The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election
John Sides, Lynn Vavreck
Language: English
Pages: 352
ISBN: 0691156883
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
"Game changer." We heard it so many times during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. But what actually made a difference in the contest--and what was just hype? In this groundbreaking book, John Sides and Lynn Vavreck tell the dramatic story of the election--with a big difference. Using an unusual "moneyball" approach, they look beyond the anecdote, folklore, and conventional wisdom that often pass for election analysis. Instead, they draw on extensive quantitative data about the economy, public opinion, news coverage, and political advertising to separate what was truly important from what was irrelevant. Combining this data with the best social science research and colorful on-the-ground reporting, they provide the most accurate and precise account of the election yet written--and the only book of its kind.
Which mattered more--Barack Obama's midsummer ad blitz or the election year's economic growth? How many voters actually changed their minds--and was it ever enough to sway the outcome? The Gamble answers important questions like these by looking at the interplay between the candidates' strategic choices--the ads, speeches, rallies, and debates--and the chance circumstances of the election, especially the economy. In the Republican primary, the book shows, the electioneering and the media's restless attention did matter, producing a string of frontrunners. But when Obama and Mitt Romney finally squared off in the general election, there were few real game-changers. The candidates' billion-dollar campaigns were important but largely cancelled each other out, opening the way for Obama to do what incumbents usually do when running amid even modest economic growth: win.
An election book unlike any other, The Gamble is a must-read for political junkies, analysts, journalists, consultants, and academics.
Democracy—The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order
Restructuring Welfare Organizations in Europe: From Democracy to Good Management?
Gandhi in the West: The Mahatma and the Rise of Radical Protest
Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States
International Relations: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)
or Santorum won, the reaction among party leaders ranged from deafening silence to outright alarm. In part because of this, Gingrich and Santorum never had enough resources to build a campaign that could compete effectively with Romney’s in state after state, and particularly in states where the electorate was not as favorable to them. Campaigning and media coverage alone could not help the other candidates neutralize Romney’s advantage. The General Election Once the general election campaign
entirely possible at the time given ongoing economic turbulence in Europe. All of these possibilities were real. Our forecast simply showed what history could tell us: presidents in their first term who were presiding over even modest improvement in the economy have been likely to win. Sometimes even modest faith in forecasting models is deemed “economic determinism” by commentators who presume that these models, and even the whole of political science research on elections, imply that elections
thought this was a plausible weakness to exploit. However, Romney’s decision to focus on the economy was, in another sense, questionable. Objective economic conditions were not in his favor, and the four previous presidential candidates who focused on the economy despite this disadvantage lost: George McGovern, George H. W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole, and John McCain.51 The Romney campaign’s point of historical reference, however, seemed to be Jimmy Carter in 1980.52 They apparently believed that
strategies can shift votes, thereby creating volatility in the race. But this happens only when the coverage and campaigning favor one side—such that one candidate dominates the airwaves, for example. In the Republican presidential primary, news coverage and intense campaigning produced instability because lopsided moments occurred often, creating the surges of many different candidates. But in the general election, news coverage and intensive campaigning were accompanied by stability among
damage—it inevitably seems crass to focus on its impact on the election. But natural disasters have influenced elections. Voters have punished incumbents for droughts, floods, and tornadoes, presumably believing that more could have been done either to prevent the damage before the disaster or to address them after. This historical pattern would obviously implicate Obama after Sandy.88 Inclement weather also appears to depress Democratic turnout, something that David Axelrod expressed concern