The recent CBS Quinnipiac poll that shows President Obama leading in three key swing states was great news. Previously polling data has indicated that people were impressed by Romney's business experience and willing to believe it would be beneficial to the economy. But now, buried inside the poll results are specifics showing how the Obama campaign has taken the lead by jumping on defining Romney early and beating down his main claim to deserving the presidency - his business experience that would (theoretically) be a boon for the economy.
The Romney campaign interestingly is not disputing Obama's lead, just quibbling about the size of it, and noting that Obama campaign has already spent much more than the Romney campaign.
While President Obama's has a slight lead on the question of who could do a better job on the economy,
a majority of people believe his policies already are improving the economy, or will continue to improve it.
On the other hand, Romney's business experience is not seen as a positive. In fact it seems to have taken a nosedive.
And people believe that Romney was more focused on creating profits than jobs at Bain. This has to be a fatal blow against Romney's main credential, touted since day one. As Jeff Zeleny said on the CBS Morning Show
Zeleny said the president's summer advertising campaign, defining Mitt Romney as a profit-oriented businessman, appears to be working in the three battleground states. "The poll says more people think Gov. Romney was more focused on making profits than creating jobs," he said. "It's his wealth and his tax returns all this other sort of secretive stuff the Obama campaign has been defining him as."
Chuck Todd was interviewed by Charlie Rose the day the poll was released, and seems to be already conducting a 'pre'-post mortem of fatal mistakes by the Romney campaign.
If Romney comes up short we will point to these last 45 days June 15 to July 31 and ask 'did the Romney campaign lose control and allow Obama to define Romney?'
The Romney campaign made a calculation that it wasn't going to be an election about the challenger's biography but rather how they feel at the moment. So, they seemed to think they could throw out a crappy candidate out there and hammer on how bad things are because of President Obama.
Any time talking about Romney was time wasted, that they should spend time talking about the economy.
LOL, too true, but not for the reasons they thought.
The fact that they threw out a bio ad in the last week shows that they knew they blew it. Actions speak louder than words.
Todd goes on to draw an interesting conclusion on why despite the poor economy Romney is not trouncing Obama. The strategy of not defining Romney is coming into focus as the fatal flaw.
Obama is controlling the values argument.
Every presidential election is a values election, it's just a question of which values. Polls find Romney has 'a better economic plan', while Obama is 'looking out for the midle class'. The first question is an economic question while the second is a values question - the middle class - and Romney is losing the values argument.
Additionally he points out that the Republican brand is still a
mess, something that in our current media environment
never is discussed. But independent voter are keenly aware of it.
More flaws of timing and misdirected targeting:
The foreign policy tour was designed more for the primary voter, rather than independents, Romney is afraid of upsetting the the base and has been running an ideological campaign. He hasn't attacked Obama on issues that independents are disapointed with, such as 'broken Washington' he promised to fix.
romney strategists of course dismissed the debacle that was the foreign tour because Americans don't care what the foreign press thinks. But it highlighted Romney's inability to get along, and his serious deficit of interpersonal skills which are needed for successful governing. Had Romney done a better job of conducting himself on the foreign policy tour, he might have convinced voters he was a better candidate for office. As Todd Purdum
discusses in next month's Vanity Fair, the qualities required of a CEO are much different than that of a politician.
But the very qualities that make a successful C.E.O. not only are not especially useful or effective in politics but are actually inimical to political success. A study, for the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2008, found that qualities such as having strong people skills, being a good listener or team builder, and being a terrific communicator do not particularly translate into being a good corporate leader. What mattered most, the study found, were attention to detail, perseverance, efficiency, analytical thoroughness, and an ability to work long hours.
In business, C.E.O.’s can succeed by mastering—even dominating—their environment, with loyal subordinates who will jump when told to jump and a hierarchical structure in which their word is law.
But no such dominance is possible in politics, which is always the art of the possible, a game in which personality, charm, people skills, the ability to communicate, and a swing-for-the-fences style all matter so much.
So Romney has shown us he has the skills of a CEO but not a politician, and his campaign, so far, has done nothing to convince us otherwise. And at this point it may be too late.