Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America

by Balz, Dan

  The campaign was significant in one other area involving money. It brought the final steps in the decade-long shredding of the public finance system for presidential campaigns that had been established after Watergate. That system was based on an explicit bargain: The federal government would help to underwrite the cost of campaigns in exchange for candidates’ agreeing to limits on spending. It lasted a quarter century and then collapsed in the last three presidential cycles. George W. Bush started by opting out of public financing during the 2000 nomination battle. In 2004, John F. Kerry and Howard Dean followed suit. Then in 2008, Obama decided to forgo public financing for the general election, choosing political advantage over principle. In 2012, Romney adopted the same approach, giving rise to a $2 billion campaign by the major-party candidates. All future candidates—and the country—will live with the consequences.

  Presidential debates played a bigger role in 2012 than ever before. They were reality TV for political junkies. Debates certainly affected the course of the Republican nomination battle—Newt Gingrich would not have risen from the dead without them—and they shaped the media’s narrative of the race, if not the actual state of the race, during the last month of the general election. Cable networks hyped their debates during the Republican primaries as if they were confrontations between gladiators, complete with video introductions that included plenty of battlefield metaphors. The Denver debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney may have been the single most interesting ninety minutes of the campaign. But how much do debating skills tell us about what it takes to be president? And what is the cost in other opportunities lost—more time spent in conversation with voters or in offering fresh ideas—of all the time spent on them?

  New technologies and social media blossomed even more fully into a central feature of politics in 2012, and one can only imagine how coming iterations of technology will affect future campaigns. Internet fund-raising began to take root in 2004. The 2008 campaign was the first in which Facebook and YouTube played a big role. The 2012 election was the first in the age of Twitter, which became the virtual town square for the political community, a transmission belt of news, gossip, opinion, and distortion. This new medium showed its power throughout the year, but especially during the debates. Twitter became the new wire service ticker, the medium that first alerted the world to breaking news. But it also created endless sideshows and diversions and in so doing enlarged the gulf between political insiders and the public at large.

  The preponderance and influence of polls increased dramatically in Campaign 2012, and so did controversy about them. There were more polls and more bad polls, and often there was little effort to distinguish between the two. Consumers of polls brought their own political biases to their judgments of which polls to trust. That was particularly the case among conservatives, who discounted any poll that suggested there could be a significant difference in the number of Democrats and Republicans who would turn out on election day. It turned out they were incorrect about who would vote. The emergence of poll analysts marked another change. Two weeks after the election, Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago, wrote a New York Times piece titled “Applause for the Numbers Machine,” in which he praised the work of statistical analysts like Nate Silver and other poll analysts working in universities who not only evaluated state and national polls but also set the probabilities for who would win. “They are like the meteorologists who forecast hurricanes,” Thaler wrote. For many Obama supporters, Silver’s probability charts showing Obama the likely winner were a lifeline during the final weeks of the campaign as the Republicans talked up Romney’s chances of winning. More significant may have been what the Obama team did with its heavy investment in data collection and analytics. What they did will become a standard that alters the way future campaigns do business.

  The candidates and their allies aired more television commercials than ever before, and focused them on a smaller number of states and a smaller percentage of the population than ever. “Never before will so much money be spent by so many to persuade so few,” Peter Hart had said as the general election began. He was so right. The percentage of truly undecided voters shrank to single digits, as low as anyone could remember, with weeks still left in the campaign. Political strategists have long talked about reaching the persuadable voters as their top priority, and still do. But mobilizing the base has become even more important in an age of polarization, and the techniques used to motivate left and right are not ones designed ultimately to bring the country or the parties together once the election is over. Slash-and-burn attacks and the demonization of the opposition have made it all the more difficult to overcome genuine philosophical differences. But there is nothing on the horizon to suggest that any of this will change quickly. All of this may explain why Campaign 2012 did so little to actually improve the prospects for good governance.

  The one area in which there was little noticeable competition or innovation was in the battle for ideas. Neither candidate fully rose to the moment. Each pursued a strategy designed for one thing: winning. The president was reluctant to offer a clear outline of a second term, either with fresh economic policies to stimulate faster growth or a blueprint to deal with the deficit and entitlements. The challenger offered Republican orthodoxy at a time when its salience and effectiveness were in question. Both operated within comfortable boundaries at a time of intractable problems.

  • • •

  Inauguration day is often a time of renewal and national unity. That was hardly the case when President Obama was sworn in 2013. Too much had happened during his first term—too many battles and too much strife. Then too were the events between election day and inauguration day that colored the ceremonies—the horrific shooting in December at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, that left twenty children and six adults dead, and the maddeningly inconclusive fiscal cliff negotiations. The pomp and pageantry of inauguration day marked only a temporary cessation of the political strife that had gripped and at times paralyzed the federal government throughout Obama’s presidency.

  Obama’s second inaugural address was far different from the one he delivered four years earlier, when the country was in the depths of an economic crisis and he still talked of fulfilling the post-partisan promise of his first campaign. Scarred by the battles of his first term but newly resolved after winning reelection, the president put forth a message that was not so much one of “Let us reason together” as it was of “Follow me.” He offered to work with those willing to work with him, but he rebuked the hard-liners in the Republican Party. He said, “We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.” He said there should be no trade-off between providing assistance to the oldest generation and making investments in the youngest—although of course there was—and he threw back in the faces of the Republicans words they had used during the campaign. Safety net programs or entitlements like Medicare, he said, “do not make us a nation of takers.” Most arresting was his call for full equality for gays and lesbians. This was a topic never before mentioned during an inaugural address, and the president linked that cause to the earlier struggles for civil rights and women’s rights that helped define the American story—from “Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall,” as he put it. Obama’s speech and the attendant ceremonies seemed designed to highlight the emerging America that was at the heart of his winning coalition. The scene at the Capitol was notable for its multicultural cast of performers, a celebration of this new America. When the ceremony ended and Obama was entering the Capitol, he turned and stopped for a long, slow look at the panoramic scene spread out before him on the National Mall. “I want to take a look, one more time,” he said. “I’m not going to see this again.”

  The headline in the next day’s Los Angeles Times read, “For His Second Term, a Sweeping Liberal Vision.” Republicans, whose House maj
ority was now more conservative than ever, said the speech confirmed their long-stated contention that at heart the president was a big-government liberal. Obama’s advisers, pointing to the election returns, argued that the president was merely reflecting values that were now in the political mainstream. At the end of it all, the great divide still existed. Whether Obama and the Republicans could change that awaited the next chapter in democracy’s ongoing story.

  Acknowledgments

  I owe debts and thanks for all the encouragement, assistance, and support during the two-plus years it took to produce this book. Authors are lucky to have one good editor. I was fortunate to have two. Jim Silberman of James H. Silberman Books was a guiding hand from start to finish on this book. Wendy Wolf at Viking brought her keen eye and good humor to every page. My agent, Philippa Brophy, was both counselor and friend. Special thanks to all three. Haynes Johnson, my coauthor on our book about the 2008 campaign, was an enthusiastic advocate of this project. Sadly, he died shortly before publication.

  A handful of others deserve particular thanks. Aaron Blake, my colleague at the Washington Post, played an invaluable role. He conducted some interviews, researched specific issues, and read and reread the chapters. He improved the book immeasurably. Sam Adams, a Harvard student who became part of this project through the good graces of the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, produced an invaluable timeline of events and supplied other research. Cynthia Colonna and Olwen Price listened to and transcribed hundreds of hours of recorded interviews. Lucy Shackelford, formerly of the Post, provided research material at the front end of the project. Pollster Peter Hart again provided insights into the electorate through the series of focus groups he conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy School at the University of Pennsylvania. The team at Viking who helped guide this book through to publication was invaluable: Margaret Riggs, Carolyn Coleburn, Nancy Sheppard, Roland Ottewell, Jane Cavolina, and Bruce Giffords.

  I especially want to thank the candidates who generously made time during or after the campaign to share their experiences with me. It is not always enjoyable to be asked to explain why things didn’t work out as planned, but they were good-natured and responsive to all my questions. This group includes former governor Mitt Romney, former governor Tim Pawlenty, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Governor Rick Perry, and former governor Jon Huntsman Jr. Governor Chris Christie also was generous with his time for this project.

  I owe thanks to many people inside all the campaigns. Senior officials in both the Obama and the Romney campaigns offered their insights both in real time and through post-November interviews. Officials in all the other Republican campaigns were helpful in describing the action from their vantage points. Many of these strategists show up by name in the book. Some others spoke only on the condition that they not be identified by name. No one in any of the campaigns will agree with all of the conclusions here, but I deeply appreciate what they did to help me see the campaign through their eyes.

  The Washington Post has been my journalistic home for three decades. Chairman Don Graham is all any reporter could ask for in an ultimate leader. Publisher Katharine Weymouth encouraged me throughout this long project. Former executive editor Marcus Brauchli and former managing editor Liz Spayd were at the helm in the newsroom when I began the book, and I thank them for their encouragement. Martin Baron, the Post’s current executive editor, was gracious in allowing me time to finish the book. Other editors were instrumental in making this book a reality. Kevin Merida was national editor when I began and was appointed managing editor while I was writing it. He made the book possible in numerous ways, and I owe him special thanks. Steven Ginsberg guided the Post’s political coverage with creativity and a steady hand. Other editors to whom I owe thanks are Cameron Barr, Anne Kornblut, Terry Samuel, Barbara Vobejda, Tim Curran, and Scott Vance.

  I have drawn on the work and friendship of a large group of people at the Post who were part of the political operation during the 2012 campaign. They are Karen Tumulty, who generously shared transcripts of interviews with some of the candidates and noncandidates, Phil Rucker, Amy Gardner, Scott Wilson, Ann Gerhart, David Nakamura, Peter Wallsten, Tom Hamburger, Roz Helderman, David Fahrenthold, Paul Kane, Ruth Marcus, Al Kamen, Emily Heil, Dana Milbank, Sandhya Somashekhar, Nia-Malika Henderson, Ed O’Keefe, Dan Eggen, Tim Farnam, Krissah Thompson, Lori Montgomery, Jerry Markon, Glenn Kessler, Ezra Klein, Robert Barnes, Joel Achenbach, Zach Goldfarb, Jason Horowitz, Felicia Sonmez, David Maraniss, Eli Saslow, Stephanie McCrummen, Bill Turque, Melinda Henneberger, Alice Crites, Madonna Lebling, Carrie Camillo, Kathy Tolbert, Liz Ward, and Anne Bartlett.

  Thanks also to the invaluable Fix team at the Post, led by the irrepressible Chris Cillizza, and including Aaron Blake, Rachel Weiner, and Sean Sullivan. Our polling team, led by Jon Cohen and including Peyton Craighill and Scott Clement, supplied me with a steady stream of data and interpretation. Our digital team did extraordinary work. They include Vince Bzdek, Ryan Kellett, Cory Haik, Ken Smith, Matt DeLong, Terri Rupar, and Natalie Jennings. I’m also indebted to members of the Post’s graphics and data team, Ted Mellnik, Dan Keating, and Karen Yourish, as well as photographers Nikki Kahn and Melina Mara, who logged endless miles with Obama and Romney. Other Post friends to whom I owe thanks are Len Downie, Maralee Schwartz, and Bob Kaiser.

  I am also indebted to friends and colleagues at other news organizations. Roger Simon, my pal for more than forty years, has been an inspiration and good counselor. Both he and his wife, Marcia Kramer, were supportive throughout this project. Both read and critiqued the manuscript. Ron Brownstein offered original insights all along the way, as he has been doing for two decades, and his helpful suggestions improved the book. Others whose work I have drawn on or whose company I’ve appreciated during days together on the road include: Jeff Zeleny, Adam Nagourney, Jim Rutenberg, Ashley Parker, Peter Baker, Gwen Ifill and the team at Washington Week, Chuck Todd and the gang at The Daily Rundown, Jonathan Martin, Betsy Fischer Martin, Lois Romano, Amy Walter, David Chalian, John Dickerson, Jackie Calmes, Ron Fournier, Jon Ward, Mark Leibovich and Steve Scully.

  I thank Anne Kornblut, Phil Rucker, Haynes Johnson, Doug Balz, and Colette Rhoney, who read all or portions of the book, for their critiques and suggestions, all of which helped to improve the final product. Whatever errors remain in this book are mine and mine alone.

  Most important to me are my family. John Balz, my son, understands both politics and journalism in ways I don’t and has been a steadying hand. His wife, Erica Simmons, has brightened our lives as the newest member of the family. My brother Doug got me into journalism in the first place, and for that alone, no thanks are enough. Thanks also to his wife, Jane Scholz.

  The biggest debt I owe is to Nancy, my wife of more than forty years, who seemed to know at every stage of this project whether I needed support, criticism, encouragement, or a gentle shove to stay on schedule. She was good-humored when I was sometimes not, and her love has been a source of sustenance for as long as we’ve been together.

  Notes and Sources

  As stated in the note to the reader, quotations in the narrative not otherwise identified are either from interviews with the author (almost all of them digitally recorded) or from events witnessed on the campaign trail. In reporting this book, I had access to countless transcripts of candidate debates, convention addresses, press conferences, speeches, and other events as described. I have tried to cite the time and place of those events in the narrative but for obvious space reasons do not list all of them here in the source notes.

  BOOK ONE: THE PIVOT

  “As Obama approached the fourth year”: David Maraniss, Barack Obama: The Story (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), xxi.

  The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson: Scott Wilson, “Obama, the Loner President,” Washington Post, October 7, 2011, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-10-07/opinions/35280751_1_president-obama-politics-obama
-administration.

  One of the most thoughtful efforts: James T. Kloppenberg, Reading Obama: Dreams, Hope, and the American Political Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), Kindle edition, Loc 2 of 302.

  In their revealing biography: Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, The Real Romney (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 7.

  “he preferred eating only the tops”: Ibid., 5.

  “My son said that having Senator Kennedy”: Ibid., 276.

  New York Times columnist David Brooks: David Brooks, “Convener in Chief,” New York Times, June 27, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/opinion/28brooks.html?_r=0.

  That spring, an unnamed official: Ryan Lizza, “The Consequentialist,” New Yorker, May 2, 2011, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza.

  “You’ll remember this as the day”: Robert Draper, Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives (New York: Free Press, 2012), Kindle edition, Loc 229 of 8039.

  Bill McInturff, one of the nation’s: Dan Balz, “Debt-Ceiling Debate’s Negative Implications for 2012 Elections,” Washington Post, August 31, 2011, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-31/politics/35270526_1_president-obama-and-republicans-analysis-confidence.