For instance, when George Washington University political scientist John Sides looked at five events from the 2008 campaign identified by the journalists Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson in their book The Battle for America as especially significant, he found they had “basically had no impact on voters nationwide.” Likewise, a comprehensive review of pre-election trial heat polls by the political scientists Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erickson (gated) found that “During the early campaign—roughly the 100 days preceding the late-summer conventions—campaign shocks are large but temporary; news about the campaign affects voters but is eventually forgotten and thus has little impact on the final outcome.”
We’re currently 158 days from the Republican convention, and “Etch a Sketch-gate” will likely prove to be just as inconsequential. By the time the general election rolls around, the incident will most likely be forgotten. And even if it remains salient, it’s unlikely to change voters’ minds since, as Cillizza concedes, “How you view the Etch a Sketch incident…depends in large part on how you view Romney.” Better to rethink how you view the “freak show” aspect of the political press instead.
Is Brendan Nyhan writing satire here? This column is a remarkable exercise in denying the obvious. Romney "sometimes inadvertently reinforces stereotypes of himself as rich, awkward, a flip-flopper, etc. -- or comes close enough that the media can frame the episodes as consistent with the narrative..."???? Please tell me this is a parody of fairness and balance. The Romney aide's ill-considered etch-a-sketch image caught on with nearly everyone because it so accurately captures what so many people from the right to the left see as Romney's shameless pandering and "flexibility" on issues. This isn't "sometimes" or "inadvertent." It's a consistent, deliberate strategy by Romney and his advisers. You pick the issue -- health care, climate change, cap-and-trade, minimum wage, abortion -- and Romney has flip-flopped on it. He makes John Kerry look like the rock of Gibraltar. If Nyhan thinks that voters don't notice or don't care about a politician's grotesque flip-flopping on major issues, I think he's egregiously wrong.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 02:27 PM
The question:
"Is there a concern that the pressure from Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?"
And you're pretending that meant the dynamics of campaign organization in the general election?
Pathetic.
#2 Posted by bbbfst, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 06:54 PM
Candidates present themselves to different voters in different ways. Campaigning is about trying to convince and win over the most voters in any particular group. Clearly Romney is going to present himself one way when campaigning just for Republican votes and in a somewhat different way when campaigning in a general election.
But the etch-a-sketch comment made it clear that politicians and their support staff - at least on the Romney team - know that there is some manipulation involved, even if it is not "substantive". And they were naive enough to admit it.
This "gaffe" will probably live on right up to November.
#3 Posted by Alan, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 06:59 PM
I checked out the Sides post. I don't think that polling immediately following a purported gaffe, or for an extended period after, proves that none of them matter. Some become campaign themes and may affect people's overall perception of the candidate over an extended period. The phoning I did for Obama in '08 made it pretty clear to me that both the Jeremiah Wright explosion and the "bitter" comment affected people's perceptions of him. You might say that those stumbles simply provided a focal point for attitudes that people were predisposed toward, but I don't see a clear way of proving that they don't matter. Then there's the effect of certain events on the candidates and their followers: perhaps the Jefferson-Jackson speech fired Obama up.
Also, I had exactly the same thought expressed by bbbfst: the content of the question that Ferhnstrom responded to makes it pretty clear that he was addressing the problem of "tacking too far to the right." Put it together with the anonymous aide's comment defense in the fall of reversing the meaning of Obama's "talk about the economy comment" and it's pretty clear that the Romney organization is pretty uninhibited about running a post-truth campaign, as Krugman calls it.
#4 Posted by Andrew Sprung, CJR on Thu 22 Mar 2012 at 09:23 PM
Yes, the "etch-a-sketch" gaffe looks bad, but I seem to recall that President Obama went through something similar back during his primary, bashing NAFTA to a liberal audience only to have an aide assure the Canadians that it was just campaign rhetoric. (Wait, I'll save you the trouble: But that was different! False equivalency!)
Both incidents are an almost inevitable response to an unfortunate situation: It is very difficult for a relatively moderate candidate to survive today's primary system.
#5 Posted by Robert Sullivan, CJR on Fri 23 Mar 2012 at 09:25 AM
OK so you don't like the Etch-a-Sketch metaphor. How about 'perfectly lubricated weathervane'? Is THAT the political press...or is that a rival putting out a metaphor that perfectly describes Romney's positions? You may want to blame this on the 'press' because you don't LIKE it but there are too many instances that these metaphors prove the point. And then YES the press picks up on them.
#6 Posted by SYSPROG, CJR on Fri 23 Mar 2012 at 10:49 AM
The reason advertising works is that it hammers the same points over and over. If "Etch-a-Sketch" was a one-off deal, it probably wouldn't have much effect, but it isn't; it's one of a series of similar "flip-flop" events to go along with things such as Romney's "my wife drives two cadillacs" and "I like to fire people" and "I worry about being out of work" and other remarks that help paint him as cluelessly rich.
I'm guessing we're going to see a fair number of Etch-a-Sketch ads during the general election campaign, if not before--if I were an Obama ad guy, I would make one for every issue that can conceivably be portrayed as a flip-flop--as well as a continuing barrage of Romney flip-flops coverage from the press. And I'd be doing "reset button" ads as well.
This is a pretty dim effort, Brendan.
#7 Posted by Weldon Berger, CJR on Fri 23 Mar 2012 at 11:13 AM
I disagree with both Mr. Nyhan and Mr. Sides' conclusions about the five events that Balz and Johnson claimed had impact on the 2008 campaign. I would not expect to see an immediate impact in polls due to gaffes of this nature, but I don't think that means either a) campaigns are meaningless or b) such gaffes have no overall impact. Regarding b), if the point of a campaign is to forward a narrative or frame an issue, then any time that detracts from that narrative has at least a slightly negative impact. Gaffes of this nature accumulate over time (drip, drip, drip...) and can reinforce a narrative and make it difficult to combat. A repeated narrative little by little will take hold until voters reach a tipping point, and that tipping point might require subsequent gaffes that confirm the narrative. So you won't see an immediate impact in polling, but that doesn't mean no impact exists.
#8 Posted by TKozel, CJR on Fri 23 Mar 2012 at 05:56 PM
If the press is negligent in blowing the etch-a-sketch line out of proportion, it would be far more negligent for the press to allow the Romney campaign -- abetted by journalists like Nyhan -- to create ambiguity where there is none. Fehrnstrom was not asked about campaign organization or campaign dynamics; he was asked a very specific question about Romney's move to the right on substantive issues. It was that question that led to the etch-a-sketch answer. Fehrnstrom can spin his answer all he wants; in context it's clear he was talking substance, not form.
#9 Posted by Kevin Jon Heller, CJR on Fri 23 Mar 2012 at 10:13 PM
Did the media "frame" this narrative about Romney's flip-flopping, or did Romney flip flop? Come on.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149812295/on-energy-policy-another-shift-for-romney
#10 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Mon 2 Apr 2012 at 02:54 PM