The more interesting observation, though, is that the Romney camp seems to believe that the Republican brand is a greater danger to a Romney win than Romney himself. Remember, they vet those speeches. Christie didn’t sing a song of himself without the Romney team saying they thought it was a good idea.
The data here are a bit scattered, but the Republican Party is still held in lower esteem than the Democrats. The last CBS News poll, for example, found the GOP with a 35 percent favorable rating vs. a 53 percent unfavorable rating. For the Democrats it was better: 43 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable.
This is actually perfectly consistent with the edge in registration that Republicans are opening up. It suggests that this isn’t a “real” advantage, but rather is a function of Republican-leaning independents increasingly calling themselves Republicans, rather than any change in mindset.
This is why the Republicans invested so much time and effort trying to reintroduce their party. It’s a rebranding effort, and I suspect it was meant to pre-empt any attempts to tie Romney/Ryan to the unpopular Bush administration, as well as to inoculate the ticket against a generic “Do you really want to put the Republicans in charge?” argument. I don’t think it was particularly successful, but that is what I think is going on.
The Democratic convention, by contrast, was more like a typical challenger convention. Each speaker flayed Romney, and attempted to reintroduce their candidate. In part, this is an attempt to improve the president’s approval ratings; the very first poll from Gallup suggests that there could possibly be some success brewing here.
But more surprising was the amount of red meat dished out in prime time. Sandra Fluke’s speech was not your typical incumbent fare. It was not a cheerful, forward-looking speech. It was angry, warning of a dystopian future if the Republicans won. Elizabeth Warren’s speech — at least the first half — was similar in tone; the admonition to the working class that the system was rigged against them was almost discordant given the occupant of the Oval Office for the past four years.
While Republicans studiously avoided cultural issues, the Democrats brought them to the forefront of their convention. The likely reason? They are concerned about the enthusiasm gap. This has been anecdotally on display all season. Obama famously failed to fill a sports arena at his campaign kickoff in Columbus. There is at the very least evidence that he would have been unable to fill the Panthers stadium last night had the weather forecast not prompted a change of venue.
Beyond the anecdotes, Gallup’s latest measure shows Republicans with a 12-point enthusiasm edge over Democrats. This stands in sharp contrast with the Democrats’ 26-point edge in 2008, and begins to approach the Republican 19-point edge in 2010. Nate Silver has noticed that the switch to likely voter screens has produced a larger-than-average swing in the polls, likely as a result of unenthusiastic Democrats failing to make it through the screens.
Barack Obama’s win in 2008 was based in large part upon this outsized enthusiasm, especially among young voters and minority voters (Latinos in particular). I don’t think he can win if Republicans have a significant edge in enthusiasm on Election Day, especially if the gap persists among Latino voters. This is precisely why almost every speaker mentioned the DREAM Act, while the somewhat surprising emphasis on abortion is probably an attempt to draw more young, single women to the voting booths.
We won’t know how successful this was for another couple of weeks, though I suspect the Democrats will see at least some reward for their efforts. For now, it is just worth noting that while both sides profess to be confident of victory, their actions belie a low degree of certainty about their odds in November.
This Article Appeared in The Black Truth News Volume 3 Issue 9 September 2012