Has The Public Tuned Obama Out?
July 24, 2012 20 Comments
During the Clinton administration and during the first 5-6 years of the Bush administration you could look at daily poll numbers and know whether the President gave a State of the Union or other major address. You could tell because their numbers shot up. Clinton often shot up 10-12 points, Bush 5-6 points. It hasn’t been like that with Obama, especially after his first six months in office. After major speeches, his numbers remained the same or went down. His first State of the Union speech was watched by over 52 million people, his most recent address was in the mid 30′s. People aren’t listening to Obama anymore and it has far reaching consequences for the campaign.
After over a month of solid Bain attacks, Obama hasn’t gained anything on Mitt Romney. In fact, several of the battle ground states have gotten closer in recent weeks. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Romney was attacked by Newt Gingrich over Bain during the GOP Primary. That exposed the Bain attacks as being without warrant and on some level has made Romney immune. But we cannot ignore the fact that people aren’t listening to Obama as the polls indicate. As such, when Obama attacks Romney over Bain Capital the public just doesn’t listen.
This can also work to Obama’s benefit on some level. His “you didn’t build that” comments haven’t hurt him yet because the public isn’t listening to him. Couple that with the fact that Romney doesn’t have any money to spend because of election laws and Obama is sitting pretty after a major gaffe. It’s been alleged that Obama plans to go off the teleprompter more during the campaign, he really should think twice about that because “you didn’t build that” is a direct result of being off prompter. When Romney can spend his millions in October, you can bet that he’ll exploit every off prompter gaffe, which will hurt Obama more than the speech itself.
This is of course still a close race. There are at least 46% of Americans whose mind is made up that they’re voting for Obama. There are about 45% whose minds are made up they’re voting for Romney. That means there are about 7-9% who are undecided when we factor in third party candidates. These people aren’t listening to Obama anymore, which means they are unlikely to be swayed against Romney because of nasty attack ads. But they can be swayed by Mitt Romney because he hasn’t been tuned out yet.
It is up to Romney at this point, just over three months before the election, to start convincing the 7-9% who are undecided that he is a capable alternative to Obama. A recent poll by The Hill showed that over 2/3 blame Washington for economic problems, with most blaming Obama. Gallup finds that more people trust Romney to run the economy than Obama, with 63% believing his work at Bain is helpful. Rasmussen finds that 72% of small business owners believe they in fact did build their business. The 7-9% who are undecided are simply waiting for Romney to prove he is competent and capable.
So it’s up to Romney at this point to prove he’s competent and capable. He needs to pick a good running mate. As much as conservatives love Sarah Palin, she wasn’t ready for the Washington media scrutiny. Romney needs to pick a solid, seasoned running mate. Romney needs to lay out a detailed, easy to understand economic recovery plan and he needs to offer an alternative to Obamacare since he’s in favor of repeal. If he can do these things and appear competent and Presidential in doing so, this election is his to win. If he doesn’t do these things though, this election is his to lose because the public isn’t interested in what Obama has to say.
About Steven
Not that Hotair would cherry-pick to suit a narrative, but some other highlights from the poll (http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-hill-poll-majority-of-voters-blame-president-for-bad-economy):
“…almost 6-in-10 are unhappy with the actions of Republicans in Congress…”
“Fifty-seven percent of voters said congressional Republicans have impeded the recovery with their policies, and only 30 percent overall believe the GOP has done the right things to boost the economy.”
“Twenty-six percent of centrists cited Congress as most to blame for U.S. economic woes, compared to 20 percent who blame Obama.
Similarly, 53 percent of centrists said Obama has taken the right actions as president to boost the economy, compared with 38 percent who said he had taken the wrong steps.”
“Seventy-nine percent of centrist voters said Republicans had slowed the economy by taking wrong actions.”
Have to love the title “The Hill Poll: Voters blame president most for slow economic recovery”. Certainly can’t accuse them of a liberal bias, eh?
Hot Air has never claimed to be anything but conservative, it is after all a conservative blog. The fact though is that none of those other statistics matter. The election is a referendum on Obama, not Republicans or Congress. No one ever likes Congress, their numbers are always low. In fact the only group that has negatives as high as Congress is the media. The President is running against Mitt Romney, not Congress. As such, any polls on Congress really don’t matter much. Especially so in light of the fact that it is highly unlikely the Dems will pick up more than a couple of seats, if that, and the Senate is likely to become majority Republican.
I tuned him out long ago, but of course I am still well aware of his gaffes and his insulting campaign tactics. Obama thinks Americans are stupid, and he insults my intelligence each day.
I can’t argue with you. When the President says his economic plan worked and unemployment is 8.2%, we create only 75,000 jobs a month and 2nd quarter growth is under 2% he insults our intelligence.
I have to echo Shleigh’s comment. I can only stand a few minutes of listening to Obama. He acts like he knows better than anyone else and he doesn’t try to hide it. If I can’t tune him out, I’ll just turn him off. His voice even gets on my nerves.
One of the problems Obama has had is that he not only comes off as arrogant but he’s also actually arrogant. From all accounts, he is incredibly arrogant behind closed doors. He rivals Nixon in this regard. His cabinet meets are not spent with the President gathering information and taking advice. Rather the President dictates policy down to minutia.
Unfortunately for you guys Romney is his own worst enemy.
Romney spoke about foreign affairs on Tuesday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which Obama addressed on Monday. There was a contrast, but not in favor of Romney, who is still struggling to differentiate himself. Even some of his advisers, when interviewed, have been unable to explain exactly what he would do differently on many issues, and, where he does draw a line, his positions are mostly troubling or unconvincing.
He has, for example, struggled to play down the simple fact that Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. He has tried to focus instead on how details became public, accusing the administration of politically motivated leaks. “It’s a national security crisis,” he told the V.F.W. With stunning overkill, he called for a special counsel to investigate an administration that has been more determined than most to find leakers.
Romney seemed just as disingenuous when he tried to blame Obama for $500 billion in automatic spending cuts that the Pentagon is facing over the next 10 years, beginning in January. He called them “the president’s radical cuts.” In fact, it was Congressional Republicans who manufactured a crisis over the debt ceiling in 2010 and demanded passage of a budget bill that mandated the cuts to keep the government from defaulting.
For months, Romney has criticized Obama for failing to halt Iran’s nuclear program, disparaged negotiations between Tehran and the major powers and offered the hollow pledge that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon if he is president. In his speech, Romney seemed less hostile, saying “negotiations must secure full and unhindered access for inspections.” He said Iran must halt all uranium enrichment but did not say how he would enforce a demand often made by the United Nations Security Council.
No one can predict if Obama’s approach will yield a deal. He has had more success at rallying international support behind tougher sanctions — including financial controls and an oil embargo — than his predecessor ever had. He has also helped Israel and Persian Gulf states boost their defenses and made clear that the option of using force is on the table. He has been much more willing to pursue engagement than Mr. Romney, who on Tuesday pledged to “use every means necessary to protect ourselves and the region and to prevent the worst from happening while there is still time.”
After suggesting for months that he might keep American forces in Afghanistan indefinitely, Romney said he would transition security to Afghan troops by the end of 2014, which. Obama and NATO have already promised to do. He said he would rely on the advice of military commanders, as if Obama has not been doing just that. Given all the American lives and treasure expended over the past 12 years, it was a serious failure that he did not say more, including whether he would leave residual forces behind or how he would handle Afghanistan more broadly.
Romney, who plans to visit Israel this week as well as Britain and Poland, is fighting hard for support from Jewish voters. He attacked Obama for “shabby treatment” of Israel. Relations between Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are obviously tense. But the administration has backed Israel in almost every way, and Israeli leaders have publicly acknowledged that.
Romney took some potshots at Russia (but dropped his absurd reference to Russia as the No. 1 geopolitical foe) and China. He ignored Pakistan, Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He tried to sound stern toward Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood now runs the government, and said tough things like “I am not ashamed of American power.”
But, at this point, what he is offering voters on American security is neither impressive nor convincing.
Same problem about his commitment to sign a bill to repeal Obamacare. What is the difference between Romney care which he created and supported and Obmamacare. Why should anyone be convinced of his sincerity on any issue.
I’m not going to respond to everything here since you’ve offered your own post as a comment. I agree that Romney is his own worst enemy right now. But his problem isn’t on foreign affairs, which is way down on the important list this year. On foreign affairs, he offers a basic Republican vision which contrasts with Obama’s policies.
Romney suffers in a couple of ways. First, he hasn’t yet connected with the American public. He at times comes off as stiff and boring, which isn’t of itself bad but it doesn’t help him. He hasn’t yet spoken to the American people directly in a major speech yet. He’ll have his chance at the GOP Convention. He can do himself a lot of favors by not appearing stiff there.
His second problem is that he hasn’t explicitly laid out his plan for the economy or his replacement for Obamacare. Eventually he’s going to have to do these two things, otherwise he’s setting himself up for defeat. These are the two important issues facing voters this fall, they require an up front, easy to understand and comprehensive explanation. Until Romney does this, the race belongs to Obama. The 7-9% who are undecided are up for grabs, they know that they get with Obama and they want an alternative. If Romney cannot deliver, he loses.
Who can or wants to connect to a guy who is so lacking in compassion that he strap’s the family’s Golden Labrador Retriever on the top of the family automobile in a kennel carrier and drives the terrified animal down an interstate highway at seventy miles per hour until his children scream for him to pull over because they can see the dog’s diarrhea oozing down the side windows? Now there is a man, my friend, that Americans can truly believe would not hesitate to intentionally ship domestic jobs overseas with no concern whatsoever, for the people who have lost their livelihood here.
P.S. Shleigh Banfield: There is no way that anyone could insult your intelligence.
First of all, it was an Irish Setter. Second, this is an old story that no one cares about.
People who care about the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals. They will not forget. You may not care-but you are no bellwhether for what rational and compassionate people care about.
So .01% won’t vote for him because of the dog thing. So what? Odds are those people weren’t going to vote for him anyway. It’s a stupid issue, as dumb as Obama eating dogs.
No It is not a dumb issue. It is is a pretty accurate reflection of Romney’s corporate raider’s personality.If you want to talk about stupid look at some of the comments above from your devotees. They find Obama so repulsively arrogant they can’t stand to hear his voice! Really! Imagine a politician with an arrogant persona! Wow, what a novelty! And it doesn’t occur to these scholars that their feelings of disgust might be the projection of their political differences with Obama. They can’t understand why most people do not find Obama arrogant at all. In fact, Obama, just like many politicians is loved and hated not because of who he is but because of what he represents. ( i.e he is a Democrat, he supports abortion rights, he created a national health insurance act etc.). Remember when George W. Bush couldn’t travel to Europe because of the palpable level of hatred too many Europeans felt for him. They hated him not because of his personality but because of his policies. But the hate was real and the Europeans loved calling him a red-neck, gun toting ignorant American cowboy. They couldn’t stand to watch or hear him either-they said he was—you guessed it-arrogant!
P.S. Thanks for correcting me about the breed of dog. That was a very important fact! I’d say letting the voters know the true breed of dog will be determinative as to whether or not Romney gets elected! You may have saved the election for Romney. Good job Steven! Knowing what is important in politics is your great talent.
If you’re going to yammer about nonsense issues you should at least get the basic facts right.
Steven: In all seriousness you would be doing your readers a good service by encouraging them to read or reread David Brock’s, “Blinded by the Right”. Not because it criticizes the far right but because it demonstrates the evil that the pathological political hatred of a politician can cause to our country. If you have a suggestion of a reading that would demonstrate the same of those on the far left I would be more than happy to read it upon your suggestion.
Oh I forgot! You think the dog issue is nonsense. Well Steve, just remember this: 99% of why we do the things we do and why we believe the things we believe are only known in our subconscious. That is pretty much the entire basis of the advertising industry and how they manipulate we consumers. Now, I would bet that 99% of the voters, and of course 100% of Republicans, would tell any pollster that the Romney dog abuse story is not going to effect how they vote. But I guarantee you that little story was a home run for the Obama camp because its visual, it involves the abuse of a loved helpless animal and no one is going to forget it because of the direct emotional impact it had on each person hearing it. Read Jonathan Haidt, “The Righteous Mind”. ( He is a liberal turned conservative). Our rational mind is just a flea, a speck riding on the back of a huge gray elephant that is called the subconscious mind. All we use our rational mind for is to rationalize where our subconscious elephant has taken us. Our thoughts are simply reverse engineering to justify what we believe.
I remember reading a 1934 “Fortune Magazine” advertisement by a large NYC ad agency. It was very simple and directed toward other businesses. The slogan” Words are nothing but grunts.” The ad was right. Our subconscious is directing us to do and to say those things that are merely the result of an unconscious grunt. Read Mr. Haidt and it will add greatly to your perspective of politics.
If it’s a home run for Obama then I look forward to seeing dog ads throughout October.
Great reply Steve. However, people already have the image firmly fixed in their memories. They don’t need the ads. Its a done deal. The image is fixed and simmering in the public’s perception of whether or not they like Romney. They will most likely not even be aware of how the image is effecting them when they decide who to vote for. The Obama people know it. They are not going to try and score more points by bringing it up again. The message is out and it cannot be undone by Romney. Maybe you would understand it if you would read Haidt’s book. You won’t of course. Its not on the far right’s preferred reading list. You cannot risk contaminating that far right hermetically sealed atmosphere that you live and breath in. Maybe if I listen to Rush I can get to understand your world better? Would recommend Rush as a good source for political insight and facts?
Why would I recommend Rush when I don’t even listen to him myself? If you must go read something go read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, Socialism by Ludwig von Mises or Road to Serfdom by F.A. Heyak.
As for Romney, if he wins will the dog thing have mattered?
Sure. it will be fodder for the pathological haters on the far right and far left. Most of the people who are reading your blog will be huge Romney haters if he is elected.