Political strategists Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen report that Romney has a 12-point lead in Missouri and a 4-point lead in North Carolina. Is it even possible for Obama to win in the Electoral College without Missouri and North Carolina? Probably not. And Obama is only leading by 1 point in Florida. Sure, that’s better than trailing by 1 point in Florida, but still, it’s cause for worry!
Caddell and Schoen have the secret:
What voters are looking for—and particularly what swing voters, independents, and disillusioned Obama voters are looking for—is a new direction for America based on fiscal discipline, a balanced budget, and economic growth and leadership.
What about polls that show voters are much more concerned with employment and the economy than with fiscal discipline and a balanced budget? Caddell and Schoen don’t care about those particular polls. After all, they report:
More than anyone else in this race, Paul Ryan has spoken of the need for fiscal discipline and economic growth—two themes that have been largely absent from the Obama-Biden campaign—which explains a large part of the Ryan-inspired Romney bump.
Good point, and good catch on their part. Ryanmania.
Also this bit:
Poll after poll has shown that while voters embrace the idea of higher taxes on the rich, it does not translate into votes. . . . nothing would appeal to independents and swing voters more than if the president were to embrace the findings of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission . . .
Jeez . . . it almost makes you wonder why Bowles and Simpson didn’t just run for president and vice-president themselves.
Caddell and Schoen have the ticket:
The only way Mr. Obama can capitalize on Mr. Clinton’s endorsement is if he channels President Clinton and outlines a balanced-budget plan of his own that speaks directly about the need to reduce spending and to introduce entitlement reform in a humane and rational way. That would appeal to swing voters, and maybe just win the election.
“Entitlement reform” . . . yeah, that’s right. Tell the voters you’ll cut their Social Security benefits, that’ll win election after election, every time.
And Caddell and Schoen are Democratic pollsters, too. This really is scary news for the O-man.
Seriously, though, I haven’t seen advice this bad since the Democrats were told that they lost the House in 1994 because they weren’t liberal enough.
P.S. Also this delightful bit from Caddell’s wikipedia entry:
According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter’s “malaise speech.”
Look. If you think entitlement reform is a good idea, fine, go for it. Praise the courage of politicians who support cutting social security, reforming private pensions and state obligations, talk about the long-term benefits of having a sustainable long-term path. But to claim it’s a vote-winner . . . give me a break. Even Mitt Romney didn’t go for that one.
P.P.S. Let me put it another way. I respect that qualitative insights are important and that there’s a role for pundits who know the politicians, who know the voters, and who can do more than simply crunch the numbers. But Caddell and Schoen are supposed to be pollsters. That’s their professional life, and here they are just making stuff up. What’s the point of that? Are they adding any value at all? I don’t think so. The WSJ would be better off running old Art Buchwald and William F. Buckley columns.
P.P.P.S. Yes, I realize that the Caddell and Schoen article actually ran a couple months ago. I just thought it would be more amusing to write this post in the present tense.