State of the Election: The Confidence Game, the Bounce, and the Blitz

Posted on by

The Confidence Game

Nate Silver has one of his usual clear-headed analyses of the two campaigns going forward — “A Referendum or a Choice?” Basically, Romney is running a referendum campaign on President Obama’s first term, and President Obama is running a choice campaign, challenging Americans to decide what America will be going forward.

As I’ve been saying this week, Romney seems to be marketing himself as the generic alternative to President Obama. This assumes voters are so disappointed by the President’s first term they will vote in just about anyone who seems suitable without asking many questions. Nate writes of the GOP convention,

Republicans spent some time trying to remedy Mr. Romney’s mediocre favorability ratings. The strong speech by Ann Romney, and the portions of Mr. Romney’s speech about his family, may have had a humanizing effect.

Even here, however, the intent seemed more to neutralize Mr. Romney’s perceived personal weaknesses — to make him an acceptable alternative under the referendum paradigm — than to offer an affirmative case for why Mr. Romney should be president under the choice paradigm.

Under this paradigm, it makes sense that the GOP is putting more energy into tearing the President down than in offering specifics about what a Romney Administration might do, because the pathetic fact is Romney doesn’t have much to offer in the way of the vision thing. He may have a vision, but it’s not one most Americans would like. Under this paradigm, the GOP wants America to think the President is alien and eeeevil and, you know, not white. But, hey, we’ve got this alternate candidate who has a pretty family and nice hair! So try him out! What could go wrong?

The President presents the election as a choice between two paths — we work together toward a better future or give the country back to the people who trashed it in the first place.

Obviously I think the second argument is more persuasive, but the electorate doesn’t always see things the way I do.

A confidence game is an attempt to defraud someone by first gaining their confidence. Essentially, Mitt needs to pull off a confidence game. To win, he has to persuade the electorate they can have confidence in him without letting them in on what he really intends to do.

This has been done before. Nate points to the 2000 election as a kind of choice-referendum tossup. Al Gore was a referendum candidate offering himself as the unexciting but responsible steward of the Clinton economy; and George W. Bush was a choice candidate, promising everyone tax cuts, free beer and a pony. And while the outcome of the election was not determined honestly, it has to be said that a very substantial minority voted for the pony.

The differences between then and now are that, first, then the electorate was complacent about the economy and possibly didn’t think the election outcome would make that much difference to it; and two, in 2000 the Right was tightly unified and totally dominated mass media to a larger degree than it does now. Plus the campaign journalists decided they didn’t like Al Gore, and it showed. So the narrative became that Dubya was a moderate and successful Texas governor and Al Gore was a space alien. But given everything going against him, Gore still won the popular vote.

Today the electorate is not complacent at all, the Democrats are unified while the Republicans are in a bit of a shambles, and while mass media still favors the Right, the Left is no longer completely shut out. Plus, the “choice” guy is likeable while the “referendum” guy is the space alien.

So, barring some unforeseen event that knocks the President off his game, IMO Romney has a much steeper hill to climb to win the election. And I don’t think just knocking down Obama alone is going to do the trick for him. He has to persuade voters they can trust him, that they can have confidence in him, and I doubt he’s got it in him to do that. I think voters are more on guard against being scammed than they were in 2000. And Mittens really is a space alien, you know.

The Bounce

Regarding bounces — there’s already a news story out saying that Obama isn’t getting a bounce. Ignore that; most of that polling took place before Big Bill spoke. We won’t know if the convention moved any numbers until next week. As Steve Kornacki said, if that convention didn’t create a bounce, no convention could create a bounce.

However, it’s possible there won’t be much of a bounce, because there appears to be only a tiny sliver of voters who are genuinely undecided.

But Romney needed a bounce more than Obama does. The electoral college scorecard has President Obama ahead. Romney needs to change more minds than Obama does.

The Blitz

The Romney campaign is launching a blitz of 15 new ads in eight swing states. The ads are targeted to both local and national issues. Here is the voice-over text to one ad:

“This president can ask us to be patient. This president can tell us it was someone else’s fault. But this president cannot tell us that you’re better off today than when he took office,” Romney says in the file footage.

Then the narrator kicks in: “Here in North Carolina, we’re not better off under President Obama. His economic and trade policies with China have destroyed thousands of jobs. The Romney plan? Stand up to China, reverse obama job-killing policies, create over 350,000 new jobs for North Carolina.”

I dunno. I think the part about standing up to China is weird, but whatever. What do you think?

More Buzz About Bill; or, R&R’s Empty Campaign

Posted on by

Interesting observation from The American Conservative, where Daniel Larison admits that the case Clinton made against Romney and Ryan was devastating —

… it was all the more devastating because Romney and Ryan made no concerted effort to make the case for their ticket and their agenda last week. … Part of what made Clinton’s speech so devastating is that he compiled all of these objections, linked them together, and presented them to a large television audience all at once in a way that was easily digestible.

Another reason the speech was so devastating to them was that he gave the sort of speech that Ryanmaniacs might have once imagined that Ryan would deliver and the sort that some Romney supporters still imagine Romney is capable of giving. Romney-Ryan was supposed to be the presidential ticket of the “data-driven” manager and his budget wonk sidekick, and between the absence of any significant policy discussion last week and what happened tonight that has lost all credibility. Clinton outperformed both of them in terms of discussing policy details, and underscored just how meaningless the “campaign of ideas” phrase has been. Ryan fans had been convinced for over a year that the election had to be a contest over “big ideas,” and when it came time to engage in that contest their party leaders didn’t even try.

There are several possible reasons they didn’t even try. It might be that they do have a substantive argument for themselves tucked away somewhere, and they haven’t trotted it out because they think the electorate is bored with that detail stuff. I get that vibe from a lot of the Right, actually; they just want the red meat, not the wonky vegetables.

So instead, the GOP decided to package Romney as a swell guy who can be trusted to take care of things, and you don’t need to worry your pretty little head how he’s going to do it. That approach also assumes that people are so disappointed with Barack Obama that no one has to make a substantive pitch about why Romney would be better. They think the electorate is so desperate to find an alternative they’ll vote for anybody who has a nice family and looks good in a suit.

If that’s the case, IMO it’s a miscalculation. A lot of people probably would consider voting for someone else, but not necessarily ANYBODY else.

Or, maybe Romney and Ryan are saving the juicy details for the debates. They aren’t trotting them out beforehand because they don’t want to give the Dems time to craft counterarguments. In which case, maybe those arguments aren’t all that solid.

Another possibility is that they have a substantive argument, but they are keeping it hidden because they know most of the electorate would run away screaming if they knew what it was. (Along those lines, do read Tom Levenson, “Visions of the Apocalypse: Not in Fire, Nor in Ice, But in the Emptying Beds of a Nursing Home.”)

Or, maybe they don’t have a substantive argument, just a facsimile of one. Ryan’s budget possibly seemed brilliant to a lot of journalists who briefly looked at it — I assume it has, like, numbers and stuff — but the few knowledgeable people who actually studied the thing generally have been aghast at how flimsy it is. Krugman has been calling it a “fantasy.”

This takes us to two sets of sub-possibilities — I should be diagramming this — one, they honestly didn’t understand their calculations were hallucinatory; or two, they knew all along the calculations were hallucinatory and didn’t think anyone (but a few liberal wonks) would notice.

If we go with sub-possibility one — I can easily imagine that Ryan has such faith in his ideology that he didn’t think he had to make all the numbers crunch; his ideas are just so self-evidently true (to him). However, if he still thinks that, I don’t know why he would be shy about defending his ideas. Possibly someone recently got through to him that his grand ideas really are not defensible. Drag them out of the Fairy Castle of True Belief and they melt into a pathetic little puddle.

And, finally, maybe they’ve both been faking it. In which case the debates will be fun.

Update: Another possibility, from Ed Kilgore:

Larison’s analysis strengthens my growing belief that in choosing Ryan as a running-mate, Romney had zero intention of making a robust defense of the Ryan Budget or pursuing anything else the conservative movement was panting for him to say or do (other than the racially-tinged demagoguery about welfare). It was precisely the opposite: he figured he could shut up the noisy ideologues by offering them the symbolic prize of Ryan and then running his campaign in exactly the non-substantive way he always intended. This end-the-primaries strategy, as I’ve called it earlier, depended, of course, on swing-voter ignorance about Ryan and indeed the entire GOP agenda, and on Democratic complicity in a campaign about pre-set cartoon caricatures rather than anything that might look like an “idea.”

Plausible. And if that’s the case, it’s also plausible Romney will shift and allow Ryan more leeway to make a case for his ideas. But his ideas are nuts — see above about the Fairy Castle. And if that’s what Romney thought he got very bad advice from somebody (Karl Rove?).

Romney-Ryan Campaign Implosion?

Posted on by

This surprises me — Romney and the GOP SuperPACs are pulling ads from Michigan and Pennsylvania, meaning they don’t think they have a prayer. And the Los Angeles Times reports that in the past few days most Romney television ads have disappeared in Ohio and some other battleground states.

We know this can’t be because the Romney campaign and the SuperPACs are short of dough. They’re rolling in it. I also can’t believe the RRs are giving up on battleground states. So what’s up?

My guess is that they decided the old ads weren’t working and pulled them before they have new ads in the can and ready to go. But how long does it take to crank out a campaign ad? Even a so-so ad would be better than no ad at all, considering the Obama campaign is still running ads full tilt.

Of course, maybe they’re all just too incompetent to run an effective campaign.

Andrew Romano at Daily Beast suggests that Republicans are stunned by Mitt’s un-bounce from his convention.

Republicans were predicting that Romney would follow in Clinton’s footsteps (rather than, say, Dole’s). Wait until the convention, they argued. Wait until all the Santorumites and Newtheads rally around Mitt in Tampa. Wait until the country sees him speak. Romney’s underwater ratings will evaporate shortly thereafter, and he’ll never look back. …

… And so, given that least one former nominee had used a convention to dig himself out of a big favorability hole, I figured that now, five days after Tampa, was the right time to check back in and see if Romney’s own popularity problem had finally cleared itself up.

Unfortunately for the GOP, it hasn’t.

Romney has issued a few ineffectual bleats this week about the Dem convention being a “celebration of failure” and the platform being “extreme,” but that’s not going to resonate with anyone but wingnuts and baggers. I suspect Romney and his aides are having one meeting after another right now about the direction of the campaign, and by next week we may see an entirely retooled Romney effort. But what could they possibly try that they haven’t tried already?

The Buzz About Bill

Posted on by

First off, if you missed The Speech (or just want to watch it again), you can watch it at Political Carnival. The Washington Post also has the speech, plus a sort of tweet-annotated transcript. There’s another transcript-as-delivered here. Don’t bother with speech-as-prepared-for-delivery transcripts, since Big Bill spoke off the cuff so much I understand the teleprompter operator gave up before the speech was over.

Andrew Rosenthal:

Watching Bill Clinton take the stage at the Democratic National Convention and take over the room with his first few, simple words – “We are here to nominate a President and I’ve got one in mind” — was like watching a great violinist follow a group of gifted amateurs.

It occurs to me that the Obama campaign can fire their advertising people and just run clips of Bill Clinton’s speech for the rest of the campaign. Even if they don’t do that, I have no doubt we will be seeing a barrage of Big Bill videos over the next few hours.

Charles Pierce:

So that was actually three things. Anyway, what struck me most was how much Arkansas we’re-heah-to-nominate-a-president-I-got-one-in-mahnd he let into his voice. As Chuck Berry once put it, the man was campaign-shoutin’ like a Southern diplomat. (How much you want to bet that the man once owned a coffee-colored Cadillac, and that he knows at least five women named Nadine?) G’s were dropped all over the stage. The ad-libs were all tossed off in that wonderful character we’ve come to know as the smartest little boy around the cracker barrel. Willard Romney was out there somewhere and he was being utterly eviscerated by Floyd The Barber. And the only people who look more ridiculous than he does the morning after are all those media brainiacs who were saying how smart the Republicans were being in “driving a wedge” between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. There is a reason you should be careful what you wish for.

You might have missed this, but about a month ago Dick Morris confidently predicted that Bill Clinton would vote for Mitt Romney. In a kind of good Democrat-bad Democrat routine, Romney has been insinuating that he is President Clinton’s heir, and more like Clinton than President Obama is like Clinton.

Just yesterday, before The Speech, Paul Ryan said,

“My guess is we will get a great rendition of how good things were in the 1990s, but we’re not going to hear much about how things have been the last four years,” Ryan told the crowd outside the Dallas County Courthouse. “And, by the way, under President Clinton, we got welfare reform. Chuck Grassley, everybody else in Congress — we got welfare reform, which moved people from welfare to work to get people out of poverty. President Obama is rolling back welfare reform.”

Oh, the video possibilities are endless. It will be interesting to see if the Romney-Ryan “welfare” ads stay on the air; all the Dems have to do to kill that snake is to run ads of Big Bill rebutting it.

Michael Tomasky:

An interesting thing about the speech: At the beginning, over Twitter, we were fed the usual diet of snarky conservative comments. That’s fine. We liberals tossed off some snarky tweets last week during the Tampa convention. That’s how it goes, and some of them are funny even when you disagree with them.

But the funny thing was, over the course of the speech, those tweets became fewer in number. Then they disappeared. That’s when you can tell the other side is worried. Clinton reached people. He revved up the base, but he did a lot more than that.

Today the Right is in full sour grapes mode, callng the speech “long” and even “a swing and a miss.”

Sometime last night, Ari Melber tweeted “RNC gave us Eastwooding, DNC offers Clintoning, a fact-driven, policy argument presented to voters like they are thinking adults.” And Matt Latimer wrote at Daily Beast,

Here’s why I think Clinton’s speech was successful: He did what almost no one at the Republican convention tried to do, what few conventions bother to do anymore. He treated the American people like thinking human beings.

The only downside I see for President Obama is that it’s doubtful he can match the excitement created by Big Bill. But I could be wrong.

Dem Convention Night 2

Posted on by

If you are watching, feel free to comment.

* Anyone catching the salute to veterans? I’m betting Mittens is kicking himself for overlooking the veterans.

* Now they’ve got a nun. This is covering the bases.

* Crowd is getting fired up for Sandra Fluke.

I have to say the Dems have not been shy about voicing support for abortion and reproductive rights.

*Elizabeth Warren onstage now.

*Shout out to Teddy Roosevelt. Yay!

*It’s the Big Dog.

Republicans have been in power for 28 years of the past 52, Democrats 24 years. “So what’s the job score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42.”

“Politics does not have to be a blood sport.”

If the righties were hoping that Bill undermined the President in this speech, they’re very disappointed now.

Talk about a love fest. Wow.

President Obama, 4.5 million jobs. Congressional Republicans, zero.

*Arithmetic!

The Big Dog did not disappoint. This was a brilliant speech, and I hope a lot of people watched.

Truth and Truthiness

Posted on by

Lots of good stuff to read on the Web today. First, Best Headline award to Paul Krugman — “Whom the Gods Would Destroy, They First Make Bipartisan.” He was referring to pundits who had fallen for Paul Ryan’s packaging as a courageous, honest, serious, and even wonky intellectual. Apparently some scales have fallen from some eyes.

Speaking of bipartisanship, here’s more proof that the practice of “fact checking” is dying on a bipartisan vine. Last night Mayor Castro said that 4.5 million jobs had been created on President Obama’s watch. (I am pretty certain he said “private sector jobs,” although that’s not in the official transcript. Maybe someone could check that.) Well, the fact-checkers at CNN confirmed that this number is correct — 4.5 million private sector jobs have been added to the economy since January 2010, when the recession hit bottom — but they downgrade the statement anyway. Why? Because (a) the economy lost a million public sector jobs; and (b) you have to subtract the number of jobs lost from January 2009 to January 2010, when the economy was still in free-fall.

So, CNN says, the Obama Administration has seen a net gain of only 300,000 private sector jobs, and when you add in the public sector jobs lost — many of which were lost because Republican governors were “balancing budgets” to make room for tax cuts — you end up with a negative number.

And I cordially invite CNN to fact check my ass. If anything, CNN’s argument makes the Democrats’ point, that the Bush economic crisis was so terrible it took a whole year just to stop the hemorrhage. And we wouldn’t have lost so many public sector jobs had Republicans not cut aid to states out of the stimulus, and see above about the Republican governors. How many jobs did Scott Walker alone lose?

See also Brian Beutler, “The Truth Behind The GOP Claim That Obama Hasn’t Created A Single Net Job.”

Do read Lincoln Mitchell, “Hey You Kids, Get Off of the Republican Party’s Lawn.” A sample:

Eastwood’s speech reveals a lot about today’s Republican Party. First, the fact that he was up on that podium in the first place raises questions about the professionalism and judgment of the operatives and strategists who planned the convention. Apparently, none of the people charged with making sure the convention presented the party and the candidate in the best light possible thought it was worth it to vet Eastwood’s speech or to find out whether the octogenarian actor was up to the task of giving a speech at the convention. This is the kind of mistake that serious presidential campaign teams do not make, but today’s Republican Party is rapidly losing its claim to being a serious or professional operation.

(In Eastwood’s defense, sorta kinda, I have to say that he is first and foremost an entertainer, and he was giving the audience in front of him exactly what they wanted.)

Likewise, much of the reaction from the Right to last night’s Dem convention was just weird. I see little attempt at substantive criticism; they are mostly picking out things like taking “God” out of the platform (thank you, Dems). They also went ballistic over a line from a video shown in Charlotte, “Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To.” See Steve M for details.

Finally, don’t miss Nate Silver, “Sept. 4: The Simple Case for Why Obama Is the Favorite.”

Thoughts on Last Night

Posted on by

It struck me that the GOP convention featured speaker after speaker talking about the hardships their grandparents had overcome. Last night we heard speaker after speaker talk about the hardships they had overcome themselves.

To be fair, several Dem speakers spoke of parents and grandparents also. But the hardship stories were different in another way — the Dems connected the hardship stories to real policies in a way that the GOP did not. John Dickerson noticed this, too.

If the speech is effective beyond the power of well delivered rhetoric, it will be because the first lady took this description of Obama’s core self and linked it to policy. This is what Ann Romney and Mitt Romney never did. The message of the GOP convention was “Trust Mitt.” That was Michelle Obama’s message too: Her husband could be trusted because he came from a background and has lived a middle class life. But then she started connecting the biography to the policy. This was always Bill Clinton’s great gift. If this connection is successfully made, then that’s what will make this pitch more politically [word missing?] than just a pretty speech by a loving wife who thinks her husband deserves an A for effort.

“We were so young, so in love, and so in debt,” she joked about their early student loan debt, which was higher than their mortgage. “That’s why Barack has fought so hard to increase student aid.” She made the same connection between Obama’s grandmother and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help women get equal pay for equal work. Tax cuts, the auto bailout, and every other policy, she argued, grew out of his biography.

You got that from most of the Dem speakers; a personal connection, a story of how their own experiences shaped their views and inspired them to enter public life. With Republicans there’s a huge disconnect; their experiences of real hardship are second and third hand. We ended up listening to Ann Romney — who is having an elevator installed in the garage of one of her homes to manage her several cars — pretend to care about the price of gasoline.

Another difference between GOP and Dem “hardship” narratives is that Republicans like to tell these stories to show how Grandpa succeeded without anyone’s help, whereas Dems talk about coming together to achieve success. Mayor Julian Castro, for example, talked about “investing in opportunity.” I liked this part of his speech —

Of all the fictions we heard last week in Tampa, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. Because if we sever the threads that connect us, the only people who will go far are those who are already ahead. We all understand that freedom isn’t free. What Romney and Ryan don’t understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.

Another thing that struck me is that the Dems talked a lot about veterans, a group absent from last week’s GOP rhetoric. And when Iraq veteran Tammy Duckworth said,

President Obama pushed for fairness in the military, listening to commanders as we ended “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and on how to allow women to officially serve in more combat jobs—because America’s daughters are just as capable of defending liberty as her sons.

— I saw a roaring ovation from the women in the hall. (Duckworth also reinforced the “working together” theme by talking about how her Blackhawk helicopter crew didn’t abandon her after a rocket-propelled grenade tore her legs off.)

In Tampa, the GOP seemed to have entirely dropped its long-standing conceit of being the pro-military and pro-national security party. Maybe somebody said this, but I didn’t hear them talking about supporting the troops or getting tough on terrorists. It was like they forgot. Why was that?

After Osama bin Laden was killed, I wrote,

The larger point is that, while the death of bin Laden might not be a front-burner issue in 2012, it certainly has changed the trajectory of U.S. politics in President Obama’s favor.

Some commenters argued that the polling bump the President got from bin Laden’s death would be short-lived, and I didn’t disagree, but my point was that the killing of bin Laden would force the GOP to make narrative adjustments it didn’t want to make. And I think the lack of talk about security and terrorists in Tampa was the result of that adjustment.

Righties still can, and do, reassure each other that Obama is soft on terrorists. They still like to compare President Obama to President Carter, who in rightie mythology plays the role of the Specter of Wimpiness. But it must have sunk in to at least some of them that they can no longer credibly claim to be the party of Tough Guys Who Will Protect You From Scary Things versus the wimpy Dems. That part of their sales pitch was kneecapped when Bin Laden was killed.

And given the rolling embarrassment that was Mitt’s “world tour,” I suspect Mitt himself may have banned talk of foreign policy from the convention.

Here is Deval Patrick’s speech, if you missed it.

Dem Convention Day One

Posted on by

I’m going to do a little live blogging. Is it me, or are the Dems a lot more fired up than the Republicans were?

Deval Patrick — Wow. Great speech. It’s a shame he was on before 10 o’clock eastern when the networks begin broadcasting. I’ll have to post a video as soon as there is one. I’m sorry I missed Ted Strickland. I’ll find a video of that, too.

Wait — here it is —

Update: Mayor Julian Castro is doing pretty well, I think.

Update: Michelle Obama’s speech was, as always, very real.

Tomorrow — the Big Dog.

No Scribbling on the Etch-a-Sketch

Posted on by

white-romneyBeside the chair, one of the more remarkable things about last week’s GOP convention was a lack of specificity. Speakers ran down Obama and promised President Romney would make “tough choices” — Republicans like the word “tough” — but so far Mittens has managed to run a nearly content-free general election campaign, and the convention didn’t change that. His acceptance speech told us next to nothing about what specific policies he might pursue.

A couple of day’s ago Greg Sargent provided a glimpse into the Romney campaign strategy. Apparently the Romney folks assume that many people who currently plan to vote for Obama are just being emotional — they like Obama and are attached to the symbolism of the first black president. These are the voters Romney thinks he can win over.

Romney’s argument is that the Obama Administration has been a dismal failure, and it’s time to put someone in charge who knows how to Get Stuff Done. Unable to convincingly pivot (or shake the etch-a-sketch) from the extreme right-wing positions he endorsed during the primaries, Romney now is offering himself to the general electorate as a generic alternative candidate. He is deliberately making himself the blankest possible slate. His people think that if the electorate sees Romney has a responsible, successful businessman and not the vampire squid that he is, voters will be won over and won’t ask questions.

As I remember it, in 2000 George W. Bush pretty much got away with a similar sort of campaign. He made some promises about cutting taxes and using the budget surplus (that he eliminated with the tax cuts) to save Social Security, but other than that he mostly just packaged himself as a successful businessman and governor and moderate Republican while painting Al Gore as, well, weird. In 2000, enough of a complacent public bought that to enable the Bushies to get their boy “selected.”

Greg Sargent argues that public opinion about President Obama is more complex and nuanced than Romney thinks.

Despite the Romney campaign’s assumptions, these voters may be proving unexpectedly resistant to the conclusion that the Obama presidency amounts to an “extraordinary record of failure,” as Romney put it recently. It’s true that majorities disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy. But disapproval can mean different things. A disapproving voter may be disappointed in the slow pace of the recovery, but may also have decided that the crisis was so severe — and the resulting problems run so deep — that Obama could not have done much to make the country recover faster.

This came up again and again in interviews with swing voters done by Ron Brownstein and yours truly. And it would explain why more Americans consistently hold Bush responsible for the current economy.

In other words, a lot of voters may be disappointed about sluggish economic growth without necessarily wanting to kick the President out of office, especially if Romney can’t explain precisely what he would do differently to turn things around. An extraordinarily charming politician might pull it off, but Romney ain’t that, especially when he behaves just like your SOB boss when he has to mingle with employees at the company Christmas party.

I also wonder how Romney is going to remain Mr. Blank Etch-a-Sketch during the debates. You know President Obama is going to hammer him on specifics, and I don’t think Romney’s “vote for me ’cause I’m the white guy” act is going to score him points. This is not 2000; people are not complacent. They want to see the fine print. Maybe they have been underwhelmed by Mr. Obama, but they aren’t going to hand the White House keys over to someone they suspect might make things worse.

Barring some unforeseen disaster that might be blamed on Obama, between now and November, I think Mr. Romney is going to have to stop just saying he is a successful businessman and start acting like one to appeal to the majority of voters. And to me, that means providing a more credible business model than what he’s coughed up so far.

Update: One more thing — Republicans don’t know how to be cool.