Analysis: Will Romney's "47 percent" comment resonate?
US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney smiles as he speaks with aides aboard his plane on September 17, 2012 as he heads to Salt Lake City to attend a fundraising event.
/ AFP/GettyAnd then, on Monday, what many are treating as the biggest unforced error yet: Video showing Romney at a high-dollar fundraiser attacking 47 percent of the country for seeing themselves as "victims" who depend on the government to provide for them.
Within 24 hours, some pundits were already arguing the video marked the end of Romney's presidential aspirations. "Today, Mitt Romney lost the election," blared a headline on Bloomberg News. The Telegraph proclaimed that "The spectacular implosion of Mitt Romney means a no-choice US election." Talking Points Memo said that "It's rare when the impact of some gaffe or embarrassment or revelation isn't overstated on first blush. But this may just be that rare exception. This tape strikes me as absolutely devastating."
Maybe. But it's worth taking a step back to consider just how much impact other ostensibly devastating moments have had in the past. For context, John Sides, an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at George Washington University, took a look at similar moments from the past - including a number tied to Mr. Obama - and found that, in the end, they didn't end up mattering all that much.
"I tend to think that gaffes matter more for political junkies more than they do for the average undecided voter," he said. "And that's why we haven't seen big shifts in the polls after these other gaffes that took place in 2012."
Sides found no significant movement in the polls as a direct result of Mr. Obama's two so-called gaffes this presidential cycle - his "you didn't build that" comment and his claim that "the private sector is doing fine." He found the same when looking at Mr. Obama's 2008 gaffes, including the comment that some rural voters "cling to guns or religion" and the Jeremiah Wright scandal.
Sides acknowledges that the jury is still out on Romney's comments - it's only been one day, after all - and said they could have a significant impact if they dominate the news cycle for an extended period. But he adds that "in general presidential elections have not seen big shifts based on singular statements or misstatements by the candidate."
Of course, singular moments can have an impact on the campaign on ways that don't necessarily come through in the polls. This is particularly true when those moments play into certain narratives about the candidate. In 2000, for example, Americans started to see Al Gore as less than honest thanks to a series of comments, most famously his statement that he took "the initiative in creating the internet" while in Congress. (That moment is often misremembered as Gore claiming he "invented the internet.") In 2004, Republicans were successful in portraying John Kerry as a flip-flopper thanks in large part to his comment that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (The attacks on Kerry over the comment were not entirely fair, but it didn't matter - they helped codify the narrative that he too easily changed positions.)
A case can be made that Romney's "47 percent" comment will matter because it falls into this category - a moment that confirms the negative narrative being pushed by the opposition. (In this case, that Romney is an out-of-touch plutocrat who cares only for the rich.) But the case can also be made that the comment will fade relatively quickly from the public consciousness. Indeed, it may be all but forgotten by next month's debates, when Americans who have paid little attention to the campaign so far will start tuning in.
It's also worth noting that while many on the right are lamenting the comments, some say they could actually help the candidate. "What he ought to do is step up and embrace the basic division in our nation, including the fact that nearly half the country pays no income taxes," wrote National Review's Michael Walsh. "Acknowledge it -- and then explain why, morally, this is not a good thing. Why having no skin in the game while at the same time demanding a say in the proceedings at the federal level is fundamentally undemocratic." There's a big problem with this theory - most Americans have "skin in the game" even if they don't pay income taxes, since they pay payroll and other taxes. But it's certainly true that the message behind the 47 percent comments resonates with a portion of the GOP base, and could help galvanize Romney's supporters even as it alienates people that Romney said in the leaked video weren't going to vote for him in the first place.
No matter how the comment plays out, it's tough to argue with the notion that Romney is not running a particularly strong campaign so far. Mr. Obama leads in the polls despite economic indicators that suggest, based on past presidential outcomes, that he should be losing. Part of that is attributable to Mr. Obama's strengths as a politician. But part of it can be laid at Romney's feet: He has struggled to stay on message, has been unable to connect with a broad swath of the American people, and has not seemed to make an affirmative case for his candidacy. If Romney loses, it probably won't be directly traceable to "47 percent." But the comments will likely be one of many mistakes cited by Republicans as they lament four more years of President Obama.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 668 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- WH says criticism of its handling of IRS story is "legitimate"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 120 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
when Americans were not dependent upon government; believing that government has a responsibility to care for them, that they're entitled to health care, to food, to housing. Oh, what a glorious free market time that was.
We were free of all financial regulation, it did not matter that desperation ruled as the stock market crashed, and banks closed never to reopen their doors. There was no intrusive FDIC to guarantee bank accounts, so in the time it takes the eye to blink, or the heart to beat, a lifetime of savings was wiped out. Yet for some reason, even thought we were free of regulation, businesses failed, jobs were lost, homes and farms were foreclosed, and dreams were swept away.
As it should be, those who could not take personal responsibility and care for their lives, such as the old and disabled, literally died in the street from starvation. Unfortunately, they were too weak to wait for hours on breadlines at soup kitchens for a meal. World War One veterans, who had lost their homes, set up an encampment in Washington. They were calling for the bonus they had been promised after the war. They believed that they were victims. Rightfully, instead of being honored, they were brutally attacked and expelled by other soldiers. No leeches here. Hundreds of thousands homeless men, women, and children traveled from town to town, in open boxcars on the rails, and falling apart jalopies looking for work. Any job, at any wage, just to put a scrap of bread on the table and end the relentless hunger that consumed them.
It was paradise, then, for us, no freeloaders with their food stamps and unemployment checks. No one was taking it, from those who were making it. So just remember, Mitt, your job is not to worry about those people. They're not paying taxes anyway. Now, take my $50,000 donation, I have to catch my plane to the Cayman Islands and check my bank account there. I'll see you there in 2 months. We're counting on you.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Tim Freeman tsf@cs.cmu.edu
Plato
You see, by identifying 47% of Americans as 'poor' and 'working class' who are too poor to pay income tax, and identifying this proximate half of Americans as likely voters for Obama, Romney has clearly thrown the gauntlet down to Obama --- who has so far managed to run his entire presidential campaign without ever talking about the 'poor' or the 'working class'.
Thus Romney has clarified that approximately half of all Americans are 'poor' and 'working class', who are paid so little that they are poor enough not to pay income tax.
Now the ball in clearly in Obama's court to actually say something about the 'poor' and 'working-class (poor)', instead of Obama merely continuing to talk only about the other approximate half of Americans, who, as he endlessly talks about are the shrinking 'middle-class'.
Romney has rightly noted that the 'poor' and poor 'working-class' is now half of America --- and their increase to half of Americans is because many formerly in the 'middle-class' have moved down to the 'poor' and 'working-class' poor, who don't earn enough to pay income taxes.
So where does this Romney truth telling lead Obama?
Well, it clearly leads to Obama having to understand, and hopefully finally say something about, the reality of the structure of the American people who he wants to lead again as president.
It clearly means that Obama should, and should be forced to, say SOMETHING about half of Americans --- in fact the half that Romney cedes to Obama ---- that they are actually a 'poor class' and a 'working-class' who are too POOR to pay income taxes.
Let's summarize what Obama could and should be forced to say:
About HALF of Americans are POOR and WORKING-CLASS who are also too POOR to pay income tax --- and who Obama says nothing about and is apparently so embarrassed about that he never mentions them and never claims them as supporters.
About HALF of Americans are so-called 'middle-class' [they work, but Obama never ever calls them that awful word 'working-class'], and a continuing stream, flow, gusher of these 'middle-class' workers are falling down into the awful and unmentioned 'poor' and 'working-class' too poor to pay tax, and too embarrassing for Obama to ever mention.
And as we now know, thanks to the "Occupy" movement (which Obama also never mentions), the remaining 1% of Americans outside of the 'poor', 'working-class' poor, and shrinking 'middle-class', are the rich pricks and corporations who buy the politicians to insure that this corrupt and unsustainable system of virtual, but also never mentioned, EMPIRE continues smoothly on this trajectory curve downward, which Obama only talks about in terms of his 'bending the curve' --- but apparently not THIS curve toward universal poverty for the nearly 99% of Americans who are already 'poor', 'working-class' poor, or among the increasingly fearful 'middle-class' who see their fellow 'middle-classers' moving into poverty.
WOW!
What an opportunity Romney has provided for Obama to actually, clearly, and compellingly level with 99% of all the Americans, 'poor', 'working-class' poor, and the only half that Mr. Hopey Changey ever mentions to show them that they are ALL getting ****** by the very same 1% ruling elite at the top of the EMPIRE that he also never mentions!
Best luck and love to the fast expanding "Occupy Empire" educational and revolutionary movement against this well disguised Global 1% Empire that doesn't wear Red Coats.
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality.
Over
Violent/Vichy II
Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
What ever they receive from the Goverment, they deserve it and only others are the un-deserving misfits.
That is what is being preached to them by the conservative radio and TV personalities and "you know they are telling the truth".
I have never ever seen a more truer Statement then what Santorum made. """Smart people will never vote for us""""
That simply is NOT workable.
The super PAC's and millionaires contributing to Romney's campaign might just as well go to the nearest window, open it and throw their money out.
As they say in Texas "That dog won't hunt".