Trump and the Birthers

There's a PPP poll out that's gotten some attention out in the wild world of cable news (and some wacky news sites).

First, overall, 44 percent of Republicans in this survey believe Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. That's higher than usual. Over half (54 percent) think Obama is Muslim. That's high too. I've written extensively, and conducted actual research, on both topics. But what's fascinated some folks is the analysis of Donald Trump supporters. I even heard this reported today on Morning Joe, thankfully with some skepticism. Here it is:

• Sixty-one percent of Trump supporters believe Obama was born outside the U.S.
• Sixty-six percent of Trump supporters believe Obama is Muslim.

Wow. But let's do the math. Set aside the Dems, who aren't that interesting. The survey was of 572 Republican likely primary voters. So if Trump has 29 percent, that means an N here of about 166 respondents. That's a really small number to base a result on. Indeed, if you did into the crosstabs at the bottom of the link I provided above, you'll see stuff reported for candidates with only a handful of supporters. For example, 100 percent of Jim Gilmore supporters believe Obama is Muslim. All six of them, if my math is right.

I also worry, a little, about question order effects. If the questions were asked as presented (and they may have been randomized, it's hard to tell), then the questions about Obama followed a series of questions asking if you're a member of the Tea Party or are an evangelical Christian. Could these prime a different response to the Obama birther/religion questions? Perhaps. Which may explain the somewhat inflated numbers above, but those numbers may also simply reflect a more conservative voter who participates in primaries, versus general elections.

Conspiracy Theories ... Still Out There

Politico ran a story today about conspiracy theories that's worth a read if you're into them (as I am). It also got me thinking, so I dipped into my own data for some quick analyses. Who believes in a particular conspiracy theory? Basically, those who want to believe in a particular conspiracy theory.

So let's look at four popular theories below, two that you might call getting oxygen from the right, two from the left. The wacky right has Obama born outside the U.S. (birther thing), and the so-called "death panels" of Obamacare. The wacky left has the notion the government knew in advance about 911, and the idea Hurricane Katrina's flood waters were purposely aimed at poor sections of New Orleans.

This is what I did (nerd warning). I constructed four quick-and-dirty regression models on each of the four conspiracies above. That means I tossed a kitchen sink full of things into a model to let them fight it out and see which ones remain statistically significant, which are posers and drop out. Let's look at the results:

• Obama born outside U.S. -- Believers tend to be older, less educated, of lower income, female, read less newspapers, but more politically conservative and Republican. Also, even after all these statistical controls, watching Fox News made you more likely to believe this.

• Death Panels -- Believers tended to be younger, less educated, of lower income, Republican and conservative. Also, less likely to read a newspaper but, yes, Fox News watchers. Even after all these controls.

• Government Knew of 911 -- Believers were younger, less educated, of lower income (seeing a trend here?), non-white, less likely to read newspapers, less likely to watch Fox News, more liberal and more likely Democrat.

• Government Directed Katrina at Poor -- Believers were younger, less educated, lower income (sigh, yes), were more likely women, black, liberal, used less Internet news but read newspapers more, and less likely to watch Fox News.

What gives fuel to a conspiracy theory? Looking at the results above, it's a combination of two factors. Consistently, theories from the wacky left and the wingnut right are believed by those of lower socio-economic status. The second factor is quite simple -- people believe what they want to believe. In this case, liberals tend to believe theories that made George W. Bush look bad, conservatives tend to believe theories that make Barack Obama look bad.

Fox News deserves special mention. Even after a host of statistical controls, some of which were not significant in the models after all this other stuff is considered, watching Fox News is consistently related toward believing the anti-Obama stuff and not believing the anti-Bush stuff. Other media factors come and go, but Fox News is a special case.

Do Memes Matter?

After every presidential debate -- hell, after nearly every major event -- we have memes going viral on the Internet.  Last night's debate is no exception, especially based on the "binders full of women" line from Mitt Romney.

Which begs the question -- do memes matter?

A meme, according to that source of all info (wikipedia), is "an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."  Here's a Politico story on the memes about women binders.  You've probably seen them on Facebook and Twitter already (the Bill Clinton one, damn funny).  I'm not going to repeat them here.  Instead, I go back to the question above.

Yes, memes are funny.  But do they matter?

As far as I can tell, in my cursory search, there are almost no studies on whether political memes influence opinion.  I'll try a more in-depth search later, but we're probably stuck relying on the larger base of research on the effects of political humor -- specifically on political satire.  The guidance there is slim because memes are so ephemeral, so easily laughed at and forgotten.  Yes, so are Stewart and Colbert, but to me the masters of political and news satire are more substantive, more long-lasting, and therefore the effects we know about humor (it persuades, some) are of little use when talking about memes.

Here's my theory.

If a meme reinforces widely held beliefs about a candidate, then it's likely to have some small effect.  The "binders full of women," that doesn't really fit Romney.  If Bill Clinton had said it in, say, 1996 -- oh hell yes, an effect.  No, for a meme to work about Romney, it'd probably need to be about money.  If he'd said something about binders full of cash, then the memes might have influenced some undecided voters, or pushed the mildly decided just a bit more to Obama.

If I come across a meme study or two, I'll post them here and discuss further.  Otherwise, just sit back and enjoy the memes.

This Election

Let's set aside who's ahead and who's behind in the U.S. presidential election and instead look at how interest in 2012 stacks up against previous years.

For example, "how much thought have you given to the coming presidential election" is a question asked last week and in previous early October election years (data source here).

              Quite   
Year        a Lot    

2012        73%    
2008        81%   
2004        74%
2000        60%

As you can see, while this year is a bit lower than the excitement of Barack Obama in 2008, it stacks up well in comparison with previous years.  I'd call this, at worst, an average year. 

Is this an enthusiasm gap?  Certainly compared to the Obama phenomenon of 2008, but overall 2012 compares pretty well with previous elections.  When asked if they plan to vote, respondents score as high this year as earlier.  Yes, people overestimate their turnout, but it's telling that the numbers are essentially identical to the last four presidential elections.

There is emotion out there.  Among Mitt Romney supporters, 31 percent feel strongly toward him.  That compares favorably to the 21 percent in early October 2008 who felt strongly toward John McCain.  Even Obama is not doing too badly.  Thirty-two percent feel strongly about him this year, down a bit from 36 percent who felt that way in 2008.  Want bad?  Kerry had only 24 percent back in 2004 who felt strongly for him.

The takeaway?  This is not a down year.  Indeed, it seems to compare well to previous years.  That bodes well for turnout, though it's hard to imagine it'll be as high in 2008.

Who "Wins" Wednesday's Debate?

The pundits and the public will, of course, reach some kind of consensus over whether Obama or Romney wins tomorrow night's prez debate.  But why wait?  The latest Quinnipiac poll has folks predicting an Obama debate victory -- by about a 2-to-1 margin.

Here's the lede:

An 18 point lead among women puts President Barack Obama ahead of Gov. Mitt Romney 49 - 45 percent among likely voters nationwide, and voters expect 54 - 28 percent that the president will win the debates, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. 

That pretty much says it all.

Except, of course, it's probably wrong.

Usually the challenger "wins" the first presidential debate with an incumbent (think John Kerry against George W. Bush not so very long ago).  Why?  Because the incumbent is on the same stage, looks presidential, and assuming no goof comes off ahead merely by not seeming as kooky as some people thought.

That's Romney's mission.  Not to look kooky or scary, to seem, well, as Ronald Reagan did so well in 1980 -- to seem reasonable.

Can people predict the winner?  Are they right?

No.

In part, the expectation comes from people choosing their preferred candidate to win.  It's called wishful thinking.  There's a long body of social science research to back it up.  But that doesn't explain the 2-to-1 margin, much greater than Obama's poll advantage.  No, I think this is a function too of Romney's faltering campaign, of stumbling from gaffe to gaffe (47 percent), from a smooth Democratic convention compared to Clint Eastwood mumbling at an empty chair.

So I suspect the public has it wrong.  Romney will "win" Wednesday night -- for what little that's actually worth -- but unless Obama makes a huge blunder it won't really matter in the numbers.  Yes, they'll tighten a bit in Romney's favor, but the math for him, in a state-by-state comparison, needs to significantly improve for him to win the electoral count.

Prez Debates and Political Learning

Let the pundits argue about this week's presidential debate and whether it persuades voters.  Let's ask a different question -- do people learn from such debates?

As always, there's the short answer and the long answer.

Short Answer:  It depends.
Long Answer:  It depends, with a whole bunch of caveats and academic nuances and all the stuff that gets in the way of a simple answer (unless, of course, you do talk radio or cable news, where everything is simplified to the point of meaninglessness).

Stay with me here.  It's worth it.  

One study, for example, examined five presidential election years (1976 to 2000) using ANES data, which the authors admit "is not optimal for conducting this sort of research."  But this is key: they found learning about incumbents to be minimal, but learning about challengers to be more significant.  That fits this upcoming debate between Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney. 

The former Massachusetts governor, as pundits have noted for several weeks, has so much to gain from being on the same stage as an incumbent president.  This study suggests people will also learn more about Romney.  What they learn, that's of course of import, but the research suggests Romney gains a great deal from Wednesday night's debate.

Tomorrow (or maybe later today), what else research tells us about this week's debate.

Fox News is Just So ... Special

I'm working on a follow-up study to my earlier one on who thinks Barack Obama is Muslim.  I won't bore you with the details, but as part of the analysis I'm looking at a host of ways people get the news, down to specific sources.

So far, out of 18 ways to get news and information, only one stands out as resulting in a greater likelihood people think Obama is Muslim.

Yup, you guessed it.  Watching Fox News.

Watching Fox, in this early look at the numbers, makes you nearly twice as likely to say he's a Muslim.
 
And here's the wow factor.  Even if I statistically control for stuff like a respondent's racism score, education, race, living in the South, and political interest (just a few I tossed in quickly) -- watching Fox News still makes you more likely to perceive Obama is Muslim.

It's the only one that does this.

A bunch of them have no relationship at all with perceptions of Obama being Muslim (the major broadcast networks, listening to Rush Limbaugh (surprise!), getting news via social media like Twitter or Facebook.  A few reduce the likelihood of thinking Obama is Muslim (watching Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, CNN, MSNBC, or reading The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times).

This is a first blush of data that'll require deeper analysis, but I was so surprised -- okay not really surprised -- by only one network showing up, figured I had to share.

Who Wins in November?

It's a standard survey question:  who ya gonna vote for?

Less standard:  who ya think is gonna win?

A new WPost/ABC News poll has both questions.  The one getting attention is the tie, at 47 percent apiece, on who people say they're going to vote for in the presidential election.  In fact most people are settled on their candidate (4 percent of Obama supporters say there's a chance they'll change their mind, 8 percent of Romney supporters say so).  Obama's also ahead in the "enthusiasm" scores.

Less attention is going to the question asking people to predict the outcome.  Six-in-10 say Obama wins come November, and only a third predict a Romney victory.  In the scholarly biz, we talk about wishful thinking, which means we tend to predict our preferred candidate will win.  Yes, I've written about this topic on my own blog, in at least one newspaper column, and in my own academic research. 

It's fascinating that the two candidates are in a tie but there's a significant difference in predictions of who will actually win, leaning heavily toward Obama.  Lemme break this question down a bit more for you.

• Party ID:  87 percent of Dems predict an Obama victory, while only 60 percent of GOPers predict a Romney victory.  For you budding scholars out there, this supports the wishful thinking hypothesis.  It also demonstrates the softness of Romney's support among Republicans.  Oh, among "independents," 51 percent predict an Obama win and 38 percent predict a Romney victory.

• Ideology:  Looks like party identification above, with 52 percent of conservatives expecting Romney to win and 86 percent of liberals predicting an Obama victory.

• Education:  By a small amount, the greater the education, the more likely you are to predict an Obama victory (56 percent predicting Obama at the lowest level of education, 62 percent at the highest level).

• Region:  Respondents in the Northeast were the most likely to predict an Obama victory (68 percent), while in the South 54 percent predicted an Obama win.  It's interesting that even in solid GOP South, over half expect Obama to win.

• Income:  No real effect here, ranging from 58 to 62 percent predicting an Obama victory.  I find this fascinating in that it suggests the 1 percent and the 99 percent are about the same, at least in predicting an election outcome.

• Sex:  No real difference between men and women.

• Religion:  This gets a bit messy.  Among those with no religious convictions, 77 percent expect Obama to win.  White evangelical protestants are the least likely to say Obama wins (31 percent).  No real surprise if you read this in terms of the results above on party ID.

• Previous Voting:  Not surprisingly, 86 percent of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 expect him to do it again in 2012.  Among those who say they voted for McCain last time around, 66 percent expect Romney to win.

What's this tell us?   First, it says I need to find another way to spend my summer afternoon.  Second, it tells us that Romney's support is indeed soft, or softer than he'd like.  Third, it tells us that people really do expect outcomes based on preferences.  There's a danger here, or at least theoretically a danger, when you expect one kind of outcome and you get another.  That could possibly lead to less trust in democracy and voting, at least it's a plausible argument, but I've tinkered with this question and have never found this to actually be the case, even in the tortured 2000 U.S. prez election. 

Taxing the Rich?

No surprise:  Obama supporters want higher taxes on the rich.

Big surprise: Even a sizable majority of Mitt Romney supporters like the idea.

To do the math, 93 percent of Obama supporters support raising taxes on the rich, while 66 percent of Romney supporters think that's also a pretty good idea, at least based on this survey.  We have a consensus!  Except that this is about the only issue in which Obama and Romney supporters agree, according to the press release, at least when it comes to tax policy.  No doubt the results of this national survey will find their way into the Obama campaign's talking points.

The Right Smile Wins?

When it comes to political research, there's no factor we won't explore in hopes of finding a clue as to who wins and who loses.  Party ID and policy stances, you bet.

But also how that smile.

A column from mid-November that I just found thanks to this report points to research suggesting how well a presidential candidate smiles can be the difference between being a winner and being a loser.

From the column:

According to research by Professor Albert Mehrabian of UCLA, how much we like a communicator depends on the “congruence” of three factors—words, tone of voice and non-verbal behavior. Fifty-five percent of what influences our judgment about that “fit” is non-verbal: the speaker’s eyes, face and an “attitude” that comes across in the body language.

I admit I'm largely unaware of this specific body of research, but it makes sense.  In the column, Jon Kraushar breaks down the last several presidential elections and the "smile factor" of each.  Read 'em yourself.  Fascinating stuff.  But, and this is a huge methodological but, I wonder whether the "smiles" and "grins" and "twinkle of the eye" are being fit to the data.  In other words, we know how those past elections came out, so it's easy to fit our perceptions of those facial expressions to the results. What's this tell us about 2012?  Nothing really.  Kraushar notes:

The secret of a winning presidential smile isn’t just in the mouth. Presidents also smile with their eyes, showing inner warmth or an amused twinkle, for example. Voters can detect the difference between the verbal and non-verbal communication of a Happy Warrior versus an Unhappy Worrier.

When I picture Obama vs. Romney, I see a tie and maybe, just maybe, an edge to Romney.  Obama vs. Gingrich?  Obama twinkles more, has better body language, plus Gingrich scares small children when he smiles.  But I admit this is merely my rather flawed and personal perception.

But any of us can play this game.  So have fun comparing twinkles and body language.  It may just matter.

Thank God for Rick Perry

Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Rick Perry has come through for me -- raising subtle doubts about Barack Obama's birth certificate.  I here I was, afraid the birthers were gone. 

Why do I care?  First, it's just so much fun, this whole birther thing.  Second, I've done research on the birthers that is now sitting at an academic journal awaiting reviews.  Any publicity about birthers, from a strictly personal point of view, is good publicity.  Makes my research all the more relevant.

In other words, it's all about me me me.

Now if Donald Trump would only re-enter the race.  Or Donald Duck.  And that I'm-not-a-witch chick, too. 

Dogs and Cats, Living Together. Mass Hysteria.

See my column in today's Athens Banner-Herald.

Obama Bump II

I wrote a day or so ago about the Obama poll bump after the Osama bin Laden takedown.  That one was based on a new Pew poll and my big point was the lack of a GOP bump for Obama (it all seemed to come from Dems and Independents).  Well, today the NYTimes/CBS poll shows a bump across the political board.

Or, as the Times puts it:

The glow of national pride seemed to rise above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent last month. 

Among GOPers in the Pew poll, 16 percent "approved" of Obama both before and after the death of bin Laden.  The NYTimes poll has it differently:

The increase in Mr. Obama’s ratings came largely from Republicans and independents. Among independents, his approval rating increased 11 points from last month, to 52 percent, while among Republicans it rose 15 points, to 24 percent. 

It may be that the NYT/CBS poll is a bit later, so people have absorbed the death of bin Laden and thus we're seeing more of an "approval" effect.  It's a reasonable hypothesis.

We Can't Not Watch

It's easy to say, as in this survey, that the news media focused too much last week on the royal wedding and Obama's birth certificate fiasco.  Yep, easy to say.

But watch we did.

In the Pew survey, nearly two-thirds say there was too much royal wedding coverage.  In part this can be explained by the fact there indeed was goo much royal wedding coverage.  It can also be explained by the fact our own weddings got no such coverage.  And finally, it can be explained by the eerie similarities between the royal wedding and that seen on The Princess Bride.

And over half of those surveyed said the Obama birth certificate nonsense got too many pixels, too much time, and too much ink.  But again, could you not watch?

The news is like this.  We grow frustrated by too much coverage while being unable to stop watching or reading all the coverage.

Let's be fair, though.  The royal wedding was third in total news coverage, following the storms that raked the South and oil/gas prices.  Then came the problems in the Middle East.  Then Obama and the Birthers (good name for a pop band).  In other words, the complaints are more a matter of perception than reality.  Perception, though, always matters more. 

An Obama Bump

President Obama got a public opinion bump -- hardly surprising -- after the killing of Osama bin Laden, according to a new Pew poll.  His "approval" numbers went from 47 percent in April to 56 percent on May 2.  Republicans were unchanged.  The "approval" jump came from Dems and, to a greater extent, self-described Independents.  In other words, no matter what Obama does, the GOPers aren't really going to change their mind.

"Disapprovals" did inch down from Republicans (81 to 79 percent), but that's well within the margin of error.

All age groups moved up in "approval" of Obama.  He got his biggest bump from non-whites, at least compared to the bump from whites.

In terms of what people know, or where they heard what they know, it's interesting to note that young people heard about the bin Laden news from social media significantly more than other age groups.  Not surprising, mind you, but interesting.

Where Was Trump Born?

Seven percent of Americans think Donald Trump was born outside the U.S. and 30 percent are unsure where he was born, according a poll cited here.

Which goes to show you, when you ask these kinds of questions, build in a huge margin of error when thinking about the results.  Makes those Obama birth questions seem kinda silly now, eh?

Has the Birther Movement Peaked?

Despite a New York Times poll that finds a quarter of adults, and nearly half of all Republicans, believe President Barack Obama was born somewhere other than the U.S., I think we're seeing signs that the candles on the birther movement cake may be burning out.  Yes, state legislators keep trying to keep the candles lit through various laws, but even Tea Party favorite U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann admitted, upon being shown Obama's certificate of live birth, that the issue appears to be "settled." 

Donald Trump may not have gotten the inter-party memo, but I sense those at the top of the GOP, who are not above feeding the crazies (Dems too, in their own special way), are starting to edge away from the Cliffs of Despair.

In other words, I argue that the movement has peaked.

You'd hope so, with 45 percent of GOPers believing Obama was born somewhere other than where all official and semi-official evidence points -- Hawaii.  Trump may have hijacked the issue for a while, but most folks assume this will play out when he ducks out of actually running for office.

A year ago, 20 percent of adults thought Obama was born elsewhere.  Earlier this month it was at 24 percent.  Now it's 25 percent.  Not coincidentally, confidence in the U.S. has reached a two-year low.  When things are bad, we latch on to easy answers.  For many, it's easy to suspect the worst of someone, even a president, we may not particularly like at the moment.  Policy reasons are hard, so we use something simpler and easier -- a heuristic, as social scientists would say -- and good ones are that Obama is secretly Muslim.  Or born elsewhere.  Or the Anti-Christ.  Or whatever.

As the theory of motivated reasoning suggests, we often believe what we want to believe.  Or as the article I linked to in the previous sentence says: "our quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about."

And it's easier.  Faster.  And in many ways, satisfying because we have a bad guy to blame.

But let's face it.  The only reason the movement has been trending up is Trump and a handful of others playing this tune, over and over, to the joy and chagrin of journalists.  It's a fun story.  But it's the wrong story.

The Donald's Birthing Exercise

Yesterday I wrote, like so many others, about Donald Trump's birthing exercise.  You know the one, whether Barack Obama was born in the U.S. (yes, he was, if you consider Hawaii in the U.S.).  You can go to the previous post for details.  But I noticed today a new poll is out on the issue, the one finding a higher percentage of those who doubt Obama's U.S. citizenship.  First, a caveat -- it's a Fox News poll -- but let's assume the best.  According to the poll, 24 percent of Americans say Obama was not born in the U.S.

That's one-in-four of American adults doubting Obama's citizenship and, by extension, the constitutionality of his presidency. About two-thirds say Obama is a citizen.  Ten percent are unsure.

It goes without saying, though I'll say it, that Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or Independents to believe Obama was born elsewhere (37 percent).  They're also a lot more likely to be unsure (16 percent).  In other words, if you add the "elsewhere" and "unsure" groups together, you get well over half of Republicans (53 percent) doubting Obama was born in the U.S.  That qualifies as a wow as we gear up for the 2012 election cycle.

Clearly the significant difference seen between Republicans and either Democrats or Independents can be explained through motivational reasoning.  Simply put, we tend to believe what we want to believe -- and we will discount that which doesn't fit our predispositions.  Partisanship, it seems, wins out over accuracy.  A lot of this is subconscious and I used the theory in some published research to explain why people believe Obama is Muslim despite all evidence to the contrary.  And here's the twist ... corrections by the media of some mistake actually push the most partisan to even more strongly cling to inaccurate beliefs.  In other words, with some folks, you just can't win.

So often, instead of what people know, we should ask: what people prefer to know.

Obama, Birthers, and Donald Trump

The political chattering class is abuzz about Donald Trump's surprising strength among those seeking, or who may seek, the Republican presidential nomination.  Now I find Trump as entertaining as the next guy, and his surprise 17 percent showing, good enough for a tie at second place for the GOP nomination pool, is almost as much fun as him apparently sending investigators to Hawaii to see if Barack Obama was really born there.

Birthers, those who doubt Obama was born in the U.S., are equally entertaining.  But don't underestimate their numbers.  One recent poll found as many as 20 percent believe he was born somewhere other than the U.S., and 31 percent of Republicans think so.  In other words, one-in-five Americans are a bit kooky on this topic, and nearly one-third of Republicans are.  The Donald is on to something.  Not necessarily the truth, mind you, but a shameless play to his audience, those likely to participate in a Republican nomination.  I really see Trump surprising some folks.

By the way, the whole where was Obama born thing was settled long ago by that terrific web site devoted to debunking urban myths -- snopes.  Trump could have saved money by just clicking on the web site rather than "sending" investigators to Hawii to interview, I dunno, no one.  But he's got money to spare.  If he'd like to send me to Hawii to investigate then I'm willing to go on his dime too.

Yo Donald.  Call me.

From a theoretical perspective -- yeah, you knew I'd go there -- belief in the birther movement is reminiscent of those who believe Obama is Muslim. Basically these are people who want to believe the worst in a guy they politically disagree with.  No amount of correcting information will change this (I've blogged on this before, just search for it or motivated reasoning on my blog).  Even corrections will move the partisans further to the edge of sanity (far left, far right, you pick it).

Still, Donald.  Call me.

Obama and Web 2.0

That Barack Obama made remarkable use of social media and the Internet in the 2008 presidential election is hardly news, but this brand new study in the Journal of Political Marketing examines the effort in detail to find "the Obama '08 campaign created a nationwide virtual organization that motivated 3.1 million individual contributors and mobilized a grassroots movement of more than 5 million volunteers."

I'd discuss it more, but unfortunately it's one of those gotta pay for it sites, so all we have to work on is the abstract.


I mention this study for two reasons.  First, it's new and as we all know, new is news.  Second, Obama is kicking off his 2012 campaign and given the amount of money he hopes to raise, it'll be interesting to see if his campaign can harvest social media in the same way, with the same success, as in 2008.  Given the economy, his modest approval rating (49 percent), partisan sniping, and the dissatisfaction with his presidency found on his ideological right and left, I can't see the same success happening.


But get ready, budding masscomm scholars, because it'll be a neat comparison study of 2008 and 2012 -- what worked, and what didn't, and why.


My apologies for the weird formatting.  Using a Mac and it doesn't seem to get along well with Blogger.