It’s difficult to know quite what to say about Mitt Romney’s statements about the 47% of American society who don’t pay taxes and apparently utterly dependent on government and solidly in the Obama camp.
The statement is inaccurate in so many ways–there are nearly 5000 hits from the search phrase “Romney 47%” and most utterly pummel the candidate. I love the most recent discovery that there are 4000 millionaires in that 47%!
(By the way, if the 47% think they are entitled to health care, food, and housing from the government [although I don’t recall that the federal government supplies any of these], I suppose the 53% think they are entitled to mortgages on their second homes,
John Sides is rapidly re-posting his thoughts about “gaffes” (I will also use scare quotes because I don’t think this counts as a gaffe). I’ve disagreed with John on this point before, because I think he is narrowly defined whether or not a gaffe matters as when:
actual voters are persuaded to change their minds because of the gaffes. If they don’t, then it’s tough to argue that “gaffes” are really “game-changers.”
To be clear: John thinks they matter only if we can find a statistically discernible movement in support levels as measured by tracking polls.
He notes one problem with this claim: the counterfactual if the gaffe had not happened. I agree with him that counterfactuals are often based on tenuous assumptions. At the same time, I would not so quickly discount the insights of reporters who are monitoring the campaign on a daily basis and may have insight into strategic decisions that are never reflected in tracking polls.
But there’s another way that a “gaffe” can matter in ways that would not show up in polls–if the statement reinforces prior held sentiments and beliefs about a candidate. These may help a candidate, they may hurt a candidate, or they may simply solidify their current standing. And this can happen even if the facts of the statement are quickly forgotten. It’s the emotional reaction that remains, something we’ve known as a discipline for a long time (and which I describe my my “marathon post”).
If the statement reinforces voters beliefs that Romney is out of touch and has lived life on an island (hat tip to David Brooks for the devastating description of “Thurston Howell Romney”), the reactions after the video could be very damaging.
Not “devastating,” not a “game-changer,” but potentially hard to recover from at this late stage (that, btw, is what I think journalists mean), and potentially quite important to understanding the eventual outcome of the race.