Narrative Collapse

Political Narratives are stories that back up a particular world-view or strategy. They are the telling of the "How we win" future or "Why we aren't what our enemies say we are" or "Why things are okay." In 2008 the Republicans had, for example, a narrative that people just wouldn't vote for a black president. In 2012, there was the polls-are-lying narrative. These didn't collapse--they just ran out: when the voting happened, they were proven false.

On the other hand, they held up right to the election so they were reasonably durable in the face of a bunch of reasons to think they weren't.

This time, for 2016, the narratives are actually collapsing during the campaign. Narratives are the structural supports that justify behaviors and allow people to stand behind strategies. As these collapse it becomes harder and harder for the election to have cohesion. It weakens not only the coalitions that rely on them but also the faith in the process itself,

Let's look at three popular GOP narratives which are falling apart as we watch.

The "Hillary Sucks" Narrative

The narrative is that Hillary, the worst possible candidate, was all the Democrats had. In this story, the Democrats are corralled by their gender-essentialism and  lack of a bench (everyone else was super old and not presidential timber) into making the only choice possible: A terrible one--Hillary Clinton. They were going to fly her, woman hated by everyone, directly into combat untested, unloved, and uncharismatic. She would be destroyed by the least of the Republican bench.

The True Part: The Democrats did, indeed, lack a strong bench. When they gathered everyone they could think of, it was Biden, Warren, Hillary, a self-avowed socialist Independent from Vermont, and some guys you never heard of. Hillary was, yes, the best of the lot.

It is also true that Hillary, on the charisma scale, is not all that high (maybe a 12?). She's not as bad as her detractors make her out to be--but she's no Bill Clinton (in his prime). She's no Obama. She isn't a rock-star.

It's also true that she has some baggage. Decades in politics have given people plenty to dislike if they're looking. She has her email thing. Benghazi. White Water. Vince Foster. Etc.

She might get indicted--or even go to jail over the emails--but betting on that is a long shot. In that event, Sanders would likely be a far weaker candidate--but probably not weak enough to cause the party to disintegrate.

The Collapse: Here are a few points it's going to be hard for anyone to disagree with:

1. As bad as Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren might have been, they look good compared to the complete failure of the 17 super-candidates the GOP fielded. Sure, they've got problems--but would Biden really gaffe worse than Scott Walker?
2. Yes, half the voting public hates Hillary--the GOP half. Gallup, however, finds her the most admired woman in the world . . . for the 20th time. Also: when she was Secretary of State--before she became a serious candidate--and as first lady--she scored a stellar 66% as a high and a really good 56% average popularity. The Omnivore knows: you just can't believe it, can you??
3. You can find no end of stories either lamenting or glorying in the lack of enthusiasm for Hillary. Gallup, for example, finds her leading the Democratic pack at a very healthy 56% and less than 10pts behind fanatical Trump voters (64%). Wait--what? Well, let's keep it in perspective: she's only 10pts ahead of Bernie Sanders.The Omnivore gets it--this is like hearing the earth is flat, right? Fact checkers even find her the most honest and truthful. (Look, we do know they're biased--but at this point that's just salt in the wound).

The "GOP Can Win With White Voters" Narrative

One of the plus-sides to the death of the GOP post-2012 Autopsy which recommended better minority relations, was that the GOP candidates seemed poised to do even better than before with white / male voters. They could bring over Democrats. They could have a bunch more of them turn out. They could crush the minority vote and without Obama on the ticket, the black vote wouldn't happen anyway.

The True Part: The true part is that the GOP is, likely, to court more of the white vote than Romney did. They will improve in the largest racial demographic in America. This will be enough to throw some uncertainty into the outcome as the race (probably) tightens. It is also true that Obama will not actually be on the ticket.

The Collapse: Right now the Democratic narratives are basically all coming true at once--including the fact that the GOP relies on the racist-vote.

1. War On Women? Check. Donald Trump speculates around punishing women who have abortions, stating what everyone on the pro-choice side of the fence felt was the real (if toxic) position of the pro-life movement anyway. He's taken gender-based shots at Megyn Kelly, Cruz's wife, and a female Brietbart reporter. As the leading Republican candidate--that right there is a 'war on women.' His un-popularity with women is north of 70%. This is fatal in a world where, in 2012, women were 51% of the voters.
2. Racist Republicans? Check. Mexicans. Violence towards black protesters. And Trump rises in the polls. Josh Barrow says what everyone is already thinking: The GOP Would Be Screwed Without Racist Voters. Philip Klein in the (right-leaning) National Examiner points out what everyone is already seeing: even if racism is a small part of Trump's appeal, it sure doesn't seem to be disqualifying.  Does it?
3. Black Voters Won't. Un-Check. It appears that the Trump Ascension has galvanized some key Democratic voting blocs. Unmarried white women? Enthusiasm up 12% from last year. Minority voters? Up 9%. College women? +12. Millennials? +7%.

The "It Won't Be Trump" Narrative

This graphic has virtually been retired from Twitter--but the narrative was that (a) the laws of politics would finally re-assert themselves and (b) The GOP might flirt with disaster--but would not rush headlong into it. Eventually the Not-Romnies would all collapse and the big states--the big blue states--would vote for Scott Walker. Or Ted Cruz. Or Jeb Bush. Bobby Jindal was a strong governor. Chris Christie had cross-over appeal and charisma. Hey--we got two young, upcoming Hispanic Senators . . .

The True Part: It . . . might not be Trump. The Stop-Trump forces have massed--and while they're underdogs, don't underestimate the power of a ton of billionaires and the party machinery. 

The Collapse: It's Trump. Even if Trump is shot down, either in a sudden collapse in the next 3 months or at the convention, the rift is real and it isn't going away. Hillary campaigned with Obama. Do you think Trump will campaign with Ted Cruz? Uh-huh. If they manage to stop him at the convention . . . the party is split into two pieces like the Titanic and goes to the bottom of the ocean.

Also, here's a hard truth: the next runner-up might be worse.

Ted Cruz is not as toxic as Trump--but he is very disliked. He cannot pivot in the general (Trump can pivot like a Lazy Susan--but it may not be enough to save him). Cruz is also personally hated by the party machine. 

This is Kasich's strategy: I'll be disliked by the party--but they hate Cruz. If they have to choose someone who ran (psst: John, they'll choose Paul Ryan) it'll be Kasich. Well, say what you will, it's a strategy.

Also: Trump leads by 37 freakin' Points in Big-Blue New York. He leads by 8 in California.

Conclusions

The pundits tell a lot of stories--and stories have gotten us a fair distance--but some of them were always lies and the Trump Campaign has unmasked some of the most powerful.

Obama's No-Good-Very-Bad-Week

SEEMS LEGIT

If you read the conservative blogs you will discover that:

1. The Obama administration is covering up the Libya attacks since their story (that it is about a video) doesn't wash and they were caught off-guard on freakin' September 11th.
2. President Obama shirked executive responsibility to go on The View and said he was eye-candy for the viewers: a nuclear level gaffe.
3. He had a bad time at the Univision Hispanic forum.
4. He gave a lousy speech at the UN.
5. The race is dead even and Romney's polling suggests it's neck and neck.
6. Oh, and the Republican party having failed to shut that whole Todd Akin thing down has now seen Santorum and DiMint endorse him (and, really, how far away is Santorum's abortion stance from Akin's?).

In the mean time ...

1. Romney is crashing in the polls. Unless you go into fantasy land there is no silver lining here. Yes, it is possible the polls are wrong or skewed or that the over-all models are wrong or skewed but the degree and pervasiveness this would have to indicate to explain what we are currently seeing? It goes into Illuminati-World-Conspiracy territory. It also doesn't explain, for example, Fox News O+7 in OH).  It doesn't explain Gallup showing Obama at +6 Nationally today. It doesn't explain Purple Strategies showing Obama at +4 in Ohio. Simply put, if Fox News is part of your liberal conspiracy ... you have some 'splaining to do.
2. Romney's price has hit its all-time low on the betting markets. This is noteworthy not because some "bettors" are maybe losing a few hundred bucks somewhere but because some bettors are maybe going lose millions of dollars on Romney. These "bettors," of course, are big-money Republican backers and the RNC--all of whom have other places in politics to put that money if they decide Romney isn't the horse to bet on. If the RNC decides to go after down-ticket races, for example, Romney's money could dry up: his advantage over Obama is only when you combine RNC, Romney, and Super PACs. Everyone but Romney might have other priorities than a 21.8% Million Dollar Risk.

What Does It Mean?

Well, it's the two narratives again.  Where the two universes collide, Jay Cost makes the case that polls are oversampling Democrats and that Independents just aren't on-board with the Obama-Bounce. Sam Wang calls this wishful thinking (at best). The suggestion that Romney-Money might go elsewhere, however is an interesting one: if anything is certain it is that TV advertising has not had much of an effect for Romney.

What Do I Think?
I think Republicans expecting Obama's bad week to take hold are going to be disappointed. Yes, it's the media--but no, not exactly the way you think. I mean, some of it is: I think it's pretty clear that large portions of the media prefer Obama to Romney--but you could (if you are liberal) think that is because Obama has the right answers and Romney does not. The problem with the Obama-Bad-Week narrative is that (1) Nobody cares as much about the Libya attacks as Team Romney. (2) Another Obama gaffe isn't likely to get any more traction than the last 500. (3) While Obama did get hit at the Univision forum he still probably has a better line for Hispanics than Romney does. The fact is that during the debates Romney went pretty hard-right on Immigration and over the long haul, walking that back is going to be hard. (4) No one cares what Obama said at the UN. Except Republicans. Average Americans won't care much. (5) The neck-and-neck theory is going to sound like a lie (or at least mighty spin) unless someone listens to a whole lot of Jay Cost. The only people doing that ... are Republicans.

And (6), having passed the 25th Pull-Out date, Akin is going to get hammered with every War-On-Women narrative the democrats can stuff on the airwaves ... and what's his defense?

Basically I don't think the Republicans are wrong about Obama having a bad week but I think that the basic narrative is that Romney is going to get hammered.

Edited To Add: The conspiracy theory also doesn't do anything for the Presidential Halloween Mask Poll which holds that whichever party sells more Halloween masks wins!

Obama Blow Out -- Scary!

Vastly Divergent Narratives

As Obama opens a wider lead in the polls the mainstream story is that time for Romney to turn things around runs ever shorter.

Not The Largest It's Been--But Not Good ...

The back-beat to this narrative is that there has been no shortage of sniping on the right and Peggy Noonan had some choice words for the Romney/Ryan campaign:

The Romney campaign has to get turned around. This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant "rolling calamity."

And to flesh it out, the problem isn't just the national polls--which, in aggregate show Obama up more than 3pts--it's the Electoral college swing-state polling which makes Romney's path to the white house look incredibly difficult:

Red/Yellow Bar Is Predicted Final EV Within 2 Standard Deviations

But that's not the only story: there is a counter-narrative that isn't focused on Romney's difficult (and therefore dramatic) current position. It also isn't focused on the (unfortunate) Romney strategy (which seems to have been to release some-but-not-all of the tax returns giving the Democrats a chance to hit them over the head with this again while vainly hoping to satisfy someone in the middle). This story combines blogosphere silence--or almost silence--on the polling front with a bold counter-story: The general reaction to Romney's nearly wholesale crash in the poll is this: we're winning!

What The Heck?
What's going on is this: there are a few levels of sophistication in the Romney-is-winning meme. We're going to look at them. I want to be clear that we are separating the (entirely logical) Romney-Could-Come-Back/Still-Win-It narrative from Romney-IS-Currently-Winning.

1. There's A Case For It. Sean Trende makes the case that the winner of this election might be a big old loser seeing what kind of trouble is coming. The economy is going to crash, Iran is going to blow up, and so on. Maybe being out of office for 2013 is a good thing. This, of course, flies in the face of the Conservatives-Have-All-The-Right-Answers position but it does make a certain amount of sense (What really is the "good answer" on Iran?). However, this is a marginal position. Almost no one else is saying this.
2. Look At History--and By History We Mean Gallup. This has been around for some time (in the form of the Reagan narrative) and this is predominantly because Gallup has been around for a long time--more than pretty much anyone else. This means when we look at "history" we see Gallup, Gallup, and Gallup. Jay Cost makes the case that historically, using Gallup (because, uh, you have to, there isn't a great history of polling otherwise) Obama isn't really a favorite.The problem with this is that when you average in a lot of other (also historical) polling there's a much clearer picture (Reagan was ahead for most of the race and there wasn't actually an 11th hour like Gallup suggests). It also ignores the electoral college factor (Romney does not look poised to win Ohio or Virginia and, as Nate Silver tweeted, if he doesn't win either the election is 'OHVA'--yeah, I know).
3. Troll-Polls-Are-Lying-Liars-Who-Lie-With-Lying. So we get to the biggie: all those polls that put Obama up ... especially in swing states ... they're lying. I direct your attention to Unskewed Polls.com!

ROMNEY LANDSLIDE!

This guy takes a variety of polls and runs them through Rasmussen weighing (the idea being that Team Obama is successfully manipulating the polling firms to use 2008 populating weighing instead of "the real stuff"). This is their theory:

This is not at all a conspiracy theory. I don't do conspiracy theories. This is a very well designed, well planned and they hope, brilliantly executed plan to help President Obama win a second term. The mainstream media has no intentions of sitting on the sidelines and merely objectively reporting the news of the election contest while watching Barack Obama become another Jimmy Carter. They will create the perception, via skewed polls, that Obama is winning and then hope the campaign can take advantage of this perception and steal enough votes to actually win the election.

It should be noted that if you conclude that scores of polling firms--all independently run--all working for different organizations including Fox News (not to mention Rasmussen which shows Obama up over Romney in several key races from time-to-time) are in some kind of massive collusion to re-elect Obama--and that is the most plausible explanation for the polling numbers? And you are the only ones who can figure this out (unlike, say, the "republican run RealClearPolitics.com")--then, uh, yes: you are doing conspiracy theory.

If this were true--literally true--then people like Trende and Scott "The Blogging Caesar" Elliot (from the conservative Election Projection.com) would be shouting it from the rooftops. After all, if you can reverse engineer the polls and show their mistakes, why not simply do so? It's true that for a few weeks HotAir's AllahPundit was doing this with some regularity--although his showing-mistakes was usually limited to talking about oversampling Democrats--something which is presumably corrected by weighing--rather than going after the (proprietary) weighting itself.

It's also noteworthy to mention that AllahPundit got so much grief for posting polls that, I think, he's given up on it. No one wants to hear it no matter what the analysis.

What Do I Think?
Erick Erickson did a piece called Conservative Ostriches on WSBRadio. Unfortunately I didn't get to listen to it--but I think:I get the general gist. There is a head-in-the-sand element to people looking favorably at the Romney campaign. No, it is not as bad as "the media" says it is--and no, it is not fatally over--however when your big strategy is to have a game-changing debate (the first debate is the one everyone watches) and you know that (1) the debate format is going to be dueling press-releases because that's what these have become and (2) the historical record suggests that debates don't usually matter much (Romney will need a there-you-go-again moment or Obama will have to claim Poland is not under soviet control) you have a problem.

I also think that where I may not put total credence in the betting markets, if you look at Romney's price you find this:

See That Drop In the Last Day?

For a "closer look" we'll look at InTrade which has been generally the most friendly to Romney:

Steep Decline From 20th-22nd. Slight Recovery ... But ... Yeah ...

If you believe the polls are cooked consider that (a) the betting markets pretty much cannot be and while (b) those markets are no-doubt informed by the polls, the kind of day-by-day movement we see here simply, clearly, is not. The price for Rick Perry flash-crashed during his Oops-Moment during the debates when a lot of people watching realized he wasn't ever going to win the nomination--and that's what we're seeing here too: people with money are becoming increasingly convinced because of what they see in the media and from the Romney campaign that with 44 days to go he isn't showing signs of a turn-around.

For a guy running as a turn-around expert that isn't the position to be in.

The Obama Bounce ...

The wonderful thing about tiggers is that tiggers are wonderful things--and just as tiggers bounce around I am sure there are quite a few Republicans who feel that circular logic is the best bet to explain Obama's uptick in the polls since the DNC. What uptick? This one:

Yeah ... Well ... That One.

What Is Going On?

What's going on is that Obama got a convention bounce and Romney didn't. This leaves Republicans feeling a bit like that kid who rushes downstairs on Christmas morning and finds out that they got nothing and their brother got that shiny new bike he wanted. It's frustrating--sure--but convention bounces come and go. If four weeks from now that chasm doesn't close it'll be panic central. For now, let's look a the narratives around the bounce.

Remember: a "narrative" on The Omnivore is a story that is being told (or that we tell ourselves) to make sense of some collection of facts.

The Bounce Is A Lie

In this narrative science and mathematics lie. There simply is no bounce and Obama is losing. How can that be? Well, it goes like this:

1. The Eric Holder Lawsuit: There are two "reliable" Republican pollsters: Rasmussen and Gallup. Where everyone else is telling a story of Obama being up a few points, these have him even or down--that was, until David Axelrod and Obama's Department of Justice got their hands on them! Here's the lawsuit! That's right, after Axe complained the DOJ pulled up an old lawsuit about Gallup overcharging the government and they're back in line now showing Obama winning--following 'the plan.' What plan? The plan is ...
2. Operation Demoralize: A plan by the press and the media to demoralize Republicans using polls and other methods to depress their turn-out. This is done by oversampling Democrats and outright lying. ... As other pollsters do:

2h

Sunidaze ‏@Sunidaze@ppppolls Plan is showing the amount of voter fraud SEIU, the Unions & you plan on perpetrating during the election.
 Retweeted by PublicPolicyPolling

21h

Malvenue ‏@MalvenueTry @RasmussenPoll , much more honest with no bias. #TeaParty@CatsPolitics @ppppolls

(Public Policy Polling has been re-tweeting their accusational tweets!)

The Problem: Who got to Rasmussen?

Do NOT Panic
In this story, hey--there IS a bounce--but so what--bounces come and go. This is a rational long-game perspective to have, especially now before the bounce rights itself. Mitt Romney put out this memo:

Don't get too worked up about the latest polling. While some voters will feel a bit of a sugar-high from the conventions, the basic structure of the race has not changed significantly. The reality of the Obama economy will reassert itself as the ultimate downfall of the Obama Presidency, and Mitt Romney will win this race.

PJ Media sees the "fear and despondency" and says BUCK UP!

Do you feel scared at times? Do you wonder if we’ve gone too far? Do you wonder if we can’t win? Everyone does. Do you not want to delude yourselves? No one does.

But we already have a disadvantage in not having a dedicated media. MUST you amplify the media? What is the point of fear and despondency but to make our side give up?

The signs are against the polls. The very success of the 2016 documentary is against the polls. The registration momentum is against the polls.

Is America going to go back after Obama because he gave a speech? Oh, for heaven’s sake, even the MSM admitted it wasn’t a good speech. That’s why they played on Clinton extensively.

Problem: If there is no need to panic, sending out a do-not-panic memo may have the opposite effect.

Okay, Maybe Panic A Little
 And then there are people who are, okay, not ... happy:

I said at the time of watching Clinton that his speech, while dishonest, was powerful.

In one speech he rebutted 90% of Romney/Ryan's work until now. Now, they have to counter-rebut it in order to get that work back.

Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble.

And here:

The danger for the Romney campaign right now is the congealing conventional wisdom that the Republican emerged from Tampa and Charlotte meaningfully behind and is now facing some tough Electoral College reality.

...

Romney still has the debates, millions and millions of dollars in TV ads and weeks of campaigning to try to turn things around. But he faces the immediate threat of both quiet and loud we-told-you-so’s from Republicans who last year had the very worries they fear are being manifested now. Romney is an awkward, unlikable candidate. The author of Romneycare is ill positioned to attack Obamacare. And Romney’s shifting positions make him an easy mark for an aggressive White House.

Problem:  Panic won't do anything--if the bounce persists ... it's a problem. If it doesn't, panic might make a bad situation worse ...

What Do I Think?
I think that (a) the polls are legitimate. The idea that Obama would use actual legal muscle to change Gallup flies in the face of Risk-Analysis. Are Republicans being demoralized? Probably some--but Rasmussen has a lot more to do with that than Gallup and if Republicans can't handle a post-convention bump they're just, frankly, not made of stern enough stuff to win the election. I find that unlikely.

I think that (b) The Romney campaign needs to ... well ... to get it's messaging together. Romney saying he likes "parts" of ObamaCare is pretty confusing. But I think I understand what he's talking about. On the other hand? His 15-ad carpet-bombing campaign looks like an electoral Mad-Lib:

Above is a screenshot of the 15 new ads the Romney campaign is now airing in the eight core battleground states, each following an almost identical formula that hits Obama on economic issues tailored to each state. Every ad begins with a cut from Romney's convention speech:

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.

Then the ads pivot into state-specific claims:

Here in [state], we're not better off under President Obama. [list of problems Obama is implied to be responsible for].

Romney's plan? [list of generic GOP solutions], create [number] new jobs for [state].

This is the death-star open-fire we've been waiting for? You can view the ad below (and if you've seen one, apparently, you've seen them all) but it gets my vote for most-generic attack-ad ever. What are you thinking, Romney?



I get that it's a "targeted message" and it should hit an "issue voter" but ... really? This is the same sort of thing that destroyed Gingrich and Perry? No--no, it is not. I am not, shall we say, a fan of dirty politics but the idea that this is the feisty Mitt Romney that was promised seems like the ultimate bait and switch. If I were worried about anything it would be that his out-of-the-gate ad-buy seems a lot more like homework done the hour before it's due and streamlined in order to save money.

From a campaign that has had months to put this together, what should be an almost unlimited budget (including the best minds money can buy), and knows that "it lacks teeth" is an unacceptable critique of their game-plan this is just ... baffling.

Dump Joe Biden: Defensive Positioning

I'm terrible at predictions--and I'm certainly no political insider--but I'm going to tell you a story and you can decide for yourself what you think.

The Omnivore blog uses the term "narrative" to talk about stories "about stories." The "narrative" in the terms we mean it here, is the sort of textual capsule around a set of unfolding events--it's the set of framing that various actors give you--evolving in real-time--to make sense of events.

In this case, here's what I think is happening:

What Could Be Happening
Right now Team Romney has some initiative: they have successfully launched Ryan--and while various indicators show little bounce (and there is some consultant-class hand-wringing) it is clear that the GOP has scored big with the base and that the story has been pretty diluted in Romney's favor (not everyone is talking all tax-returns all the time).

Going into the conventions, Team Romney (as discussed yesterday) is expecting a bigger bounce than Obama. In order to do that, they need to both spotlight the charismatic, telegenic Ryan and maneuver around Obama's potential follow-up moves.

So in order to do that, they are positioning the narrative to "block" the one thing that Obama could do to certainly reclaim the narrative initiative: replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton.

Disclaimer: I would love to see it happen. It would be exciting and this campaign season is lacking excitement. Ryan is an exciting pick--but Ryan-style announcements have been few and far between. Nasty ads are not exciting. Gaffes and supposed gaffes are not exciting. People upset in London or thrilled in Poland are not especially exciting. Flat polls are not exciting and a 1-2% shift is not exciting.

For that matter, despite what the fans say, soccer games that score 1-1 and go to sudden death ... with some consistency ... are not exciting. You heard it here first. (watch: this is what I will get the email about).

Defensive Positioning
For the recent past no one on the Democratic side of the equation has been talking about a potential Hillary pick. That would make sense: either they are planning it and do not want to give the game away or they are not planning it and it would make no sense to talk about it. However, if you were the Republicans and wanted to maximize the upcoming convention cycle you have a card to play: make it look like dumping Joe Biden would be a desperate move--the move of a loser. Make it look like your idea ... because they are losing.

Here is a PowerLine blog excerpt after the Ryan pick (blog is from Aug 12th) ... but before the Biden "chains" comment:

7. We have longed for a leader who would articulate our case — the case for the restoration of limited government — and stand by it. Ryan will help Romney on this score. We look forward to the night when he goes toe to toe with Clueless Joe. Or will it be Ms. Hillary?

What if it was Hillary? That's a thought, eh? So it's in the water. Then Joe Biden makes the "chains" comment and we see John McCain:

John McCain said Wednesday he thinks “it might be wise” for President Barack Obama to replace Vice President Joe Biden on the ticket with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“I think it might be wise to do that,” Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) said on Fox News, responding to a suggestion that Sarah Palin made on Tuesday night. “But it’s not going to happen…If I were Hillary Clinton, I’m not sure I’d want to be on that team.”

 Sarah Palin, in fact, questioned Biden's 'mental capacity:'

Sarah Palin has said that Joe Biden’s controversial ‘put y’all back in chains’ comment should be the ‘nail in the coffin’ for his career and suggested Barack Obama replace him on the 2012 ticket with Hillary Clinton.

If that's not enough to make potential Democratic strategists back away from the edge, I don't know what would be. The Free Republic expounds on this theory:

What the hell is Sarah Palin doing?!

Obama-Biden can be beaten. Obama-Clinton actually has a chance of changing things. And the Democrats have over 3 weeks left to make that change - why is Sarah trying to help Team Obama??

The response is:

I don’t think Sarah Palin is saying anything that the DNC and Obama don’t already know. Remember, if they follow through, it will seem that Obama is taking Sarah Palin’s advice. Now, how would that fly among liberals?

What Do I Think?
I'm not a betting man--so I don't have to put my money where my mouth is (and to be clear: the conventional wisdom says it ain't gonna happen)--but what do I think? I think if Obama wants to win this thing there would be no better way to reclaim the narrative and the momentum. As the DNC convention comes after the RNC convention it gives them all the maneuver space they need to determine where they stand. With several key battleground states going against them recently in a new set of polling ... and some polling that suggests disaffected non-voters break for Obama ... this would be an attempt to get some excitement.

Plus? Hillary is an exciting politician. She has credibility to burn and has had a pretty damn good last-four years. She's vetted and experienced. And if she wants 2016--and Team Obama wins ... there's no better set up. Has it ever happened before? Answer yes:

Is dumping an incumbent vice president unprecedented? As the Standard notes, it hasn’t happened since 1944, when FDR dropped Henry Wallace at the convention in favor of Harry Truman, which turned out, of course, to have huge historical consequences. Even if Obama was tempted to join forces with Hillary Clinton, imagine how disorganized and desperate such a last-minute move would look.

Those consequences? #32 ... I'm not entirely sure how that last line clocks in there ... But the last sentence is key: after rampant media speculation about dumping Biden any switch would be tainted--and not because "the white house took Sarah Palin's advice." It would look disorganized because there was tons of amateur and unfriendly speculation about motive and then the act would play into that narrative.

That's "what does the damage." Like Reagan hitting Carter in the debate with There You Go Again (which was playing counter-narrative, but is the same idea) the fact that the groundwork has already been laid in our brains (which is what framing and creating the story--the narrative--does) makes it "fertile ground" for the active ingredient to take hold.

No matter how much sense a Hillary-Biden swap might make, if it happens now, it will be tainted (at least somewhat). Is that enough to stop a determined Obama administration from doing it? No. If the DNC wants not 4-more-years, but 12, the best way to do that is probably to have Hillary serve as the VP ... if Obama wins. But her on the ticket would, very likely, contribute to a win. So would it prevent Team Obama from doing this if they decided to? No.

But it does damage the strategy.

Updated: Tweet is "White House: Yes, Joe Biden Is Still Obama's Running Mate" but the story is the White House press secretary saying "Thanks but no thanks for the advice." It isn't a denial.

Reverse Psychology? 
This ad from Republican American Crossroads urges Joe Biden to stay on the job! It mocks Joe Biden but suggests (tongue in cheek) that he be there when "we" need him most! Is this part of the narrative? YES! By suggesting he stay in such an obviously sarcastic manner they are, clearly, suggesting he be dropped!

   

Dueling Narratives ... Who's Winning?

As the summer grinds to a close the political campaign heats up. We were promised a negative game and it looks like this cycle? They're gonna deliver. Right now there are two competing narratives for who's winning.

Romney Is Winning!
Jay Cost looks at the state of the race and concludes "It's Romney's To Win!"

In other words, Obama’s polling right now suggests that he has only locked down the core Democratic vote; what's more, those not currently in his voting coalition tend to disapprove of his job as president. Indeed, the Gallup job approval poll finds him with just 31 percent support from “pure” independents, i.e. those with no party affiliation whatsoever. 

It is extraordinarily difficult for incumbent presidents to win the votes of people who disapprove of the job they are doing. Hence, this race is Romney’s to win.

Dick Morris, political commentator, is even more bullish: he thinks not only is Romney going to win, Romney is currently winning ... and it's going to be a landslide!

On Friday, I saw the real numbers. These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days. 

The trend line is distinctly pro-Romney. Of the thirteen states studied, he improved or Obama slipped in nine states while the reverse happened in only four. To read the media, one would think that Romney had a terrible month. In fact, the exact reverse is true.

While PowerLine calls this wishful thinking at best,  a recent poll gets analyzed by HotAir and decides that while the numbers may be wonky and they do show Obama leading in Virginia and Washington--but losing in Colorado, the truth ("truth"?) may be that with the sampling it's good for Romney everywhere:

Overall, this shows Romney competing in states Obama can’t afford to lose — after getting bombarded by an avalanche of negative advertising. If Romney is this close in Wisconsin, Virginia, and Colorado, he will be well positioned to answer Obama with his own deluge of messaging when the convention unlocks the general-election funds he’s raised over the summer.

On The Other Hand ... Obama Is Winning!
The counter-narrative is that Romney's popularity has plateaued and his unfavorables are still rising:

According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 40 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of Romney — virtually identical to the 41 percent high-water mark that his favorability rating reached in the ABC/WaPo survey from late May. Compounding matters for the presumptive Republican nominee: the percentage of the public who view him unfavorably has jumped from 45 percent to 49 percent. Romney’s standing is even lower among independents, with only 37 percent of the bellwether voting bloc viewing him favorably compared with 50 percent who view him unfavorably.

It looks like this:

Worse, despite what Dick Morris says, Obama leads in the key swing states (save Colorado):

Romney has to get Ohio and really needs PA and Florida too

Will this turn around by the election? Could be: the narrative that the race will tighten by election time to look like Reagan vs. Carter is how Team Romney is casting it for sure. That appeared like this:

BAM! Right At The End!

But keep in mind that the dominant theme of that election was the Iranian hostage crisis combined with the stagnant economy. With no last-minute change in state (Iran declares it will not release the hostages on the eve of the election) that last minute reversal might not materialize.

What Do I Think?

I think the proof is "in the pudding." On Facebook there was discussion as to whether the polls were accurate or worthless. I took a look at RCP's Walker Election polling--the combined score for the last set of polls. It looks like this:

Looks pretty close

The combined score of the polling seems comes out at "reality" Walker 6.8, Polling Walker 6.7. When the combined average is off by .1 of the tested results I think it's fair to say that if the combined score shows Obama up by +5 in several key swing states that's a real phenomena, however bad the individual polls are.

To be sure, Romney has had a bruising month--but the convention comes at the end of August and that apparently opens his war chest for full-on-fire. I think at this stage of the game Obama is ahead--but there are still more rounds to go.

UPDATE: I like Nate Silver's take on the most recent CNN & Fox polling (which put Obama up at like +7):

Might Mr. Obama have gained half a point, or a point, based on whatever residual factors that voters are thinking about? Sure, and Mr. Romney would rather that movement be in his direction instead. But has Mr. Obama gained three points, at a time when most ordinary Americans are watching the Olympics? Probably not.

I think that's probably right--I don't see anything (the reverse, actually) that would indicate a break-through for Obama. I'll also note his Twindex score has plummeted.  

Maybe Mitt Romney is the Next Reagan?

Previously we looked at a narrative that says that Rick Santorum--polling lower than Obama for the time being--might be the next Ronald Reagan. After all, Reagan polled lower than Carter ... and he won in a landslide! Looking at this, there were a few things in favor of the Santorum-Is-Reagan model. For one thing, both had name recognition issues. For another, gosh, there sure a lot of people comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter, aren't there?

Now that Santorum has had a run as the leading Not-Romney, another narrative is being advanced any time there is a poll that shows Romney losing to Obama: it's the same one--Reagan was losing to Carter too! Maybe it's Mitt Romney who is the win-in-a-landslide hope for the GOP?

Let's look.

First Things First: Polls This Far Out Don't Mean Much
Look, yes: it's a disclaimer--but let's keep two things in mind. The first is that trends, being trends are not meaningless. If the job growth we have seen continues. If Israel and Iran don't get into a disastrous war. If Obama manages, somehow, to find a way to bring down gas prices? Then if the economy continues to increase it's going to be a tough, tough year for the GOP.

A good deal of polling shows that.  Right now the RCP average shows Obama beating both Santorum and Romney (about 9 points for Santorum, about 5 for Romney).

But also trends change. In order to change there usually has to be some event--but it could be as "minor" as Team Romney spending 1bn on nation-wide negative-ad buys. I mean, that could work. Or the Euro-Zone could collapse. Take your pick. If things do change then whatever reasoning was behind it will need to be kept in mind.

So what was up with Reagan losing to Carter in March?

The Graph!

Gallup gives us a Presidential Approval Tracking Tool. Here we see Obama  (light green) and Carter (dark green) with their # of days in office. Oh, Gallup, that #-of-days-in-office is so helpful. I mean, if I want to know what happened 1000 days into Carter's term? Boy--that graph is so useful.

Next time, geniuses, make it so I can click and see actual dates. If you can't do the math in your head, use the TimeAndDate calculator. I did. You can then punch the year into Wikipedia and, if you want, use the Jimmy Carter Library of events to help narrow things down.

So what the heck was going on?

I'll tell you: the Hostage Crisis and the Soviets invading Afghanistan. The timeline is like this:

• Nov 4 1979 the Hostage Crisis begins. That's when Carter's 1000 day spike more or less starts.
• Dec 27 1979 the Soviets invade Afghanistan. Friday, Nov 30 is when Carter's dark green line breaks the "average" dotted line."
• Jan 25 his graph hits the high point of that spike towards the end of his term. After that, it's all downhill.
• By March 10 there's the big drop--nothing I can tell caused that--but remember that American audiences were being given a running count each day the hostages were held on ABC's Nightline.
• On April 24th the rescue mission failed. That's the trough right before 1200.
• Sunday, May 4th, Carter gets that 1200 spike (still well below average at 38%) That was probably the end of the Carter administration--whoever had run against him.

And What About Reagan?

Reagan and Romney have a few similarities. From here:

The 1980 campaign was not a contest between two overwhelming Party favorites. President Jimmy Carter was facing trouble at home and abroad. The country was in the midst of an economic recession under the Carter administration. Each day voters turned on there television sets to find news stories of the American hostages in Iran. Carter had gained favor with the public in several foreign policy accomplishments, but these two major issues had severely cut into his approval ratings. Ronald Reagan had a nagging issue of his own. He could not seem to gain the confidence of the growing anti-Carter movement. One poll asked which candidate voters were "personally interested in or excited about." Eleven percent chose Reagan. Carter received only nine percent.

There's also the next-in-line thing: Reagan had run initially in 1976 and lost to incumbent Gerald Ford. He, like Mitt was also the governor of a fairly liberal state. These are not insignificant attributes: being next in line is pretty important historically. Being a governor is a key bit of executive experience that, for example, Santorum lacks.

So what was the track record? Here is the graph:

 

The graph is from a Forbes article which makes the very case that, at this stage in the game, Carter was much further ahead than Obama is from Romney!

That Said ...

However ... while it's very true that Carter was hurt, perhaps first and foremost, by the economy, Carter had a fatal problem with foreign policy--one that Obama doesn't have. In fact, aggressive foreign policy (the Osama-kill) is a major part of Obama's 2012 strategy. The Carter spike around 1000 days has been described as the "rally-round-the-flag" effect. While I'm not a historian, this is at least plausible.

The Real Problem

The real problem is that once Reagan was "introduced" people really liked him. Yes, he had problems getting started and yes, he had some presumptions (that he was too old) working against him. But ultimately? People liked him. Romney seems to have the opposite problem:

Month-to-month, Romney’s share of the vote has been declining even as the field narrows, with the conservatives drawing a clear majority of the votes cast in March (aided as well by poor showings by Ron Paul in the Deep South) despite not even being on the ballot in Virginia.

Furthermore, where Reagan was charismatic, Romney is plagued by being seen as robotic.

What Do I Think? 
I think that there are two major problems with the Romney-is-Reagan. The first is that while the economy is similar to a degree the foreign policy/national humiliation element is missing. Carter both gained and lost popularity due to a very specific set of events that are not in play here. The second is that, simply put, Romney doesn't seem likely to become The Great Communicator. I mean, he might, right? You never know--but his current M.O. is to avoid the press rather that manipulate them. Romney doesn't seem likely to "Win the War on Terror" (the closest analog I can think of to the Cold War).


Can you imagine an issue with Reagan with a dog on the roof of his car?


I didn't think so.

The Narrative War: Contraception vs. Gas Prices

Several polls recently put Obama's job approval ratings down. The Washington Post-ABC poll puts him at 46% approval and blames it on gas prices. A New York Times-CBS poll puts him at 41%. A Rasmussen Poll has him at 47% (but a recent Gallup poll has him at 49%).

Here is the Blogosphere Commentary
HotAir takes a hand-to-forehead approach with the headline "Oh my: Obama's approval rating hits new low in CBS poll." (it notes that even with these lows Obama still leads all four GOP candidates head-to-head). While the bolded quote from the poll highlights a gas prices the article's opening line is:

Second look at the "war on women"?

The majority of the analysis in the post is about employers and birth control.

Over at Ace Of Spades a short post upgrades the race from "meh" to "eh?" and their only comment on the meaning of the new, encouraging poll numbers? A sarcastic:

Looks like that giant contraception distraction worked great, hunh?

An insightful update to the piece asks what it would take to further upgrade to "Yeah?" The answer is that it would take state-level polling showing a return to the fall of 2011 where light-blue states are slipping. This means that the purple states (OH, FL, VA, NC, NH, CO, IA, and NV) are already lost to him. This is, I think, pretty good commentary.

Powerline tells us: "Another Poll Shows Obama Slipping." It discusses the gas-price issue but then follows that up with a second post using the hash-tag based title "#BSFail" which, again, spends the most text of its analysis on contraception. They say:

Despite the intense propaganda barrage to which we have been subjected over the past several weeks, CBS reports that most Americans believe there should be an exception to the mandate requiring employers who may have a moral or religious objection to cover birth control for their employees — by a margin of 57-36. A majority believes that even nonreligious employers should have the right to opt out — by a margin of 51-40. CBS reports the results of the poll here. To the extent that the White House and its media friends have succeeded in confusing the issue, Americans support the White House position. 

This compared to the length of the gas price discussion:

A sidebar to the poll shows that a majority of Americans believes gas prices are something a president can do a lot about — by a margin of 54-36. The poll on the president’s power to affect gas prices is also reported here.

The Two Narratives
The two competing narratives are that what's driving down Obama's numbers are (a) it's pain-at-the-pump vs. (b) It's about religious rights and contraception. American Thinker looks at three headlines from Fox News, the Washington Post, and ABC. All three of them call out gas prices. The author says:

I do not believe a word of this research, or the news articles reporting the results. In the context of spinning the President's popularity, the pump price of gas is a bogus issue to cover up his weakness in other areas, and to create a divisive battle over energy policy.

He thinks that questions about gas prices have been added only since Obama became President. He'd like to see a question about jobs. If you Google 'Contraception Distraction' you find links like this: Wag The Co-ed: Contraception Distraction Is No Fluke, Reveals Obama’s Desperation:

The real issue here is Obama’s attack on the constitution and religious liberty. But he and his media cohorts would rather create red herrings to distract the American public from jobs, gas prices, astronomical debt, the unconstitutional government takeover of health care, and any other issue that is actually RELEVANT to voters.

Rush Limbaugh says this (before the gas-price polls--but still relevant):

The truth of the matter is that the president is still finding it difficult with women in his approval numbers.

And that's why they wanted to change the subject from whether or not he behaved unconstitutionally in mandating churches give away abortion pills (or birth control pills), to: "Republicans don't agree with contraception!" It's totally made up. There's not a Republican out there that wants to ban contraception. There's not a Republican in the world that, as a political issue, wants anything to do with it. It's totally manufactured, and it's succeeded in distracting everybody's attention from what Obama had done, and it's meant to portray the Republicans as Neanderthal troglodytes while the party of Bill Clinton (who's destroyed Monica Lewinsky's life among others) is held up as God's gift to women! Everything's 180 degrees out of phase.

Both these narratives are complicated and somewhat contradictory--but the basic thrust remains: the Obama administration, in collusion with the Main-Stream Media wants to have one conversation (either about gas prices or women's access to contraception) and the real issue (either religious freedom or imaginary Republican assaults on contraception--or job creation) is something else. Let's briefly look:

The Gas Prices Narrative
Nate Silver finds only a limited correlation with the poll numbers (although he amends his original look to say that as more polls show a decline in approval ratings there might be something to it). On the other hand, it's counter intuitive that Obama would want to talk about gas prices since he's against the Keystone XL pipeline (which, in theory at least, would lower gas prices) and drilling. Also: he doesn't think there's much he can do about them anyway (or at least that's what he says).

Additionally, a lot of people think gas prices are a winning issue for the GOP:


If you don't believe that, look at this: Networks Hype Rising Gas Prices 4 Times More for Bush, Than Obama:

The Business and Media Institute analyzed broadcast network news references to gas or fuel prices between Jan. 20 and Feb. 20, 2012 and from March 24 and April 24, 2008. BMI found that in the 2008 period there were more than 4 times as many gas prices stories, news briefs or news headlines on ABC, CBS and NBC as there were in 2012 (97 to 21).

So--gas prices at least were the conversation the GOP wanted. Why would Obama and the MSM want to focus on that with the polls? Could it be because there's an even bigger loser out there?

The Contraception Narrative
In this narrative the Obama administration launches its covert War on Religion and, as one of the key maneuvers, opens fire with a shot at the heart of the Catholic church: forcing their hospitals (and other religiously affiliated businesses) to have insurance that pays for contraception. When the right, righteously, complains, the Obama administration deftly pivots and uses Sandra Fluke, a secret operative, to strike a political blow by shifting the discussion to access to contraception and women's health as a whole. This has the predictable result of enraging Rush Limbaugh who stoops to their level:

"They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to do anything... It's what we fight against every day. In fighting them in this issue last week i became like them... Against my own instincts against, my own knowledge… I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke, I descended to their level and I feel very badly about that."

Once the incendiary flames are going full blast, the Obama administration can sit back and bask in the glow of the "War on Women" which creates a valuable wedge issue to boost their standing with the female voting bloc.

Is this true?

Well, it certainly could be. We know that very early in the cycle George Stephanopolous asked Mitt Romney a contraception-based debate question on the basis of a comment Rick Santorum (at the time a serious also-ran) once made. The Blaze runs this headline: ‘PAID DEMOCRATIC HITMAN’: STEPHANOPOULOS’ BIZARRE DEBATE QUESTION ON CONTRACEPTION SUDDENLY MAKES SENSE

At the time, critics called Stephanopoulos’ contraception question a non sequitur. Indeed, judging by the look on Mitt Romney’s face, the question seemed to come out of nowhere.

But that was then. That was before war broke out between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration. That was before the infamous HHS mandate that forces religious organizations to provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs.

While it appears that Sandra Fluke really is a 3rd-year law student, there is also evidence (see the 'secret operative' link above) that she's an activist and her participation in this discussion is no accident. It's then possible that things went like this:

1. Seeing the economy as a losing issue, Team Obama primed the contraception issue (perhaps after seeing how the Konen for the Cure issue played out) in the Stephanopoulous debate.
2. They opened fire with their provocative health care measure and then used their plotted "fall back" (Insurance companies would provide the coverage for free--no the institution--which requires a pretty gymnastic twist of logic to buy--but possibly provided a fig-leaf of 'respect'). This was supposed to satisfy just enough people while making the GOP froth at the mouth. 
3. The second part worked--better than expected--with Rush Limbaugh swallowing the hook, the line, and the sinker.
4. But then, as the polls show, the first part (satisfying people) combined with the Bullshit Offensive isn't working: likely voters are still upset with the Obama administration--so, as the economy (and the spun numbers) limp towards better-than-absolute-crap--the Main-Stream-Media pivots again: they play the gas prices card in desperation to distract from the War On Religion narrative.

What Do I Think?

Team Obama is pretty slick. The media, mainstream or not, does like him--a lot more than they as a whole liked Bush, anyway. There's enough here, if only barely, to hang a hat on. Certainly the Obama campaign is opportunistic. When the GOP makes a mistake they're ready to pounce.

But that's not conspiracy theory.

I find it very, very difficult to believe that anyone could have predicted how Sandra Fluke would play out--and I don't think Team Obama has a battery of assets in place for each potential issue waiting for an exploitable one. In other words, I think that Fluke's positioning was just weird luck ... a ... oh, come on, you know what I'd say*. I think Santorum's position on contraception is one of several he holds that could be pretty toxic in the general (attack Iran, go back to DADT, man-on-dog, JFK-made-me-sick, college-is-for-snobs, etc.) and that's bait for the media (paid hitman or not).

I also think that after the gas-price spike under Bush it's not surprising that questions about gas would be added to the polls: gas prices are the major thrust of Newt Gingrich's second comeback--if anything is a fair question it's that. So again, and not surprisingly, I don't think any of this requires a conspiracy. I think instead that Limbaugh's virtue (he excites the base) is also a vice (exciting the base can sometimes be toxic to the middle). I think that Fluke, had she been allowed to testify in the original meeting (her exclusion provided fuel for the campaign)--if she had been ignored byRush, the issue would never have blown up.

Indeed, attempts to bring up the contraception issue (Stephanopolous' question) fizzled and were met with derision. Mitt Romney is not a light-weight--but he is no master of debate jujitsu and he was able to laugh off and deflect the contraception question. If he could make it look easy, anyone could. 

In essence, I don't see the "contraception issue" as a loser for GOP unless they seriously fumble the ball--as they did--and if Team Obama can predict, with precision, where the entire GOP field will make unforced errors? Then the Republican campaign is over before it ever started. I find that unlikely--but let's ask Agent Smith:

No Reince Priebus, your candidates are already dead.

* "A fluke, if you will." You're welcome.

 

Wagons or Firing Squads: What Will The GOP Circle?

There are two competing narratives for the GOP's end-game. The first is that Romney (or, perhaps, some other candidate) limps across the finish-line so wounded and disparaged--with such a mass of baggage from the long brutal campaign--that they are beaten in the general. In this narrative the damage that each candidate is taking is cumulative and, in the end, they are so badly beat up that Obama has an easy time against them. Part of this may be that the rifts open amongst the base simply cannot be healed.

This the Circular Firing Squad narrative.

The second narrative is that after a decisive candidate (probably Romney) pulls ahead (probably in the more blue-state-ish Super Tuesday contests) the GOP base comes to a decision: he is better than Obama--of course he is--and they rally round him. In this scenario, with enough time to heal the damage before the convention, the base (save for a few die-hards) decide to back him--and then turn out hard.

This is the Circle the Wagons narrative.

Which will it be?

Which WILL It Be?
Of course we don't really know--but let's look at some evidence in favor of each. Before we do, though, it should be noted that this race is unprecedented in volatility. It is also true that it has fielded the most negative in recorded history (Florida). So there are no good antecedents that I can see directly.

The Wagons Narrative
The primary piece of evidence that I can point to is the Hillary / Obama race in '08. It is true that there are still some aftershocks--In March of 2008 Gallup showed that 28% of Hillary backers would vote McCain! Although statistics are hard to come by, Pew holds that 10% of voters who identified themselves as Democrats voted for McCain--but this is the same % that voted for Bush!

Note that there was even hand-wringing over how bad the split had gotten:

Primary wars can be quite brutal among democrats. We're not as disciplined as Republican in falling in line behind a nominee. Plus there is a lot of anger and frustration among democrats after what the current republicans (especially this administration) after these 7 years. Not to mention that we feel the election was stolen in 2000. Imagine, no Bush.. 

And this is a historic race. Having an African American and a women be the final contenders will always bring out some venom and open some wounds in this country. I'm a bit worried that this is going over hand though. There is a lot of bad blood between Obama and Hillary supporters. The Clintons campaign style hasn't exactly made things easier. Hopefully everything comes to an end March 4th. 

The GOP must love this :)

In the end it doesn't look like the rift--although not without consequence--was especially damaging (the link is to Hillary supporters in 2011 asking her to mount a primary challenge to Obama!).

The Firing Squad Narrative

In this narrative the party is splintering--dying. The volatility is indicative of the base rending itself apart. The wounds simply can't be healed. This New Yorker Article describes the Republicans as a "Lost Party":

For Democrats, the answer is easy, reflexive, and comforting: Barack Obama wins. And at this moment, they have reasons to think so—starting with the historical precedents suggesting that the Romney-Santorum death match and the intraparty tensions it represents will undermine the eventual nominee. “Goldwater hurt Nixon in 1960, Rockefeller hurt Goldwater in 1964, and Reagan hurt Ford in 1976,” says historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “When splits become open in the party, it’s never a good thing.”

Will this be enough? The article doesn't think so--it points out that the president's team assume that any margin of victory will be razor-thin come November. However, it is almost certain that if the Republicans had a real winner this would be looking more like a route by now than it does.

Furthermore the narratives that Hillary started (the 3 AM Red-Phone call, for example) were picked up and used by McCain. He was, in fact, winning the Commander-In-Chief test especially when Russia invaded Georgia. If not for Obama's own 'black swan' in the form of the economic melt down Obama's readiness--a theme started by Hillary, might have determined the election.

Furthermore, indications of low-voter-turnout and editorials like "The Republicans Send in the Clowns" don't help with the vision that one someone--anyone--is decided on, it'll all be fine:

The first words Fidel Castro has ever uttered that I have agreed with are those recently published on his blog, in which he opined that the current U.S. Republican nomination race is one of the most inane and stupid events in modern world history.

Finally, Hillary did a lot to reconcile the party (and became a popular Secretary of State for it). It's hard to imagine Newt Gingrich pitching in to do the healing ... or Santorum. It seems that, perhaps, Ron Paul might demand his son on the ticket for his portion of the base.

If the convention is contested (a better word than the standard "brokered" because "brokered" suggests someone is in charge) it's possible the fallout could be even worse--and if a new candidate (Jeb Bush?) is selected? Well, that might work--but it might also spark a mutiny (or a 3rd party run!). No one can say.

What Do I Think?
I hold more with the latter narrative than the former one: it will be some of both. If, even relatively late in the game (say by May) a strong front-runner emerges and eventually takes it there will certainly be rallying. The question is what wounds--and how deep--will remain.  There is also the question of "with whom:" Will the wounds be with the base (in which case the need to beat Obama may dominate them) or with the general electorate (in which case they may be more damaging) or, of course, with both.

There is also the issue of whether the wounds will be self-inflicted and forced (the candidate takes the damage due to sticking to their positions), unforced (the candidate takes the damage unnecessarily due to a gaffe or other real mistake) or inflicted (the damage comes from one of the other candidates).   This article holds that Romney is simply navigating his party's dysfunctional base in order to win the primary--then he can get back to a winning centrist view:

Or consider Romney’s now-notorious declaration that he was “severely conservative.” What a nitwit, everyone cried. He made it sound like a disease! Well, he did, and he didn’t. That Romney thinks of conservatism as a disease would never occur to most conservatives. But that Romney thinks of the new radical right that has alienated so much of the country as some sort of illness might well occur to moderates and independents, which would be to Romney’s advantage.

Maybe. But maybe not--Romney's favorability ratings have plummeted and that can't be good for him in the coming months. I also think that while the base will reconcile if the margins really are razor thin then Romney (or whoever) is going to need all he can get. In other words: this scrapping might not cost him much--but if it costs him any that's going to leave a mark.