brown political review - fall 2012 issue

ELECTION 2012 RYAN PLAN TAX CUTS IRAN BARACK OBAMA SYRIA BAIN IRAQ MITT ROMNEY ISRAEL ABORTION JOBS

ECONOMY DREAM ACT OBAMACARE STIMULUS GAY MARRIAGE LIBYA PAUL RYAN AFGHANISTAN IMMIGRATION CLIMATE

CHANGE AUSTERITY FISCAL CLIFF DAVID PLOUFFE MEDICARE REFORM DEBT CEILING JOE BIDEN SUPER PACS JOBS MIDDLE

CLASS OBAMACARE IRAN ABORTION ISRAEL CLIMATE CHANGE BIPARTISANSHIP GOP MIDDLE EAST DEBATES MIDDLE CLASS

DREAM ACT ELECTION 2012 RYAN PLAN TAX CUTS IRAN BARACK OBAMA SYRIA BAIN IRAQ MITT ROMNEY ISRAEL ABORTION

JOBS ECONOMY DREAM ACT OBAMACARE STIMULUS GAY MARRIAGE LIBYA PAUL RYAN AFGHANISTAN IMMIGRATION CLIMATE CHANGE AUSTERITY FISCAL CLIFF DAVID PLOUFFE

MEDICARE REFORM DEBT CEILING JOE BIDEN SUPER PACS JOBS MIDDLE CLASS OBAMACARE IRAN ABORTION ISRAEL CLIMATE CHANGE BIPARTISANSHIP GOP MIDDLE EAST DEBATES MIDDLE

CLASS DREAM ACT ELECTION 2012 RYAN PLAN TAX CUTS IRAN

BARACK OBAMA SYRIA BAIN IRAQ MITT ROMNEY ISRAEL ABORTION JOBS ECONOMY DREAM ACT OBAMACARE STIMULUS GAY MARRIAGE LIBYA PAUL RYAN AFGHANISTAN IMMIGRATION

CLIMATE CHANGE AUSTERITY FISCAL CLIFF DAVID PLOUFFE MEDICARE REFORM DEBT CEILING JOE BIDEN SUPER PACS JOBS

MIDDLE CLASS OBAMACARE IRAN ABORTION ISRAEL CLIMATE CHANGE BIPARTISANSHIP GOP MIDDLE EAST DEBATES MIDDLE

CLASS DREAM ACT ELECTION 2012 RYAN PLAN TAX CUTS IRAN

BARACK OBAMA SYRIA BAIN IRAQ MITT ROMNEY ISRAEL ABORTION JOBS ECONOMY DREAM ACT OBAMACARE STIMULUS GAY MARRIAGE LIBYA PAUL RYAN AFGHANISTAN IMMIGRATION

CLIMATE CHANGE AUSTERITY FISCAL CLIFF DAVID PLOUFFE MEDICARE REFORM DEBT CEILING JOE BIDEN SUPER PACS JOBS

MIDDLE CLASS OBAMACARE IRAN ABORTION ISRAEL CLIMATE CHANGE BIPARTISANSHIP GOP MIDDLE EAST DEBATES MIDDLE

CLASS DREAM ACT PAUL RYAN AFGHANISTAN IMMIGRATION CLIMATE CHANGE AUSTERITY FISCAL CLIFF DAVID PLOUFFE MEDICARE REFORM DEBT CEILING IRAN ABORTION ISRAEL

thechoice2012

Volume I Issue 1

INTERVIEW NATIONALEZRA KLEIN

GROVER NORQUISTHOWARD DEAN PAUL BEGALA DAVID FRUM

WHO FILLS THE EMERGING RIFT IN

THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY?

PAGE 12

GLOBAL

SEARCHING FORWHY LEBANON MAY

BE SYRIA’S NEXT BATTLEGROUND.

Sponsored by:

INAUGURAL ISSUE

CONTENTS

NATIONAL

FEATURE

INTERVIEW

Executive BoardEditors-in-ChiEfsEnior Managing Editor

ChiEf-of-staff

intErviEws dirECtor

onlinE dirECtorBusinEss & MarkEting dirECtor

layout dirECtor

Haakim NaiNar & BeN Woffordoliver HudsoN

laureN sukiN

CHristopHer WilBurleWis pollis

CHiamaka aNyoku

katriNa maCHado

Interviews Board

Online Board

Columnists

Business & Marketing Board

Layout Board

Editorial Board

jaCoB karr, Carol kim BeNjamiN koatz, aNNika

liCHteNBaum & dori raHBar

seNior maNagiNg editor oliver HudsoN

editors-at-large

NatioNal maNagiNg editor katHy NguyeNgloBal maNagiNg editor jorge tamames

Copy Editorial BoardaNNe moody

jaCqueliNe riCe fraNCis torres & Ned

Willig

CHief Copy editor mariNa do NasCimeNtoCopy editors

viktoria BelBerova BuCk greeNWald &

HeNry kNigHt

iNtervieWs direCtor CHristopHer WilBur

iNtervieWs assoCiatesassoCiate iNtervieWs direCtor CHristiNa kata

peNelope kyritsis & eleNa saltzmaN

BusiNess & marketiNg direCtor CHiamaka aNyoku

BusiNess & marketiNg assoCiates

assoCiate marketiNg direCtor HaNNaH BogeNassoCiate BusiNess direCtor adWa HaBtu

oNliNe direCtor leWis pollis

NeW media maNager Neil siNgH

WeBmaster emma fuNkprojeCts maNager jarrett key

projeCts CoNsultaNt Naser maHfouz

BeNjamiN WolkoN HoustoN davidsoN

Bradley silvermaN & iNNi youH

ColumN maNagers

featured ColumNists leNa Barsky, miCHael d’orteNzio, BeNjamiN

gellmaN, mattHeW mCCaBe, siavasH

Naderi, HimaNi sood & alexis sterN

layout direCtor katriNa maCHadoassoCiate layout direCtor marleNa morsHead

layout assoCiates BeN Berke, mara freiliCH & raCHel

HaBerstroH

The Carbon Tax

President Obama’s Electoral GambleRomney’s Race to Lose

Big Government, Big Capitalism, Big Growth

The G.O.P. is Cracking

The Iranian Missile Crisis?

Rio at War

GLOBAL

Lebanon’s Game of Sects

Ezra Klein

Paul Begala

Howard Dean

David Frum

Grover Norquist

Staff ArtistsraCHel HaBerstroH

katriNa maCHadosHeila sitaram

Cover ArtkatriNa maCHado

Foreign Aid: A Double Edged Sword

Increase from 2008 in Latino voters registered in Arizona. Can Obama put the state in play? pg 7

The new portion of GDP that federal taxation would account for under Simpson-Bowles, according to Grover Norquist. pg 30

last semester, a few students had the idea for a nonpartisan political review at Brown. We thought there was room for a political magazine to complement other political outlets on campus. 2012 has been a special year to start off, and we are excited to present our inaugural issue to coincide with the November election that in recent weeks has become increasingly captivating.

But Bpr is also more than a written magazine. our website Brownpoliticalreview.org hosts four great columns covering the election, public policy, the supreme Court and in-ternational affairs, as well as the constant insights of our editorial board. it also features radio podcasts, exclusive audio interviews and our Webtv project Bproundtable. the mission throughout is to contribute to a thoughtful and nonpartisan political culture at Brown.

there are so many people without whose incredible help this would not be possible. first, many thanks to professor john tomasi, dina egge, and everyone at the political theory project, whose generous funding and unending support turned this idea into reality. special appreciation to the two co-founders not at Brown this semester, alex-andros Diplas and Todd Harris, who invested significant time and effort into launching this publication. of course, this would not be a magazine without our thoughtful and articulate writers, who were committed from first pitch to final edit. And most impor-tantly, endless credit to our 40-odd staff who have worked incredibly hard and devoted themselves to creating something new throughout the summer and the hectic weeks of this semester.

finally, thank you in advance for picking up Bpr. We hope you enjoy reading it as much we enjoyed creating it.

Best regards,Haakim Nainar & Ben Woffordeditors-in-Chief

Gambling on Rhode Island’s Future 31

CONTENTS

NATIONAL

FEATURE

INTERVIEW

Executive BoardEditors-in-ChiEfsEnior Managing Editor

ChiEf-of-staff

intErviEws dirECtor

onlinE dirECtorBusinEss & MarkEting dirECtor

layout dirECtor

Haakim NaiNar & BeN Woffordoliver HudsoN

laureN sukiN

CHristopHer WilBurleWis pollis

CHiamaka aNyoku

katriNa maCHado

Interviews Board

Online Board

Columnists

Business & Marketing Board

Layout Board

Editorial Board

jaCoB karr, Carol kim BeNjamiN koatz, aNNika

liCHteNBaum & dori raHBar

seNior maNagiNg editor oliver HudsoN

editors-at-large

NatioNal maNagiNg editor katHy NguyeNgloBal maNagiNg editor jorge tamames

Copy Editorial BoardaNNe moody

jaCqueliNe riCe fraNCis torres & Ned

Willig

CHief Copy editor mariNa do NasCimeNtoCopy editors

viktoria BelBerova BuCk greeNWald &

HeNry kNigHt

iNtervieWs direCtor CHristopHer WilBur

iNtervieWs assoCiatesassoCiate iNtervieWs direCtor CHristiNa kata

peNelope kyritsis & eleNa saltzmaN

BusiNess & marketiNg direCtor CHiamaka aNyoku

BusiNess & marketiNg assoCiates

assoCiate marketiNg direCtor HaNNaH BogeNassoCiate BusiNess direCtor adWa HaBtu

oNliNe direCtor leWis pollis

NeW media maNager Neil siNgH

WeBmaster emma fuNkprojeCts maNager jarrett key

projeCts CoNsultaNt Naser maHfouz

BeNjamiN WolkoN HoustoN davidsoN

Bradley silvermaN & iNNi youH

ColumN maNagers

featured ColumNists leNa Barsky, miCHael d’orteNzio, BeNjamiN

gellmaN, mattHeW mCCaBe, siavasH

Naderi, HimaNi sood & alexis sterN

layout direCtor katriNa maCHadoassoCiate layout direCtor marleNa morsHead

layout assoCiates BeN Berke, mara freiliCH & raCHel

HaBerstroH

The Carbon Tax

President Obama’s Electoral GambleRomney’s Race to Lose

Big Government, Big Capitalism, Big Growth

The G.O.P. is Cracking

Rio at War

GLOBAL

Lebanon’s Game of Sects

Ezra Klein

Paul Begala

Howard Dean

David Frum

Grover Norquist

Staff ArtistsraCHel HaBerstroH

katriNa maCHadosHeila sitaram

Cover ArtkatriNa maCHado

Foreign Aid: A Double Edged Sword

Increase from 2008 in Latino voters registered in Arizona. Can Obama put the state in play? pg 7

The new portion of GDP that federal taxation would account for under Simpson-Bowles, according to Grover Norquist. pg 30

last semester, a few students had the idea for a nonpartisan political review at Brown. We thought there was room for a political magazine to complement other political outlets on campus. 2012 has been a special year to start off, and we are excited to present our inaugural issue to coincide with the November election that in recent weeks has become increasingly captivating.

But Bpr is also more than a written magazine. our website Brownpoliticalreview.org hosts four great columns covering the election, public policy, the supreme Court and in-ternational affairs, as well as the constant insights of our editorial board. it also features radio podcasts, exclusive audio interviews and our Webtv project Bproundtable. the mission throughout is to contribute to a thoughtful and nonpartisan political culture at Brown.

there are so many people without whose incredible help this would not be possible. first, many thanks to professor john tomasi, dina egge, and everyone at the political theory project, whose generous funding and unending support turned this idea into reality. special appreciation to the two co-founders not at Brown this semester, alex-andros Diplas and Todd Harris, who invested significant time and effort into launching this publication. of course, this would not be a magazine without our thoughtful and articulate writers, who were committed from first pitch to final edit. And most impor-tantly, endless credit to our 40-odd staff who have worked incredibly hard and devoted themselves to creating something new throughout the summer and the hectic weeks of this semester.

finally, thank you in advance for picking up Bpr. We hope you enjoy reading it as much we enjoyed creating it.

Best regards,Haakim Nainar & Ben Woffordeditors-in-Chief

Gambling on Rhode Island’s Future 31

the climate crisis

Climate science is not new. As the literature grows, we know more specifics about climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change (IPCC) and climate scientists have established that climate change effects are “virtually certain,” including lasting effects on surface temperature, heat waves, changing precipitation patterns (in-cluding droughts), rises in sea levels and increases in tropical storm intensity. Historical temperature data indicate that greenhouse gas emissions have shifted our weather

patterns to make hotter seasons more likely.

Although environmental ef-fects are enough reason to worry, the economic impact of climate change is more concerning. While many forecasts show a modest net economic gain for small levels of global land temperature increase, the range of warming that will oc-cur based on the expected emission trajectory far exceeds any possible net economic benefits, ultimately imposing a net cost on the global economy. Moreover, there are many uncertain parameters that govern climate models. Although

scientists are doing their best, there remain inherent uncertainties in finding the economic costs of temperature shifts, especially when modeling the possibilities of “ex-treme” shifts. Policy action is not just moral; it also represents a kind of insurance against the possibility that the Earth warms faster than anticipated.

a simple solution to a complex problem?

Fortunately, carbon taxation of-fers a simple method to discourage the proliferation of carbon emis-

sions, while simultaneously avoid-ing picking favorites in the market. Indeed, this idea is not new—carbon-pricing schemes have been instituted in a number of national and regional governments.

There are several possible de-signs for such a carbon tax. First, policymakers must decide where in the economic cycle to impose the tax. There are many proponents of imposing the tax “upstream”—coal mine mouths, gas wellheads, refineries and ports of entry—as opposed to “downstream,” where it would more directly engage con-sumers and businesses. Taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels is the least administratively burdensome method. Since the price increase would be passed on to each in-termediary in the economy, it is equivalent to taxing downstream, but has the added benefit of inter-acting with fewer economic agents. Taxing upstream ensures that all sectors will see a price change, but if there are many loopholes, the tax becomes much less efficient—not to mention the potential for economic favoritism.

use of revenue

Although the way in which the government dispenses their carbon tax revenue remains inconsequen-tial from an environmental stand-point, it is a crucial consideration from an economic standpoint. Giv-en the United States’ current fiscal condition, carbon taxes afford an opportunity to generate funds that could be used to help balance the national accounts. The introduction of a national, economy-wide tax of $20 per ton of carbon emissions is estimated to generate $1.25 trillion over the next decade. While this is only a fraction of the $16 trillion

deficit, it is a sizeable chunk of reve-nue and could represent significant progress toward both economic and environmental goals.

Broadly speaking, there are three sensible ways to redistribute the funds generated with a carbon tax. Revenues can be funneled into specific carbon mitigation or carbon reduction policies directed toward individuals through tax breaks, or used to supplement the government’s budget. Some re-searchers propose that the best way to utilize the large sum of revenue from carbon taxes is to make the policy revenue-neutral. This can be accomplished by reducing an exist-ing distortionary tax—a tax dis-couraging desirable activity—by an amount equivalent to the amount levied by the carbon tax. While instituting a tax does increase costs, these costs are often mitigated by

the simultaneous cuts to other taxes. Additionally, these costs dis-courage unsustainable growth that might generate short-term profits but imposes substantial long-term costs on society.

However, there are other im-portant considerations for design-ing the optimal carbon-tax policy. Although society as a whole will be better off regardless of the exact use of carbon tax revenue, the use of funds affects the degree of econom-ic benefit. Using the revenue from a carbon tax to reduce corporate income taxes might produce the greatest level of economic growth, but it does so at the expense of being highly regressive, imposing a greater burden on taxpayers less able to pay. Reducing the pay-roll tax might represent a middle ground designed to be revenue neutral, ensuring that carbon tax

reform does not harm families with incomes lower than the median while generating the stimulating aspect of removing distortionary taxes that discourage work.

Instituting a na-tional carbon tax policy could be used either to reduce distortionary taxes that lead to drags in the economy or as a novel way to raise revenue to help reduce the national deficit. If instated at a low rate and then gradually in-creased, reform would avoid introducing a ma-jor shock to businesses, provide certainty about carbon regulation and allow for more effective long-term planning.

The Carbon Tax: A Win for the Economy and the Environment

Story by Peter Vail / Art by Rachel Haberstroh

the climate crisis

Climate science is not new. As the literature grows, we know more specifics about climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-mate Change (IPCC) and climate scientists have established that climate change effects are “virtually certain,” including lasting effects on surface temperature, heat waves, changing precipitation patterns (in-cluding droughts), rises in sea levels and increases in tropical storm intensity. Historical temperature data indicate that greenhouse gas emissions have shifted our weather

patterns to make hotter seasons more likely.

Although environmental ef-fects are enough reason to worry, the economic impact of climate change is more concerning. While many forecasts show a modest net economic gain for small levels of global land temperature increase, the range of warming that will oc-cur based on the expected emission trajectory far exceeds any possible net economic benefits, ultimately imposing a net cost on the global economy. Moreover, there are many uncertain parameters that govern climate models. Although

scientists are doing their best, there remain inherent uncertainties in finding the economic costs of temperature shifts, especially when modeling the possibilities of “ex-treme” shifts. Policy action is not just moral; it also represents a kind of insurance against the possibility that the Earth warms faster than anticipated.

a simple solution to a complex problem?

Fortunately, carbon taxation of-fers a simple method to discourage the proliferation of carbon emis-

sions, while simultaneously avoid-ing picking favorites in the market. Indeed, this idea is not new—carbon-pricing schemes have been instituted in a number of national and regional governments.

There are several possible de-signs for such a carbon tax. First, policymakers must decide where in the economic cycle to impose the tax. There are many proponents of imposing the tax “upstream”—coal mine mouths, gas wellheads, refineries and ports of entry—as opposed to “downstream,” where it would more directly engage con-sumers and businesses. Taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels is the least administratively burdensome method. Since the price increase would be passed on to each in-termediary in the economy, it is equivalent to taxing downstream, but has the added benefit of inter-acting with fewer economic agents. Taxing upstream ensures that all sectors will see a price change, but if there are many loopholes, the tax becomes much less efficient—not to mention the potential for economic favoritism.

use of revenue

Although the way in which the government dispenses their carbon tax revenue remains inconsequen-tial from an environmental stand-point, it is a crucial consideration from an economic standpoint. Giv-en the United States’ current fiscal condition, carbon taxes afford an opportunity to generate funds that could be used to help balance the national accounts. The introduction of a national, economy-wide tax of $20 per ton of carbon emissions is estimated to generate $1.25 trillion over the next decade. While this is only a fraction of the $16 trillion

deficit, it is a sizeable chunk of reve-nue and could represent significant progress toward both economic and environmental goals.

Broadly speaking, there are three sensible ways to redistribute the funds generated with a carbon tax. Revenues can be funneled into specific carbon mitigation or carbon reduction policies directed toward individuals through tax breaks, or used to supplement the government’s budget. Some re-searchers propose that the best way to utilize the large sum of revenue from carbon taxes is to make the policy revenue-neutral. This can be accomplished by reducing an exist-ing distortionary tax—a tax dis-couraging desirable activity—by an amount equivalent to the amount levied by the carbon tax. While instituting a tax does increase costs, these costs are often mitigated by

the simultaneous cuts to other taxes. Additionally, these costs dis-courage unsustainable growth that might generate short-term profits but imposes substantial long-term costs on society.

However, there are other im-portant considerations for design-ing the optimal carbon-tax policy. Although society as a whole will be better off regardless of the exact use of carbon tax revenue, the use of funds affects the degree of econom-ic benefit. Using the revenue from a carbon tax to reduce corporate income taxes might produce the greatest level of economic growth, but it does so at the expense of being highly regressive, imposing a greater burden on taxpayers less able to pay. Reducing the pay-roll tax might represent a middle ground designed to be revenue neutral, ensuring that carbon tax

reform does not harm families with incomes lower than the median while generating the stimulating aspect of removing distortionary taxes that discourage work.

Instituting a na-tional carbon tax policy could be used either to reduce distortionary taxes that lead to drags in the economy or as a novel way to raise revenue to help reduce the national deficit. If instated at a low rate and then gradually in-creased, reform would avoid introducing a ma-jor shock to businesses, provide certainty about carbon regulation and allow for more effective long-term planning.

The Carbon Tax: A Win for the Economy and the Environment

Story by Peter Vail / Art by Rachel Haberstroh

President Obama’s Electoral

Gamble

At the beginning of October, it seemed likely that President Obama would win re-election. The Obama campaign faced a choice, then as now: to consolidate resources in hopes of improving the President’s odds for a surefire (if narrower) vic-tory, or to focus resources elsewhere. In light of that choice, the campaign appears to have shifted strategy from simply improving the odds of an Obama victory to instead build-ing an electoral mandate for the President, supporting campaigns of fellow Democrats and developing the Democratic Party.

If the goal were simply to win 270 electoral votes, it seems logical the Obama campaign would spend resources primarily in the states cru-cial to victory. If Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, South Caro-lina, Florida and New Hampshire are the too-close-to-call states in

this election, then President Obama leads Mitt Romney 247 to 191. With only 23 more votes needed, the President could focus almost en-tirely on swing states most likely to vote Democratic, specifically Ohio and Nevada, to achieve victory with 271 electoral votes. Alternatively, the campaign could also spend in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa to be safe, in the event Ohio or Ne-vada don’t turn blue. Yet in the past weeks, this is not the strategy the campaign has executed.

Consider North Carolina, an unlikely state to support Obama which, according to Nate Silver (the 538.com statistician famous for his accurate state-by-state Presiden-tial and Senatorial predictions in 2008), holds only a 0.6% chance of determining the election outcome. Yet the President’s campaign has in-vested greatly in the state, already

spending nearly $19 million in ad-vertising in North Carolina—not to mention the decision to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. The path to 270 is far easier elsewhere, so why is the cam-paign competing in this state?

One likely reason is the desire to avoid the negative symbolism that would come from badly losing a state that the President won in 2008. President Obama will likely lose In-diana, which he won four years ago, and losing North Carolina as well might reinforce the notion of for-merly supportive states abandoning the President, consequently weak-ening any mandate that the Presi-dent might receive. Alternatively, if an upset occurred that allowed him to win North Carolina, it might go a long way to winning that mandate in addition to a second term.

The President’s campaign is thus

taking some strategic risks in No-vember by not focusing entirely on re-election. That the race has tight-ened dramatically and unexpect-edly following the first debate only heightens the gamble that the cam-paign has already waged by sinking resources into this approach.

Yet securing an electoral man-date in some ways is worth the risk for President Obama’s second term. A mandate would show support for his first-term policies and give the President credibility for his second-term agenda. It might also prove a resounding renunciation of Repub-lican obstructionism in Congress, forcing Republicans to change their tactics and possibly cooperate more with the President, making more bipartisan bills a possibility. With-out this all-important mandate, the President’s second term would likely be as contentious as the first, and Republicans would have little reason to discontinue their obstruc-tionist strategy.

Moreover, by competing in states with close House and Senate races, the President hopes to help Democratic candidates and thus bolster Democratic Party represen-tation in Congress. This coattail ef-fect has an especially great impact on House races, in which voters may not be very familiar with less-er-known candidates but may be more willing to vote for candidates based on the strength of the party’s Presidential nominee. For example, Minnesota is very likely to support President Obama, but there also still remain several House races that are expected to be close and could benefit from an Obama advertising presence.

An interesting example of this effect is playing out in New Hamp-shire and Massachusetts. It is clear that New Hampshire is an impor-

tant swing state for the President. In addition, the Boston media mar-ket serves significant parts of New Hampshire, forcing the Obama campaign to show ads in New Hampshire and Massachusetts si-multaneously. As a consequence, Democratic Senate candidate Eliza-beth Warren in Massacusetts may actually indirectly benefit from Obama’s advertising spending in New Hampshire. Locked in a tight race with incumbent Scott Brown, Warren is also polling below the President’s own numbers in Mas-sachusetts, giving the Obama cam-paign further reason to increase me-dia buys in that market.

The case of Arizona also suggests the Team Obama is not pursuing a “win at any cost” strategy. Arizona is expected to support Governor Romney, and Nate Silver estimates that the state holds a 0.1% chance of determining an Electoral-College victory. Yet the President’s cam-paign has long considered compet-ing for Arizona. Again, why would the Obama campaign contemplate a significant investment in a state un-likely to affect the final results?

In Arizona and elsewhere, build-ing the Democratic Party appears to be the third objective of the Obama campaign. Party-building is a nebu-lous task that involves, though is hardly limited to, registering vot-ers, building field networks, recruit-ing strong candidates, winning lo-cal offices and improving the party brand. As DNC Chair from 2005 to 2009, Howard Dean helped bring about unlikely Democratic victories in Mississippi and Louisiana using his 50-State Strategy, which utilized such party building tactics. Presi-dent Obama’s campaign similarly has the capacity again to help spur some of this party building.

In fact, Arizona could become

very competitive in future elections, if not this time around. An influx of Latino voters (160,000 more Latinos are registered to vote in 2012 than in 2008), coupled with Republican an-ti-immigration policies, mean that Democrats could gain ground in Arizona in 2016 and beyond. Invest-ing there now could serve to further increase that chance.

Arizona is only one part of an expanding electoral map for Demo-crats. If current demographic trends continue, traditional swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia could become Democratic strongholds, while new swing states open up; even Republican strong-holds Georgia and South Carolina could become more competitive. Investments in these almost-swing states, while not profitable this elec-tion, could lead the way to develop-ing future Democratic victories.

And yet with the race now look-ing far closer than it did before, it seems no long-term game plan could supersede the imperative for an Obama victory, and casting a gaze to the future never feels re-assuring during a nail-biter. That critique is hardly new—Dean’s de-tractors saw a misguided idealist diverting crucial money away from swing races in need of help—but his strategy largely paid off, and Dean is often regarded as visionary. But if it so happens that the $19 million sunk into long-shot North Carolina might have saved Ohio—and the election—the President’s re-election team may not be so lucky.

With two weeks remaining, the Obama campaign is following a non-traditional electoral strategy. His re-election hinges on a singular question: is it worth risking a Presi-dential victory for a larger win, or more seats in Congress? Only No-vember 6 will tell.

Story by Taylor Daily / Art by Katrina Machado

**Could Obama’s quest for a mandate be the very thing that costs him the election?

President Obama’s Electoral

Gamble

At the beginning of October, it seemed likely that President Obama would win re-election. The Obama campaign faced a choice, then as now: to consolidate resources in hopes of improving the President’s odds for a surefire (if narrower) vic-tory, or to focus resources elsewhere. In light of that choice, the campaign appears to have shifted strategy from simply improving the odds of an Obama victory to instead build-ing an electoral mandate for the President, supporting campaigns of fellow Democrats and developing the Democratic Party.

If the goal were simply to win 270 electoral votes, it seems logical the Obama campaign would spend resources primarily in the states cru-cial to victory. If Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, South Caro-lina, Florida and New Hampshire are the too-close-to-call states in

this election, then President Obama leads Mitt Romney 247 to 191. With only 23 more votes needed, the President could focus almost en-tirely on swing states most likely to vote Democratic, specifically Ohio and Nevada, to achieve victory with 271 electoral votes. Alternatively, the campaign could also spend in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa to be safe, in the event Ohio or Ne-vada don’t turn blue. Yet in the past weeks, this is not the strategy the campaign has executed.

Consider North Carolina, an unlikely state to support Obama which, according to Nate Silver (the 538.com statistician famous for his accurate state-by-state Presiden-tial and Senatorial predictions in 2008), holds only a 0.6% chance of determining the election outcome. Yet the President’s campaign has in-vested greatly in the state, already

spending nearly $19 million in ad-vertising in North Carolina—not to mention the decision to hold the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. The path to 270 is far easier elsewhere, so why is the cam-paign competing in this state?

One likely reason is the desire to avoid the negative symbolism that would come from badly losing a state that the President won in 2008. President Obama will likely lose In-diana, which he won four years ago, and losing North Carolina as well might reinforce the notion of for-merly supportive states abandoning the President, consequently weak-ening any mandate that the Presi-dent might receive. Alternatively, if an upset occurred that allowed him to win North Carolina, it might go a long way to winning that mandate in addition to a second term.

The President’s campaign is thus

taking some strategic risks in No-vember by not focusing entirely on re-election. That the race has tight-ened dramatically and unexpect-edly following the first debate only heightens the gamble that the cam-paign has already waged by sinking resources into this approach.

Yet securing an electoral man-date in some ways is worth the risk for President Obama’s second term. A mandate would show support for his first-term policies and give the President credibility for his second-term agenda. It might also prove a resounding renunciation of Repub-lican obstructionism in Congress, forcing Republicans to change their tactics and possibly cooperate more with the President, making more bipartisan bills a possibility. With-out this all-important mandate, the President’s second term would likely be as contentious as the first, and Republicans would have little reason to discontinue their obstruc-tionist strategy.

Moreover, by competing in states with close House and Senate races, the President hopes to help Democratic candidates and thus bolster Democratic Party represen-tation in Congress. This coattail ef-fect has an especially great impact on House races, in which voters may not be very familiar with less-er-known candidates but may be more willing to vote for candidates based on the strength of the party’s Presidential nominee. For example, Minnesota is very likely to support President Obama, but there also still remain several House races that are expected to be close and could benefit from an Obama advertising presence.

An interesting example of this effect is playing out in New Hamp-shire and Massachusetts. It is clear that New Hampshire is an impor-

tant swing state for the President. In addition, the Boston media mar-ket serves significant parts of New Hampshire, forcing the Obama campaign to show ads in New Hampshire and Massachusetts si-multaneously. As a consequence, Democratic Senate candidate Eliza-beth Warren in Massacusetts may actually indirectly benefit from Obama’s advertising spending in New Hampshire. Locked in a tight race with incumbent Scott Brown, Warren is also polling below the President’s own numbers in Mas-sachusetts, giving the Obama cam-paign further reason to increase me-dia buys in that market.

The case of Arizona also suggests the Team Obama is not pursuing a “win at any cost” strategy. Arizona is expected to support Governor Romney, and Nate Silver estimates that the state holds a 0.1% chance of determining an Electoral-College victory. Yet the President’s cam-paign has long considered compet-ing for Arizona. Again, why would the Obama campaign contemplate a significant investment in a state un-likely to affect the final results?

In Arizona and elsewhere, build-ing the Democratic Party appears to be the third objective of the Obama campaign. Party-building is a nebu-lous task that involves, though is hardly limited to, registering vot-ers, building field networks, recruit-ing strong candidates, winning lo-cal offices and improving the party brand. As DNC Chair from 2005 to 2009, Howard Dean helped bring about unlikely Democratic victories in Mississippi and Louisiana using his 50-State Strategy, which utilized such party building tactics. Presi-dent Obama’s campaign similarly has the capacity again to help spur some of this party building.

In fact, Arizona could become

very competitive in future elections, if not this time around. An influx of Latino voters (160,000 more Latinos are registered to vote in 2012 than in 2008), coupled with Republican an-ti-immigration policies, mean that Democrats could gain ground in Arizona in 2016 and beyond. Invest-ing there now could serve to further increase that chance.

Arizona is only one part of an expanding electoral map for Demo-crats. If current demographic trends continue, traditional swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia could become Democratic strongholds, while new swing states open up; even Republican strong-holds Georgia and South Carolina could become more competitive. Investments in these almost-swing states, while not profitable this elec-tion, could lead the way to develop-ing future Democratic victories.

And yet with the race now look-ing far closer than it did before, it seems no long-term game plan could supersede the imperative for an Obama victory, and casting a gaze to the future never feels re-assuring during a nail-biter. That critique is hardly new—Dean’s de-tractors saw a misguided idealist diverting crucial money away from swing races in need of help—but his strategy largely paid off, and Dean is often regarded as visionary. But if it so happens that the $19 million sunk into long-shot North Carolina might have saved Ohio—and the election—the President’s re-election team may not be so lucky.

With two weeks remaining, the Obama campaign is following a non-traditional electoral strategy. His re-election hinges on a singular question: is it worth risking a Presi-dential victory for a larger win, or more seats in Congress? Only No-vember 6 will tell.

Story by Taylor Daily / Art by Katrina Machado

**Could Obama’s quest for a mandate be the very thing that costs him the election?

Four years ago, Barack Obama ran for President on a platform of hope and change. His campaign promised a new path for Washing-ton. He vowed to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year of being elected. He swore to rebuild America’s standing in the world—particularly in the Middle East, where the U.S. invasion of Iraq had been condemned as belliger-ence without cause. He also pledged in an interview with Univision that “we will have in the first year an im-migration bill that I strongly sup-port and that I’m promoting.” Most notably, back in 2009 the President suggested he would solve the unem-

ployment crisis: “If I don’t have this done in three years, then this is go-ing to be a one-term proposition.”

Back in 2008, Americans had to take President Obama at his word, since he lacked any significant re-cord on which voters could judge his abilities as a leader. Today, Ameri-cans have the benefit of comparing the President’s first term against the laundry list of promises he made on the campaign trail. The resulting picture is not very pretty.

President Obama has failed to deliver on each of the promises listed above and more. Guantana-mo Bay remains open for business. Protests in Libya and across the

Middle East have sparked new ire from abroad while our alliance with Israel has become strained. Immi-gration remains in desperate need of reform. Until the last leg of the presidential race, unemployment remained above a staggering 8% for 43 straight months. These failures do not just speak to a failed set of policy proposals, but to a more fun-damental concern. This President has continually failed to lead, and it has meant devastating consequenc-es both for working class Americans still in search of a job and for foreign allies who wonder where the United States stands as new threats con-tinue to surface. In a global era in-

creasingly defined by the dual forces of economic instability and political unrest, the United States can no lon-ger afford to drag its feet as a leader on the world stage, nor lose sight of its focus on economic growth.

Yet this is precisely what Presi-dent Obama has done time and time again during his first term in office. When it came to creating 20,000 new jobs and decreasing America’s dependence on foreign oil, Presi-dent Obama played politics, catered to the environmentalist fringe of his party’s base and delayed approving the Keystone XL pipeline. On an issue as important as the national debt, when the President called a bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles commis-sion to devise a comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars, President Obama rejected it rather than lead on the proposal, which remains one of the only so-lutions with any hope of biparti-san agreement. President Obama’s record makes it clear that when it comes to the tough issues, Ameri-cans should not expect to see him out front leading the charge. What a difference four years can make.

Even the President’s own Super-Pac advisor Paul Begala admits the Obama record is a tough sell. “This should’ve been a pretty good year to be a Republican candidate,” says Be-gala in an extended online interview with BPR, “acknowledging that 8% unemployment is “saddling” Amer-ican families or, more to Begala’s point, Obama’s re-election chances. With Americans still struggling in the worst recovery since the Great Depression, how is it that the Presi-dent continues to remain competi-tive in swing-state polls? Two words: Mitt Romney.

As Begala hints, if voters were to look at the candidates on paper and pick the best résumé for the posi-

tion, Mitt Romney would win in a landslide. After a sterling business career at Bain Capital where he was regarded by many of his coworkers as a legendary business manager,” Mr. Romney would bring to the Oval Office the first-hand knowl-edge of the economy the country desperately needs. As the President of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney displayed the type of leadership and management skills required to rescue a struggling organization riddled with scandal. And as a Republican Governor of the heavily Democratic state of Massachusetts, Romney exhibited the ability to compromise and work with a Democratic state legislature to pass important legislation, such as the state’s now-infamous health care overhaul. With partisanship in Washington now at fever pitch and leaving some to question whether the American model of democratic governance has run off the tracks, a bold leader like Mitt Romney with a track record of compromise and success is the precise antidote for America’s current ills.

So what’s the catch? Whatever advantage Governor Romney has on the President with his résumé, he more than forfeited it by mud-dling through the summer without establishing a coherent vision or dispelling the narrative that he is a Wall Street fat cat out of touch with the challenges facing the average American. As if his uncomfortably exaggerated laugh and corny jokes on the trail are not enough cause for concern on the likability front, the Governor’s recently released com-ments regarding 47% of “lazy and dependent Americans” only dig the hole deeper. These distractions have allowed President Obama to drive the conversation despite his numer-ous failures of the past four years.

The Romney message has been an unconvincing combination of “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” and successive strings of reactionary press statements. Just because the President has failed to get the country driving in the right direction again generally does not mean Americans will simply hand the keys to someone without know-ing where he plans to take them.

And yet for all of this, suddenly October has witnessed the arrival of Redemption Romney: an unfore-seen K.O. in the first presidential debate rocketed the Romney Cam-paign into its first substantive lead in months, surprising nearly everyone, including perhaps Romney himself. The question of the moment—Can he hold on?—seems to capture per-fectly Romney’s fundamental prob-lems that analysts had once said prevented exactly this kind of resur-gence. The deeper question is, has the Romney surge tipped the scales and finally pinned Obama under the rock of voters’ ambivalence about his first term?

Now with the race officially down to the wire, more Ameri-cans are paying attention to each candidate. It is impossible to know whether this is good or bad news for Mitt Romney, but the slogans of each campaign provide a tell-ing glimpse: “Forward” is the cold, declarative embrace of Obama’s re-cord; like Begala’s acknowledgment, it invites that perennial question—“Are you better off?”—but never re-ally provides an answer.

Romney’s scriptural “Believe in America,” meanwhile, fully suggests all the divine intervention he will need to pull this off—a victory that would constitute one of the greatest comebacks in politics. Has Romney finally hit his stride? We’ll only need 24 hours in November to find out.

Story by Heath Mayo / Art by Katrina Machado

High negative ratings. The Bain attacks. The 47% comment. Let’s

say his likability is an issue.

But after a stellar first debate, can Mitt Romney

finally hit his stride?

Why it’s still

ROMNEY’SRACE

TO LOSE