President Obama is in serious trouble. A month ago, he appeared confident that he would secure a second term. His strategy in the first debate was to stay above the fray, appear presidential, and treat Mitt Romney as if he weren't a worthy opponent. It didn't work. The first presidential debate between the two men will be remembered as a historic game-changer.
Recently, Obama has come out swinging but hasn't been able to regain lost ground. While the majority of viewers thought the president won the second and third debates, they also thought that Romney won the debates overall. As a result, Obama has gone on the attack in a last-ditch effort to reverse the course.
The Obama camp is right to panic. Multiple polls now have Obama down 15-20 points among independents, a group he won by 8 points in 2008. A recent Gallup poll also shows the electorate swinging more Republican than in 2008. So Obama needs now, more than ever, to win the independents.
It's worth considering why he is losing them. Independents tend to be cynical. They distrust government and dislike partisan politics. In 2008, they clearly responded to Obama's promise to change the tone in Washington and create bipartisan agreement.
It was clear by the 2010 midterm elections that independents were turning on Obama. By this point, Obama had failed to deliver on many promises. With Democratic control of Congress, President Obama found little incentive to reach across the aisle and forge compromises with Republicans. Debate over Obamacare was divisive and the program proved unpopular among independents, whose distrust of government makes them leery of anything coined a "government takeover." The illusion of a president who could end political gridlock and bring the nation together was shattered.
In order to secure the independent voter in 2012, Obama would need to sell them, again, on change. An early poll of independents showed that the majority wanted Obama to articulate a vision for how the policies of his second term would be different from those of the first. Instead, Obama doubled down. He defended his policies and blamed the previous administration for creating conditions that were beyond his control.
Afraid that switching course would be an admission of failure, Obama offered no vision of change for his second term. Accordingly, fickle independents were inclined to favor a new president, if only a viable alternative were available.
And so the campaign of "hope" transformed into the campaign of smear. Despite a moderate record that earned him criticism from the Republican base, Romney was painted as a radical right-winger and a greedy, heartless tycoon. Voters heard that Romney shipped jobs to China, closed factories and even caused some poor woman to die of cancer. Studies at Vanderbilt University verified that people who saw the ads were, indeed, less likely to support Romney.
But then something happened. Romney showed up for the debate. The image the Obama campaign had painted was so negative and so extreme, that Romney was able to completely debunk it merely by being human.
Obama's campaign responded with more character attacks. Romney was a liar. Indeed, Romney had made some missteps. The problem is that the Obama record was also full of distortions and exaggerations. In fact, at times Obama lied about Romney being a liar. For example, during the town hall debate, Romney asked Obama about the number of drilling permits he had cut. Obama denied this, stating emphatically, "It's not true, governor. It's just not true." But independent analysis at factcheck.org showed that, while both candidates made many misstatements during all three of the debates, on this point Romney was dead-on.
Obama's credibility problem is compounded by conflicting reports about the murder of our ambassador in Benghazi. For two weeks, the White House provided false explanations for the attacks, blaming an Internet video for the uprising rather than pointing the finger at the terrorist groups responsible. Evidence is that the administration knew otherwise but that the truth didn't fit into the narrative that Obama had "al-Qaida on the run." Rather than correct the record, the president has tried to declare this topic off limits, accusing the Romney campaign of politicizing the tragedy. Yet, the Democrats mentioned killing bin Laden 20 times during their national convention. If successes are fair game in an election, so are failures. Among likely voters, 57 percent of independents now disapprove of Obama's handling of Benghazi.
Independents asked Obama to show them a different vision for the next four years. Instead, he and Vice President Joe Biden appear to be mocking their opponents. Biden snickered throughout his debate. Obama aired sarcastic ads about Big Bird and condescendingly explained the purpose of an aircraft carrier to Gov. Romney. While belittling Republicans may energize the Democratic base, it doesn't attract independents who already think liberal elites are arrogant and smug.
The 2012 campaign has been brutal. Granted, Romney has endorsed his share of attack ads. But for Obama, it's too sharp a contrast to the man he claimed to be in 2008. Instead of changing course, he changed the one thing independents liked — his character.
April Kelly-Woessner is an associate professor and chairwoman of the political science department at Elizabethtown College. She is also a correspondent for Lancaster Newspapers Inc. Email her at woessnerak@etown.edu.
