« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

It’s the narrative, Stupid.

By: barleycorn (Diary)  |  April 20th, 2012 at 02:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Jonah Goldberg has a great piece today at NRO about the media’s situational dependent judgement on what constitutes a “distraction”.  But a larger point must be made that these “distractions” are vitally important to election outcomes. Many conservative apparently don’t understand that “the narrative” is what national politics is all about. Every four years each party pushes a storyline and the winner is the one who best encapsulates its message for easy digestion. You can HARUMPH all summer long about what a mess we are in and how bad the BO Administration has been, but unless you frame it in a way that connects with the average non-engaged voter, it won’t matter.

Back in 1980 the narrative that the media and the Democrats were pushing was: Ronald Reagan is dangerous.  This likely would have succeeded but for the fact that Jimmy Carter was such an obvious failure that the “Reagan is a nut” canard never got off the ground.

In 1984 Walter Mondale tried to control the narrative by putting a woman on the ticket. Geraldine Ferraro was unqualified but her candidacy was doomed only after some of her husband’s business dealings came under scrutiny.

In 1988 the Democrats, hungry after eight years out, thought they could portray George H. W. Bush as a “wimp” and Michael Dukakis as “competent” in contrast.  Then in a seemingly routine interview on CBS this happened:

With that unexceptional exchange Bush demolished the “wimp factor” and when Dukakis decided to be filmed riding in a tank looking goofy with a huge helmet on his head, and was never able to effectively manage the Willie Horton Factor, his claim to competence was vanquished. On such trivial events, distractions if you will, do elections shift and turn.

In his NRO column Goldberg makes a critical point:

And let me say a word in defense of distractions. Elections are about what voters want them to be about. Rosen’s comments, for instance, may have been hyped by the Romney campaign, but the hype wouldn’t have mattered if the comments didn’t resonate with the public.

Amen.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Viet71

    GHWB was somewhat likable. Dukakis, as you say, was goofy; and un-genuine, and therefore not really likable.

    Reagan was likable; so were GWB, Clinton, JFK, and to their suppporters, Nixon and Carter and Obama.

    Thing about Obama, he’s hacked off a whole bunch of folks who went out and worked for his election. He’s no longer likable. He’s simply Choice A.

    • barleycorn

      Yes “likeability” is important but more often than not “likeability” is decided by who controls the narrative.

      Obama is not a likeable sort. He is the most plastic president of my lifetime if not all time. But in 2008 his campaign in essence made his likeability a non issue by portraying him as an “above all that petty stuff” savior who would lead us to a post-racial promised land of hope and change.

      Likewise, in 1968 the Nixon Campaign finessed the fact that Nixon was not warm and cuddly by making that a virtue by focusing on war, crime, and cultural upheaval.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      had any likability at all, not even to those who supported them. Nixon was admired, and Carter had his own sort of hopey-changey thing working. But they were both considered lacking in charisma.

      • Viet71

        He spoke to middle-class people, of which I was one.

        I loathed the anti-war Left, not because of their stance on the war, but because of their upper- and upper-middle-class elitism.

  • checkmate2012

    with the left press. But the last two weeks definitely have been a great start with all the scandals being reported on, even by the MSM.

    Romney’s done a decent job capitalizing on them by getting the dog off the roof and needs to keep it up. Like you said narrative and perception are everything in campaign elections.

    • garfieldjl

      This is why I wanted Newt, Cain, Perry, or Santorum.

      Romney is about as likeable as cactus.

      Romney can’t frame anything but a smear machine. I’m sorry, but if Romney can’t frame a narrative, we’re going to lose and lose badly.

      All this yapping about how Gingrich was not likeable, well at least he can frame an effective narrative! I’ve yet to see Romney do an effective anything, Romney is constantly being put on defense by Obama, you don’t win an election that way.

      Thank goodness Newt is still in this.

      • barleycorn

        As a person who repeatedly wrote on RedState of my concern about Romney, I understand your angst. But Romney vs Obama is such an easy choice that its not even worth discussing.

        On television Romney does not come across as a warm loveable sort of man. However when judgeed in totality as a candidate, he is an order of magnitude better than Bush The Elder, Bob Dole or John McCain.

        After tallying all the pluses and minuses I’d probably rank him and George W about even. W was more likeable but Romney is a better speaker and debater.

        And as I wrote here several months ago I like Ann Romney a lot and I think other people will as well, and that is no small advantage for Romney.

        • garfieldjl

          Bush the Elder and Bob Dole came across as being stiff, not like a dishonest used car salesman.

          McCain actually did come across as likeable, I know many people here don’t like McCain, but from a personality standpoint he is loads better than Romney, and in all honesty if McCain were running against Obama this time, he’d probably already be up by at least 20 points over Obama.

          McCain doesn’t have any baggage that Obama can use against McCain, everything is old news, and there isn’t anything new that Obama could throw at McCain. McCain would now have plenty of ammo to throw at Obama, plus Obama has managed to royally tick off McCain repeatedly these last 3 years.

          • Martin Knight

            … by as many people as you think.

            The “Establishment” did not use some secret mind-ray weapon to make a plurality of ordinary rank-and-file Republicans cast their votes for Mitt Romney in the Primaries.

            Most people I know who voted for Romney saw him as someone who is not exactly the type of guy they’d choose to have a beer with (Romney, like me, doesn’t drink alcohol anyway), but someone they’d want to manage their investments, estates and college trust funds for their children and grandchildren.

            That may very well be enough.

          • checkmate2012

            in Congress. I respect him for his Navy service to be sure but he has a less than conservative record in the Senate and don’t know why AZ keeps electing him. So no I don’t think he could be ahead of BO in the polls right now if had a do-over; his prime time is over.

            But I do think that the MSM is mostly to blame for Romney being “not likable” and “he can’t relate to the average voter”. If they repeat if often enough the masses believe it. This is not to say you and many others don’t have valid reasons to not want him as the candidate, but I’m refering to the gist of this diary as the “narrative”.

            Perception, likability and how the narrative unfolds are all important. How else do you think Obama got elected! Not on experience that’s for sure. The MSM propped him up as the second coming and drooled all over him as the greatest, smartest, good-looking, electrifying, inspiring, etc. (yuk!) but the majority of voters bought the snake oil and here we are today.

            And now BO is the likable one in the race and not Romney? Hardly, but people have been brain washed into believing he’s a nice guy so it’s an uphill perception battle from the get go for Romney.

            I wish elections were based solely on issues, but they aren’t, so we have to win the narrative to win the election. I look forward to the general election debates.

          • garfieldjl

            This isn’t about hate, this is about trust. This argument that the MSM is responsible for people not liking Romney is for the birds. Romney has been propped up by the MSM this entire Primary. They’ve only recently started to turn on him, feeling out what they can hit him with, and whether or not they need to resort to what they have dug up on Romney.

            McCain’s advantage was he had nothing for the media to throw at him, that didn’t fall flat on its face. McCain’s problem was he was locked into public funding, and Obama broke his word. Combine that with people buying into Obama’s charisma, that’s how Obama won the election.

            Heck the attempt to draw McCain’s ex-wife in as an issue blew up in the MSM’s faces because she actually endorsed McCain. Palin actually gave McCain the chance of winning, which is why the MSM was so bent on destroying her, and still is.

            My point is there are no surprises with McCain he already had everything thrown at him last election. Obama has a record now, McCain doesn’t have any new baggage for Obama to use against McCain. Hence, the advantage would be John McCain’s.

            Romney came across as slimy back in 07 to 08 and he still comes across that way. We still have yet to see him put under serious scrutiny.

            I don’t think Obama would likability advantage against McCain this time around, he wouldn’t against Cain, probably wouldn’t after the first debate against Gingrich. I think Romney on the other hand would be at a disadvantage.

            Face the facts, the only reason Romney is ahead right now is cause he outspent his opponents by a ridiculous margin. If Gingrich, Perry, or Santorum had that kind of bottomless money pit at their disposal, this would have been over back in February, March at the latest.

            The fact Romney had so many problems and still has problems despite possessing all the advantages, demonstrates to me that he shouldn’t be the nominee.

          • Martin Knight

            There’s no reason or logic behind your position on Romney. You simply hate his guts. That’s a perfectly valid reason to vote against him. But to continue to assert that Romney would be at a disadvantage to Obama on *every single issue* in the general election for no other reason than you hate him is really getting tired.

            For instance, you have repeated ad nauseum that Romney can’t run on healthcare, he can’t run on taxes, he can’t run on the economy, he can’t run on jobs, he can’t run on foreign policy, he can’t run on … anything really.

            The reality is that it just shows the limits of *your* imagination. *I* could come up with ways Romney could make Obamacare an issue without being too hampered by Romneycare. The fact that you can’t is not indicative at all that Romney campaign shares your limitation.

            You hate Romney. That is all. Nothing wrong with that. It really has nothing to do with his ability to win or not.

          • texasref

            and we have good reason to. I hate to break it to the establishmentarians on here, but we aren’t going down without a fight. There are still a lot of primaries and caucuses ahead where the choice will be Romney vs. Not Romney, and no longer will the vote be split among 3 or more Not Romneys.

            Makes me long for the good old days when we had a comparatively ultraconsistent conservative as our nominee (hint: initials J.M.) who at least had the sense to pick a veep that would GOTV.

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            ….only needs to look at the last sentence of your comment to know that it could not possibly be true. Those flaming libs could NEVER bring themselves to admit that Palin helped the ticket.

          • Martin Knight

            It’s perfectly okay to have a deep visceral personal hatred for Romney, his wife, children, pets, etc. I can respect that.

            It’s the pretending that he’s against Romney because Romney is a sure loser for thoroughly BS reasons that’s the problem.

          • gekster

            and not logic. Hate distorts the minds thinking.
            But with all the hate you have, you can’t think clear enough to see it.

            If you guys would spend more time promoting Gingrich than spewing hate for Romney, you might get some converts.
            But it’s like I said.
            It is easier to hate on Romney than to promote Gingrich.

            Then again, it’s not about Gingrich as much as it is
            about dissing Romney, is it.

            And then you wonder why you’re labeled trolls.

          • checkmate2012

            main agrument against Romney…I found that out when I asked you to answer a ? and you did much to others surprise. We’ve been down this road, and I get where you’re coming from and agree with Viet71, that you are a great soldier. Just saying that McCain is a has-been for prez, stones unturned or not, and couldn’t beat BO this go-round as he was too wishy-washy then and would be this time too. Let’s not forget how he wouldn’t dare say a negative about BO, and I’m not just talking about personal aspects. Romney was also vetted to a degree last election, thus do-over of the stupid dog on car thing.
            And we’ve seen backlash from the Ann Romeny hit job.

            I do agree that the MSM “declared” Romney the presumptive nominee way too soon, b/c, like you’ve said, they wanted him to be it as they thought he’d be an easy win against BO. (And IF I didn’t know you from your posts and our friendly sparring, I’d think that the MSM narrative wore off on you, but I don’t think that as I know you’re trying to fight the good conservative fight.) So yes I get that the MSM was shilling for him as an easy target but think they under-estimated R as time will tell IMO.

            And I’ll say again, for the last time I hope, your argument on $ spent makes my argument that the other candidates were whiners and either should have been able to raise more if they were such great candidates or shouldn’t have made that their main excuse for losing a race b/c they knew the Obama money machine was their next battle had they gotten enough delegates to win the nomination! (sorry for the run on sentence- lol)

            So I’ll give you better reasons for Mitt and you can still give pro-Next reasons, but the money one I don’t buy :)

            Did you read my response to someone on how Romney can make a winning argument on R’care vs. O’care? I can’t find it now & it took a while to write, but I’ll give you the link if you want it rather than recapping it.

          • barleycorn

            McCain was/is about as likeable as a bad rash. He was a terrible speaker and ran on such important issues as being a “maverick”. The only thing he did right in the ’08 general was choose Sarah Palin.

            And allowance for hyperbole aside you lose all credibility when you say McCain would be up by 20 points this time around.

          • garfieldjl

            Since Obama has nothing he can really throw at McCain at this point, McCain probably would be 20 points ahead.

      • Martin Knight

        … then Obama is in for a very torrid six months.

        • checkmate2012

          a taste of his own medicine! And didn’t even have to with the all the scandals.

        • garfieldjl

          These “attacks” are probably an attempt to see how Romney would react to stuff.

          Plus it seemed as though someone was playing amateur hour over in Team Obama. I know enough about Chicago politics to know those weren’t serious attacks nor were they a sign of desperation.

          Romney should have just brushed the attacks off, and respond by staying on message and chiding the media for dragging up the idiotic attacks. He made the mistake of reacting to them, and if he continues to do so, he could end up giving those attacks credibility that the attacks do not deserve.

          • checkmate2012

            with Ann, the dog and all their scandals and Romney put it back in their face. They probably expected him to roll over like McCain did!

            You want Romney to fight back don’t you? We can’t just sit back and take their ridiculous incoming, off topic, hit and miss trial ballons. Because as this great diary points out, they will gain the upper hand in narrative if we don’t dish it back.

            We have to counter for the sake of the mainstreet voter, which I will now coin as MSV, who only listens to MSM and soundbites.

            MSV= mainstreet or mainstream voter, take your pick.

          • Martin Knight

            His deep unquenchable all-encompassing hatred for Romney means that whatever the response was, garfield would have said Romney had made a mistake. If Romney had not struck back, he would have said Romney made a mistake by not responding. Now that Romney responded, he made a mistake by responding.

            It’s really not that complicated.

          • checkmate2012

            Hope springs eternal for all Newt and Paul supporters and until the nominee is “the one” declared in Tampa,so until then, they can always hold out hope and change of nominee. It’s going to be a long spring and summer….but hey, someone posted Paul one MN today and got a few delegates…I think his up to 38 now! Wow, still crossing their fingers for a brokered convention in one of the linked articles.

          • garfieldjl

            I don’t trust Romney, I can’t stand Romney, that doesn’t mean I hate Romney.

            Man as far as lame brained attacks go, can you be more original, that one has been used so often by Team Romney, it’s like Obama spamming the race card.

          • Martin Knight

            I have no interest in speculating about it either.

            But it’s simply laughable for you to say your animus for Mitt Romney is only that you don’t “trust” him. You very obviously hate the man with every fiber of your being. Almost every comment of yours on RedState is some attack on Romney or panning of his campaign.

            An obsession like this, night and day, is quite a lot for someone you just distrust.

            That is alright. I do not judge you for it. :-)

            What is a bit objectionable is the attempt to present your electoral prognostications (“Romney can’t run on x, y, z, etc”) as being well-thought out analyses when your all-consuming hate pretty much renders the idea of a Romney victory an impossibility for you.

            Again, I have no idea why you so loathe Mitt Romney to this extent. But I do hope you can get it under control so it’s no longer such a dominant part of your life.

          • Martin Knight

            Again, this is just your deep personal hatred of Romney talking.

            Romney should have just brushed the attacks off, and respond by staying on message and chiding the media for dragging up the idiotic attacks. He made the mistake of reacting to them, and if he continues to do so, he could end up giving those attacks credibility that the attacks do not deserve.

            Bull$#&!

            The “Don’t React To Attacks” thing didn’t work for McCain or the McCain campaign. It certainly didn’t work for Bush. If it were anyone else, making the Democrats beat retreats on their own “War on Women” and “Cruel to Poor Seamus” narratives would have been a stroke of genius.

            But because you hate Romney, it was a mistake for him to respond. And somehow, the Obama Campaign furiously trying to convince people that eating a dog is not so bad, is a win for Obama?

            The interesting thing is that Romney has been on TV many times in the last few weeks and he has always firmly brought the subject back to the economy, jobs and Obama’s failures.

          • garfieldjl

            Romney should have brushed it off, then gone right back on message, that doesn’t mean not responding to it.

          • Martin Knight

            The problem with so much hate is that it makes you deaf and blind. Because what you recommended is exactly what he did in every contemporous interview – minimized it and went back on message.

            The fact is that his campaign took full advantage of the Obama campaign’s missteps and made them very unhappy experiences – effectively neutralized two angles of attack. All the while Romney gets to appear above-it-all.

            This is walking and chewing gum at the same time.