the social contacts that growing up in that sub-set of society confers. Yes, when his father died he gave his inheritance to the Mormon church but he had already had an inheritance more valuable as a foundation for success than mere money.
As Jerry Seinfeld was fond of saying “not that there’s anything wrong with that” but when it is accompanied by a free market philosophy that believes ‘if I made it all by myself, anyone can make it’, it betrays a fundamental disconnect with the obstacles to success in life faced by those without such advantages. It brings us back to “W” economics but with a more handsome face and a higher level of verbal gaffs. A less buffoonish friend of corporate interests.
“As a conservative I actually think I will vote for either President Obama or Ron Paul if Romney is nominated. ”
Mervel, don’t get to worked up President Obama is going to win in NY no matter who you or I vote for.
Sorry Mervel, I have no idea where you live or vote.
The fact that Romney won that straw poll at CPAC makes me think that even “conservatives” will fall in line.
This particular horse race is one of those “the lead has changed many times” races which are particularly fun to watch.
Never-the-less, it is hard to imagine conventional wisdom being wrong in the end. Most likely Romney will win, not because (GOP) people really like him, but because they think he is the strongest candidate for the general election.
But this primary is making it harder and harder for Romney to rush back to the center after tying down the nomination (in the Nixonian gambit).
Good point Paul, I live in SLC.
Severely conservative….. I don’t think so. Romney should have just admitted that he governed somewhat as a liberal and explain why he now believes in conservative principles. I think he’d convince alot more people using that tact. Right now he is just lying.
An apropos article in SAGE Journals today from APS (Association for Psychological Science) “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower
Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact”.
From the study’s abstract: “In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of
intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status.”
Read the entire research article at: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full.pdf+html
Having grown up in the North Country in the 50’s and 60’s as a “liberal” I was puzzled why such a large percentage of my neighbors and acquaintances were so “conservative”. This paper appears to provide some insight as to why the conservative platform has been populated by so many “kooks” and their ardent supporters this political season. Also helps to explain why Mitt has such difficulty connecting in a meaningful manner with other conservatives and liberals as well as independents.
“we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood” Stupid people are more likely to be racist? I don’t buy that. You don’t have to be smart to be a decent person.
“Right now he is just lying.” Maybe? Or maybe real conservative values are not the stuff of the kooky right wing types. In general I think that you will find that Romney is fiscally conservative and that on social issues he is where all conservatives should be. But you are right that he is putting on a bit of an act at this point.
On “horse races”… That is what sells papers and gets people back to the web. The media (and its investors) love a good horse race and they got one here.
Paul says: “I don’t buy that”, and your credentials are?
And then there is this one in Current Biology: “We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00289-2
Note: the larger amygdala could explain why conservatives are so into fear.
What seems to have happened to the Republican party is a fight over what it means to be a conservative. Too many lines are being drawn. Some in the Republican party seem to be doing their very best to exclude as many people from the party as possible.
Romney strikes me as being more of a traditional Republican than anything else, with a strong dose of the pragmatic.
But I thought conservatives were rich and supported the rich?
Lower childhood intelligence is correlated with childhood poverty; because of poor childhood nutrition, pre-natal care and childhood trauma.
This is a good article;
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/12/zakaria-mitt-you-need-to-worry-about-the-very-poor/?hpt=hp_t3
“This may be one reason Rick Santorum is surging.”
Santorum is surging because it’s his turn and conservatives still distrust Romney. I wonder if Ron Paul will get a turn “surging”. Probably not.
“But I thought conservatives were rich and supported the rich?”
No, rich conservatives support the conservative movement, Fox “News”, think tanks, and media buys that aim (with substantial success) to convince middle-class and even poor people that they’d be better off under a Republican administration.
Good link though, Mervel, thanks.
The liberal movement needs to find a way to connect with lower income and poor people at an emotional and cultural level.
Some of the people I know who are not that well off and are conservative do it because they feel a cultural identification with the conservative movement.
I don’t know how to do that, but that will be the key in some of these states. Probably not by telling poor people they are genetically pre selected to be stupid and racist because of brain development. That might not connect with them.
rather than endless horse cace discussion, how about an article on differences between the candidates on a substantive issue, such as taxation? Of course, I realize im in the minority as someone who finds policy more interesting than horse race coverage and campaign theaterics.
Brian, I don’t hate horse-racey stuff. I just hate NATIONAL horse-racey stuff HERE, at NCPR. It’s readily available elsewhere. Local coverage isn’t. If you’ve got a Doug Hoffman horse-race post, I’m totally with you. Mitt? Unless it’s got a North Country hook, anything you can say has already been said somewhere else. I’d rather see you and the site play to your comparative advantage.
oa,
well said.
“Paul says: “I don’t buy that”, and your credentials are?”
So, Ken tell that to a low income mother who is trying to raise a kid that may not have the highest IQ. “Sorry kid it looks like no matter what I teach you and try and instill in you chances are you will just grow up to be a jerk”.
I just don’t buy it. They better get some more money and keep studying that one.
The Cell paper seems to be much more plausible. But personally I think our federal grant funds would be much better spent on something else.
Paul says: “we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood” Stupid people are more likely to be racist? I don’t buy that. You don’t have to be smart to be a decent person.”
Paul, come on, you know what “predicts” means. No, you don’t have to be smart to be a decent person. But the dumber you are, the more LIKELY you are to be a jerk. There are also plenty of very smart jerks in the world. The key words in your quote: “more likely”.
Brian, write what you want. It’s your blog. People don’t have to read it if they find the topic uninteresting.
Walker, these things just put people in boxes. What is the point?
Fine if you are poor you are “more likely” to be a racist. Ridiculous.
“People don’t have to read it if they find the topic uninteresting.” That is the point right? A journalist (if he or she wants to keep his job) has to write stories about what folks find interesting. A horse race of a campaign is interesting a blow out is boring.
“Note: the larger amygdala could explain why conservatives are so into fear.”
My wife is very liberal and she is terrified what will happen if Obama is not re-elected! So are many other liberals.
“Note: the larger amygdala could explain why conservatives are so into fear.”
Look here, this isn’t so bad?
“Amygdala volume correlates positively with both the size (the number of contacts a person has) and the complexity (the number of different groups to which a person belongs) of social networks.[38][39] Individuals with larger amygdalae had larger and more complex social networks. They were also better able to make accurate social judgments about other persons’ faces.[40] It is hypothesized that larger amygdalae allow for greater emotional intelligence, enabling greater societal integration and cooperation with others.”
This certainly describes me? I wish.
They better do some spell checking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
As to the spell checking, “amygdalae” is the plural of “amygdala”.
I have seen studies that suggest that conservatives are rated as more fearful than liberals.
As to your “Fine if you are poor you are “more likely” to be a racist. Ridiculous,” I don’t know how to respond. You are aware, no doubt, of correlation coefficients? I assume, if they published the study, the correlation was significant. A correlation does not have to be terribly strong to be significant. Still, if the study was done correctly (and if it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, one should be able to assume as much) it is not quite “ridiculous,” whether you like the implication or no.
On the “spell check”, thanks.
I guess they are then.
Here we go. As everyone already knows:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the amygdala and the various permutations of its spelling approaches 1”
So the Liberal answer to poverty is that poor people are stupid?
The study is obiously not an important or significant study; if it showed that poor people were racist and stupid, it would be a significant study and it is not a significant study.
It sounds a lot like the Bell Curve frankly.
No, Mervel, where are you getting that?
“Children in extreme poverty do badly even when they are smart. A recent U.S. study tracked a group of eighth-graders in 1988. It found that students who did very well on a standardized test but were poor were less likely to get through college than their peers who tested poorly but were well-off.”
Poor people are badly educated, even when they are smart. In other words, we are failing them.
“On indicator after indicator, the U.S. compares badly with other rich nations on not only how impoverished it is but on the facilities and opportunities it is giving the poor. That’s why social mobility has stalled in America. Compared with other rich countries, poor Americans are more likely to stay poor. More than 40% of American men whose fathers had earnings in the bottom fifth end up in the same bracket. Britain, Denmark, Finland and Norway all perform much better.”
Or are you talking about the Cell article? The one that says that Conservatives are stupid? ;-)
I was talking about the Cell article, I totally agree with the statements above.