Restore Our Future's Last-Minute Money

Restore Our Future spent a lot of money, but to what effect? The Center for Responsive Politics reports:

The pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future raked in $22 million in the weeks between Oct. 18 and Nov. 6, the date of the election, according to the group's latest filing with the Federal Election Commission.

And its outlays were even more eye-popping: More than $45 million, almost all of it for ads. All told, Restore Our Future spent more than $142 million in independent expenditures in the race, more than half of it against President Barack Obama and the rest against his Republican rivals for the nomination.

The last-minute donors to the super PAC included Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, who gave $10 million to help Romney's losing presidential effort. That brought the Adelsons' total investment in Restore to $30 million for the election cycle.

No other contributors even came close, although there were several other $1 million-plus gifts: Larry Ellison, Oracle's CEO, sent $3 million; Houston Texans chair Robert McNair chipped in $1 million; and the holding company Renco Group, which has mining and other subsidiaries, also gave $1 million.

Enthusiasm: Meh!

From Resurgent Republic [emphasis added]:

Key subgroups of President Obama's winning coalition including Hispanics, young voters, and unmarried women outperformed their 2008 turnout levels, even though these cohorts exuded less enthusiasm to get to the polls than Governor Romney’s core supporters. Many variables influence election turnout, and the impact of candidates and campaign messages should not be overlooked. This analysis and corresponding infographic focuses on voter enthusiasm on the eve of the election and the turnout percent change in recent presidential contests. Voter enthusiasm alone is not enough to significantly alter the demographic trends of the electorate.

 18-29: Despite having low enthusiasm levels throughout the election, voters 18-29 had a 6 percent increase in turnout compared to 2008, up one-point overall to comprise 19 percent of the electorate. President Obama won the youth vote by more than 20 points (60 to 37 percent), but he did so by a smaller margin than 2008 (66 to 32 percent). Latino voters 18-29 propelled the increase among the youth vote, expanding to 4 percent of the overall electorate, while whites and African Americans equaled their 2008 levels.

Unmarried Women: the "war on women" is somewhat overstated as Republicans won among white women by a greater margin in 2012 than 2008, 56-42 and 53-46 respectively. Yet white women's share of the electorate is down 1 point since 2008, 3 points since 2004, and 14 points since 2000. As a key part of center-left coalition, unmarried women increased their share of the electorate from 2008 to 2012 by 10 percent, up two points overall to 23 percent. With two-thirds support in November, Democrats hold a commanding lead among this growing segment of the electorate.

 Hispanics: The fastest growing minority group had an 11 percent increase in turnout compared to 2008, up one-point overall to 10 percent of the electorate. Republican support reached a high point in 2004, but has dropped by nearly 20 points over the past two presidential cycles. Meanwhile, the political influence of this voting bloc will increase exponentially as 50,000 Americans of Hispanic descent turn the age of 18 every month for the next two decades.

 African-Americans: Turnout among the black community equaled the sizable percentage increase seen in 2008. From 2004 to 2008, the African-American vote saw an 18 percent change, going from 11 percent in 2004 to 13 percent in 2008. Unlike President Obama’s other coalition groups, African American voters were the most enthusiastic to turnout of all voting groups.

 Seniors 65 and Older: Governor Romney did better among seniors by a net of four points compared to 2008. Yet despite being one of the most enthusiastic voting groups, seniors' share of the electorate remained the same as four years ago. In fact in four of the past five presidential elections, voters 65 and older comprised 16 percent of the electorate, with the lone exception of 14 percent in 2000.

 White Evangelicals: this reliably conservative voting bloc recorded high enthusiasm levels during 2012, yet their share of the electorate equaled 26 percent in the past two presidential elections. Despite this equilibrium, Governor Romney won these voters by 78-21, a net 7-point improvement compared to 2008. This margin is identical to 2004.

 Whites: Not only did Governor Romney outperform 2008 levels among all white voters by a net of 8 points, he also earned a positive net swing among each age group compared to four years ago: 18-29 (+17); 30-44 (+5); 45-64 (+9); and 65 and older (+4). Yet these margins were not enough because the 2012 electorate was less white, decreasing to 72 percent overall. There was a decline in the white vote among 30-44 year olds, from 20 percent in 2008 to 18 percent in 2012. Yet the overarching trend of a less white electorate will continue as Hispanics, Asian Americans, and other minority groups increase their political participation and the white vote continues to age (white seniors increased to 14 percent in 2012). 

GOP Campaign Problems: People, Tech, Centralization

Reid Wilson writes at National Journal:

In the annals of the conservative blogosphere, the creators of Project ORCA, an as-yet-unknown group of Romney and outside staffers, are part of the reason Republicans lost. It's something of a parlor game among Republican strategists, especially those involved in the technical side of the business, to guess which of their colleagues is at fault for ORCA's failure. It's a fool's errand; according to up-to-date tallies compiled by The Cook Political Report's David Wasserman, Obama beat Romney by more than 4.6 million votes, a margin far greater than even the best GOTV program could make up.

But it's clear that Obama's team was generations more advanced than Romney's. In a close race, turnout makes a difference; the investments Democrats have put into their technological tools have paid off, and will continue to do so.

Some Republicans worry that their trouble goes deeper than the bells and whistles of a nifty computer program. The party faces a lack of high-quality campaign managers, strategists with the track record of running and winning statewide elections who haven't left the business to open their own consulting firms.

The Hill reports:

President Obama's re-election campaign ran "the greatest digital operation in the history of politics," Zac Moffatt, digital director for Mitt Romney, said Wednesday. "I don't begrudge them."

In contrast, Moffatt said he thinks his team struggled the most with the rapid need to "scale out" and staff up following the extended GOP primary. "Build bigger" is his advice when it comes to digital teams for future presidential campaigns.

"We ran out of runway," he said, and described his dream scenario as one where he could put together a dream team of people at least two years in advance.

"If I could do it again, I'd do it as an incumbent," he laughed.

With the election over, digital strategists for both presidential campaigns seemed more than willing to put any animosity behind them at a panel co-hosted by CNN and Google in Washington, DC.

And the spending was centralized. PR Watch reports:

The hundreds of millions that mega-donors gave to Super PACs and dark money nonprofits in 2012 largely failed to produce a return on investment, with Barack Obama reelected and Democrats gaining seats in the U.S. Senate. However, a small cadre of media consultants, advertising experts, and strategists still reaped huge profits from the 2012 election, based on an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD).

In 2012, the total spending of outside groups -- the Super PACs and dark money nonprofits which spend money to influence elections, but do so separately from campaigns -- amounted to about $1.3 billion. CMD (publishers of PRwatch.org) estimates that more than $482 million in outside spending, about a third overall, ultimately passed through just six media companies: ad production shops Mentzer Media and McCarthy Hennings Media, direct mail giant Arena Communications, online advertising firm Targeted Communications, Karl Rove-affiliated Crossroads Media LLC, and a mysterious Democrat-aligned media group called Waterfront Strategies. Some of these companies used the money to produce ads, others to purchase the slots where the ads ultimately aired, others to send ad mailers. Industry experts tell CMD that media buyers typically take a 10 to 15 percent commission on ad buys, but consultants involved in ad production or mailers may be paid an even greater percentage.

Data on the House

Dave Wasserman has valuable tweets:

Crossroads and the Cliff

Consistent with its 501(c)(4) status, Crossroads GPS must do issues, not just elections. It is getting into the fiscal cliff debate with a spot criticizing President Obama for backing taxes.  CNN reports:

In the first advertising effort to support the Republicans in the ongoing fiscal cliff debate, the advocacy group Crossroads GPS will go on television Thursday trying to push the White House to offer more spending cuts as part of any deal. The group is buying $500,000 worth of time on national cable, including on CNN, as well on stations in the Washington area during the Sunday public affairs programs.

Reflecting on the Nomination Contest

The New York Times reports that Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades, acknowledged an error during a forum  at the Harvard University Institute of Politics.

When asked directly whether Mr. Romney regretted tacking to the right on immigration to appeal to conservative primary voters, the room fell silent.

Stuart Stevens, a senior strategist to Mr. Romney, shook his head no. But after pausing for several seconds, Mr. Rhoades said, “I regret that.”

He went on to explain that the campaign, in hindsight, had been too worried about a potential threat from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who jumped into the race to challenge Mr. Romney as the jobs-and-economy candidate. For weeks in fall 2011, Mr. Romney hammered Mr. Perry on Social Security, particularly his calling the program a “Ponzi scheme” that should be overtaken by state governments.

In retrospect,” Mr. Rhoades said, “I believe that we could have probably just beaten Governor Perry with the Social Security hit.”

National Journal reports on Pawlenty and Perry:

 Pawlenty bet his campaign on the August 2011 Iowa straw poll, only to come in a distant third -- behind Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul – and drop out the next day. If he had skipped the straw poll, he might have gone all the way to the nomination or the White House. Until Perry got into the race, “we were most worried about Tim Pawlenty,” Rhoades said. He said Pawlenty’s retail campaign skills could have won him Iowa and New Hampshire, and “we had respect” for his jobs record as governor of Minnesota.

Phil Musser, a senior adviser to Pawlenty’s brief campaign, called the straw poll “a circus” and “a joke” and “a celebrity contest” that has run its course. “We made a fundamental strategic miscalculation about the level of investment that we chose to deploy there,” he said. One of the lessons of the 2012 campaign for top-tier candidates, he said, should be “don’t chase the shiny object.”

...
Strategist Dave Carney said that Perry expected to recover from what he considered minor back surgery in two weeks, but he was still having problems after four months. “It had a big impact” on his late-starting bid, Carney said. “The whole campaign was built upon a very aggressive, arduous schedule of travel in order to make up for lost time.” Perry’s discomfort affected his ability to stand, sleep, travel, study briefing materials, and pack his schedule with meetings, Carney said. If Perry had been pain-free and healthier, would he have given better speeches and been a better debater? And would that have made a difference? Hard to tell, given other problems such as Perry’s belated entry and lack of preparedness, but also hard not to wonder.

Did Citizens United End Up Helping the Left?

Previous posts have looked at the way Democrats and their allies used Citizens United. At The Atlantic, Molly Ball quotes Michael Podhorzer, the political director of the AFL-CIO: "Super PACs are so awesome. It was long overdue that the Supreme Court recognized that corporations are people like everybody else."

Podhorzer, who spoke on a panel at the RootsCamp left-wing organizing conference, was being sarcastic--sort of. Progressives still really hate Citizens United. But in one of the most ironic turns of the 2012 election, groups on the left were some of the most skilled exploiters of the 2010 court decision.

Take Podhorzer, who got a new title this year: executive director of Workers' Voice, the super PAC the AFL-CIO started in April. Prior to Citizens United, under a 1947 law, unions were only allowed to communicate politically with their own members; they couldn't campaign to the general public. When the Supreme Court was hearing Citizens United, the AFL-CIO actually filed an amicus brief aimed at this provision--and got its wish.

The result, Podhorzer said, was like "taking off the handcuffs." The AFL-CIO and other unionsconducted door-knocking, phone-banking and advertising campaigns this year aimed at the general public in elections they hoped to influence, and made a big difference.

It was a similar story for Credo, a for-profit phone company that supports progressive causes. As a corporation, it was subject to pre-Citizens United campaign-finance restrictions that prevented it from spending money on campaigns. But this election cycle, the company formed a super PAC and targeted 10 vulnerable Republican congressional incumbents with an intensive, volunteer-based campaign of field organizing in their districts. Five of them, including firebrand Florida Rep. Allen West, were defeated.