Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America (45 page)

As the 47 percent controversy was gathering momentum, Phil Rucker and I met in Boston to take the temperature of the Romney’s advisers. In our conversations, they were defiantly upbeat, determined not to show how worried they were. As political professionals, they were trying to win the election, not
wallow in their problems. To the outside world, they displayed a united and, without totally straining credibility, positive face. The race was not lost in the least, they asserted. But privately they were deeply worried. They had absorbed the worst body blow of the general election and were not sure at that point how lasting the damage might turn out to be. They had only one night of polling by the time we arrived, so they could be safely constrained in their assessment. Neil Newhouse later said he had actually stopped polling after the video was disclosed. “We know what it’s going to look like,” he later said. “We’ve got to dig our way through this, we’ve got to push our way through it, and there’s nothing in the polling right now that’s going to [help]. We know what we’ve got to do and how we’ve got to do it.”

If the Romney campaign stopped polling, nobody else did, and the findings grew progressively worse as the days went along. Every other day a new poll was published showing Romney slipping in one of the battleground states. Within two weeks of the video being revealed, three polls showed Romney trailing Obama in Ohio by eight, nine, and ten points. In Florida and Virginia, two other must-win states for the challenger, Obama was holding a small but consistent lead. More than the poll numbers turned against Romney. It was impossible to find a story or commentary that did not suggest the race was almost over. A Democrat close to Obama called me one day in late September. “Is it over?” he asked. That was typical of the prevailing sentiment, even if the polls didn’t quite show it.
Romney taped an interview
with CBS anchor Scott Pelley for
60 Minutes
. “You are slipping in the polls at this moment,” Pelley said. “A lot of Republicans are concerned about this campaign. You bill yourself as a turnaround artist. How are you going to turn this campaign around?” Romney replied, “Well, actually, we’re tied in the polls. We’re all within the margin of error. We bounce around, week to week, day to day. . . .” “Governor, I appreciate your message very much,” Pelley said. “But that wasn’t precisely the question. You’re the CEO of this campaign. A lot of Republicans would like to know, a lot of your donors would like to know, how do you turn this thing around? You’ve got a little more than six weeks. What do you do?” Romney wouldn’t hear it. “Well, it doesn’t need a turnaround. We’ve got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president [of] the United States.”

Another shift came the week after the video. Gillespie issued a memo that finally jettisoned the idea that the election was largely a referendum on the president’s record. “This election is a choice,” he wrote, as if starting to take lines from an Obama stump speech. “And the simple fact is we can’t afford four more years of Obama’s failed policies.” Paul Ryan was one of the catalysts for the change. One Romney adviser said Ryan was outspoken during conference calls about the need to draw a sharper contrast. “He didn’t see the referendum
stuff was working,” the adviser said. He thought Romney had specific plans and proposals that were more attractive than the president’s but did not think people were hearing the distinctions clearly enough.
*

•   •   •

It had become clear to everyone that trying to explain away the 47 percent comment was failing. But it would take Romney almost three weeks to say publicly that what he said at the Florida fund-raiser was wrong, rather than just inelegant. He was asked about the comment during an interview with Fox News. “Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right,” he said. “In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.” One adviser likened the decision to finally admit error to trying to land a huge fish. “At some point, you just cut the line and let that fish drop back into the water and not try to get it in the boat,” he said.

At Obama headquarters, the president’s advisers tried to keep the race in perspective. Their overall battleground state survey showed Romney dropping three points—from 47 to 44 percent—in the days after the video became public, with Obama’s number rising from 50 to 51. They dismissed some of the more optimistic public polls from individual battleground states. Their own numbers showed a tighter race. Plouffe warned others that the public numbers were artificial and subject to change. This was still a close race, he told the team. From Boston, I flew to Chicago to see how the Obama team assessed everything. Stephanie Cutter, the deputy campaign manager and a veteran of John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, told me, “I’m realistic that Romney’s had a couple of bad weeks. But there’s lots of time for him to recover. John Kerry was behind George Bush significantly at this point and he completely recovered after the debates. That’s what Mitt Romney’s banking on.” But even for a team that trusted in its data, it was difficult to believe that the massive hit Romney had taken could not be changing the race.

Debacle in Denver

A
t 6:59 p.m. Denver time on the evening of October 3, Jim Messina tweeted the following message: “We are back stage in our hold room, Obama staff together eating pizza and fired up. 1 minute left. #forwardnotback.” A minute later, a light on a nearby television camera glowed red, and the more than sixty million people watching could hear the familiar voice of a veteran newsman and debate moderator: “Good evening from the Magness Arena at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado. I’m Jim Lehrer of the
PBS NewsHour
and I welcome you to the first of the 2012 presidential debates between President Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee.” As Lehrer made the introductions, Newark mayor Cory Booker, as if holding his breath in anticipation of what was about to unfold on the stage, tweeted, “Here we go! #debate.”

The incumbent and the challenger were dressed in the team colors of red and blue America. Obama wore a dark suit, white shirt, and blue tie. Romney wore a dark suit, white shirt, and red tie. The political narrative for the encounter had been fixed two weeks earlier with the release of the 47 percent video. Romney had arrived in Denver on the defensive, with his party demoralized. He appeared at risk of letting the contest slip away from him a month before election day. Polls showed the president with his biggest lead of the campaign. But the fired-up message from Messina belied considerable nervousness inside Obama’s reelection campaign. Preparations for Denver had gone badly. Everyone around the president was worried about what might happen.

Over the next ninety minutes, 10.3 million tweets would chronicle the Denver debate. At its high point, the debate generated almost 159,000 tweets per minute. This medium, which barely existed four years earlier, became the arbiter and the real-time spin room of one of the most important presidential debates in history, a pithy, running national conversation that was at turns devastatingly incisive in its judgments of the two men or hilariously funny at pointing out their foibles. The 10.3 million tweets eclipsed the tweets-per-minute
pace set during the two political conventions a month earlier and marked, if not the coming of age of this medium, then at least an irrefutable confirmation of its power to shape elite opinions and perceptions. As Obama and Romney sparred onstage, they were oblivious to this running stream of commentary that was rendering judgment long before time was called at the end.

“Gentlemen, welcome to you both,” Lehrer said. “Let’s start the economy, segment one, and let’s begin with jobs. What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?” Obama, by coin toss, went first. “There are a lot of points that I want to make tonight,” he said, “but the most important one is that twenty years ago I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me. And so I just want to wish, sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now, we will not be celebrating it in front of forty million people.” He appeared slightly stiff as he delivered his lines. He segued into the economy, reminding viewers of the problems he had inherited. He claimed progress but said it was not enough. He drew a contrast with his opponent. “The question here tonight is not where we’ve been but where we’re going. Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut taxes skewed towards the wealthy and roll back regulations that we’ll be better off. I’ve got a different view.” When it was Romney’s turn, he too began by mentioning the president’s wedding day. “Congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your anniversary,” he said. “I’m sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine—here with me.” The audience laughed. Then he turned to what he called the “very tender topic” of the economy. Romney spoke of people he and his wife had met along the campaign trail who had lost their job or their home. He outlined his plan to restore the economy. He drew a contrast with the president, countering criticism that his approach was a return to “trickle-down economics.” “The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more—if you will, trickle-down government—would work. That’s not the right answer for America. I’ll restore the vitality that gets America working again.”

On Twitter, Chuck Todd of NBC said, “An old Clinton trick by Romney, using real people stories to make his point.” Jeffrey Goldberg of the
Atlantic
tweeted, “Romney did better on the subject of Obama’s anniversary than Obama did on the subject of Obama’s anniversary.” Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin tweeted, “Obama rambled. Romney gets off to strong start by recounting mtg w/woman in Dayton OH w/hubby out of work.”
New York Times
columnist Charles M. Blow noticed Obama’s body language. “Obama looks like he’s biting his tongue,” he tweeted. Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham saw Romney in fighting form. “Romney killed first answer,” her tweet read.
David Frum, a Bush White House speechwriter, said of the president, “Obama uncombative. He must have good poll news.” At 9:14 p.m., Michael Tomasky, editor of the liberal journal
Democracy,
observed, “Obama isn’t aggressive enough, not countering Romney enough.” A tweeter dubbed @LOLGOP sent out a comparable message: “I think Mitt Romney had his first Frappuccino tonight,” suggesting that Romney might have had extra energy because he had violated Mormonism’s prohibition on caffeine. In the Obama war room, Stephanie Cutter could see what was happening. The debate was being lost in the opening fifteen minutes because of a medium that had not even played a role in the campaign four years earlier. Cutter exclaimed to her colleagues, “We’re getting killed on Twitter!” David Plouffe turned to White House chief of staff Jack Lew. “This is a disaster,” he said.

Onstage, the challenger protested Obama’s claim that he wanted to cut taxes by $5 trillion, though several independent studies said that was the size of the cuts Romney was proposing. “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut,” he said. “I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They’ll do fine whether you’re president or I am.” Romney’s tax plan had been a potential liability from the day he announced it back in February. He had deliberately avoided filling in the missing details—the deductions he would have to eliminate or cap in order to pay for his tax cuts. Obama’s team was dumbfounded by what he was saying. “Mitt Romney just walked away from his $5 trillion tax cut,” Cutter tweeted. Those keeping score on Twitter were more captivated by the contrasting performances on the stage than by the substance of what either was saying. At 9:18 p.m., Bill Maher, the caustic comedian and Obama super PAC contributor, began to sound nervous: “Obama’s not looking like he came for a job interview, Romney so far does.” Two minutes later, Andrew Sullivan, an enthusiastic Obama supporter with one of the largest blog followings in the country, weighed in. “Man, Obama is boring and abstract,” he tweeted. “He’s putting us to sleep. I get his points but he is entirely wonky tonight. And he is on the defensive.”

Obama bore in on Romney’s tax package. There was no way for Romney to pay for all those cuts, he said. Romney was sputtering as he tried to break into the conversation. “Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate,” he said. Even he would oppose the plan Obama was describing. Obama was incredulous. He said Romney was saying “Never mind” to eighteen months of campaigning. Basic arithmetic, he said, proved Romney was misleading the public. The president’s words may have been on point, but he was listless in the face of Romney’s aggressiveness. The challenger was on the offensive against
the president and even tried to overrule Lehrer. At one point he demanded the last word during one segment. As Lehrer began to protest, Obama said, “You can have it.”

“Well, well, well,” tweeted Dana Perino, who was White House press secretary for President George W. Bush and was now a Fox News commentator, “who do we have here? Romney is prePARED.” Jeff Greenfield, the veteran political reporter and television correspondent, tweeted, “Romney is instructing Obama on how the economy works, and Obama seems unable to wrench the narrative away from him.” Actor Albert Brooks observed, “Romney looks like he got more sleep.” Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist, protested Romney’s attempt to rewrite his tax plan. “I’m sorry, are we gonna let Romney get away with a brand new tax plan?” she tweeted. “That all of a sudden he gets to say that he won’t cut more?” But a pattern was emerging on the left and right. As the first half hour of the debate was ending, Hugh Hewitt, the conservative talk show host, tweeted, “Romney pounding POTUS. Let the debate go long. What is POTUS thinking right now? ‘Help me @davidaxelrod.’” David Corn, the journalist who had broken the story about the 47 percent video, offered this summation: “Romney does seem more passionate about dealing with the economic mess than Obama. He’s doing well.” And Mike Murphy, the former Romney adviser and GOP strategist and commentator, said what other Republicans were now thinking: “If we had this Mitt Romney for last 60 days, he’d be 5 points ahead.”

At this point, some levity crept into the debate—and the Twitter conversation. Romney was ticking through areas he would cut to try to reduce the deficit. “Obamacare is on my list,” he said, using the pejorative that conservatives had attached to the president’s Affordable Care Act. “I apologize, Mr. President, I use that term with all respect.” Inexplicably, the president replied, “I like it.” Romney continued, “Good. Okay, good.” The audience laughed. “So I’ll get rid of that. I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.” “Mitt Romney’s love of Big Bird just exploded Twitter,” said the Web site BuzzFeed. Instantly someone created a Big Bird identity on Twitter (several parody accounts were launched, in fact) and began offering snarky responses to Romney. “Mitt Romney will end Bert and Ernie’s right to a civil union,” the Twitter Big Bird tweeted.

The debate continued apace. Romney was loaded for whatever Obama offered. He attacked Obama’s green energy initiatives. He said a friend had commented that Obama didn’t pick winners and losers, just losers. “You put $90 billion into green jobs,” he said. “And look, I’m all in favor of green energy.
Ninety billion, that would have hired two million teachers.” At times Obama offered detailed rebuttals, filled with facts and figures. It wasn’t always his answers that were a problem—reading the transcript, the debate appeared substantive, serious, mostly civil, and more evenly balanced. It was the way he responded, as if didn’t want to be there. Obama managed to score some points in the final half hour, once again calling out Romney for lack of specificity. “At some point, I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? No.” But he showed peevishness when Lehrer tried to cut him off. “Two minutes is up, sir,” Lehrer said. “No,” Obama replied. “I think I had five seconds before you interrupted me.” Later the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore lamented in a tweet, “PBO, lemme get this straight. You can send in drones that kill civilians, but you can’t stop Romney or Lehrer from interrupting you?” Obama’s closing statement drew this from a
Vanity Fair
tweet: “Good LORD Obama wouldn’t win a student council election against a chubby nerd with that closing statement.”

In the filing center, where hundreds of journalists from the United States and around the world were watching on flat-screen televisions, there was an area at the front of the room for emissaries of the two candidates to spin reporters after the debate. But spin alley was now obsolete, effectively put out of business by the advances in social media. The tweets had rolled out faster than anyone could really absorb them all, as reporters, strategists, celebrities, and ordinary citizens set the narrative in bursts of 140 characters that magnified the consensus: Romney was not just winning the debate. He was crushing the president. The longer the debate went on, the more everyone was expressing the same view. Two-thirds of the way through, David Gregory, the host of NBC’s
Meet the Press,
tweeted, “One hour in Romney is far more energetic and aggressive than the president.” As the debate entered its final twenty minutes, journalists and others began to point out Obama’s missed opportunities. Ashley Parker of the
New York Times
summed it up this way: “Things Obama has not yet mentioned, w 15 min left: Bain, 47 percent, flip-flopping.” “I can’t believe I’m saying this,” Bill Maher said shortly before the debate ended, “but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.” The
Weekly Standard
’s Bill Kristol blogged that Romney was turning in “the best debate performance by a GOP candidate in more than two decades.”
Weekly Standard
writer Mark Hemingway joked, “That wasn’t a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car.” That, of course, was a reference to the Romneys’ decades-old family car trip in which the family dog, Seamus, had been put on the roof. Roger Simon,
Politico
’s chief political columnist, headlined his sharply
written analysis “President Obama Snoozes and Loses.” He said the president “looked like someone had slipped him an Ambien.”

Seven minutes after the debate ended, as the front of the filing center was being overrun by a platoon of Romney staffers and surrogates, Olivier Knox, chief Washington correspondent for Yahoo! News, tweeted, “Not one Obama surrogate in the ‘spin room’ right now. Emergency talking points meeting?” Even the hosts on MSNBC were attacking the president’s performance. Eleven minutes later, now almost 11 p.m. on the East Coast, Andrew Sullivan offered one more stinging observation: “Look: you know how much I love the guy, and how much of a high info viewer I am, but this was a disaster for Obama.”