The "Swing" Voters Impose Their Tempo on the US Elections

They vote on one side or the other of the spectrum, represent a quarter of the electorate and will play a decisive role in this uncertain election.

All American surveys converge: Since the first debate in Denver on Oct. 3, 2012, and even after the second in Hempstead on Oct. 16, 2012 — considered won by Barack Obama — the gap is narrowing between the incumbent president and Mitt Romney.

From being assured at the end of September 2012, the election outcome is now considered more uncertain. By late September 2012, President Obama had an advantage of several points on his Republican rival for the popular vote. The gap has turned into a “tie;” there is now a “level playing field” [1]. More significantly, Barack Obama largely led in the Electoral College. He sees himself as being caught up to by Mitt Romney. Real Clear Politics has estimated that Romney has 206 electoral votes against 201 for Obama, and that 131 are still a “toss up.”

Those same estimates credited Obama with 265 firm Electoral College votes at the end of September 2012 against 191 for his opponent. Other estimates give even a slight advantage in electoral votes, but the downward trend is the same everywhere. The trend is severe. These developments alone illustrate a complete redistribution of the cards less than three weeks before the elections.

These differences and developments can be confusing for French voters accustomed to movements of smaller amplitude in election campaigns. But the U.S. did not only invent jazz and its indefinable swing. In politics, we must rely on the “swing voters” and the “swing states.” But who are those voters in the balance? Who can attract them? Why are they swinging?

Many Voters but Difficult to Identify

American political scientists have attempted to understand this phenomenon by trying to define the concept of “swing voters.” They are defined as “voters likely to vote for one side or the other of the political spectrum, with no strong commitment to a camp” [2]. The political scientists put the phenomenon into an equation in a model that would have delighted Tryphon Tournesol. On average, for every election since 1972, the “swingers” represent about a quarter of the electorate — 23 percent — a considerable proportion.

That’s the reason why they are important for policymakers working on candidates’ campaigns. They are distinguished from “independents” (those who do not declare themselves Democrats or Republicans), “unfaithful” voters (who alternate, voting for one camp or the other in each election), the “undecided” (who choose at the last moment). The problem is that they are numerous but difficult to identify with simple criteria. They are also unpredictable.

First characteristic of these “swingers:” No candidate who won a close election (Carter 1976, Bush 2000) or who won with a small gap (Clinton 1996) was elected without the support of “swing voters.” George Bush, who was on a par with Al Gore in the popular vote in 2000, carried 53 percent of “swing voters;” Bill Clinton, who prevailed over Bush Senior by about 7 points, won 50 percent of the “swing” vote. Further, Jimmy Carter, who beat Ford, was only 2 points ahead at the national level and won by the vote of an absolute majority of “swing voters” — 54 percent. For Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in a race at loggerheads, attracting “swing voters” has become a condition not necessarily sufficient, but required for victory.

Second characteristic: The “swing voters” are sociologically misidentified. Rather distant from politics, they are most probably a combination of the least educated, the middle classes, the most modest and youth. Contrary to generally accepted ideas, minorities and women are less likely to be “swing voters;” these are social groups more decided about their vote.

Romney Refocuses Politically, Obama Demographically

Finally, the last essential characteristic: The “swing voters” are ideologically more moderate than the rest of the electorate, less “conservative” or “liberal” (in the American sense, read progressive) than most decided voters.

From these elements, we understand the crucial refocusing strategy currently at work for the two contenders for the White House. With distinct biases in both camps, Mitt Romney tries to move to the center politically, while Barack Obama is trying a demographic focus.

One plays on the issues; the other accepts a categorical approach. The debate in Hempstead perfectly illustrated these different approaches. Barack Obama has targeted categories where he is lagging behind with respect to 2008. These categories are women (Obama is ahead of Romney by 4 points compared to a 14-point lead on McCain in 2008 [3]); youth (a 17-point advantage today compared to 34 points in 2008); the less educated (a 2-point advantage today compared to 8 points in 2008); and the middle classes (a 2-point lag today compared to a 5-point advantage in 2008).

Among the “moderates,” he maintains his advantage (22 points), but he is behind with independents and senior citizens. In the second debate, Obama spoke most modestly. He denounced his opponent’s tax breaks for the wealthy, insisted on Medicare to appeal to retired and senior citizens and sought to attract the middle classes by denouncing Republican policies that have “been squeezing middle-class families.” Targeting moderates, he also conceded an ideological shift, saying that his credo was “free enterprise, the best way to prosperity.”*

For his part, Mitt Romney plays at realigning politics. After winning the Republican primary by being on the far right, he plays the election from the center. However, he clouds the issues. His experience as governor of Massachusetts reinforces his image as a moderate. His comments during the primary open him to criticism from moderates, but they cover hardliners.

During the second debate, he developed his performance around a single theme: the creation of jobs. This is a key issue that affects the more modest, moderate middle classes. Romney said, “My priority is jobs.” He admitted that his party had “been focused on big business too long,” not “championing small business.” He also openly distanced himself from Bush, saying, “I’m going to get us a balanced budget. President Bush didn’t.”

A Multifaceted Mitt

The competition for the swing vote is the result of strategic choices. It may confuse voters or observers. Those disappointed by Obama do not understand his inability to propose content for the second term he seeks in front of Americans. His obstinacy in staying on the defensive line is of mixed results.

Both Conservatives and Democratic strategists feel clueless about what the cartoonist Nick Anderson has called “The Mitts,” a cartoon featuring a basketball team made up of caricatures of the Republican candidate. One player is wearing a t-shirt that says “Pro-Regulation Mitt,” another with “Anti-Regulation Mitt” and another displaying “Severely Conservative Mitt” alongside “Moderate Mitt.” Facing them is a lonely opponent — Obama, thrown to the Mitts with many faces [4].

To capture voters “in balance,” the candidates are all over the place. At a time when the election is more open than ever, the strategic choices of the two competitors are clear. There is now no way to tell what the best option is. For the moment, Mitt Romney lacks a consistent image and Barack Obama is missing the chance to provide good reason for another term.

Philippe Chriqui is a consultant and political analyst for the New Observer

[1] Surveys carried out by “Real Clear Politics” or the calculations of Nate Silver of the New York Times.

[2] “The Swing Voters in American Politics,” William G. Mayer. Brookings Institution Press.

[3] Exit Polls Data from 2008 ANES and NYT; 2012 sociology surveys from Pew Research.

[4] “The Many Mitts,” Nick Anderson. Houston Chronicle,17 October 2012.

http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson.

*Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.