Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Llewelyn Pritchard and Elizabeth Browning some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    How key changes shaped the 2012 election and Obama's triumph

    Romney's team did what it needed to do in a previous America. But this is 2012. Plus, does this result tell us much about the future of U.S. politics?

    (Page 2 of 3)

    Republicans' appeals for individual initiative and self reliance did not resonate with these voters. Younger voters cast ballots in fewer numbers for Obama than in 2008 but still gave him, in the 29-and-below group, 60 percent.

    Presidential elections involving an incumbent normally are a referendum on the incumbency, with first emphasis on economic issues. By that measure, Romney had an advantage going in. But Obama became the only president other than Franklin Roosevelt to be re-elected with an unemployent rate above 7.8 percent. It was in part, I think, not only because the electorate is changing demographically but because many voters, in the groups cited above, put feelings of social and cultural affinity above traditional bread-and-butter concerns.

    Campaign mechanics: Overall turnout had to have been disappointing to both national campaigns. But the Obama team clearly did a better job than Romney's in identifying, appealing to, and turning out its vote. The Obama campaign picked up the never-ending campaign, all-politics-all-the-time doctrine of the Clinton presidency but also broke new ground by keeping in place its 2008 operation without closing it down between elections. Voters who supported or gave money to Obama received non-stop email, regular mail, Twitter, and other communications from the White House, president and First Lady, campaign committees, and other partisan groups on a nearly daily basis from 2009 until Election Day 2012. The Romney national campaign, by contrast, only focused on the general election after a grueling, sometimes-bruising campaign to win the Republican nomination over strong conservative opposition.

    The Obama campaign also did an excellent job of defining the opposition candidate for the electorate before he could fully define himself. This was an imperative for an incumbency facing an uphill task in defending itself in tough economic times. Post-Labor Day survey data showed that the Obama campaign had been quite successful in painting Romney as a heartless, Bain Capital plutocrat unconcerned with ordinary people. Romney, unaccountably, did not launch his own media campaign — in battleground states, in particular — trying to erase this picture. He began to do so only in his first nationally televised debate with Obama.

    Whereas the Obama campaign defined its target voters (as above) and directed tailored measures toward them, the Romney campaign ran an old-style, general-message-to-everyone campaign on the assumption that all Americans were deriving their information from traditional mass-media sources and/or, for that matter, from the presidential debates. Obama appeared on numerous entertainment TV and some radio talk shows, especially at the local level in key markets, while Romney struck a more traditional, above-the-fray posture and appeared at traditional campaign events.

    Much has been made of the fact that the Eastern-seaboard hurricane, during the final week before the election, broke Romney's momentum in the campaign and allowed Obama an opportunity to reboot. Reliable Gallup polling data, indeed, showed Romney slowly opening a more-than-3-points national lead on Obama just before the hurricane. He'd had three strong debate performances against Obama, was drawing big campaign crowds, and had the central bread-and-butter issue running in his favor.

    The hurricane did, in my judgment, give Obama a chance to reboot. But I am not so sure that he would not have done so, hurricane or not. Late-breaking, undecided voters — contrary to the usual pattern — went for the incumbent rather than the challenger. The Obama campaign, below the surface, was doing a superior job in generating its vote. The outcome, I suspect, was only marginally affected by the big blow.

    Finally, it should be noted that official campaign committees, other partisan committees, and independent-expenditure groups gave more money to the Obama campaign than to the Romney campaign. Democratic Senate campaigns also outspent their Republican counterparts. House Republican candidates, by contrast, outspent House Democratic candidates. As it turned out, the winners all had more money than the losers, tending to validate once more the application of the Golden Rule in politics: Those with the gold rule.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Sun, Nov 18, 4:24 a.m. Inappropriate

    Interesting observations. I would not agree with your view of Romney having "three strong debate performances" - to me he came across as shrill and mean. Or your characterization of "reliable" Gallup polling. But those are minor points. Perhaps the closing part of your piece could be summed up as "Obama won a poisoned chalice." Big trouble looks to be just ahead, and I shudder to think what craziness we'll see politically because of that. The Great Depression produced the New Deal. The Greater Depression looks far less likely to generate such enlightened response.

    Posted Sun, Nov 18, 5:30 p.m. Inappropriate

    As usual, many dubious, misleading, and inaccurate statements in TVD's analysis.
    1) "Reliable Gallup polling data" showed Romney opening a lead over Obama before Hurricane Sandy??? Nate Silver and other top polling analysts said at the time and later that Gallup was the huge outlier among the national polls. Gallup won a big black eye this year for being way off. Count on TVD to pick Gallup as his barometer.
    2) TVD was surprised that Latino voters went heavily to Obama??? Better-informed analysts have noted that Latinos are heavily working class folks who need public programs and services, including public schools, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, tuition assistance, etc. Plus they were hugely offended by Republican laws and rhetoric on immigration (see Arizona and self-deportation). That overwhelmingly trumped their being family-oriented and "associated with traditional values," whatever the heck that means.
    3)Contrary to what TVD says, the dark money, independent expenditure groups spent far more money supporting Romney than Obama.
    4)Like many convention wisdom pundits, TVD focuses on the changing demographics of the electorate to explain Obama's victory. But he refuses to acknowledge that lots of Americans did not like Romney's proposals and felt he did not stand for the middle class. It was a matter of values, not just demographics.

    Posted Mon, Nov 19, 4:01 a.m. Inappropriate

    I usually don't bother to respond to Meyer's angry screeds. This one, though, indicates he read the piece only carelessly before commenting.

    I cited Gallup because, over many decades, it has been far and away
    the most professional and reliable of the national polls. Just before the hurricane, it showed Romney pushing ahead by 3-5 points. (Three points is considered to be the normal margin of error for polls with
    a substantial sample). Some other polls showed the race to be tighter. My own reading, at the time, was that Romney had been slowly but steadily gaining momentum since his first televised debate with Obama. The hurricane shifted public attention and broke that momentum. Obama's overall approval rating rose 2 percentage points after his post-hurricane visit to N.J. beaches. But, as I wrote, I do not believe Romney can blame his loss on the hurricane. Gallup's long record of reliability speaks for itself. Silver, a former baseball stathead, built his own polling model this year and was quite accurate in his findings.

    Contrary to Meyer's comment, I was not surprised at the Latino vote for Obama. My copy should have made that clear. I was a bit surprised by Obama's margins among Asian and Jewish voters.

    My copy should also have made clear that "values" were particularly important this year. See the section entitled Social Norms Have Changed.

    I will be in N.C. all this week and in AZ the following week. Will
    share any significant post-election impressions from these differing political cultures.

    Posted Mon, Nov 19, 10:43 a.m. Inappropriate

    As a professional journalist, I have no patience with pundits and reporters who consistently include inaccurate, misleading, and ill-informed statements in their articles, and even worse, who refuse to acknowledge and correct their inaccuracies. TVD has been consistently guilty of these sins for the several years I've been reading (and contributing articles to) Crosscut, which I've consistently pointed out in detail, and that's the source of my impatience.
    Whatever Gallup's historical record, polling experts led by the NY Times' Nate Silver jumped on Gallup as an outlier as soon as Gallup alone showed Romney with a sizable national lead. For TVD to cite Gallup post-election as evidence that Romney had pulled ahead is truly clueless and embarassing.
    As for TVD's "own reading," if he's been paying any attention to the extensive media discussion of the polls and pundits' predictions during this election, he would see that the gut feelings of pundits like himself and George Will, et al, proved useless and the public was much better served paying attention to the quantitative meta-analysis of polls by Silver and company.

    Posted Tue, Nov 20, 1 p.m. Inappropriate

    Meyer is obviously jealous of TVD's vast political knowledge. Meyer's far left-wing bias either greatly clouds his reasoning or perhaps he has no common sense. TVD, a self described life long Democrat has the ability to look at each issue with objectivity and non-partisanship, whereas Meyer does not.


    Posted Wed, Nov 21, 4:59 p.m. Inappropriate

    " Younger voters cast ballots in fewer numbers for Obama than in 2008 but still gave him, in the 29-and-below group, 60 percent. " ... a somewhat ironic fact. Which generation gets the federal money? the oldest one, the people on Medicare and Social Security both of which are soon to be paid with borrowed money or (let's be honest) printed money. Which generations are going to deal with that largesse? people who are less than fifty years old. Note I do not say "pay back this debt" for the simple reason that it will probably not be paid back but the repudiation of the debt (in one form or another) will surely cause economic pain here in the USA. Maybe the younger set perceived no difference between Romney and Obama on that issue and they may be right but to me it seems many young people voted against their own apparent economic interest.


    Posted Fri, Nov 23, 1:29 p.m. Inappropriate

    I appreciate TVD comments and read his thoughts in crosscut, at the same time i do not think Harris Meyer's response was mean spirited i was thinking many of the same things as i read teds article. The republican party had a very flawed candidate in Romney, he had little connection with many voters on a personal level, he was unable to articluate his true core beliefs during the campaign for fear of backlash from the teaparty and changed his mind constantly at the same time.
    Ted also does not mention the devastating effect of old white men publicly talking about 'legitimate rape' during the campaign. And while Karl Rove got Bush elected twice by turning out the conservative christian vote, that turned out to be not so easy when your candidate is Mormon. Obama was weak on the economy and as a domestic leader in many peoples view, and a stronger opponent should have toppled him. He never seriously respected Romney as a real foe until after his failure during the first debate. I would argue that failure by obama woke him up and caused him to work harder in the last thirty days than normal. Hurricane sandy did help obama, and Chris Crisco's encomiums of praise were the true gift from god.
    Van Dyke seemed to brush off Nate Silver's accomplishments as just a statistician, dude, he called 49 out of 50 states in the 2008 election and 50 out of 50 this year, and is damned humble about it.
    I do agree with ted that in four years if the republicans can find a candidate that conveys a real plan of action to the american people, and can control the right wing crazies and religious zealots in their party they have a 'legitimate' chance.


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »