When electoral research starts hindering rather than helping

This, via Greg Sargent, is the kind of stuff that just blows your mind:

In an interview this morning, Dem pollster Stan Greenberg said he had identified a key reason Romney’s last debate performance was a success. To wit: Romney successfully grabbed the mantle of change agent, even as Obama came across as the candidate of the status quo....

[D]ial sessions he conducted during the debate indicated that independents and unmarried women — two key constituencies — were unmoved when Obama talked about the progress of the last four years or when his surrogates said variations of: "Give him more time to finish the job."

Greenberg says this risks painting Obama as the candidate of the status quo — and that this is dangerous even if people believe the economy is recovering.

What would be the most egregious characteristic of status quo-ism? Right. A stagnant economy. And the most uplifting sign of change? Right again. A recovering economy. Which, according to Greenberg, doesn't help Obama where it counts.

As I said, it blows a few fuses.

This, also from Greenberg's research, is just as extraordinary. "Romney has also made gains by contrasting [his 'five point plan for the middle class'] with the notion that continuing the status quo is unacceptable: 'We can’t afford another four years like the last four years.' " And those last four years have reflected ... what? Yep, once again, a recovery, which, evidently, two key voting blocs believe we cannot afford.

Greenberg concludes (Zzzzz) that the election is about the future. "It would be much more powerful if [Obama] says, 'here are the serious things we need to do to rescue the middle class, but you should know that the plan you’re hearing from Romney is one you’ve heard before.' "

Well good grief and good night nurse. How many times have we heard Obama say exactly that?

If I were going into a presidential debate and being loaded down with reams of the above sort of advisory gibberish, I do believe I'd heave it all and just take my chances with the truth. Half of what Greenberg's research suggests are fruitless attempts at adding IQ points to the hopelessly moronic, and the other half suggests that Obama should do what he's already doing. Thanks, Stan.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

So this is the Greenberg half of Greenberg Carville, as in James Carville, as in the guy who was NOT invited to the dance?

And I suppose that Greenberg Carville has much more, better financed, accurate and up-to-date polling information than the Obama campaign? Quite simply, these guys are out of the loop and trying to seem relevant and prescient - two weeks late.

As I commented in a previous post, the RAND Corporation tells a different story. tps://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/?page=election

Greenberg's point can be distilled into a simple message, "Obama should refine his message in response to the first debate and polling." Well, DUH.

That was done in time for Biden's debate and presumably been honed again in time for this debate.

Even in the very unlikely event that Obama does not win, the Obama campaign staff has proven themselves to be ninja masters in campaigning.

Carville, not so much ... right up there with Turd Blossom.

[japa21]

I used to get a kick out of people saying Obama needs to do this or that even though Obama was doing both this and that. Just like in the first debate, they said he should have called out Romney's lies, even though he did, but Romney just kept repeating them.

Like I said, I used to get a kick out of it. Now I just find it depressing. Imagine if the media had reported, say on the $716 billion medicare lie, that Obama had pointed out where Romney was wrong, but Romney kept on repeating the charge, even though it was false.

What would the after debate polling and discussions have been like then?

Yes, I think Obama could have done better, but honest reporting would have shown he did not do as bad as the "liberal" media seemed to point out.