Hullabaloo

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

 
Remember when Rove sent Bush to California in the last week of the 2000 campaign?

by digby

With the "news" that Romney's now going to contest Pennsylvania, I think it's a good day to reprise this moldy oldie of mine from 2007:

Karl Rove really only had one "insight" (if you can call it that): some people will vote for you if they perceive you are a winner --- the bandwagon effect. He won elections through the clever manipulation of the media with lots of talk about "the math" and inevitability and his own mystique. When he was riding the 90's zeitgeist in red Texas, it worked. When he had to run nationally, not so much, but he still tried even in the face of his ignominious defeat in 2006.

I was referring there to Rove's very foolish decision to send Bush to California in the last days of the 2000 campaign in order to fake out the Gore campaign. By doing so, he neglected Florida. And we all know what happened. The Supremes saved his bacon --- and if Jebbie hadn't been able to manipulate the voting processes, we would probably have never heard from Karl Rove again.

But that didn't happen, did it?

Rove long ago convinced Bush that he can continue in Iraq as long as the American people think we are "winning." It tracks with his own belief in the bandwagon effect and it's backed up by some academics who have advised the White House that "staying the course" is possible as long as they handle the PR effectively.

In shaping their message, White House officials have drawn on the work of Duke University political scientists Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi, who have examined public opinion on Iraq and previous conflicts. Feaver, who served on the staff of the National Security Council in the early years of the Clinton administration, joined the Bush NSC staff about a month ago as special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform.

Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?" In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning. They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.

"The most important single factor in determining public support for a war is the perception that the mission will succeed," Gelpi said in an interview yesterday.

They think the same thing applies to political campaigns.

Just saying --- the media are once again behaving like the willing dupes they are, running around chasing every shiny object the Republicans throw up. If the bandwagon effect works this time, great. And if it doesn't they always have a back-up. After all, they won the last close one by setting up an expectation that wasn't realized and then claiming it proved the election was being stolen out from under them. (Rove had a long history there, as well.) Why not try it again?


.


digby 10/23/2012 10:30:00 AM