The 2012 campaign is the smallest ever
For years, operatives, reporters and potential nominees envisioned the 2012 presidential campaign as a titanic clash of media-swarmed combatants with big ideas about the future. In the Republican primaries, this was almost a mantra: this is the most important campaign in a generation.
So why does it feel so small?
Continue ReadingDating to the beginning of the cycle, 2012 has unfolded so far as a grinding, joyless slog, falling short in every respect of the larger-than-life personalities and debates of the 2008 campaign.
(Also on POLITICO: Pawlenty stock soars in Romney-world)
There have been small-ball presidential campaigns before, but veteran strategists and observers agree this race is reaching a record degree of triviality. Nothing previously can compare with a race being fought hour by hour in 140-character Twitter increments and blink-and-you-miss-it cable segments. Not to mention an endless flood of caustic television ads.
Blame the campaign strategist, blame the operatives, blame the reporters. They know it’s a drag. And they know they’re responsible.
They would argue: We’re powerless to stop it.
The Obama and Romney campaigns spend all day strafing each other on Twitter, all while decrying the campaign’s lack of serious ideas for a serious time. Yet at most junctures when they’ve had the opportunity to go big, they’ve chosen to go small. Obama has spoken in broad strokes about his accomplishments but has not yet outlined a detailed agenda for a second term. Romney has openly declared that he will not detail his policy proposals — slashing the size of government, for example — so as to avoid giving his opponents ammunition.
Instead, they have embraced a campaign that has been defined almost entirely by tactics and daily trench warfare, whether that’s the chair of the Democratic Party labeling Romney a “job cremator” or the Romney campaign driving its campaign bus in circles around an Obama event honking the horn, in a stunt right out of a third-tier frat house. Some antics satisfy their partisans but don’t focus the national dialogue.
“Here’s the sad part: They all believe it’s a total crock but they can’t abandon it,” said Todd Purdum, the Vanity Fair editor and former New York Times White House reporter. “Who’s going to say, in the middle of an election year, we’re going to come up with a new system and here’s how we’re going to play, and everyone’s going to come along? History’s shown that’s not too successful.”
Purdum continued: “Both campaigns right now are in a kind of defensive crouch. They’re both very tightly clenched and I don’t think either one sees any advantage in talking expansively or philosophically.”
“For the first time in my memory, we have a presidential race in which neither one of these candidates really likes to campaign,” added Dan Rather, the longtime national news anchor who now hosts HDNet’s “Dan Rather Reports.” “They’re not naturals like a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton. I can’t remember a race in my lifetime when you had candidates in both parties who didn’t really like to campaign.”
(Also on POLITICO: Obama warns Mitt on foreign policy)
The expanding and hyperactive press corps doesn’t help matters, Rather said.
“You have not just a 24-hour news cycle but a deadline every nanosecond. … So much of the reporting focuses on who said what in the last five minutes and who said what in response to that,” he explained, musing that the tenor of the race could change after Labor Day. “I think reporters, together with the inaccessibility of candidates, get caught up in a kind of ennui, if you will — it’s probably the only French word you’ll ever hear me use — and we are only in June.”
Readers' Comments (122)
AngelEyez Party: Independent
Reply #1
Jun. 20, 2012 - 5:27 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Mikey123 Party: NA
Reply #2
Jun. 20, 2012 - 6:28 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
dookhh Party: N/A
Reply #3
Jun. 20, 2012 - 7:19 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
wesdg007 Party: NA
Reply #4
Jun. 20, 2012 - 7:26 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
DeeAnnRowley Party: Independent
Reply #5
Jun. 20, 2012 - 7:31 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
loretta Party: Democrat
Reply #6
Jun. 20, 2012 - 7:43 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
humbolt Party: N/A
Reply #7
Jun. 20, 2012 - 7:54 AM EST
loretta: "Democrats are united behind our President. "..................Looks to me like every thing Obama has done recently is designed to gather back in his fractured base. Of course they won't vote for Romney. They just won't bother to vote unless Obama throws them a bone or two, so he's got a box of Milkbones to dispense between now and the election...
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Danbury Party: N/A
Reply #8
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:17 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Karl Jay Party: Independent
Reply #9
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:17 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
openeyes1 Party: NA
Reply #10
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:18 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Danbury Party: N/A
Reply #11
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:22 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Danbury Party: N/A
Reply #12
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:23 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Dr. Samuel Party: N/A
Reply #13
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:25 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Aricebo Party: N/A
Reply #14
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:26 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Aricebo Party: N/A
Reply #15
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:27 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
tehe3 Party: Conservative
Reply #16
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:28 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Danbury Party: N/A
Reply #17
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:30 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
cee Party: Conservative
Reply #18
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:33 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
contraryaryan Party: Conservative
Reply #19
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:39 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Danbury Party: N/A
Reply #20
Jun. 20, 2012 - 8:44 AM EST
- Reply
- Quote
- Report Abuse
Read all 122 comments in our forum" FOCUSED MEANS SHARPLY DEFINED "
Why are Reagan Democrats and Conservatves so focused on removing Mr. Obama from the WH? It is still the economy that every picosecond is focusing these American voters attentions on Mitt Romney's message. Mr. Obama can not run on his failed record and instead he is dividing the nation with wedge issues and lies.
American voters are focused and Mr. Obama's agenda has been exposed. Just as a hand held magnifer brings the sun's light into a very small focused point of energy, Mr. Obama's Communist policies has focused and united the majority America of all spectrums together. IMO
Small? Perhaps because you really smart libs elected a really small man, a con man whose umimitigated hype and soaring rhetorical skills turned out to be a big steamy pile of dog eating feces?
For 40 years the republicans have fought an unlevel playiing field because of the press. The playing field is becoming more level, meaning that instead of Republicans having to be paranoid 24-7 about what the press might find some gaffe the made or as in the case of NBC, just cut- edit-fabricate a gaffe for the benefit of their extreme left wing employers, the DNC, while the democrats could snort coke and father children with campaign workers while married to others without so much as a peep from the dirty cop media, the democrats are starting to get scrutiny to and they don't seem to like it much. As always, scrutiny, rules and laws only seem to be made for non-enlightened persons without dilated pupils....
Yeah Politico.......
The American people aren't waking up to Obama - Obama is waking up to them.
You're talking about a guy that is hosting speeches that are a quarter or the they were in 2008, a guy that is having his a ss handed to him in campaign funding and a guy that no one wants.
Politico, MSNBC and all of the other liberal MSM outlets will be working HARD over the next 5 months to convince us all that Obama is not only on top but has a great chance of winning......
Truth: 90% of voters have already made their decision about the presidency - in fact - most made in years ago.
Romney 2012
Producers vs Parasites.
Just reading comments 1,2&3 above helps explain the negative tone of this campaign. The inflammatory talk of (especially) the right wing has infiltrated comment sections like they have Twitter. Personally, I suspect many of these authors are paid staffers. They have a consistency of tone, talking points, reading level.
Indeed.
Democrats are united behind our President.
republicans let Karl Rove select the loser who couldn't even beat their last loser four years ago.
'Pubs: We're PROUD to be owned by Wall Street!
Well, wrong. And kind of funny considering who the Republican nominee is.
(Plays theme from "The Twilight Zone").
Ah, our president doesn't like to campaign? Really? That's odd since he has been non-stop campaigning for three and a half years...
But what he really loves to do is shoot hoops, play 18 and dictate...oh, and vacation.
Romney must go after Barry obama on his lack of ethics, his ignorance of business, his concealing his entire history, his acitvity as a marxist and socialist party member, his work to give away the soverignty of the U.S. to the U.N., his connection to the far, far radical left.
Romney MUST take the gloves off and reveal the ugliness and danger of the liar, racist hate and fraud obama. Barry is NOT a nice fellow but a treacherous street goon. The public will respond to seeing the shocking truth about obama who has acted like a closet queen his entire failed term of presidency.
'Pubs: Not only is it different when we do it, but we create realtiy! It's awesome being a Republican!
Lol.
Tad hysterical, are we?
FIRST, THE MEDIA HAS FAILED BADLY TO GET ROMNEY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS--SPECIFICALLY. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ASK HIM TO RELEASE MULTI-YEARS OF HIS TAX RETURNS.
SECONDLY, MANY ASSUMPTIONS ON THIS CAMPAIGN ARE NOT BEING CHALLENGED OR EXAMINED BY THE MEDIA THAT HAS BEEN LARGELY COMPROMISED. I GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE:
GOVERNMENT IS NOT A CORPORATION AND NOT RUN LIKE ONE.
THE MEDIA has refused to challenge Romney’s false assumption that as former businessman he is best suited to run America’s government than a President with no business background. Yet, there is little evidence to support Romney’s assumption, and the compromised media still happily go along. While some businessmen have done well as President, there is little to support the notion that businessmen generally make the best Presidents. Bush, and especially Cheney, had ample business experience. Look what mess they made in office (even Bolton says as much): they ran a buoyant, surplus-rich economy into the ground triggering the near collapse of the US and world economy! Remember Hoover, the Great Depression and “Hooverville.” On the other hand, look at the historical achievements of Presidents with no business experience: Lincoln, FDR, and more recently Clinton who took the country to the path of robust prosperity.
Often, businessmen when they happen to become Presidents, tend to follow a model in which they increase their personal tax advantage, sell off chunks of major government assets to the private sector at bargain prices (usually to their supporters), lay off a lot of people (who then become wards of the state) and squander the nation’s advantage in foreign adventurism in hope of fostering an image of strength in international politics. This is an old trick. During pre-colonial era in Africa, leaders of major cosmopolitan European powers sat in a room to give themselves territories they never visited or known well. That is how businessmen do things. Again, look at the mess they made in Africa and Asia.
Government is not a corporation, and should never be run as one. Business is all about profit; government is about the common good! Therefore, there are many things government do that business is not suited or willing to do. Partly for that reason, we do not elect our President based on the economy alone (a self-serving mantra for Romney and many Republicans). We also want a President that has character, empathy, one that cares about the rights and suffering of others. Washington Post Moraniss reveals in his biographical installments on Obama and Romney that even as a Mormon preacher in Paris, Romney was unable to connect with people and made few converts. We want a President that is smart about foreign policy. We want a President that we can trust, not one who is trigger-happy. We want a President that cares about all the people not just a few (Romney, without equivocation, embraces the Ryan Budget, a budget that cuddles the rich and persecutes the poor and middle class). Romney and Ryan pity the rich and powerful and “forgot the dying birds.” We want a President that tells the truth not lie when it is convenient. While we believe that corporations are not people, we as well believe that a President should not run government like a corporation, or the people suffer!
I have one word for the presidential campaign - BORING.
I have one word for the presidential campaign - BORING.
This campaign is going to get very intense very soon. Both parties are staking out their terrain right now, and doing market research on the best lines of attack. Focus groups are being conducted in every part of the US by both sides right now, especially in "swing states".
When the conventions occur, the campaign will go full force from both sides. It will already be pre-programmed with ads, flyers, events, call trees, canvassers, etc. There won't be much, if any, last minute adjustments (any changes to the campaign will already be pre-mapped and ready to launch should something untoward occur or a message be lost). It will essentially boil down to a computer driven battle between the two titans with lots of whistle stops and three debates.
The debates could loom large, but both sides will be well-prepared with one-liners and arguments, so the questions will mean very little since the answers will be pre-scripted. Thus, the debates will have little impact, EXCEPT that the Dem hype about how good Obama will be and how bad Romney will be will tend to set low-expectations for Romney, and he will rise above those expectations (the "who won" will be largely a subjective determination, and almost meaningless regardless of who gets "the edge" in point scoring).
Both parties will hold their base.The difference will be "turnout". While the Dems will mount a fantastic effort to get their people to the polls, that will only be noticeable in blue states. Independents will largely vote for Romney (60-40). The more spirited and enthusiastic conservatives will overcome the less motivated progressives and the edge in independents will give Republicans a significant victory. They will not only grab virtually all the swing states, but will pick up a surprise red state.
Dems will blame the loss on massive Republicans Super-Pac spending and their unknown donors, but will also say that this loss is a reflection of conservative racism targeted at removing the first historic black President.
And the ignorance and infantile impatience of the American public. That should do it.
As one undecided voter put it to Democratic researcher Peter Hart in a recent Denver focus group: “I’m not sure I’m going to vote — it’s just a show.”
Yep, another correct assessment of Obama's America.....Under his leadership in Washington DC, our nation has become more divided, our citizens are more alienated from the elites in DC and there is more acrimony and coarseness in our political exchanges.....He promised he was the change we were looking for in 2008 that could reverse the trend and he has shown incapable of fulfilling that promise.....
For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, "Enough," to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.
You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008...
Has Washington changed? Has the old politics gone away and is Obama not using the politics of the past?
Did he keep his promise?
Did Obama change Washington?
Actually, that's what got him elected the first time.
This is excellent. If youi ignore the fact that the GOP has, since Clinton, had a policy of never, ever going along with a Democrat, never, ever compromise (death knell for Republicans, in fact), then yes, Obama has not brought us together.
Lol.
You must be logged in to comment
Not yet a member?
Register Now