John Judis says yes:
[A] president’s political acumen—his ability to put the best light on his and his party’s accomplishments—can mitigate the effects of rising unemployment. That’s what Ronald Reagan and the Republicans achieved in the 1982 midterm elections…
Using economic models, some political scientists predicted that Democrats would pick up as many as 50 House seats. The Democrats also hoped to win back the Senate, which they had lost in 1980. But when the votes were tallied, the Republicans lost 26 House seats and kept their 54 seats in the Senate.
And Brendan Nyhan plows this argument under. The problems are many. Judis picks one forecasting model but ignores others that got the seat loss almost correct. And, even troublesome for Judis’s thesis, Reagan’s approval actually declined during 1982—precisely the time when he was “putting the best light on his and his party’s accomplishments.”
The lesson has nothing to do with Reagan per se. It’s simply that presidents are far less powerful as communicators than Judis and others seem to believe.
{ 1 comment }
Excellent post! There is also a difference between framing (or “winning the news cycle”) and short term opinion movement on a substantive policy issue. Journalists seem to think presidents can accomplish both, while political scientists seem to think presidents can’t accomplish either. Conventional wisdom isn’t always right, as some recent scholarship has taught us. Framing works pretty well, but only in certain conditions, especially if the messages are more “strong,” according to Dennis Chong and Jamie Druckman. Opinion movement can work temporarily, but only in conjunction with framing and other favorable circumstances.
Comments on this entry are closed.