Friday, May 18, 2012
In the beginning, there was the Etch A Sketch.
After the Illinois primary on March 20, which signaled the beginning of the end of the Republican presidential nominating process, Mitt Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom discussed how his candidate would pivot toward the general election: "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."
Several days later, there was President Obama, who told Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have "flexibility" to negotiate on missile defense after the election.
Then there were the comments from Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, who said that Ann Romney (wife of Mitt) "never worked a day in her life."
And last week, after his vice president pushed him into a corner, Obama surprised no one by endorsing gay marriage, a Darwinian evolution from his earlier position of supporting just civil unions. The very next day -- in a bit of timing we'll simply call curiously coincidental -- the Washington Post reported that Mitt Romney, as a prep school boy, cut the hair of a purportedly gay classmate in an act of bullying at his elite boarding school.
What do all of these things have in common? They are all, to at least some degree, "feeding frenzies."
Candidates beware: With the presidential silly season upon us, you are entering what can be described, contra Bill O'Reilly, as the "All-Spin Zone." Without actual news, the press will fixate on any gaffe, big or small. But how many of these frenzies actually matter?
A feeding frenzy -- as defined by the book of the same name -- is "the press coverage attending any political event or circumstance where a critical mass of journalists leap to cover the same embarrassing or scandalous subject and pursue it intensely, often excessively, and sometimes uncontrollably."
Not all feeding frenzies are the same, but they generally can be classified into three levels of severity:
So far at least, all the examples listed above from the 2012 campaign season probably belong in the "frenziette" category. But that doesn't mean they are meaningless.
When assessing media feeding frenzies, the context matters. Incidents that seem to confirm or reinforce an existing stereotype about a candidate have a better chance of being covered. For instance, when President Gerald Ford said during a 1976 debate that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," it played into the (false) image of Ford as a clumsy bumbler. In the same election, Jimmy Carter gave an interview to Playboy saying that he had "committed adultery in my heart many times." In an interview setting that was clearly designed to change Carter's image as a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou candidate, he came off sounding… well, sanctimonious and holier-than-thou.
The four incidents from recent weeks all have important subtexts:
From a policy standpoint, President Obama's embrace of gay marriage is not a minor issue: It is a notable shift that might have some bearing on how some voters will vote, even in an election that almost assuredly will be dominated by the economy. For instance, we can imagine that Obama's decision will boost his fundraising and help him turn out the youth vote. It also might play well in some libertarian-leaning states, such as Colorado (where white evangelicals, probably the main group that will react negatively to the announcement, made up only 21% of the 2008 electorate, according to exit polls). Meanwhile, Obama might be hurt in states with bigger evangelical populations, such as two states he won in 2008: Indiana (43% evangelical in 2008 exit polling) and North Carolina (44%). For context, exit polls indicated that white evangelicals made up 26% of the national electorate in 2008, and they favored John McCain, 74% to Obama's 24%.
But the ephemeral stories wrapped around Obama's announcement -- Joe Biden's forcing Obama's hand by announcing his support for gay marriage a few days beforehand, and the revelation about Romney as a high school bully -- probably do not matter much. Biden put his boss in a box by undercutting him and forcing him, reportedly, to make his announcement before he wanted to. But barring a switch in Veeps prompted by Biden's goofs -- a possibility we see as nearly inconceivable at this point -- Obama's actual change in opinion is the only thing that is important.
Some elections are defined by major issues and profound disagreements about policy. For instance, 2004 was largely about the Iraq war and 2008 was about the economic collapse. The Iran hostage crisis and stagflation defined 1980. This election, as we've mentioned, is likely to be dominated by the slow recovery.
But not all elections are that way. The election of 1988 was largely about social issues such as crime. The most memorable artifact of that election was the Willie Horton ad, which stirred passions about race, law and order, and punishment. A dozen years later, the campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore was considered so vapid it was called the "Seinfeld election"-- an election about nothing.
In 2000 Gore's "frenziettes" received substantial negative attention: his kissing now ex-wife Tipper at the Democratic convention, his "creating the Internet" and his odd sighing and creeping up on Bush during a debate, among other things. Meanwhile, Bush suffered a full-blown frenzy just days before the election, when reports surfaced of a drunk-driving arrest from the 1970s. Again, this played into the existing subtext some reporters had about Bush -- that he was an unserious partier who had simply capitalized on the family name -- and, because of the timing, it's possible that the revelation actually cost him many votes.
Bush strategist Karl Rove claimed, in the days before the election -- and the DUI story -- that his candidate was on track to win 320 electoral votes. Obviously, Bush ended up losing the popular vote, and he barely won the presidency (271 electoral votes) after a legal battle over the razor-thin Florida result. Bush campaign officials believed that the DUI story undercut Bush's main anti-Clinton campaign theme of "honor and integrity" and depressed turnout among evangelical Christians, possibly costing Bush the popular vote. Whatever the truth of that, the disclosure just before Election Day had to be damaging. If the story had surfaced in, say, July, it probably would have been forgotten by November. Former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan was correct when he argued in his memoir that Bush should have disclosed the drunk-driving incident earlier in the campaign so that he could have discussed it on his own terms.
Returning to an earlier example, Ford's gaffe about Eastern Europe in 1976 clearly hurt him in his close race with Carter, given that the post-debate media frenzy changed viewers' first polled reactions to that debate: They initially thought Ford had won, but days later gave the debate to Carter after the negative press coverage of Ford's gaffe. The controversy went on and on, partly because of Ford's stubbornness in refusing to admit he had misspoken. Given the closeness of the election -- Ford would have won if he had flipped roughly 18,000 votes in Wisconsin and 6,000 in Ohio (both places with significant populations of voters with Eastern European lineages) -- the gaffe might have cost Ford a full term as president.
One of the reasons why campaigns can be so boring and scripted, with candidates rarely saying anything interesting on the trail, is that they are desperate to avoid even a "frenziette." Similarly, in frustration with the buttoned-up campaigns, journalists will jump on any little slip-up and report it as a gaffe. Call it a frenzied Catch-22 of the contemporary campaign.
Media storms and squalls will inevitably burst in the next few months, even though the only candidate-initiated move that might change the electoral calculus before the conventions is Romney's selection of a vice president. Even that big announcement may not move the electoral needle very much, though we all recall the list of modern VP candidates who generated major controversies and full-fledged frenzies: Spiro Agnew (1968), Thomas Eagleton (1972), Geraldine Ferraro (1984), Dan Quayle (1988) and Sarah Palin (2008).
Therefore, if you like significant media frenzies that can have an impact on the election, you may have to wait for Mitt Romney's running-mate unveiling. Until then, you'll have plenty of frenziettes to occupy your time and attention.
Larry J. Sabato is the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
See Other Commentary by Larry Sabato
Kyle Kondik is the House Editor at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
See other Political Commentary by Kyle Kondik .
See Other Political Commentary
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.