Here's an
interesting column by Karl Rove on the upcoming presidential race between Mitt Romney and President Obama. He argues that it is more like 1980 when Reagan beat Carter than 2004 when Bush narrowly beat Kerry.
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney may be dead even in the
polls, but some pundits insist the president will prevail on Election
Day because 2012 is the new 2004.
The story line goes like this: President George W. Bush had roughly
the same numbers at this point in 2004 that Mr. Obama has today. Mr.
Bush went on to win a narrow victory by building a massive ground game
that focused on the GOP's base and by relentlessly attacking his
opponent, Sen. John Kerry. Mr. Obama is executing the same strategy.
What worked for Mr. Bush, the theory goes, will work for Mr. Obama.
He distinguishes 2012 from 2004 on a couple of grounds.
True, there are some similarities between 2004 and 2012. Mr. Obama's
current job approval and personal favorability ratings are roughly the
same as Mr. Bush's in 2004. So are the head-to-head matchups: In mid-May
2004, Mr. Bush trailed Mr. Kerry in Gallup, 46%-48%, while in the most
recent Gallup tracking Mr. Obama is tied with Mr. Romney, 46%-46%.
But there are crucial differences between the two elections. It is a
myth that 2004 was all about maximizing Republican turnout. The Bush
campaign also successfully sought to win as many independents as
possible and to poach elements of the Democratic coalition. In the end,
Mr. Bush received 44% of the Hispanic vote, carried the largest share
(24%) of the Jewish vote for any Republican since 1988, nearly erased
the gender gap with 48% of the women's vote, and was supported by 11% of
black voters, up from 8% in 2000.
If Mr. Obama makes this election mostly about energizing the
Democratic base—as he clearly intends to—he will further alienate swing
voters who elected him in 2008 and then turned on his policies with a
vengeance in 2010.
The issues are different in 2012 from 2004. Security was big in 2004 not as much now.
A second big difference is that the 2004 election was a referendum on
whether Mr. Bush was keeping America safe. Remember "security
moms"—that post-9/11 voting bloc of mostly white, married women with
children? In a late September 2004 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, 62% of
voters approved of Mr. Bush's handling of terrorism while 36%
disapproved. In the Election Day exit polls, 58% said they did not trust
Mr. Kerry to handle terrorism. Mr. Bush won 84% of these
security-minded voters, Mr. Kerry just 15%.
Today it's all about the economy.
The 2012 election will be a referendum on Mr. Obama's performance not
against terrorism, but on the economy. Only 42% in the May 20 ABC
News/Washington Post poll approve of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy
while 55% disapprove.
Meanwhile, the economy is seen as a strong point for Mr. Romney. When
asked "Which candidate do you trust to do a better job handling the
economy?" Mr. Romney polls as high or higher than Mr. Obama. It's
unclear that negative attacks on Mr. Romney by Team Obama will
materially change Mr. Romney's standing, especially if effectively
rebutted or deflected.
Another big issue is leadership. Who's the stronger leader. This was important in 1980 when people saw Carter as weak and indecisive.
But the most important difference between the two elections is this:
In the April 2004 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 64% said they saw Mr.
Bush as a strong leader; 36% said he was not. Today, just 51% see Mr.
Obama as a strong leader; 48% do not.
Among the greatest political assets any president has is the public's
perception of him as a leader. If voters see an incumbent president as
strong and effective, many will vote for him even if they don't fully
agree with him on some important issues.
But this president is perceived by many, even some in his own party,
as indecisive, too willing to outsource the writing of key legislation
to Congress, too eager to lead from behind, too political, too
calculating, and too ready to discard frequently voiced promises. Most
importantly, he appears hostage to events rather than in control of
them.
Playing into the impression of Mr. Obama as an unusually weak chief
executive is his practice of blaming the nation's challenges on
everything from his predecessor to a tsunami in Japan to ATMs to the
Arab Spring to airport check-in kiosks to Fox News to Super PACs to the
Supreme Court. The blame game can work for maybe a year; after that, it
is (rightly) seen as weak and whiny.
A president is strongest when he takes more responsibility and less
credit. Too frequently, Mr. Obama does the opposite. The self-portrait
the president has painted is of a weak liberal, buffeted by events. That
will make this election more like 1980—when Ronald Reagan defeated an
ineffectual Jimmy Carter—than 2004.
Everybody acknowledges the economy is key. If Europe melts down and an economic downturn hits the US, then 2012 will definitely look more like 1980. Then Reagan trailed Carter until the last few weeks before election day. It remains to be seen if that happens this time as well.
