Michael Prell

According to a series of national news stories, President Barack Obama is looking to play the “underdog card” in the 2012 campaign. But why would the most powerful man in the world cast himself as an underdog? Because playing the underdog card works. Here is why.

In the 2008 Presidential primaries, candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Edwards, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani all cast themselves as underdogs. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an underdog as “a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest.” So, if a politician’s goal is to win elections, why do so many politicians clamor to portray themselves as underdogs?

In practical terms, underdog campaigns find it easier to motivate their supporters due to a built-in sense of urgency and insurgency. In elections, this translates to an “enthusiasm gap,” which team Obama boasted about in 2008 when they led the Republicans in voter enthusiasm 61% to 35%. But, as TIME Magazine observed last week, the Obama campaign’s 2012 strategy video was missing its “enthusiasm gap” slide. Perhaps the reason for the missing slide is because the enthusiasm of an underdog insurgency campaign has gone missing from Obama re-elect 2012.

Which explains why President Obama and his handlers are playing the underdog card. And they have scientific evidence to support their strategy.

A University of South Florida study, “The Advantage of Disadvantage: Underdogs in Politics,” gave two groups of test subjects near-identical Barack Obama speeches. The only difference: one group’s speech described Barack Obama as a frontrunner, and the other described him as an underdog.

The study found “the underdog label can reap benefits for politicians,” “the underdog label is regarded positively,” and “underdogs are seen as warmer and more likeable than frontrunners.” These findings are supported by earlier studies, including Fleitas (1971), in which voters demonstrated “a significant shift in favor of the underdog,” and Ceci and Kain (1982), in which “[p]articipants who were told [Jimmy] Carter was leading in the polls were more likely to express a preference for [Ronald] Reagan, while those exposed to a Reagan-lead poll aligned themselves with Carter.”

These academic studies were borne out by the experience of the 2008 presidential primary campaigns, which saw frontrunners from both political parties defeated by underdog insurgencies. What is the difference between an underdog and a frontrunner? Power. Or, at least, the perception of power.

Michael Prell

Michael Prell is a writer and strategist with the Tea Party Patriots and the author of the book Underdogma: How America’s Enemies Use our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power www.under-dogma.com