Does Flip-Flopping Work?

Sam Drzymala, one of the new bloggers at the Democratic Strategist, brings us some empirical research done by Margit Tavits of the University of Missouri-Columbia:

Tavits finds that, on average, shifts on pragmatic issues benefit politicians politically, whereas shifts on social issues are harmful. Since it seems like there is potential for a lot of overlap between issues designated as either "pragmatic" or "principled," the waters are muddied somewhat. But attempting to moderate or reverse one's positions on strong, clearly principled issues like abortion, gay marriage, or religion's place in public life appears to be one ticket to a lost election. If you're on the record supporting liberal social policies and you're worried about the South and Midwest, it's probably a better bet to remain passionate on the stump, while not exactly leading with those issues.

Trouble for Mitt Romney, in other words.

Comments

And trouble for Rudy, or for short, GiuliRomney.

Posted by yave begnet | August 17, 2007 9:09 AM

I am not sure about this. Poppy flip flopped on abortion. It didn't seem to hurt him.

Posted by DonB | August 17, 2007 9:17 AM

But then-- why have the long-time Republican social conservative politicians (Santorum, Frist, Allen,... ) all vanished? One possibility is that big money/media doesn't want a real social conservative, but, still, it's a puzzle.

Posted by MattF | August 17, 2007 9:32 AM

People hate the idea of being tricked, which is why they hate a flip-flopper more than anything else.

Posted by Njorl | August 17, 2007 9:59 AM

People just want to hear their own views parrotted back at them. Flip flopping is the way to go.

Posted by Njorl | August 17, 2007 10:01 AM

Without bothering to read the linked article, I'd say that makes sense. If people can surmise a realistic rationale for the flip, then they aren't concerned. Issues like abortion are harder to rationalize, Romney's attempts to tie his flop to stem cells are lame and even laughable. The only logical conclusions are that he is dishonest or lacks core convictions. And in Mitt's case, it is likely both.

Posted by AJ | August 17, 2007 11:12 AM