Don't look to the issues as a guide to the election's outcome

Lawrence R. Jacobs is a professor in the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs.

As the presidential contest shifts toward the general election battle between President Obama and Mitt Romney, I find myself gritting my teeth in anticipation of the magical thinking about campaigns that typically erupts. In Peter Pan's world, the best analysis would win elections, America would speak with one voice and send a clear mandate, and the outcome would be decided by the 24-7 media round-robins on issues from Trayvon Martin's death and Anne Romney's working life to the flaps yet to blossom.

I'm all for dreaming and I adore fairy tales. Dream away. But if you'd like to understand the real dynamics of the upcoming election, here are four common mistakes to avoid.

First mistake: The merits of contending arguments rarely determine election outcomes. Romney's policy positions (including those popular among primary voters but opposed by swing voters) are unlikely by themselves to dictate his support. Many factors apart from policy will drive vote choice. For the undecided, a gut-level inclination to punish the incumbent — President Obama — for difficult economic circumstances may make the difference in the outcome.

Second mistake: When it comes to elections, there is no "America." The electorate is, in reality, made up of slices. Voters who identify with the Democratic or Republican Party generally vote for its candidates, accounting for two-thirds to three-quarters of the electorate. The implication: We are now at the beginning of an expensive and ferocious seven-month campaign to influence a fraction of the electorate that will winnow down to 1 out of 10 (or fewer) voters who have not made up their minds after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising and prime time debate.

Third mistake: You and I value high-minded and fact-based arguments, but there are few incentives for vote-hungry candidates to cater to us. The reality is that the election will pivot on the decisions of a tiny portion of voters. Here is what we know about them: They tend to be the least interested and informed about the election. What kind of ads and campaign rhetoric do you think we are going to experience?

Fourth mistake: The election will not be decided by today's host of issues lighting up blogs and news stations. America's electorate in 2012 is nearly one-dimensional. Three-quarters of the country identify the economy and jobs as the single most important problem — Obama's Achilles Heel, now and in the future. Don't be surprised when Romney returns to Bill Clinton's campaign mantra in 1992 — "It's the economy, stupid" — and is enveloped in a controlled cocoon to avoid statements that distract the press and voters.

One of the most important political moments of the spring will be the release of the first quarter's Gross Domestic Product figure on Friday. (BTW: You qualify for the Aristotelian Voter Award if you know that this figure measures the country's overall economic activity and have followed it enough to recall that the fourth quarter of 2011 registered a surprisingly robust 3 percent growth.)

If GDP holds steady or rises from its winter level of 3 percent (an outcome few are expecting), Obama's prospects will brighten and Romney's problems are likely to intensify. But if it falls and employment growth continues to dip as it did in March, the undecided are more likely to punish the incumbent and you should expect Obama's prospects to sink this spring.

I know, what about Lincoln-Douglas-style debates and other much-beloved fare of presidential elections? They make for good storytelling, but for most elections, they are not much of a guide.

Gallery

Fullscreen SlidePrevious Slide

1 of 1

Next Slide