U.S. Elections, Lies and Confrontations: The ‘Hopeless’ Road to the White House

The passion of 2008 no longer exists. Obama’s candidacy in 2012 did not raise the same waves of enthusiasm of four years ago. “Hope” and “Change,” yesterday’s key words, were replaced by the more generic “Forward”. In 48 hours, we will see the final outcome of an election campaign marked by aggressive opponents.

It is almost over. After almost two years of campaigning and 6 billion dollars spent, in a couple of hours we will know who will be the president of the United States until 2016. According to all the polls, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will go head to head, as the latest figures show the incumbent president ahead in three key states (Ohio, Florida and Colorado) with 48 percent of the consensus against the 47 percent of the Republican candidate. These are some of the facts and ideas that have marked one of the most brutal campaigns in U.S. history: the 2012 presidential election.

AN ALL AROUND “NEGATIVE” CAMPAIGN – “In my time, it would have been impossible to produce a single ad that attacked my opponent.”* This quote from former President Jimmy Carter illustrates the most evident element of the 2012 presidential elections: its violent, aggressive and brutal character. According to a Wesleyan media project, 85.5 percent of Obama’s election ads attacked his opponent without even hinting at the proposed agenda. 79.2 percent of Romney’s ads did the same. Obama spent 236 million dollars, against Romney’s 110 million, on “negative” publicity. Romney’s figure becomes much higher if we add the hundreds of millions spent by the super PACs [Editor’s note: “political action committees”], that accompanied him on his election adventure. It has been a storm of partisan politics that has alienated many independent voters, weakening Obama’s message and causing millions of people to hope that the 2012 presidential elections will soon be over. Over the last couple of days, a video of Abigail Evans, a four-year-old girl, has gone viral. Abigail is crying, after having heard an NPR announcement about another election battle, and she says she is “tired of Bronco Bama and Mitt Romney.”

THE POWER OF MONEY – Money “buys” the White House. If you look at the mountain of money the two candidates have spent in the past months, this seems obvious. Up until the end of September, Barack Obama’s campaign, in collaboration with the Democratic Party and Priorities USA Action, the most powerful super PAC in his favor, collected $934 million. Mitt Romney, the Republican Party and Restore Our Future, the Republican super PAC, collected $881.8 million. In addition, hundreds of millions are lavished on the candidates by other super PACs (fundamental, for Romney, are Americans for Prosperity and American Crossroads) and funds that flow from unions and groups like the National Rifle Association, the gun lobbying group. Include, as well, the millions spent by each of the hundreds of candidates for the House and Senate and the amounts that financed the referendums that will be held on Election Day (for example, that of gay marriage in Maryland). We arrive at an enormous amount – according to CNN, $6 billion for the presidential campaign alone – a figure which will remain unknown to many. What is most unsettling is not the sum but the mystery of its origin. The Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” ruling eliminated all limits on donations, even permitting some secondary groups, which in turn finance candidates, to remain anonymous.

TOPICS – Under the avalanche of negative publicity, two very different images of America have emerged. In other words, President Obama’s America would be substantially different from that of Gov. Romney. The Republican candidate has already explained that his first act, if elected to the White House, would be to overturn Obama’s health care reform (his vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, intends to replace Medicare with a voucher system). While Obama proposes to abolish the old tax cuts for the wealthy, voted in during the Bush era, Romney wants to make them permanent and proposes additional tax cuts for individuals and society. Obama is in favor of emission limits for pollutants. Romney opposes the “cap-and-trade legislation.” Obama is in favor of “Roe v. Wade” and abortion rights. Romney opposes it (Ryan is against abortion even in cases of rape or a danger to the health of the mother). The presence of one, or the other, in the White House, would have an impact at an international level. Two examples: Romney has repeatedly demonstrated skepticism about the possibility of arriving at a “two state” solution for Israel and Palestine. The Republican candidate has also promised cuts to U.S. NGOs whose work involves pregnancy prevention and birth control around the world.

GROUPS – The America of 2012 is a place where ethnic and social groups are profoundly polarized. Romney securely controls the votes of white males (56 percent of those with a Bachelor degree, 67 percent of those without a diploma) and of voters who are over 65 years old (also predominantly white). Obama has African-Americans, Hispanics and women, groups that have always favored the democrats. Obama won the female vote by 13 points in 2008. Bill Clinton won by 16 points in 1996. The independent voters, who in the last weeks have seemed to favor Romney – with percentages above 10 percent – in the last few hours have moved closer to Obama. The president’s handling of Hurricane Sandy, working together with the Republican Gov. Christie, resonated in the hearts and minds of these voters.

ENTHUSIASM VS. ORGANIZATION – The passion of 2008 no longer exists. Obama’s candidacy in 2012 did not raise the same waves of enthusiasm of four years ago. “Hope” and “Change”, the key words of 2008, were replaced by the more generic “Forward”. They tried to make up for the lack of enthusiasm with extraordinary organization. “The most potent political machine in history,”* said Jim Messina, the director of Obama headquarters in Chicago. 5,000 centers to “get out the vote,” 700,000 buses travel the country without pause, thousands of activists, millions of phone calls. This has been the 2012 Democratic campaign. Obama and his people hope that this will be the key to success. There remain doubts and fears concerning their enthusiasm. 80 percent of registered Republicans are said to have already voted or will definitely vote. Only 70 percent of Democrats expressed the same intention. Voter turnout is essential for Obama, especially in a year marked by a Republican attempt to pass election laws that limit access to the polls. The key group could be the one comprised of voters between 18 and 29 years old, who, in 2008, voted for Obama with a margin of 34 percent and will have to return to the polls if Obama wants to return to the White House.

BILL CLINTON – It is now a reminder of the acrimony between the ex-president and the candidate to the presidency in 2008. The devotion and activism that Bill Clinton has contributed to Obama’s election campaign is unprecedented. From his passionate speech at the convention in Charlotte to the concert in Ohio with Bruce Springsteen to the dozens of rallies around the United States, Clinton has been Obama’s best ally. He has had the task of bridging the gap that still exists between the first black president and the predominantly white workers and middle class. Was this a selfless act? Maybe. Some, however, have already predicted the 2012 presidential landscape* [Editor’s note: Hillary Clinton may run in 2016], with the possible (probable?) candidacy of Hillary Clinton. In four years, it will be Obama’s turn to return Bill’s favor.

A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT WORK – During the 1960 presidential election, John F. Kennedy visited 49 states. Richard Nixon all 50. In 2012, the election campaign is done in 10 states and the rest of the country does not exist. This all depends on the demographic configuration of the United States. Americans with similar opinions, cultures and ethnicities tend to live near each other. This creates a nucleus of Democratic states on the coasts and a fort of Republican states in the center and south, where no candidate campaigns because it would be a waste of time. The battle focuses on just ten states, which determine the elections. It is a system that produces frustration and distrust. Americans in the “battleground states” are destined to receive much more attention – and money – from the central government. It is a system that needs to be changed, but no one knows how to do it. One way could be to eliminate the Electoral College and to take into account only the national popular vote. However, the change would require an amendment to the Constitution. A more viable solution, sponsored by the National Popular Vote: Eight states plus Washington D.C. would commit to assign their Electoral College votes to the candidate who has the highest popular vote. While this has been discussed, the situation remains paradoxical. There are villages in Ohio that received more visits from Obama and Romney than the states of California and New York put together.

“PINOCCHIOS”- 2012 will be remembered as the year in which the candidates said anything and everything to win the elections. Obama and the Democrats did not joke around. For example, when the president affirmed that 90 percent of the current deficit was caused by Bush’s politics (which was not true: 44 percent of the deficit is from the last four years of White House politics). Being Pinocchio, however, is a good fit for Romney, who has changed his opinion on almost every important issue. As governor of Massachusetts he approved a health care reform that is essentially a copy of “Obamacare.” Now he says that the first thing he will do as president will be to “reject ‘Obamacare.’”* As governor of Massachusetts he was in favor of abortion. Now he is not. A couple of months ago, in front of a group of rich Floridian financiers, stated that “47 percent of Americans are dependent upon government.” In one of the last rallies, in Ohio, he said that his priority is the weakest of individuals. Romney’s “oscillating” attitude was well depicted by the satirical author Bill Maher, according to whom “By Tuesday, Romney will be insisting he doesn’t want old white men telling him what he can’t do with his vagina.”

AN IDEA OF AMERICA – In a political landscape so congested, polarized and extreme, did there emerge an alternative vision of America? Probably. Obama and the Democrats argue that Elizabeth Warren, and then Obama himself, have defined the America of “you did not build it alone,” the America in which everyone needs others, in which the “American dream” is realized in the context of laws, rules, structures, schools, sewers, streets and cultures that give meaning and direction to the individual. For Romney, the “American dream” is instead mainly individualism, imagination and the freedom of “unique people supported by a unique energy, who want a better life for themselves and their loved ones.”* In a few hours we will know which America has won.

*Editor’s note: The original quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.