How Will the Obamacare Ruling Affect the Election?

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the matter of Obamacare's constitutionality today, upholding essentially the entire law (part of the law was limited, but not in a way that matters for our purposes). The main focus of the debate was the individual mandate, a requirement that all Americans either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Court upheld the mandate on the basis that the penalty is really a tax, and the federal government has the power to impose such taxes. Legal issues had arisen in part because the law was designed to give the impression that it was not a tax; one of Barack Obama's most important campaign promises was that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.

The Supreme Court's announcement came as a surprise to many political observers; most believed that if the individual mandate were upheld, it would be upheld as a valid use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. By specifically characterizing the individual mandate as a tax, the political implications become more murky.

If Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional, it would have been a bad result for Obama. It would have made Obama look foolish for spending so much time on something that was overturned, and it would have made him appear to have overreached. It would have also assisted Mitt Romney in claiming an important distinction between Obamacare and Romneycare; the individual mandate in Romneycare was never threatened, because it is a state law.

The ruling is not all good news for Obama, however. By keeping Obamacare in place, the Court has allowed Romney to keep his longstanding campaign promise to "repeal Obamacare on day one" alive. By characterizing the law as a tax, the Court seems to deliberately twist the knife: The Court implies that Obama raised taxes, broke his promise, and tried to disguise it by not calling it a tax.

That sounds like an unhelpful result for Obama. But the waters are muddied by Romneycare. If the main complaint about Obamacare is that it is a tax increase in sheep's clothing, Romney may be pulled into a bit of hypocrisy that can be counterattacked. While governor of Massachusetts, Romney defended Romneycare by saying the individual mandate was not a tax increase. Therefore, if Romney criticizes Obama for raising taxes, Obama can counter that Romney previously agreed that it wasn't a tax increase. The net result would be a victory for Obama.

Romney can avoid this pitfall, of course, by declining to make that specific attack. But other Republicans, and Romney-supporting SuperPACs, certainly will make the attack. Thus Obama can raise the issue himself--perhaps during a debate--challenging Romney to deny that his allies are wrong. This places Romney in an uncomfortable position.

During the Republican primary, Romney was able to defend himself by listing a number of distinctions between Romneycare and Obamacare. He did so skillfully in the debates, and it took his rivals several months to think of ways to properly attack Romneycare. Romney could have used similar methods if the issue came up during the general election. But with the Supreme Court's emphasis on the idea that the individual mandate is a tax, the debate may narrow its focus in a way that does not benefit Romney--by making the debate about whether Obamacare raised taxes.

Mitt Romney's Pitfalls

Romney

Over the last month, we have written numerous posts about potential victory scenarios for the candidates, as well as strategies that Barack Obama might employ to defeat Mitt Romney. As the challenger, Romney's position in the race is different from Obama's in a fundamental way. For better or worse, Obama is tied to his performance as president over the last four years. This leaves Obama fewer options as he plans his campaign strategy. Romney, on the other hand, has a greater degree of choice. That flexibility is both a blessing and a curse. Obama's decisions over the next few months will do little to help or hurt himself. By contrast, Romney can hurt himself by making "unforced errors" while exercising his freedom. Avoiding pitfalls needs to be a high priority for the Romney campaign.

Pitfall #1: Bush's Third Term. One of the worst things a candidate can do is to make his opponent's job easier. Elephant Watcher determined that Obama's chances of victory are highest if he is able to convince voters that Romney would merely return the country to the economic policies of George W. Bush. Therefore, Romney must convincingly present his campaign as a new direction. This means when Romney is challenged to provide specific examples of ways he would be different from Bush, he needs a ready answer. Elephant Watcher believes that eventually the Obama campaign will come to realize its optimal strategy, and that Obama is likely to make such a challenge directly to Romney during one of their debates. Romney would do well to spend time practicing a strong answer.

Pitfall #2: Saber-Rattling. Voters view Obama as weak on the economy, but strong on foreign policy. They are also unwilling to engage in another war. During the Republican primary, Romney was occasionally tempted into burnishing his conservative credentials with hawkish language, particularly on the subject of Iran's nuclear program. Obama would be delighted to see Romney give the impression that a Romney presidency means war. Romney ought to avoid allowing the campaign to drift into a focus on foreign policy.

Pitfall #3: Social Issues. As always, voters are split on various social issues, even within the major political parties. Consequently, it's not possible to expect a clear-cut victory when wading into social issues. If the campaign drifts into a focus on social issues, it will become a quagmire. Romney would do well to maintain message discipline: His best chance of winning is keeping his focus on the economy.

Pitfall #4: Lack of Specifics. One of the difficulties in being an advocate of reduced government is being picking and choosing what should be cut from the budget. The process of cutting the budget involves deal-making by Congress. When a candidate proposes cuts to something popular, it's a lose-lose situation: As a candidate, he's not making the deal--and it's hypothetical since he hasn't been elected yet--so he gets the disadvantages of proposing the cuts without getting the advantages of actually fixing the budget. That may imply a candidate should be vague, but not entirely. A candidate should offer specific proposals to cut useless, unpopular programs or give specific examples of waste. Likewise, Romney should offer specific ways that he will create jobs, as he did when he announced his support of the Keystone Pipeline.

Usually these specific examples will be too small to have a major impact on the budget or economy. But this doesn't actually matter. Voters form general impressions of the candidates, even--perhaps especially--from small, specific, concrete examples. The left-leaning media would respond by pointing out the limited impact of the examples. But Romney could reply that the examples are used to illustrate the principles by which he will make decisions. Most voters would understand (if it's explained) that a candidate cannot secure a deal before he has the chance to actually work with Congress on implementing it. Thus, after the exchange with the media, voters would only be left with the general impression that Romney is in favor of some things they like, and would cut some things in a reasonable fashion.

Class Warfare: The Other Strategy

Earlier this month, we examined the economy's effect on the presidential race and were able to draw some conclusions about proper candidate strategy. Barack Obama's optimal strategy is to convince voters that Mitt Romney would be nothing more than a repeat of George W. Bush, whom voters give a lot of the blame for the economic crisis of 2008-09. Because voters are also dissatisfied with Obama's handling of the economy, they are hopeful for something new. Therefore, the best way to defeat Romney would be to persuade voters that Romney would not actually offer anything new (i.e. he would be "Bush's Third Term").

Although the Obama campaign has occasionally sampled this line of attack, they have not yet committed to it. Instead, they have tended to gravitate toward an alternative strategy, painting Romney as a participant in class warfare who will seek to help the rich at the expense of the poor. It's obvious why this strategy is attractive to the Obama campaign: It exploits some of Mitt Romney's weaknesses (being rich, out of touch, etc.), and is a traditional attack made by Democrats.

The class warfare strategy was highlighted by the Obama campaign's unsuccessful attacks against Bain Capital earlier this season. Romney was able to defend his tenure at Bain by pointing to the company's success in saving business and creating jobs. Attacks on Bain aren't the only angle that would appear in the class warfare strategy, however. The strategy would largely depend on creating the general impression that Romney "isn't one of us," and that he only wants to serve the interests of "the wealthiest one percent."

The attacks on Bain also fizzled during the Republican primary. One area where a similar concept did hurt Romney during the primary was his serious gaffe suggesting he wasn't concerned about the poor. When he made the gaffe, Romney was attempting to explain why he was primarily concerned with helping the middle class: The rich are rich, and the poor already have safety net programs designed for them. But the implication Romney didn't care about the poor touched a nerve. It's likely that the gaffe helped weaken Romney in early February, when Rick Santorum won some (temporary) victories against him.

Elephant Watcher's analysis concluded that the class warfare strategy is useful in doing additional damage to Romney, but that the "Bush's Third Term" line would be a better central theme. Why? Though Romney is intrinsically vulnerable to the class warfare strategy, the timing isn't as good as it normally would be. Because Obama is the incumbent in a bad economy, it is Romney who will seek to empathize with those who are suffering. Romney will tend to play up the economic difficulties, and Obama will downplay them. As the challenger, Romney also has the ability to choose what economic policies he will propose. If the middle class believes they would benefit from those policies, it will become even more difficult to see Romney as their enemy. And Romney can also point to the ways in which Bain's investment in companies benefited ordinary workers by creating jobs.

Unless Obama's campaign simply does a better job than Romney's, the result will be ambiguous or even favorable to Romney. Voters want to believe things can get better, and they think it's only possible by going in a new direction--they are unconvinced that a continuation of Obama's policies would lead to improvement in the economy. That's why an ambiguous result to the attacks would be more beneficial to Romney. As long as Romney represents something new (and not obviously dangerous), voters will lean toward him. In other words, Romney wins a draw. Voters don't want to be told they are stuck with the status quo, so they will err on the side of optimism.

Therefore, it makes more sense to undermine the idea that Romney represents anything new at all. If Romney is a return to something that voters already dismissed (i.e. Bush's policies), then the optimistic option is cut off from the beginning. That must be the main goal of the Obama campaign, because if "new" is on the table, voters will probably go with it.

When Does the General Election Really Begin?

For several weeks now, Mitt Romney has held enough delegates to ensure that he will be the Republican Party's presidential nominee. The Democratic Party, of course, has had its own nominee's name set in stone for much longer. There's no doubt that the 2012 race has shifted from the primary season to the general election season. So why does it seem like nothing is happening?

A year ago, the Republican primary season was experiencing its own lazy summer phase. For the past few elections, candidates have made efforts to extend the calendar, seeking an edge on their rivals. Like participants in an arms race, they attempted to raise and spend more money earlier and earlier in advance of voting day. This was particularly true in the parties' primaries. Twenty-four hour cable news networks with lots of time to fill also had a stake in extending the campaign seasons, and they scheduled as many televised debates as the candidates would allow. But the truth is that only the voters themselves decide how long the campaigns really last, because campaigns don't truly begin until the voters are paying attention. If voters aren't watching, then spending money on TV ads and campaign events is a waste.

The rule of thumb is that in a general election, voters begin paying attention in early September, about two months prior to election day. Interest ramps up in October, when the debates take place. By the end of October, the whole world is watching the election.

There's only one thing that forces the voters to pay attention earlier: The party conventions. At the conventions, the parties' nominees give their first big speeches of the campaign. The non-incumbent candidates can make additional headlines when they choose their vice presidential nominees. This is usually done shortly before the party convention.

But the political parties both recognize that although the conventions could be used to grab voters' attention earlier in the season, it's best to schedule them as late as possible. By holding the conventions later, they maximize the number of people inclined to pay attention. Candidates usually get a bounce in the polls from their conventions, and there's a perception that "he who bounces last bounces best." In 2008, the Republican Party held its convention beginning September 1st, the latest a convention had ever been scheduled.

The backloading of the party conventions shortens the active campaign season. In 2012, it's the Democrats' turn to hold their convention last, beginning on September 3rd. The Republican convention won't be held much earlier--it's scheduled for the week of August 27th. That sets the stage for a long summer during which voters will likely remain asleep, so not much can happen.

Romney has the option of selecting his VP well in advance of the convention. In 2004, for instance, John Kerry announced John Edwards as his VP nearly three weeks before the convention. By contrast, Sarah Palin was announced only a few days before John McCain's convention in 2008. There's a perception that choosing the VP earlier could be beneficial, because the VP can hold campaign events, make media appearances, and raise money. If the VP is truly beneficial to the ticket, it's never to early to begin helping. On the other hand, the earlier the VP is chosen, the less time the candidate has to make the choice--and vet the potential VP.

Most likely, Romney will not announce his VP choice until the beginning of August. He could wait, as McCain and others have done, until just prior to the convention. But given how early the Romney campaign began the selection process, it seems they will probably make the announcement on a schedule similar to the one used by Kerry in 2004. That would suggest an announcement around August 6th, three weeks prior to the convention.

Could they do it even earlier? Yes, if they are comfortable with their VP choice. If the rumors about Tim Pawlenty being chosen for vice president are true, he will have been fully vetted and ready to launch in July. But vetting isn't the only consideration: Romney's campaign will also need to consider how the Republican Party will react to the choice. If news of the possibility of Pawlenty on the ticket was met with an underwhelming response, Romney's campaign is second-guessing itself and exploring alternatives. In that case, an early August announcement remains likely.

What Will the 2012 Election Mean?

As the 2012 presidential election campaign continues its slow summer phase, it's worth stopping for a moment to consider its broader historical context. If Barack Obama wins reelection, or if Mitt Romney successfully captures the White House, what will it say about the state of affairs between the two political parties? What implications will the voters' decision in 2012 have for the future of politics?

Although it may be an unsatisfying one, the correct answer is probably that the election will say little about the future of the Republican and Democratic parties. However, it's likely that either party, having won the presidency in 2012, will draw inordinately sweeping conclusions from it. In examining whether Obama or Romney is more likely to win in 2012, we saw how Democrats historically have a strong tendency to overestimate their candidates' chances of winning. But the temptation to find long-term trends in a few recent data points--usually selectively chosen--applies to both parties.

After George W. Bush won reelection in 2004, the Republican Party was very optimistic about its future. It had scored three victories in a row, prevailing in 2000, the 2002 midterms, and 2004. Republicans had won most of the recent presidential elections: 5 of the last 7 (from 1980-2004) or 7 of the last 10 (1968-2004). Some Republican commentators penned editorials giving Democrats thoughtful advice on how the Democratic Party might fix itself, for the sake of the two-party system.

Only four years later, after Barack Obama won in 2008, the Democrats had a similar attitude. Without either party being aware of the irony, some Democrats wrote similar editorials warning that the Republican Party was in danger of becoming a regional party or entering the political wilderness for an extended period. The most optimistic Democrats opined that demographic changes (i.e. an increased Hispanic population) would lead to an inevitable, permanent Democratic majority. As before, the victorious party was chastened by a crushing mid-term defeat two years later.

Regardless of who wins in 2012, the triumphant party will find ample data to support their optimistic projections. First, let's consider what the "data" will show if Romney wins. The Republican Party will have won 8 out of the last 12 presidential elections. The record will be even worse for liberal Democrats during the same period; with Bill Clinton classified as a moderate, liberals will have won only 2 out of the last 12 elections--both being repudiated after a single term.

If Obama wins reelection, Democrats will be able to paint the past in equally rosy terms: They will have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections. It will also have been nearly a quarter-century since a Republican presidential candidate last won by 5 points or more (1988). Meanwhile, political scientists will also begin touting the advantages of incumbency, since 4 of the last 5 presidents will have been two-termers.

The reason why observers should be skeptical in both cases is that the conclusions--"Republicans always win" or "Democrats always win"--will hinge on one data point: The winner of the 2012 election. Clearly, if one party can claim supremacy, it shouldn't be possible for the other party to claim supremacy by winning one election.

Will Tim Pawlenty Be Romney's VP?

Pawlenty

Though it may be several weeks before Mitt Romney officially announces his selection for vice president, rumors abound that Tim Pawlenty will be chosen. The increased buzz about Pawlenty has been driven by a new report from ABC News that the Romney campaign is not putting Marco Rubio through the vetting process. According to the report, Rubio has not been asked to complete questionnaires or provide basic information to the Romney campaign. If Romney's campaign were even considering Rubio, these would be the first steps they would take; since they aren't taking these steps, the conclusion being drawn is that Rubio is not in the running for VP.

The Intrade market on the VP choice has reacted swiftly to the news. Only a few days ago, we reviewed the latest Intrade odds for president and VP: Rob Portman was at 23% for VP, with Rubio at 19%, and Pawlenty at 8.2%. Now, Portman is trading at 24% (little change), but Pawlenty has skyrocketed to 19.9% and Rubio has crashed to 6.8%.

But why is it Pawlenty in particular who would benefit from a Rubio crash? During our review of the Intrade markets last week, Elephant Watcher detected some slight upward movement in the Pawlenty for VP Intrade market and offered an explanation: Pawlenty may be viewed as an even "safer" version of Portman, given that Pawlenty doesn't have ties to the George W. Bush administration.

This month, we thoroughly examined the reasoning behind the "do no harm" theory for VP, the same theory that had brought Portman to the top of the Intrade market. Pawlenty is the epitome of the "do no harm" candidate, as he has no offensive qualities and (presumably) no skeletons in the closet. During the 2012 Republican primary, he had the opportunity to become the consensus candidate, exciting no one but alienating no one, either. But Pawlenty ran a terrible campaign, and he senselessly dropped out of the race early.

The basic problem with the "do no harm" theory is that choosing a VP is a trade-off. If Candidate A helps the ticket, Candidate B hurts the ticket, and Candidate C does neither, both Candidates B and C do harm, because they represent a missed opportunity to help the ticket by choosing Candidate A. Thus, choosing Pawlenty would harm Romney's ticket even if Pawlenty doesn't offend anyone, if Romney loses the opportunity to help the ticket by choosing someone better able to attract votes.

Another way to judge the impact of a Pawlenty VP selection is to consider the reaction of Democrats. If Pawlenty were chosen, how would Democrats feel when they heard the news? Most likely, they would be delighted. Democrats do not fear Pawlenty because they know he will not energize Republicans or broaden the appeal of Romney's ticket.

Is there anything positive about a Pawlenty vice presidential nomination? To the extent that the "do no harm" path should be followed, he fills the role well. It's unlikely that anyone will have real misgivings about Pawlenty or question whether he is qualified for the job. Pawlenty's selection would not help Barack Obama attack Romney as "Bush's Third Term." Pawlenty is not a conservative firebrand, but he will not be seen as a RINO except to the most extreme elements of the right. Nor is Pawlenty too old.

Even so, the selection of Pawlenty would leave many conservatives cold. Pawlenty may not be a RINO, but he will not inspire anyone. Conservatives' lack of enthusiasm for Romney is a problem, one that the VP slot is needed to fix. Pawlenty would not fix the problem. A cautious approach is not always the safest one.

2012 Presidential Debate Preview, Part II

In Part I of the preview for the presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, we took a look at the history of presidential debates. The debates tend to have a major impact on the race, and very often end up being decisive. Rarely does a candidate win the election after losing the debates. And so far, no challenger has defeated an incumbent president without first winning the debates. What else can history tell us about how the 2012 presidential debates may play out?

In Part I, we listed each of the elections in which televised presidential debates took place, and noted some patterns that emerged over the decades. Upon looking at the list of winners and losers, another pattern reveals itself, one which may have implications for 2012: Incumbent presidents tend to debate poorly.

There have been 6 different elections in which incumbent presidents participated in debates. In only one case--Bill Clinton in 1996--did an incumbent president manage to win the debates. Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter (1976), Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan (1980), Ronald Reagan lost to Walter Mondale (1984), George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton (1992), and George W. Bush lost to John Kerry (2004).

Is this pattern significant, or is it just a coincidence? There's good reason to take the pattern seriously: Often, the incumbents who lost the debates were not poor debaters. In fact, most of the time, the incumbent had won the presidency after defeating someone else in the debates:

Carter lost his debate with Reagan, but Carter had been skilled enough to beat Ford in their debates four years earlier. Having won the presidency in large part due to his debate performance, Reagan nonetheless went on to lose his debates with Mondale. Bush Sr. didn't necessarily lose his debates in 1988 (arguably Michael Dukakis' gaffe about the death penalty left Bush Sr. the winner by default), but he was clearly worse against Clinton in 1992. Bush Jr. would never have beaten Al Gore in 2000 without his debate victories, but he then lost to Kerry.

Clinton is the lone exception. All the other incumbent presidents saw their debate performances deteriorate significantly when they ran for reelection. This shouldn't be unexpected. Presidents are famously run ragged by the demands of the job. They have less time to prepare for the debates, since they must continue performing the job's duties (to some extent), while the challenger is running for president full-time. Presidents are likely to be overconfident, having spent nearly four years in the nation's highest office. It's also likely that most challengers, having not yet achieved their ambition of becoming president, want victory more.

There's another reason why incumbents might be at a disadvantage: Presidential primaries include a lot of debates. Particularly in the last few election cycles, debates have proliferated in the primary schedules. Romney participated in no less than eighteen major debates in the last twelve months, while running for the Republican nomination. By contrast, when the debates start in October, Obama will have gone nearly four years without having participated in a single debate. Both candidate will do debate preparation, but it's not hard to see why the challenger would be at an advantage.

Though Obama defeated John McCain their debates in 2008, we should assume Romney will have the edge, particularly in the first debate, when Obama will be most out of practice. Practice is important, particularly for candidates who are not very skilled at debate. Obama improved much over the course of the 2008 Democratic primaries, which included a soul-crushing twenty-five separate debates. In the beginning, Obama was fairly poor at the debates; he gained skill by the time it mattered. If going four years without debating returns Obama closer to his ordinary skill level, he will be in danger.

Romney, meanwhile, seems to understand the importance of preparing for debates. He was much better in the 2012 Republican primary debates than in 2008. Putting more focus on debates seems to have been one of the lessons Romney learned from 2008. Judging by Romney's recent past, his "challenger's ambition," and the historical pattern, it's likely that Romney will win the 2012 presidential debates.

2012 Presidential Debate Preview, Part I

In October, three presidential debates will be held between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, along with one vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and the Republican VP nominee. The three and a half months elapsing before the first debate represent an eternity in political time. The state of the race in October, and the intervening current events, are unknowable. As stated, even the identity of one of the participants in the vice presidential debate is currently unknown. But what, if anything, can one reasonably say about the presidential debates this far in advance?

First, the outcome of the debates will be important. Historically, presidential debates almost always demonstrated their potential to shift the race in a big way. In many cases, the outcomes of close or somewhat close races were determined by what occurred during the debates--in the sense that the losing candidate probably would have won the election had he won, instead of lost, the debate(s).

The modern era of presidential debates began in 1976. The first televised debates occurred in 1960, but no debates took place in 1964, 1968, or 1972. Starting with 1976, every presidential election has included debates, and it would be inconceivable for debates not to occur in every election for the foreseeable future. To demonstrate the power of the debates, consider the following list of elections, the winner of the debates (by conventional wisdom, prior to election day), and the election outcome:

1960. John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon in the debates, and won the election by only 0.2 points. Given the closeness of the race's outcome, the debates were decisive.

1976. Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Gerald Ford in the debates, and won the election by two points. Again, considering the small margin of victory, the debates were decisive.

1980. Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the debate, and won the election by more than 9 points. Before the debate, Carter was leading; the debate had a huge impact and was decisive.

1984. Walter Mondale defeated incumbent Ronald Reagan in the debates, but lost the election by 18 points. The debates apparently had no impact.

1988. George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis debated perhaps to a draw, though Dukakis made a serious gaffe. Bush won the election by more than 7 points. The debates may have extended Bush's victory.

1992. Bill Clinton defeated incumbent George H.W. Bush in the debates, though third party candidate Ross Perot also did well. Clinton won the election by 5.5 points. Perot managed to get nearly 19% of the vote despite having no chance to win. The debates had a huge impact, and likely handed Clinton victory.

1996. Bill Clinton defeated challenger Bob Dole in the debates, and won the election by 8.5 points. The debates probably had little impact beyond extending Clinton's victory.

2000. George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in the debates (particularly the "town hall" debate, in which Gore exhibited some bizarre behavior), and won the election despite losing the popular vote by half a point. Before the debates, Gore was ahead; after them, Bush was ahead. Obviously the debates were decisive.

2004. John Kerry defeated incumbent George W. Bush in the debates, but lost the election by about 3.5 points. Kerry was trailing by around 10 points prior the first debate, and narrowed the gap almost to a tie; Bush recovered in the second and third debate, which gave him some breathing room. Thus, the debates had a huge impact, but were not enough to swing the election.

2008. Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the debates, and won the election by 7 points. The debates served to extend Obama's lead.

Therefore, of the 10 elections with debates, 5 elections would have easily had different outcomes if the losing candidate had won the debates. In one other instance (2004), the debates came close to changing the outcome. We can also see that the winner of the debates lost the election in only 2 out of 10 cases--both times losing to an incumbent president.

In 2012, the debates between Romney and Obama will probably have a large impact on the result, and if the race is reasonably close, the debates will determine the outcome. It's very likely that the winner of the debates will also win the election. But who is more likely to win the debates--or can we even speculate this early? We will discuss those questions in Part II.

Intrade Odds: Romney Closing on Obama

The Intrade market on the presidential race shows a tighter contest than it did when we last looked at Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's Intrade odds. Obama currently stands at 53.9%; Romney is at 45.8%. Obama retains the edge, most likely because he retains a small lead in unadjusted registered voter polls (a closer look at the Obama vs. Romney polls suggests a slight Romney edge).

Intrade is basically declaring the race a coin flip today, with neither candidate far from the 50% mark. For the last several weeks, the trend has been in Romney's favor: Two weeks ago Obama's lead was 12.7 points, and now it's down to 8.1 points. Until late May, Intrade had the race stable with Obama enjoying a greater than 20 point lead. The race could continue to narrow on Intrade, but it's difficult to see Obama going below 50% any time soon.

The Intrade market on VP nominee has changed a bit. Rob Portman and Marco Rubio are still in first and second, far above the rest of the pack. But in the last two weeks, they have both fallen. Portman is at 23% and Rubio is at 19%; Portman's fallen by 4.5 points and Rubio by 3.

The second-tier is comprised of Tim Pawlenty at 8.2%, Chris Christie at 6.9%, Mitch Daniels at 6.7%, and Bobby Jindal at 5.8%. Can anything explain these numbers? It's likely based on rumor and speculation, because the Romney campaign has not yet released any hints on the identity of the VP pick. One possibility is that Pawlenty and Daniels are viewed as substitutes for Portman. Earlier, we wrote about the possibility of Rob Portman being chosen as Romney's vice presidential nominee. The reasoning behind a Portman pick is that he is bland, but safe. But given Portman's ties to the George W. Bush administration, he's not necessarily safe, because his presence on the ticket would aid Obama in making the "Romney is Bush's Third Term" attack.

If Romney is looking for a bland, safe pick, he might go with Pawlenty or Daniels as substitutes. He might also prefer them because they are former governors, while Portman is a senator. But this is simply Intrade reasoning; Daniels couldn't run for president because of family issues, so those issues ought to make him "unsafe." Pawlenty is the more logical choice, if one buys into the notion of choosing a a placeholder VP.

Should Romney Attack Obama's Character? Part II

In Part I, we raised the question of whether Barack Obama was fully vetted in 2008 during the Democratic primary and general election. As it happened, fortuitous circumstances enabled Obama to avoid being placed under the level of scrutiny such high-level campaigns normally entail. There are a number of avenues of attack against Obama's character that remain unexplored. But would be it be wise for Mitt Romney's campaign to take advantage of these?

The short answer is no. Obama is largely immune against personal attacks, even if they involve things most voters don't already know about Obama. Why is Obama immune? Because by the time voters go to the polls in November, he will have been president for nearly four years. Voters may not know Obama's history, but they do know about his four years in office, and they will make a judgment about Obama based on his record.

Issues of character and personality speak to the baseline qualifications for being president. In other words, when someone makes personal attacks against a presidential candidate, what they are actually saying is, "he can't be president," or "he is unqualified for the office," or "he would do terrible things as president."

These issues can only be raised when a candidate runs for president the first time, not when he is running for reelection. After all, one can't plausibly claim "he can't be president" if he has already been president for four years. The question of whether the person is qualified for the office has already been litigated.

The same goes for the kinds of personal attacks aimed at stoking fears about what kind of president the candidate would be. For example, opponents of Obama may raise questions about how radical Obama was in his early career, and whether he was dedicated to socialism. Those attacks would have made sense in 2008; they would have made voters wonder whether Obama would govern too far to the left or be more liberal than his campaign suggested. But in 2012, there is no question of how Obama would govern, because he's already done it.

And what about the other side of the coin--is Romney also immune from personal attacks? The answer is no. Romney has not yet been president, so it's an open question whether he's qualified, and what kind of president he would be. The Romney campaign and the Obama campaign will both attempt to answer those questions. Obama's campaign will make personal attacks against Romney, and it will be Romney's job to defend himself.

Is that fair? Not really. It's one of the advantages that an incumbent president has over his challenger. Perhaps it explains, in part, why incumbent presidents are reelected a bit more often than they are defeated. However, while incumbents may be immune to speculative attacks about how they might govern, they are entirely vulnerable to attacks about how they did govern. Obama's record is fully open to attack.