Voter Intensity and 2012

From what we've seen so far, the intensity of the Christian extremists elements of the electorate is running high. If that continues to November, 2012, and the Republicans nominate a wing nut, it will translate to a high turnout of the far right. The question then becomes whether or not other segments of the electorate will be similarly motivated to get out and vote. For Barack Obama, he has seemingly almost deliberately alienated many in the Democratic base - something that doesn't bode well for intensity in turn out. Moderates and independents are similarly disaffected at the moment based on polls, so intensity is obviously a huge question. Yes, the progressive may turn out to stop a truly scary GOP nominee, but what about the crucial middle? The Daily Beast looks at the issue of voter intensity and here are some highlights:

Intensity drives turnout. And as Wisconsin goes, so goes the nation: the 2012 presidential election will be all about intensity. Candidate Barack Obama benefited from intensity—a high positive intensity for himself and negative intensity for the opposing party in 2008, thanks in part to “Bush fatigue.”

Intensity is a mix of emotional and cognitive responses. Team Obama was masterful at marketing in 2008, connecting his brand to the emotional needs and aspirations of a broad cross-section of voters. The emotional intensity caused regular folks to faint and the media to swoon.

But now, with far more folks registering strong disapproval than strong approval of the president, an approval gap of -22 as measured by Rasmussen among likely voters, the presidential election this time around will be more about negative intensity—President Obama’s.

Marketers know—no matter how deep the emotional connection or brand loyalty—when a product does not perform, rational thought overtakes emotion, and most consumers make a new choice. With the continuing economic uncertainty and high unemployment, voter frustration isn’t going away. And intensity for the Obama brand is waning because the brand is not delivering the promised results. Once passionate followers are experiencing cognitive dissonance. The president’s team is going to learn it’s easier to launch a new brand than revive a damaged one.

Obama’s reelection campaign runs three risks: losing voters to the other party, losing voters to apathy, and losing the election because of the growing negative intensity against Obama that will drive Republican turnout. But that doesn’t clear all the hurdles for Republicans. Although the outcome of the GOP primary will likely be determined by positive intensity for the candidates, voters are much more wary and still divided. Who will drive more of the Tea Party, establishment, and moderate voters to the polls?

Perry will appeal to many concerned about our fiscal picture with his unmatched track record stewarding an economy (inherited from George W. Bush), helping create 40 percent of the net new jobs in the nation over the last two years alone, and expanding the state’s economy to the second largest in the nation while balancing the budget and not increasing taxes—proving he can deliver on his promises. But will Perry’s positive intensity survive the onslaught of attacks to come, from the middle and the left and the media?


Perry has his faults, which will be exposed over the course of the campaign. He’s far too conservative and hard for my taste. But as a political observer looking at the current environment, I know that intensity counts for a lot. And Perry’s got a lot of heat.