Ted Cruz, the Republican junior senator from Texas, has heard the line about how the Party needs to become more moderate to win Presidential elections. â€œIt is amazing that the wisdom of the chattering class to the Republicans is always, always, always â€˜Surrender your principles and agree with the Democrats,â€™Â â€ he told me. â€œThatâ€™s been true for my entire lifetime. The chattering classes have consistently said, â€˜You crazy Republicans have to give up on what you believe and become more like Democrats.â€™ And, I would note, every time Republicans do that we lose.â€ Cruz then offered a short history of recent Presidential politics. Richard Nixon ran as a conservative, twice a winner; Gerald Ford, moderate, loser; Ronald Reagan, also twice a winner. â€œPresident George Herbert Walker Bush ran as a strong conservative, ran to continue the third term of Ronald Reagan, continue the Ronald Reagan revolution,â€ Cruz went on. â€œThen he raised taxes and in â€™92 ran as an establishment moderateâ€”same candidate, two very different campaigns. First one won, second one lost. In 1996, you got Bob Dole; 2000 and 2004, you have George W. Bush; 2008, John McCain; 2012, Mitt Romney. And what does the entire D.C. Republican consulting class say? â€˜In 2016, we need another establishment moderate!â€™ Hasnâ€™t worked in four decades. â€˜But next time will be the time!â€™Â â€
Great speech but factually incorrect.Â If Reagan was in power now, he would be lambasted by guys like Cruz for being too liberal and a RINO, a Republican in Name Only.
Start with the last presidential election. Most of the nearly half billion dollars â€” $374 million out of a total of $486 million â€” doled out by â€œsuper PACsâ€ and other independent expenditure committees during the general election was by Republican groups, more than triple the $112 million spent independently in support of President Obama.
Clearly, this cash advantage did not tip the scales. Stuart Stevens, chief strategist of Mitt Romneyâ€™s campaign, argues that the huge expenditures by Republican groups were essentially wasted.
â€œWhat we discovered on our side, to our surprise and disappointment, was that there were some superb pro-Romney ads, but there was little impact on voters, not what we would have expected them to have,â€ Stevens told a postelection colloquium on Feb. 5 at the University of Chicagoâ€™s Institute of Politics.
Stevens argued that the â€œmost important answerâ€ in explaining the ineffectiveness of the super PAC ads â€œwas that they were not coordinated with the campaign. They produced ads that were good as they stood alone, but they werenâ€™t directing one message.â€
Obama, according to Stevens, did not have this problem because he was less dependent on super PAC support and his campaign directly controlled a much higher percentage of the money spent on his behalf. Obamaâ€™s control of cash empowered his campaign to deliver messages and themes that his strategists wanted to stress with little competition from independent groups pushing for him.
Stevens cited Federal Election Commission reports to show that Obama was able to raise more â€œeffectiveâ€ dollars than Romney, even though the overall balance favored Romney by $140 million, $1.25 billion to $1.11 billion.Â
In late spring, the backroom number crunchers who powered Barack Obamaâ€™s campaign to victory noticed that George Clooney had an almost gravitational tug on West Coast females ages 40 to 49. The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with Clooney â€” and Obama.
So as they did with all the other data collected, stored and analyzed in the two-year drive for re-election, Obamaâ€™s top campaign aides decided to put this insight to use. They sought out an East Coast celebrity who had similar appeal among the same demographic, aiming to replicate the millions of dollars produced by the Clooney contest. â€œWe were blessed with an overflowing menu of options, but we chose Sarah Jessica Parker,â€ explains a senior campaign adviser. And so the next Dinner with Barack contest was born: a chance to eat at Parkerâ€™s West Village brownstone.
For the general public, there was no way to know that the idea for the Parker contest had come from a data-mining discovery about some supporters: affection for contests, small dinners and celebrity. But from the beginning, campaign manager Jim Messina had promised a totally different, metric-driven kind of campaign in which politics was the goal but political instincts might not be the means. â€œWe are going to measure every single thing in this campaign,â€ he said after taking the job. He hired an analytics department five times as large as that of the 2008 operation, with an official â€œchief scientistâ€ for the Chicago headquarters named Rayid Ghani, who in a previous life crunched huge data sets to, among other things, maximize the efficiency of supermarket sales promotions.
Exactly what that team of dozens of data crunchers was doing, however, was a closely held secret. â€œThey are our nuclear codes,â€ campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt would say when asked about the efforts. Around the office, data-mining experiments were given mysterious code names such as Narwhal and Dreamcatcher. The team even worked at a remove from the rest of the campaign staff, setting up shop in a windowless room at the north end of the vast headquarters office. The â€œscientistsâ€ created regular briefings on their work for the President and top aides in the White Houseâ€™s Roosevelt Room, but public details were in short supply as the campaign guarded what it believed to be its biggest institutional advantage over Mitt Romneyâ€™s campaign: its data.
Last night Wendy and I had Sean Shaw, Jeff Jackson, Pat Lorje, and DeeAnn Mercier over to watch the results come in. Â Â The wifi was reinforced, I bugged DeeAnn about her new job, the NDP jokes were sharpened, and I prepared a story about Joe Clark in case Jeff and I needed to reminisce. Â
Wendy made a bunch of food, Sean brought over a bunch of food, and others brought over stuff as well. Â We ate well. Â Other than Obama’s personal victory, the win of the night was that Sean was able to get a box of candy for next to nothing. Â It’s rumoured that when Karl Rove had his meltdown it wasn’t over Ohio but rather over what Sean paid for his candy.
All I know is that between Wendy and Sean there was more food here than at either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama’s parties.
It was a weird night of television. Â We alternated between arguing U.S. politics and then would go argue a couple of city reports. Â It got confusing. Â In the end I think we all agreed that Barack Obama has not been strong as he should be on our north commuter bridge and I think Sean Shaw is thinking of running for a U.S. Senate seat. Â It was all a blur.
Some things broke out on Twitter. Â I was assailed for not inviting more of you. Â Next time we have an election night, I will invite more people. Â While we were all really happy with the election results, I was haunted all night by a comment by Coun. Lorje who reminded me that Mark is closer to growing up than I like to admit. Â I worked on my first election when I was age and he already has a couple under his belt. Â He reads the Economist. Â Girls are starting to call for him. Â Pat’s comment made me realize that I was soon to be a parent of a teenager. Â I don’t think I am prepared well for it. Â Mitt Romney lost the election, I entered into a mid-life crisis. Â Maybe I can ask Mitt Romney for advice. Â He has time on his hands.