-
Recent Posts
- Kamala’s brother-in-law fleeced taxpayers for billions to give to left-wing groups and lawyers | New York Post | 8.24. 24
- Coming: Global Political Recalibration
- Clark Judge: FDR, Reagan, and European Nationalism | NatCon Rome 2020
- Lady Gaga Tells All
- Trial Lawyers Use COVID-19 to Prey on America’s Corporations | Real Clear Policy | 12.1.20
Categories
- Book Reviews (12)
- Communication Strategy (23)
- Constitution and Law (14)
- Economic Policy: General (33)
- Economic Policy: Health Care (30)
- Economic Policy: The Great Financial Crisis (15)
- Economic Policy: US Debt Crisis (32)
- Education Policy (1)
- Global Issues (57)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2008 (18)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2012 (43)
- Political Commentary: Campaign 2020 (5)
- Political Commentary: General (122)
- Politics & Policy (6)
- Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Administration (11)
- Speeches/Lectures (9)
- Uncategorized (6)
Archives
- September 2024
- March 2023
- July 2022
- April 2022
- December 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- November 2019
- December 2018
- September 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- January 2008
- June 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- June 2006
- October 2005
- August 2005
- March 2005
- November 2004
- August 2004
- June 2004
- December 2003
- October 2003
- August 2003
- April 2003
- July 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- May 2001
- December 2000
- June 2000
- January 1995
- August 1994
- August 1992
- June 1991
- July 1990
- September 1989
- July 1989
- March 1989
Tags
2012 2012 election Benghazi campaign constitution debt debt crisis Democrats economy election 2012 Energy Financial Times fiscal cliff foreign policy Gingrich Global Warming GOP Hoover Digest hughhewitt HughHewitt.com Immigration IRS National Review New York Post New York Times Obama Obamacare Republicans Ricochet Ricochet.com Romney Russia Scandal Senate SOTU speech Supreme Court Syria Tea Party Trump U.S. News Ukraine Wall Street Journal war Washington Times
The Biggest Surprise of the ’12 Election | USNews.com | 11.12.12
A day or two before the election, U.S. News opinion editor Robert Schlesinger and I exchanged predictions to the percentage point for both tickets.
Robert is the son of former John F. Kennedy presidential speechwriter and historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., so you can imagine his preference, as you can mine. I’m a former Reagan presidential speechwriter. Our prognostications paralleled our hopes. Or you might say that Robert’s forecast reflected great insight and prescience. Mine did not.
I sat in on a phone briefing from Gov. Mitt Romney’s pollster late last week. He conveyed considerable confidence about how things were breaking. Yes, the campaign had concerns about Virginia, something I had also heard a month earlier from another senior Romney aide. But the pollster sounded confident they could deal with it. Other states once thought securely in the president’s corner were in play. So even if Virginia fell to Barack Obama, Romney had back up states. To win, he no longer needed to run the Florida-North Carolina-Virginia-Ohio table. This was going to be a different election than anyone had anticipated.
Well, it sure was that. How many states that could have been Romney’s went to Obama? I’ll spare you the list. You know the rundown and repeating it will just depress me. Several more surprises emerged from the balloting.
The first had to do with those faulty internal Romney polls. Apparently the campaign had not the slightest suspicion how wrong their data was. As a result, it now appears their late-in-the-game media buys were misplaced, their scheduling of the candidate was mistargeted, and their level of spending was miscalculated. They fumbled their way through the last few weeks even as they faced what now appears to have been, according to Time magazine , the most sophisticated exercise in political targeting and strategic planning in American history.
This brings up Tuesday’s second big surprise, maybe not a surprise for you, but it was for me. It had to do with turnout. Yes, I’ve heard all the talk about groups whose numbers surged. The president enjoyed an enormous and—to everyone except his campaign staff—unexpected turnout of African-Americans, Latinos, and young people. That’s not the surprise I have in mind. Mine is this: given the ballooning of the minority turnout for Obama, how did Romney come within 2.6 percentage points of the president, almost a tie, in the popular vote? Why wasn’t the popular vote a blowout?
You see, for me the real surprise was the enormous and unexpected drop-off in the overall vote from 2008, about 9 million ballots, most from the president’s backing, though Romney’s total fell nearly one million short of Arizona Sen. John McCain’s. Where’d those voters all go?
Presumably these were people, mainly white, who had become disenchanted with Obama but couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever (or whatever we do in a voting booth these days) for Romney. The conventional wisdom now is that the Obama campaign poisoned the well with their over-the-top negative advertising.
I wonder, though, if Romney’s problem began much earlier, going back four years to the view of him as an unreliable flip-flopper, the sense that he would take any position to get to victory. I do not believe that caricature. Yet I am confident that a significant portion of his potential supporters never shook the feeling and was unsure what he would actually do once elected. The president spoke to this unease when he called Romney a “salesman.”
Related to that problem is one American Enterprise Institute’s Henry Olson has been talking about for some time now—that Romney had a problem in states like Ohio with whites who had not gone to college. They just didn’t relate to him—or maybe more accurately, they didn’t believe he related to them. Add the skeptical issue voters to the distrustful high-school-and-out voters. I’m betting that together they total enough uninspired voters to make up most of that disappearing nine million.
Here is how I sort it all out.
Despite the technical flaws in the Romney campaign and the superb execution of his own, President Obama could have been beaten. The country was ready to hear another message. That’s why Romney surged so strongly after the first debate. But the governor’s themes hadn’t come together until the convention and not with sufficient depth and clarity to move votes until the first debate. Romney’s message wasn’t clear enough for long enough to convince enough disillusioned-with-Obama voters that they could trust him. So, many of them stayed home.
At the end of the day, the salesman didn’t make the sale.