What do you think?
Rate this book
Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America
From the bestselling author of The Battle for America 2008 and longtime Washington Post correspondent, an inside view and analysis of the Obama-Romney presidential race
Four years ago, a bright young presidential candidate named Barack Obama campaigned on a theme of hope and change, and made history. Today, he finds himself in another bitter, divisive presidential race but without the buzzwords. Instead, an embattled president struggles with a dysfunctionally divided Congress, the controversial healthcare bill, a decade-long war, and a stagnant economy.
Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, former corporate tycoon and former governor of Massachusetts, faces his own controversies in the form of vague policies, fluctuating positions, and questions about his business practices in the private sector. Romney’s personal fortune and business background seemed at odds with the Republican base until he named Wisconsin congressman, Tea Party darling and fiscal conservative Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Using sources deep inside both campaigns and on the campaign trail through primary and battleground states, Washington Post correspondent Dan Balz writes with a keen political mind and a seasoned reporter’s ear. He traces the highs and lows of the Obama presidency as well as the ruthless Republican primary as both laid the groundwork for one of the most crucial, contentious elections of our time. Collision 2012 puts the race for the White House in context and explores just what the election means for the future of the democratic process and America.
Four years ago, a bright young presidential candidate named Barack Obama campaigned on a theme of hope and change, and made history. Today, he finds himself in another bitter, divisive presidential race but without the buzzwords. Instead, an embattled president struggles with a dysfunctionally divided Congress, the controversial healthcare bill, a decade-long war, and a stagnant economy.
Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, former corporate tycoon and former governor of Massachusetts, faces his own controversies in the form of vague policies, fluctuating positions, and questions about his business practices in the private sector. Romney’s personal fortune and business background seemed at odds with the Republican base until he named Wisconsin congressman, Tea Party darling and fiscal conservative Paul Ryan as his running mate.
Using sources deep inside both campaigns and on the campaign trail through primary and battleground states, Washington Post correspondent Dan Balz writes with a keen political mind and a seasoned reporter’s ear. He traces the highs and lows of the Obama presidency as well as the ruthless Republican primary as both laid the groundwork for one of the most crucial, contentious elections of our time. Collision 2012 puts the race for the White House in context and explores just what the election means for the future of the democratic process and America.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published August 6, 2013
40 people are currently reading
771 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
August 11, 2013
I was a college freshman during the 2004 presidential election, and part of being in a college town--and in a swing state, no less--during an election year is hosting an unending number of politicians hoping to sway your vote. Always a lover of politics, not to mention someone who appreciates the historical flare of elections, some friends and I decided to attend an early-morning rally for John Kerry at our campus sports facility, a rundown and embarrassing structure only 200 feet or so from our dorm rooms. We got up early--6:30, if I remember correctly, which is pretty early for college students--and walked across the empty parking lot, half-awake but excited to see the man we hoped would be our future president. We were wanded by security, marched through metal detectors, and then seated in folding chairs. The rally was scheduled to begin around 8, a time that came just as quickly as it went. No candidate appeared. A man in the crowd began a chant of "Ker-ry! Ker-ry!" which rose to a thunderous roar before dying out when Kerry, again, didn't appear. One of the women sitting on the dais rose and gave a speech in support of the candidate--a sure sign, we thought, that finally the rally was about to begin. We gave her a thunderous applause, continuing it longer than it should have in the belief that she had just introduced the man himself.
But once again, no candidate appeared.
I don't remember exactly how long we waited for Kerry, but it was well over an hour and a half, and by the time he did any enthusiasm I had had that morning was gone. I looked around the gymnasium--the outdated banners, the wooden bleachers befitting a small-town high school, the fluorescent lights drowning us all in a dim sleepy fog--and felt myself becoming disillusioned with not only the man but everything his campaign was doing. I thought of all the Bush rallies I'd seen on television--large, celebratory events choreographed more like rock concerts than campaign events--and marveled at how much better they seemed compared to this one. It was one of those moments when, on top of discovering that your choice for emperor has no clothes, you realize the other emperor has no intention of giving his up.
I don't remember a single thing John Kerry said that day, though I do know he spoke for some time. What I do remember, however, is his spit: big, powerful clouds of saliva propelled across the stage as he spoke and caught like diamonds in the lighting. When the speech was done, I lined up alongside everyone else and stretched out my hand to shake his. I did, and what followed was the one other incontrovertible fact I remember from that day: John Kerry had the smoothest hands of any person I'd ever met.
When a voter looks back on their candidate's campaign and can only remember spit and smooth hands--instead of, say, powerful rhetoric, a personal message, or a sense of achievement--it is nothing more than a mark of failure for that campaign. George W. Bush was a vulnerable and stumbling incumbent when he ran for reelection in 2004, and the Democrats had a chance--a narrow one, to be sure, but narrow chances are better than no chances--to oust him from office and undo at least some of the damage caused by his presidence. So much of what Bush had "accomplished" over the previous term was unpopular and, some would argue, unconstitutional, and on top of those weaknesses Bush was in charge of an administration populated by controversial figures. And when the Democratic Party and its voters looked out across the wide swathe of possible candidates to run again Bush, it settled on John Kerry--a rich, out-of-touch flip-flopper from deep-blue Massachusetts whose speaking skills ranked alongside those of a goat. To those few who were clear-eyed enough to see through partisan emotions, it was one big disaster of a choice. Eight years later, however, it would be--ironically, hilariously--the very same roadmap used by Republicans to fight Barack Obama, and anyone with a sense of history could see how it was going to end.
When the ramp-up to the 2012 presidential elections began, more than a few politicos were writing off Obama's chances to win reelection. The unemployment rate was above eight percent--the mark of death, they reassured us, citing Franklin Roosevelt as the last Democrat to defy such economic odds--and he was responsible for the widely controversial Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), which Republicans and the 24-hour news cycle had successfully spun into the pinnacle of socialism and the downfall of our constitutional liberties. His administration featured controversial figures--Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, the outspoken Joe Biden--and was being sucked down further and further into the quagmire of a do-nothing Congress, precisely the kind of politicking he had promised to change. The Republican Party had a shot at retaking the White House--a narrow one, to be sure, but again, narrow chances are better than none--and, much like the Democrats in 2004, chose a rich, out-of-touch flip-flopper from liberal Massachusetts, former governor Mitt Romney.
However, eight years is a long time in American politics, and there were two major differences between 2004 and 2012--both of them to Obama's benefit. The first was that, unlike the Democrats in 2004, the Republicans of 2012 had become so polarized by Obama's presidency--thanks in part to the demagoguery of cable news, as well as the comforts of gerrymandered districts--that anyone hoping to capture the nomination faced a gauntlet of enraged Tea Party conservatives who wanted someone who was not only certifiably anti-Obama but also rabidly anti-government, and they refused to vote for anyone who diverged even slightly from this criteria. This meant that even reliably conservative Republicans found themselves swinging to the far right on almost every issue--abortion, immigration, taxes, health care, foreign policy, welfare--or facing jeers when they didn't. (When Rick Perry advocated compassion towards the children of immigrants born in the United States--a decision made squarely by their parents--and said those who didn't had no heart, he was famously booed.) Before 2012, there had always been a sort of rhythm to campaigning--speak to the fringe during the primary, move back to the center for the general election--but never had it been this pronounced, and with so many televised debates for the Republicans to do, each swing towards the fringe was logged, repeated, and dissected ad nauseum.
The second difference between 2004 and 2012--and the second of Obama's major benefits--was that the president's campaign adapted and became, for lack of a better description, the most efficient campaigning machine in American history. Lauded for their groundbreaking use of technology in 2008, a time when simply using Facebook and YouTube was considered revolutionary, the Obama campaign amped up their organization into a massive, data-mining system that could delineate the difference between certain kinds of voters--those who were reliable, those who chose a side but needed reminders, those who were undecided--and disperse volunteers accordingly. If a voter had chosen Obama or was a reliable supporter, they no longer received calls, visits, or mailings--a valuable decision that, in the long run, saved them time, money, and the energy of their volunteers. If they'd sent away for an absentee ballot, the campaign knew if and when it was returned; if the ballot wasn't, the voter received reminders, sometimes through phone calls and sometimes in person. On an individual scale, this seems trivial, but seen as one cog in a country-wide machine, its benefits become obvious. And while the Obama campaign was using this information to reach out, Mitt Romney was still wading through the primary and, later, following the same disorganized pattern made familiar in pre-tech campaigns. It was comparable to one man campaigning on television while the other did so from the back of a train--a disparity that spelled certain failure for Romney's chances, regardless of the economy.
The subtitle of Collision 2012, Dan Balz's book on the titular presidential election, is "Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America." And true to his subtitle, Balz balances his examination of the election's chronology and content with a look at what this one election means for the changing face of American politics. Obama's campaign strategies--of advanced data and technological resources balanced with a strong and organized network of volunteers on the ground--will mark a future in which presidential campaigns are personalized to the point of over-familiarity. Candidates of the future will tailor their messages not only to specific voting blocs--soccer moms, hockey dads, Evangelicals, activists, moderates, the fringe--but to specific people, each delineated in a database based on online purchasing activity, education levels, income, family makeup, voting turnout, activity on social networks, and so on. They will know as much about us as we know about them, depending on where they're visiting any given week, and elections that used to bother us digitally--TV, radio, emails--will now intrude physically, as well, until they're as common-place in our lives as the mailman, the supermarket cashier, or the power company coming to check our meter.
And, based on Balz's observations from 2012, it's becoming increasingly clear that this is a change the Democratic Party has not only embraced, as is obvious from the last election, but is already using to its benefit. Where smaller races--state legislatures, the House of Representatives--are determined primarily by gerrymandering, state-wide races will be guided by computers, and the Republicans are already years behind. Of the three sections making up Collision 2012, the largest by far is devoted to the Republicans, who wasted valuable time and resources choosing a nominee--possibly the strangest, most entertaining primary in the last fifty years--and then conducted a campaign stuck in 2004. Balz discusses their lack of focus--too much time on fringe-pleasing social issues, not enough emphasis on the economy--and their inability to expand their base beyond older, uneducated white people, both of which will continue to hurt the party in the elections to come.
Collision 2012 is not a rehash of the election, day by tiring day, and we're better for it--those books will come later, warts and all. Instead, Balz has written the first of what will be many dissections of what the election means and what we--the voters, the candidates, their campaigns--should learn going forward. Already, not ten months after Obama won reelection, there is chatter about 2016--who will run, what states will be in play, which way the parties will move. This impatience a disturbing trend in American politics, one of many, and these desperate cries for more are a clear indicator that any lessons offered up by Obama's victory--or, if you prefer, Romney's defeat--will go unheeded, at least for a few more years.
In 2008--the year before I graduated from college--I attended a rally for Barack Obama. Much had changed since the Kerry rally--the media bombardment was even more constant, the scrutiny even more intense. And on a more personal level, the Obama rally was held in our campus' brand new athletic complex--bright, clean, expensive, a source of pride--which stood on the very ground where parts of the old, embarrassing building once stood. (Even today, parts of the old building remain in tact and are worthy of avoidance.) Looking back, that one change was a grand metaphor all its own--a new and better structure standing in the shadow of an old and failed one, just as that young, refreshing candidate stood in the shadow of an old, embarrassing one. What no one in that room understood was that the very thing we'd come to see that day wouldn't end when the seats and stage emptied. Instead, that campaign would continue in one way or another almost non-stop for the next four years, if not longer.
This review was originally published at There Will Be Books Galore.
But once again, no candidate appeared.
I don't remember exactly how long we waited for Kerry, but it was well over an hour and a half, and by the time he did any enthusiasm I had had that morning was gone. I looked around the gymnasium--the outdated banners, the wooden bleachers befitting a small-town high school, the fluorescent lights drowning us all in a dim sleepy fog--and felt myself becoming disillusioned with not only the man but everything his campaign was doing. I thought of all the Bush rallies I'd seen on television--large, celebratory events choreographed more like rock concerts than campaign events--and marveled at how much better they seemed compared to this one. It was one of those moments when, on top of discovering that your choice for emperor has no clothes, you realize the other emperor has no intention of giving his up.
I don't remember a single thing John Kerry said that day, though I do know he spoke for some time. What I do remember, however, is his spit: big, powerful clouds of saliva propelled across the stage as he spoke and caught like diamonds in the lighting. When the speech was done, I lined up alongside everyone else and stretched out my hand to shake his. I did, and what followed was the one other incontrovertible fact I remember from that day: John Kerry had the smoothest hands of any person I'd ever met.
When a voter looks back on their candidate's campaign and can only remember spit and smooth hands--instead of, say, powerful rhetoric, a personal message, or a sense of achievement--it is nothing more than a mark of failure for that campaign. George W. Bush was a vulnerable and stumbling incumbent when he ran for reelection in 2004, and the Democrats had a chance--a narrow one, to be sure, but narrow chances are better than no chances--to oust him from office and undo at least some of the damage caused by his presidence. So much of what Bush had "accomplished" over the previous term was unpopular and, some would argue, unconstitutional, and on top of those weaknesses Bush was in charge of an administration populated by controversial figures. And when the Democratic Party and its voters looked out across the wide swathe of possible candidates to run again Bush, it settled on John Kerry--a rich, out-of-touch flip-flopper from deep-blue Massachusetts whose speaking skills ranked alongside those of a goat. To those few who were clear-eyed enough to see through partisan emotions, it was one big disaster of a choice. Eight years later, however, it would be--ironically, hilariously--the very same roadmap used by Republicans to fight Barack Obama, and anyone with a sense of history could see how it was going to end.
When the ramp-up to the 2012 presidential elections began, more than a few politicos were writing off Obama's chances to win reelection. The unemployment rate was above eight percent--the mark of death, they reassured us, citing Franklin Roosevelt as the last Democrat to defy such economic odds--and he was responsible for the widely controversial Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), which Republicans and the 24-hour news cycle had successfully spun into the pinnacle of socialism and the downfall of our constitutional liberties. His administration featured controversial figures--Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Larry Summers, the outspoken Joe Biden--and was being sucked down further and further into the quagmire of a do-nothing Congress, precisely the kind of politicking he had promised to change. The Republican Party had a shot at retaking the White House--a narrow one, to be sure, but again, narrow chances are better than none--and, much like the Democrats in 2004, chose a rich, out-of-touch flip-flopper from liberal Massachusetts, former governor Mitt Romney.
However, eight years is a long time in American politics, and there were two major differences between 2004 and 2012--both of them to Obama's benefit. The first was that, unlike the Democrats in 2004, the Republicans of 2012 had become so polarized by Obama's presidency--thanks in part to the demagoguery of cable news, as well as the comforts of gerrymandered districts--that anyone hoping to capture the nomination faced a gauntlet of enraged Tea Party conservatives who wanted someone who was not only certifiably anti-Obama but also rabidly anti-government, and they refused to vote for anyone who diverged even slightly from this criteria. This meant that even reliably conservative Republicans found themselves swinging to the far right on almost every issue--abortion, immigration, taxes, health care, foreign policy, welfare--or facing jeers when they didn't. (When Rick Perry advocated compassion towards the children of immigrants born in the United States--a decision made squarely by their parents--and said those who didn't had no heart, he was famously booed.) Before 2012, there had always been a sort of rhythm to campaigning--speak to the fringe during the primary, move back to the center for the general election--but never had it been this pronounced, and with so many televised debates for the Republicans to do, each swing towards the fringe was logged, repeated, and dissected ad nauseum.
The second difference between 2004 and 2012--and the second of Obama's major benefits--was that the president's campaign adapted and became, for lack of a better description, the most efficient campaigning machine in American history. Lauded for their groundbreaking use of technology in 2008, a time when simply using Facebook and YouTube was considered revolutionary, the Obama campaign amped up their organization into a massive, data-mining system that could delineate the difference between certain kinds of voters--those who were reliable, those who chose a side but needed reminders, those who were undecided--and disperse volunteers accordingly. If a voter had chosen Obama or was a reliable supporter, they no longer received calls, visits, or mailings--a valuable decision that, in the long run, saved them time, money, and the energy of their volunteers. If they'd sent away for an absentee ballot, the campaign knew if and when it was returned; if the ballot wasn't, the voter received reminders, sometimes through phone calls and sometimes in person. On an individual scale, this seems trivial, but seen as one cog in a country-wide machine, its benefits become obvious. And while the Obama campaign was using this information to reach out, Mitt Romney was still wading through the primary and, later, following the same disorganized pattern made familiar in pre-tech campaigns. It was comparable to one man campaigning on television while the other did so from the back of a train--a disparity that spelled certain failure for Romney's chances, regardless of the economy.
The subtitle of Collision 2012, Dan Balz's book on the titular presidential election, is "Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America." And true to his subtitle, Balz balances his examination of the election's chronology and content with a look at what this one election means for the changing face of American politics. Obama's campaign strategies--of advanced data and technological resources balanced with a strong and organized network of volunteers on the ground--will mark a future in which presidential campaigns are personalized to the point of over-familiarity. Candidates of the future will tailor their messages not only to specific voting blocs--soccer moms, hockey dads, Evangelicals, activists, moderates, the fringe--but to specific people, each delineated in a database based on online purchasing activity, education levels, income, family makeup, voting turnout, activity on social networks, and so on. They will know as much about us as we know about them, depending on where they're visiting any given week, and elections that used to bother us digitally--TV, radio, emails--will now intrude physically, as well, until they're as common-place in our lives as the mailman, the supermarket cashier, or the power company coming to check our meter.
And, based on Balz's observations from 2012, it's becoming increasingly clear that this is a change the Democratic Party has not only embraced, as is obvious from the last election, but is already using to its benefit. Where smaller races--state legislatures, the House of Representatives--are determined primarily by gerrymandering, state-wide races will be guided by computers, and the Republicans are already years behind. Of the three sections making up Collision 2012, the largest by far is devoted to the Republicans, who wasted valuable time and resources choosing a nominee--possibly the strangest, most entertaining primary in the last fifty years--and then conducted a campaign stuck in 2004. Balz discusses their lack of focus--too much time on fringe-pleasing social issues, not enough emphasis on the economy--and their inability to expand their base beyond older, uneducated white people, both of which will continue to hurt the party in the elections to come.
Collision 2012 is not a rehash of the election, day by tiring day, and we're better for it--those books will come later, warts and all. Instead, Balz has written the first of what will be many dissections of what the election means and what we--the voters, the candidates, their campaigns--should learn going forward. Already, not ten months after Obama won reelection, there is chatter about 2016--who will run, what states will be in play, which way the parties will move. This impatience a disturbing trend in American politics, one of many, and these desperate cries for more are a clear indicator that any lessons offered up by Obama's victory--or, if you prefer, Romney's defeat--will go unheeded, at least for a few more years.
In 2008--the year before I graduated from college--I attended a rally for Barack Obama. Much had changed since the Kerry rally--the media bombardment was even more constant, the scrutiny even more intense. And on a more personal level, the Obama rally was held in our campus' brand new athletic complex--bright, clean, expensive, a source of pride--which stood on the very ground where parts of the old, embarrassing building once stood. (Even today, parts of the old building remain in tact and are worthy of avoidance.) Looking back, that one change was a grand metaphor all its own--a new and better structure standing in the shadow of an old and failed one, just as that young, refreshing candidate stood in the shadow of an old, embarrassing one. What no one in that room understood was that the very thing we'd come to see that day wouldn't end when the seats and stage emptied. Instead, that campaign would continue in one way or another almost non-stop for the next four years, if not longer.
This review was originally published at There Will Be Books Galore.
September 28, 2014
I will be sitting out the midterms this year, so I wanted a hit of wonkiness to tide me over, and here it is. You already know if you'll like this sort of thing, so I'll confine myself to saying that this is well-organized and interesting from a trade of elections perspective, but far less gossipy than the casual reader seems to want. I liked it.
Some observations: this book offers an excellent overview of what the Obama for America internet operation was doing and how it worked – I was particularly interested in getting a few more details on the Facebook utilization and how the tools worked to suggest that, e.g., rather than sharing this campaign video with your entire feed, why not send it to Facebook friends X and Y, undecided voters in Florida that you seem to know well. For me, the most interesting aspect of that part of the campaign is the strides made in deciding who not to contact. I'm a swing-state resident and a political donor (though not to presidential campaigns because that is a total waste of my money) and I was contacted by OFA multiple times in 2008. In 2012, I was not contacted at all because, presumably, the OFA algorithm determined correctly that I was a sure thing and did not require the use of resources. Works for me. The only annoying thing about that is I suspect it will only increase the romance of the "independent" voter in the popular consciousness. Note: these people do not actually exist. You can almost always tell what a supposedly "independent" voter is going to do, except in a very small slice of the population. It just so happens that small slice is increasingly valuable these days. But you get a full third of Americans claiming to be independent voters because it sounds sexy and independent-minded, when actually it's a giant self-deception. But a lot of these people actually like being courted by campaigns, which is utterly baffling to me, and with more and more campaign resources being precisely targeted to them, I guess they're welcome to enjoy the fruits of the massive money machine they continually bitch about.
Also, I am increasingly suspicious of the Romney campaign's post election "couldn't be done" narrative. I mean, don't get me wrong, I thought with 95% confidence Obama was going to win by the spring, and so did anyone else who knew what they were looking at, and that was without the series of lucky breaks he got in the summer and fall. But no race is unwinnable, and this idea that the Romney campaign was irretrievably outclassed from day one, particularly on the electronic and ground operations, seems self-serving. "Oh woe is us, they built better software than we did, if only we'd known we would have given up in June." Yeah, whatever, dudes. You lost. Suck it up and figure out where you lost it (early and organizationally) and stop acting like you bore no responsibility whatsoever.
Some observations: this book offers an excellent overview of what the Obama for America internet operation was doing and how it worked – I was particularly interested in getting a few more details on the Facebook utilization and how the tools worked to suggest that, e.g., rather than sharing this campaign video with your entire feed, why not send it to Facebook friends X and Y, undecided voters in Florida that you seem to know well. For me, the most interesting aspect of that part of the campaign is the strides made in deciding who not to contact. I'm a swing-state resident and a political donor (though not to presidential campaigns because that is a total waste of my money) and I was contacted by OFA multiple times in 2008. In 2012, I was not contacted at all because, presumably, the OFA algorithm determined correctly that I was a sure thing and did not require the use of resources. Works for me. The only annoying thing about that is I suspect it will only increase the romance of the "independent" voter in the popular consciousness. Note: these people do not actually exist. You can almost always tell what a supposedly "independent" voter is going to do, except in a very small slice of the population. It just so happens that small slice is increasingly valuable these days. But you get a full third of Americans claiming to be independent voters because it sounds sexy and independent-minded, when actually it's a giant self-deception. But a lot of these people actually like being courted by campaigns, which is utterly baffling to me, and with more and more campaign resources being precisely targeted to them, I guess they're welcome to enjoy the fruits of the massive money machine they continually bitch about.
Also, I am increasingly suspicious of the Romney campaign's post election "couldn't be done" narrative. I mean, don't get me wrong, I thought with 95% confidence Obama was going to win by the spring, and so did anyone else who knew what they were looking at, and that was without the series of lucky breaks he got in the summer and fall. But no race is unwinnable, and this idea that the Romney campaign was irretrievably outclassed from day one, particularly on the electronic and ground operations, seems self-serving. "Oh woe is us, they built better software than we did, if only we'd known we would have given up in June." Yeah, whatever, dudes. You lost. Suck it up and figure out where you lost it (early and organizationally) and stop acting like you bore no responsibility whatsoever.
July 7, 2013
Excellent analysis of one of the most interesting campaigns for president.
September 13, 2013
I liked this book, though I am not sure you will if you voted for the guy from Massachusetts. Balz did a nice job of reporting on the campaigns, peppering the story with lots of quotes from insiders, and providing some nice context for various issues and events. I think Balz was correct in most of his conclusions, but while he didn't come across as an Obama cheerleader, I don't think anyone is going to come away thinking he was a dispassionate, objective chronicler either. In short, he wasn't all that kind to the Romney campaign or its candidate, but again, I thought much of what he said was correct. It was nice to learn more about what I thought was an incredibly important election, one that I followed closely, but I don't think there is any blockbuster revelation here if that's what you're looking to find. The writing is very good, the pacing was about right, and it remained interesting throughout. I thought his observations on what this election will mean for future elections was both interesting and astute. I found the extensive reporting on the data side of the Obama campaign operation very intriguing, as I was actively involved in the outreach to voters, and finding out how we got our marching orders was compelling. I would recommend the book if you are looking for more insight into the sausage-making that presidential campaigns have become.
July 8, 2013
As far as first drafts of history go, Dan Balz's read on 2012 is a good one. It hits the major themes of 2012 -- the demographics, the GOP's internal struggles, the shifts in technology, the explosion of outside spending -- while sprinkling in interviews from most of the major candidates and prospective veeps.
For all his access, there's not a ton of juicy inside campaign gossip a la Game Change, so don't go in expecting to be wowed there. Part of that reflects the 2012 campaign itself, which was defined much less by behind-the-scenes action than 2008's epic Obama vs. Hillary, John Edwards vs. himself, McCain's staff vs. Palin psychodramas. Instead, Balz uses his sources to provide a deeper understanding of the motivations behind the major campaign decisions.
Where Balz really stands above the pack is his deep access to Obama's and Romney's focus group research and polling, which he gives a lot of attention throughout the book. It's fascinating to see the ways campaigns translate research into talking points into an overarching campaign theme. In Obama's case, for example, the campaign asked middle class swing voters to record a journal detailing their weekly financial lives then used the resultant 1,500 pages of material as critical source material early on. It's no Palin shopping spree, but if you're a political junkie into that stuff (and I'm reaaaaally into that stuff) you're going to like this book.
For all his access, there's not a ton of juicy inside campaign gossip a la Game Change, so don't go in expecting to be wowed there. Part of that reflects the 2012 campaign itself, which was defined much less by behind-the-scenes action than 2008's epic Obama vs. Hillary, John Edwards vs. himself, McCain's staff vs. Palin psychodramas. Instead, Balz uses his sources to provide a deeper understanding of the motivations behind the major campaign decisions.
Where Balz really stands above the pack is his deep access to Obama's and Romney's focus group research and polling, which he gives a lot of attention throughout the book. It's fascinating to see the ways campaigns translate research into talking points into an overarching campaign theme. In Obama's case, for example, the campaign asked middle class swing voters to record a journal detailing their weekly financial lives then used the resultant 1,500 pages of material as critical source material early on. It's no Palin shopping spree, but if you're a political junkie into that stuff (and I'm reaaaaally into that stuff) you're going to like this book.
September 11, 2013
I didn't find this election tell-all quite as interesting as the 2008 counterpart Game Change...but then the 2012 election wasn't quite as interesting as the 2008 election. The author conducted hundreds of interviews with everyone from the candidates, senior staff in the campaigns and family members... For that reason, I love these kinds of books because they don't feel like they're telling "juicy gossip," they're mostly corroborated stories.
I didn't pay too much attention to the Republican primary; I knew I probably wasn't voting for any of them. It was interesting to me to get a good recap on the foul-ups and back stories. I came away really loving Chris Christie. Though I don't know much about him politically, he's pretty damn hilarious.
I liked reading about how the campaigns have evolved to be more precise in their voter turnout & message targeting, motivations behind certain decisions, and the new role social media played in 12 (esp twitter!) so much more than we know goes on behind the scenes. Also, can't believe this was less than a year ago; feels like an eternity since we were watching debates.
It's a good read if you enjoy politics. If you don't, skip it. 3.5 stars.
I didn't pay too much attention to the Republican primary; I knew I probably wasn't voting for any of them. It was interesting to me to get a good recap on the foul-ups and back stories. I came away really loving Chris Christie. Though I don't know much about him politically, he's pretty damn hilarious.
I liked reading about how the campaigns have evolved to be more precise in their voter turnout & message targeting, motivations behind certain decisions, and the new role social media played in 12 (esp twitter!) so much more than we know goes on behind the scenes. Also, can't believe this was less than a year ago; feels like an eternity since we were watching debates.
It's a good read if you enjoy politics. If you don't, skip it. 3.5 stars.
January 19, 2016
Dan Balz's account of the 2012 presidential election, in the tradition of Theodore White's "Making of the President" series. You either like this kind of book or you don't. If you would enjoy a detailed narrative of the 2012 election, revisiting all the ups and downs for the campaigns, with anecdotes about what was going on behind the scenes, then this book is for you. If you are not that kind of political junkie, skip it. This book is much more balanced than Jonathan Alter's "The Center Holds", which focused more on Obama's side than on Romney and the GOP's. I will note, however, that if this book had been written by Theodore White, he would have gone into Benghazi and Hurricane Sandy more -- both of which seemed to me to be more major elements of this past election than Balz apparently did.
September 22, 2013
I read this while I'm waiting for the guys who wrote Game Change to get their book out. This book was a decent rehash of how the election was won/lost, with an emphasis on the nutty GOP primaries and the Obama voter targeting effort. Pretty pedestrian; I don't think I learned a single thing I didn't already know.
July 7, 2016
This book was intense, as you could see by the seven weeks it took to get through it. I learned a TON and was very fascinated by the last 100 pages. Basically, learned a ton about Obama, Romney, and the plethora of the 2012 Republican candidates. I will post some quotes from it later, there were some good ones!!
This book fulfills my summer reading challenge for a book with a bright blue cover!
This book fulfills my summer reading challenge for a book with a bright blue cover!
August 20, 2013
Absolutely fantastic. A must read for political junkies. Very compelling story with real insights. That being said, the writing style isn't the easiest to follow, so if you aren't a real junkie, you may want to pass.
August 20, 2013
I'm not sure what fell flat with this book for me. I'm not a fan of his writing style, it's just too dry. And if you've read all of the reporting about the campaign and all of the e-books, there's not really any new information.
June 20, 2023
🟦🟥🔵🔴
I wanted to study this election because it was pivotal in a significant way. Polarization grew and entrenched itself in ways not seen since before WW2. And of course in 2023, with another federal election in 2024, that polarization between the two parties is even more extensive and dug in.
Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, described 2012 as "the most partisan, nationalized . .. election in at least six decades … If you look at the people who elected Obama and the people who elected the Republicans in the House, there's very little overlap. They owe their victories to very different constituencies, to folks who are pretty divided on every political issue."
[No wonder finding compromise has become so difficult.]
[Both sides are more resistant to compromising, hoping that with the next election they will amass enough power to have their way legislatively.]
I wanted to find out why the hatred has found more fuel. When I posted on GR that I intended to read a book by Obama a reader came along and commented “that’s garbage!” I did not engage. Simply deleted the comment. But this sort of thing rears its ugly head too often to be ignored. There is lots of anger out there, a lot more than there was in 2012 or during Obama’s second term. I fear the polarization and civil war mentality of blue vs red will be even more prominent in 2024.
I wanted to study this election because it was pivotal in a significant way. Polarization grew and entrenched itself in ways not seen since before WW2. And of course in 2023, with another federal election in 2024, that polarization between the two parties is even more extensive and dug in.
Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, described 2012 as "the most partisan, nationalized . .. election in at least six decades … If you look at the people who elected Obama and the people who elected the Republicans in the House, there's very little overlap. They owe their victories to very different constituencies, to folks who are pretty divided on every political issue."
[No wonder finding compromise has become so difficult.]
[Both sides are more resistant to compromising, hoping that with the next election they will amass enough power to have their way legislatively.]
I wanted to find out why the hatred has found more fuel. When I posted on GR that I intended to read a book by Obama a reader came along and commented “that’s garbage!” I did not engage. Simply deleted the comment. But this sort of thing rears its ugly head too often to be ignored. There is lots of anger out there, a lot more than there was in 2012 or during Obama’s second term. I fear the polarization and civil war mentality of blue vs red will be even more prominent in 2024.
March 14, 2018
This was a fascinating look at the 2012 presidential elections. Many stories from behind the scenes were included and it was fairly well written. The author clearly had a bias toward Obama, so the story was quite one-sided.
August 15, 2024
Bit heavy on the detail, but fun nonetheless
November 28, 2015
A shallow by-the-numbers review of the 2012 contest through the lens of a mainline news reporter that adds virtually nothing to the history of the campaign except some retrospective interviews. Balz made the editorial choice to maintain the fiction that the 2012 election was a closely determined race rather than a more objective perspective that would accurately depict the Romney campaign as a predetermined failure which lost the contest in November by the margins predicted the summer before.
That Balz knows that he is making that choice is evident throughout because he keeps mentioning the evidence that Romney's campaign failed to gain any traction from beginning to end and a general rejection of the candidate, yet still pivots the narrative to a tale of strategic mistakes and lost opportunities that cost him the election. Balz also consciously avoids the key polarizing issues that defined positions in the campaign (alienation of women voters, Obamacare), to spend most of the book describing the window dressing silliness that merely confirmed what people already thought.
With his access and background, Balz could have taken apart the campaign in a meaningful fashion and exposed the deeper workings and Hail Mary strategies of the Republican insurgent campaign against the grinding attrition of the Democratic strategy. Instead we get a banal two chapter rehash of the false panic created by the Denver debate where Obama first confronted a Romney willing to reverse himself on all his key issues in a last ditch bid for the centrist vote. Balz later, accurately, describes the lack of effect the debate had in the long term, but he sticks to the script that this was somehow a "historic" debate in a closely run election. Similarly, the destruction of Hurricane Sandy is first suggested as a factor in the election, but is then, again accurately, revealed as a news cycle event rather than a factor in the election outcome.
Other lost opportunities become glaringly obvious every time Balz is presented with the mounting importance of social media and non-traditional news sources. Balz simply cannot grasp that formative opinions were erupting out of online forums and Comedy Central. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert each get a single mention in these pages; neither mention suggests that Balz has ever watched an episode of The Daily Show, or considered that they mattered. To indicate why this is remarkable consider that The New York Times' long-standing joke and professional idiot David Brooks is referenced multiple times as a significant index and source of public opinion. Similarly, Twitter is referenced only when an individual tweet broke into the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
As a result this is a largely a reprint of the horse race journalism of the campaign rather than a considered review. In itself that is not a bad thing, but, as you would expect, Balz is a practitioner of the careful pundit school of journalism. Thus his striving to present a pleasing narrative that will maintain his access consistently overwhelms any critical facility he may have. The result is a profile of Rick Perry that presents him as a true contender for the Republican ticket when the primary process revealed him as a buffoon lacking any appeal outside of Texas; Rick Santorum's social extremism isn't a factor in Balz's analysis; Gingrich is quoted so often that he should be listed as a second author; and Herman Cain's campaign is a sincere effort rather than a self-promoting moment of distracting insanity. Neither does Balz bother to examine the bizarre insurgency of the Ron Paul cadre, which hijacked the caucus process in several states in an attempt to create a brokered convention. But most of all, Balz refuses to look at the jaw-dropping structural incompetence of the National Republican Party that was increasingly obvious as the campaign moved from the chaos of the primary debates into the almost delusional claims made during the general election. The lack of discipline and unifying vision that essentially defines the post-Bush II Republican Party is nothing that interests Balz at all, yet in retrospect it really is the lesson of 2012, and at the moment appears to be the story of 2016 as well.
That Balz knows that he is making that choice is evident throughout because he keeps mentioning the evidence that Romney's campaign failed to gain any traction from beginning to end and a general rejection of the candidate, yet still pivots the narrative to a tale of strategic mistakes and lost opportunities that cost him the election. Balz also consciously avoids the key polarizing issues that defined positions in the campaign (alienation of women voters, Obamacare), to spend most of the book describing the window dressing silliness that merely confirmed what people already thought.
With his access and background, Balz could have taken apart the campaign in a meaningful fashion and exposed the deeper workings and Hail Mary strategies of the Republican insurgent campaign against the grinding attrition of the Democratic strategy. Instead we get a banal two chapter rehash of the false panic created by the Denver debate where Obama first confronted a Romney willing to reverse himself on all his key issues in a last ditch bid for the centrist vote. Balz later, accurately, describes the lack of effect the debate had in the long term, but he sticks to the script that this was somehow a "historic" debate in a closely run election. Similarly, the destruction of Hurricane Sandy is first suggested as a factor in the election, but is then, again accurately, revealed as a news cycle event rather than a factor in the election outcome.
Other lost opportunities become glaringly obvious every time Balz is presented with the mounting importance of social media and non-traditional news sources. Balz simply cannot grasp that formative opinions were erupting out of online forums and Comedy Central. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert each get a single mention in these pages; neither mention suggests that Balz has ever watched an episode of The Daily Show, or considered that they mattered. To indicate why this is remarkable consider that The New York Times' long-standing joke and professional idiot David Brooks is referenced multiple times as a significant index and source of public opinion. Similarly, Twitter is referenced only when an individual tweet broke into the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
As a result this is a largely a reprint of the horse race journalism of the campaign rather than a considered review. In itself that is not a bad thing, but, as you would expect, Balz is a practitioner of the careful pundit school of journalism. Thus his striving to present a pleasing narrative that will maintain his access consistently overwhelms any critical facility he may have. The result is a profile of Rick Perry that presents him as a true contender for the Republican ticket when the primary process revealed him as a buffoon lacking any appeal outside of Texas; Rick Santorum's social extremism isn't a factor in Balz's analysis; Gingrich is quoted so often that he should be listed as a second author; and Herman Cain's campaign is a sincere effort rather than a self-promoting moment of distracting insanity. Neither does Balz bother to examine the bizarre insurgency of the Ron Paul cadre, which hijacked the caucus process in several states in an attempt to create a brokered convention. But most of all, Balz refuses to look at the jaw-dropping structural incompetence of the National Republican Party that was increasingly obvious as the campaign moved from the chaos of the primary debates into the almost delusional claims made during the general election. The lack of discipline and unifying vision that essentially defines the post-Bush II Republican Party is nothing that interests Balz at all, yet in retrospect it really is the lesson of 2012, and at the moment appears to be the story of 2016 as well.
September 5, 2013
I liked this book very much. Coming from a state that has only 3 Electoral College votes, I have come to believe people running for the Presidency really do not care about Vermont. This book did not change that viewpoint, but with the detail it gives of the 2012 campaign, I feel I have a better understanding as to why we are not on their radar.
One of the things I really liked about the book, but may turn off many people is that it is a fair analysis of the 2012 campaign. People who seek to vilify the opposing side, (regardless of party affiliation) will become upset because Mr. Balz gave praise and criticism to both sides. He discusses strategies and how they worked for each campaign, including the Republican primaries. He was given insight into the campaigns by various people who worked for each one, but was not reluctant to state when something failed and give an analysis as to why. His follow up throughout the race is quite thorough, and his discussion with Governor Romney after it was all done was a nice wrap-up of the story.
Since I am not a person who follows politics as closely as someone deeply involved with a campaign, I was amazed at how high-tech running for President has become. Knowing who to contact for what reason, or having a debate tweeted as it was going on and how these things effected campaigns was very intriguing. I plan on reading the book again in a couple of years as the primary season starts, just to see if I can spot changes in the process from 2012.
To quote a part from the Epilogue that I feel is pertinent and sums up the campaign and this book:
"Political strategists have long talked about reaching the persuadable voters as their top priority, and still do. But mobilizing the base has become even more important in an age of polarization, and the techniques used to motivate left and right are not ones designed ultimately to bring the country together once the election is over. Slash-and-burn attacks and the demonization of the opposition have made it more difficult to overcome the genuine philosophical differences". This is where we are at as a country, and I don't think it will matter who is running. This describes the state we are in perfectly because for many people, all that matters is whether the person they are voting for has a "R", "D", or "I" after their name.
This book does a wonderful job describing how modern Presidential campaigns target these voters in an effort to become President of the United States. I think anyone who enjoys politics, how things change over the passage of a short period of time, how people deal with things, and people who enjoy history will thoroughly enjoy this book.
One of the things I really liked about the book, but may turn off many people is that it is a fair analysis of the 2012 campaign. People who seek to vilify the opposing side, (regardless of party affiliation) will become upset because Mr. Balz gave praise and criticism to both sides. He discusses strategies and how they worked for each campaign, including the Republican primaries. He was given insight into the campaigns by various people who worked for each one, but was not reluctant to state when something failed and give an analysis as to why. His follow up throughout the race is quite thorough, and his discussion with Governor Romney after it was all done was a nice wrap-up of the story.
Since I am not a person who follows politics as closely as someone deeply involved with a campaign, I was amazed at how high-tech running for President has become. Knowing who to contact for what reason, or having a debate tweeted as it was going on and how these things effected campaigns was very intriguing. I plan on reading the book again in a couple of years as the primary season starts, just to see if I can spot changes in the process from 2012.
To quote a part from the Epilogue that I feel is pertinent and sums up the campaign and this book:
"Political strategists have long talked about reaching the persuadable voters as their top priority, and still do. But mobilizing the base has become even more important in an age of polarization, and the techniques used to motivate left and right are not ones designed ultimately to bring the country together once the election is over. Slash-and-burn attacks and the demonization of the opposition have made it more difficult to overcome the genuine philosophical differences". This is where we are at as a country, and I don't think it will matter who is running. This describes the state we are in perfectly because for many people, all that matters is whether the person they are voting for has a "R", "D", or "I" after their name.
This book does a wonderful job describing how modern Presidential campaigns target these voters in an effort to become President of the United States. I think anyone who enjoys politics, how things change over the passage of a short period of time, how people deal with things, and people who enjoy history will thoroughly enjoy this book.
November 13, 2014
Good history, bad writer Washington Post reporter Dan Balz wrote this sequel to his 2008 book on the election. I didn't like his style for the first book (which was co-written with another author who died before this book) and I was sad to see that it was the same here.
If you're at all familiar with the 2012 election then much of what Balz writes is probably not unknown. That said, Balz does a good job in establishing what the story looks like from the outside: how events from the prolonged Republican nomination to various "gaffes" to the debates to the election look from the outside and in context of the election. I don't think there's anything earth-shattering, but it's good to have the sequence of events as well as a good sense of the structure of the campaigns (for example, how did pollsters and other consultants decide to shape the narrative? What was their methodology? Some of that's here).
At the same time, much of the book was quite tedious to read. Initially I enjoyed the beginning, but I can only assume my interest in the subject carried me through. Something about Balz's writing really turns me off. I don't read his work in the Post religiously, but I feel that with many journalists, they are great in writing shorter news articles or maybe long-form pieces. But that knowledge doesn't translate into novel-length works. Balz is a well-respected journalist, but this was a slog to get through.
It's nowhere near as engaging as either one of the 'Game Change' books but it's less gossip and more about the inner workings of the campaign. Maybe it's just the nature of the fact that a lot of it IS grunt work, it is NOT glamorous and can be quite tedious. But I felt that in the hands of a more compelling writer this could have been an amazing book. Sadly not so much.
A good reference to keep on hand for those interested in elections, but don't make it the only one. And keep in mind Balz isn't exactly that exciting of an author.
If you're at all familiar with the 2012 election then much of what Balz writes is probably not unknown. That said, Balz does a good job in establishing what the story looks like from the outside: how events from the prolonged Republican nomination to various "gaffes" to the debates to the election look from the outside and in context of the election. I don't think there's anything earth-shattering, but it's good to have the sequence of events as well as a good sense of the structure of the campaigns (for example, how did pollsters and other consultants decide to shape the narrative? What was their methodology? Some of that's here).
At the same time, much of the book was quite tedious to read. Initially I enjoyed the beginning, but I can only assume my interest in the subject carried me through. Something about Balz's writing really turns me off. I don't read his work in the Post religiously, but I feel that with many journalists, they are great in writing shorter news articles or maybe long-form pieces. But that knowledge doesn't translate into novel-length works. Balz is a well-respected journalist, but this was a slog to get through.
It's nowhere near as engaging as either one of the 'Game Change' books but it's less gossip and more about the inner workings of the campaign. Maybe it's just the nature of the fact that a lot of it IS grunt work, it is NOT glamorous and can be quite tedious. But I felt that in the hands of a more compelling writer this could have been an amazing book. Sadly not so much.
A good reference to keep on hand for those interested in elections, but don't make it the only one. And keep in mind Balz isn't exactly that exciting of an author.
February 8, 2014
The authors recount the entire 2012 presidential campaign, and the major strategic moves the various candidates employed. In the backdrop, the authors associate those campaign strategies with the pulse of the electorate. The United States has become a more diverse society, relative to 1980, for example, amongst whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Furthermore, various polarities are increasing prevalent amongst the electorate, being ideology based (‘red” or “blue”) or economics or other factors. The successful candidate tailors well with those trends, as well as avoids or minimizes the gaffes which are subject to our 24/7 electronic media. That is exactly what happened in the presidential election of 2012. While President Obama was running as an incumbent president on a challenging first term, he was vulnerable in the early going via his first term record on the economy and jobs. Governor Romney initially responded well to the economic challenge with President Obama, but was later victimized by three factors (e.g. no order of importance, and from this reader’s perspective): 1) The rise of Super PAC’s and the result of the Republican primary extending longer, cutting into invaluable time on the presidential campaign against President Obama, 2) The 47% gaffe and Hurricane Sandy’s timing (close to the Nov 2012 election), and 3) The superior GOTV campaign by President Obama. In the end, President Obama was victorious by a margin made possible through his intelligent campaign strategy.
In conclusion, where the older days were the campaign for the ideas and ideals of America, today’s successful campaign requires intelligent strategies towards appeasing the electorate. A great read for anyone who is interested in the issues and challenges of a Presidential campaign.
In conclusion, where the older days were the campaign for the ideas and ideals of America, today’s successful campaign requires intelligent strategies towards appeasing the electorate. A great read for anyone who is interested in the issues and challenges of a Presidential campaign.
March 29, 2016
Dan Balz’s Collision 2012: Obama vs. Romney and the Future of Elections in America analyzes the events leading up to the 2012 Presidential election and why it matters. Balz’s book is hardly the only one of its kind; however, it takes a different perspective. Instead of merely recreating the events, Balz looks into the “story behind the story” within the election: who is President Obama really? Who is the “real” Mitt Romney? What drives the candidates and Members of Congress to act the way they do?
In addition to raising the possibility that President Obama doesn’t neatly fit within a partisan label, Balz also looks behind the scenes at the relationship between President Obama and the House Republican leadership. Balz makes it clear that the House Republican leadership made numerous bad decision in the lead up to the debt-ceiling fight; however, Balz argues that President Obama, on certain level, is culpable as well. However, whether nearly allowing the United States to default is a scenario that realistically could have been avoided remains subjective and will probably never been known for certain.
A significant portion of this book overlaps with my existing knowledge of the 2012 election; nonetheless, I found it interesting to read another side of the story, especially the psychology of each campaign: e.g. how the Romney campaign viewed the emergence of the “47%” video versus the Obama campaign. How vulnerable was President Obama? What extent of the damage from the “47%” video: did it cost him the election, or were there other factors in Romney’s loss? Ultimately, there is no way to tell for sure.
In addition to raising the possibility that President Obama doesn’t neatly fit within a partisan label, Balz also looks behind the scenes at the relationship between President Obama and the House Republican leadership. Balz makes it clear that the House Republican leadership made numerous bad decision in the lead up to the debt-ceiling fight; however, Balz argues that President Obama, on certain level, is culpable as well. However, whether nearly allowing the United States to default is a scenario that realistically could have been avoided remains subjective and will probably never been known for certain.
A significant portion of this book overlaps with my existing knowledge of the 2012 election; nonetheless, I found it interesting to read another side of the story, especially the psychology of each campaign: e.g. how the Romney campaign viewed the emergence of the “47%” video versus the Obama campaign. How vulnerable was President Obama? What extent of the damage from the “47%” video: did it cost him the election, or were there other factors in Romney’s loss? Ultimately, there is no way to tell for sure.
April 26, 2016
I received my uncorrected proof copy of Collision 2012 through the Goodreads first reads giveaway program. I felt like I had paid less attention to the 2012 election than I should have, and Dan Balz's book certainly remedied any ignorance I was concerned I was harboring.
His arguments are cogent but quite cynical. One of his most interesting ideas about an election that he characterizes, as I read it, as disappointingly stagnant is that the ideas presented by both parties were the most stagnant, unresponsive element of the campaign. I think Balz emphasized too much the increased political polarization of the electorate at the expense of this more compelling idea (in my view).
Balz does do an excellent job of citing and discussing some unique aspects of the 2012 political landscape -- the role of social media, especially the peculiar role of Twitter in public discourse about the debates, and of course the role of SuperPAC funding. His analysis is thorough and far-reaching; the book seems very well-researched as far as I can tell.
While this book may not offer as much behind-the-scenes gossip as some others, I definitely found some interesting tidbits.
Altogether, this is a worthwhile read about an important historical moment in our lives.
His arguments are cogent but quite cynical. One of his most interesting ideas about an election that he characterizes, as I read it, as disappointingly stagnant is that the ideas presented by both parties were the most stagnant, unresponsive element of the campaign. I think Balz emphasized too much the increased political polarization of the electorate at the expense of this more compelling idea (in my view).
Balz does do an excellent job of citing and discussing some unique aspects of the 2012 political landscape -- the role of social media, especially the peculiar role of Twitter in public discourse about the debates, and of course the role of SuperPAC funding. His analysis is thorough and far-reaching; the book seems very well-researched as far as I can tell.
While this book may not offer as much behind-the-scenes gossip as some others, I definitely found some interesting tidbits.
Altogether, this is a worthwhile read about an important historical moment in our lives.
October 5, 2013
I'm a sucker for these kinds of campaign postmortem books. This one is an above-average example of the genre. Highlights for me:
- The chapter about the technology the Obama campaign used to guide their voter outreach/turnout efforts was fascinating, and it will leave you thinking that this kind of stuff will determine the outcomes of close-ish presidential elections in the future much more than the things the media usually focuses on in its campaign coverage.
- There's an entire chapter about Chris Christie's role in the race, told mostly in his own words. Whatever you think about Christie's politics, he's an entertaining character.
- Romney is still in such denial about his "40 percent" comment that he keeps a transcript on his iPad to help him argue with people about what he really meant (?!?!).
There's not much in the way of "What does it all mean?" analysis here--and the author's few attempts to do that are pretty bland/lazy--but if you're just looking for some fun behind-the-scenes details of an interesting presidential campaign, this is a fun read.
- The chapter about the technology the Obama campaign used to guide their voter outreach/turnout efforts was fascinating, and it will leave you thinking that this kind of stuff will determine the outcomes of close-ish presidential elections in the future much more than the things the media usually focuses on in its campaign coverage.
- There's an entire chapter about Chris Christie's role in the race, told mostly in his own words. Whatever you think about Christie's politics, he's an entertaining character.
- Romney is still in such denial about his "40 percent" comment that he keeps a transcript on his iPad to help him argue with people about what he really meant (?!?!).
There's not much in the way of "What does it all mean?" analysis here--and the author's few attempts to do that are pretty bland/lazy--but if you're just looking for some fun behind-the-scenes details of an interesting presidential campaign, this is a fun read.
October 22, 2013
Giving this 3 1/2 stars.
A very thorough recap of the 2012 election, from the Republican primaries to the general election with O'Bama and Romney.
Romney's team was running behind from the get go, starting with the first primary. Given the Republican switch to a % based vote needed to get a % of delegates (as opposed to the majority winning gaining all delegates) and Republicans' ambivalence about Romney, the primary race ran competitively to the end.
O'Bama's team had the advantage of a full year of prep and fund-raising ... and it showed. The book gives details behind the scenes strategizing, with constant polling to see what issue was gaining traction (and among specific subsets of voters), an amazingly detailed and precise media strategy that spent about a third per TV spot (media cost) than Romney's team given both superior negotiating, coupled with precise data to target exactly what demographic needed what message at a specific time.
My guess is that with "Big Data" elections will never be the same again.
Enjoyable read (especially if you voted for O'Bama)
A very thorough recap of the 2012 election, from the Republican primaries to the general election with O'Bama and Romney.
Romney's team was running behind from the get go, starting with the first primary. Given the Republican switch to a % based vote needed to get a % of delegates (as opposed to the majority winning gaining all delegates) and Republicans' ambivalence about Romney, the primary race ran competitively to the end.
O'Bama's team had the advantage of a full year of prep and fund-raising ... and it showed. The book gives details behind the scenes strategizing, with constant polling to see what issue was gaining traction (and among specific subsets of voters), an amazingly detailed and precise media strategy that spent about a third per TV spot (media cost) than Romney's team given both superior negotiating, coupled with precise data to target exactly what demographic needed what message at a specific time.
My guess is that with "Big Data" elections will never be the same again.
Enjoyable read (especially if you voted for O'Bama)
June 25, 2015
I find the gamesmanship and strategy of political campaigns to be entertaining and a sort of commentary on human nature, so I thought this would be a good read for me. As other reviewers have said, based on the subject you already know if you'll enjoy this book.
I found it to be really long, and not as engaging as it could have been (writing style not totally working for me). It was an entertaining recap of the sometimes bizarre election of 2012 (and man, did the rapidly evolving Republican field give us that--poor Mitt, they just really didn't like him, did they?), but I was expecting more discussion about what it all meant for the future in terms of Super PACs, marketing approaches, etc., but this was more of a recap of what happened.
I found it to be really long, and not as engaging as it could have been (writing style not totally working for me). It was an entertaining recap of the sometimes bizarre election of 2012 (and man, did the rapidly evolving Republican field give us that--poor Mitt, they just really didn't like him, did they?), but I was expecting more discussion about what it all meant for the future in terms of Super PACs, marketing approaches, etc., but this was more of a recap of what happened.
August 20, 2013
If you followed Dan Balz in the Washington Post over the course of the campaign, then you'll be pretty familiar with a lot of the material in the book. While there were some interesting revelations and plenty of interesting details from the 2 campaigns and about the 2 presidential aspirants, I think the book lacked the depth to make for a truly excellent read. Like his reporting, it's entertaining but not generally illuminating or particularly enlightening.
I'd still definitely recommend it to someone who either didn't follow the 2012 election particularly closely, for anyone that wants to relive it and gain some insight into Mitt Romney, or someone looking for fairly light, entertaining political reading.
I'd still definitely recommend it to someone who either didn't follow the 2012 election particularly closely, for anyone that wants to relive it and gain some insight into Mitt Romney, or someone looking for fairly light, entertaining political reading.
October 16, 2013
History of the 2012 Presidential campaign and election.
A useful book, now that the 2012 election is a year behind us. This book sort of cleared out the forest so you could see the trees. Not too soon to put the entire election in some historical perspective.
Reminded of how impossibly inept the Republican slate actually was, with candidates shooting themselves in the foot right and left. One candidate, Newt Gingrich, actually shot himself in the foot three separate times.
I gave this book 3 stars. I could have given it 4 stars, but the book was at least one rewrite too short, or lacked some serious editing. The writing style is tedious and confusing. I reread a lot of paragraphs many times before I gave up digging for any meaning at all.
A useful book, now that the 2012 election is a year behind us. This book sort of cleared out the forest so you could see the trees. Not too soon to put the entire election in some historical perspective.
Reminded of how impossibly inept the Republican slate actually was, with candidates shooting themselves in the foot right and left. One candidate, Newt Gingrich, actually shot himself in the foot three separate times.
I gave this book 3 stars. I could have given it 4 stars, but the book was at least one rewrite too short, or lacked some serious editing. The writing style is tedious and confusing. I reread a lot of paragraphs many times before I gave up digging for any meaning at all.
August 14, 2013
Honestly, there is not much to say about the book in my opinion.
It's a pretty good analysis of everything that went down during and around the 2012 elections and also provides you with a bunch of inside information.
The book doesn't seem to be biased like you often see in articles by CNN and Fox. It's definitely a very objective book and focuses more on the issues of the entire election process rather than focus on the issues per party.
I don't think however, that this is a book for people who are not seriously interested in politics.
I received the book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
It's a pretty good analysis of everything that went down during and around the 2012 elections and also provides you with a bunch of inside information.
The book doesn't seem to be biased like you often see in articles by CNN and Fox. It's definitely a very objective book and focuses more on the issues of the entire election process rather than focus on the issues per party.
I don't think however, that this is a book for people who are not seriously interested in politics.
I received the book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
October 10, 2013
This was pretty dry. I'm looking forward to Double Down 2012, the "sequel" to Game Change, simply because I thought Game Change was a much more interesting book about an election. Nonetheless, there were a few really interesting tidbits in here, and even a laugh-out-loud moment or two. If you're interested in reliving the 2012 election, this is it. It's more of a blow-by-blow account than an analysis, quite honestly. (The three paragraphs of tweets about the first debate was a BIT much for me. I READ THOSE TWEETS WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING, DESPAIR IN MY HEART IN A HOTEL ROOM IN CHAMPAIGN. I didn't need to relive that particular night.)
Read
December 18, 2013"Dan Balz’s Collision 2012 gives the ongoing rift between Red and Blue Americas the attention it deserves. In Balz’s telling, last year’s contest was not an ennobling exercise in democracy—both candidates were definitely found wanting. Balz repeats a senior Democrat’s observation that the teleprompter was the perfect metaphor for Barack Obama’s aloof persona, while the Washington Post veteran lets Mitt Romney’s own words repeatedly demonstrate the challenger’s disconnect from the nation he sought to govern. Balz shows the reader what went right and wrong with both campaigns."
Read the full review: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Read the full review: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
December 8, 2013
I do not believe in all things written in this book. Yet that is my choice. I have been taught to keep an open mind and to read all views so when I make a sound decision about something it is stronger. Other people may enjoy this book more than I did. Yet on the other hand thank you because I can use you book for the future in making stronger decisions in this area. As I was told early on I may never agree with everything but I need to be able to see both sides equally. In this book you have helped with this.
October 27, 2013
Just really great, solid political reporting. I think it's a little ~too soon~ for a retrospective of the election, but it was sort of fun to revisit it, now that it's all over. I do wish that it had been more gossip-y, which I know is not Dan Balz's style, but something like the Clint Eastwood debacle should not be covered in just a page. Also, Balz has a distressing habit of explaining jokes, which tends to kill snarky enjoyment. That said, it's great political reporting and made for an enjoyable weekend read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews