Scott Robert Lane February 12th, 2013 The 2012 Presidential Election in the United States

The United Presidential Election of 2012 promised to be interesting from the very moment it began to be considered. The conservative backlash against then-Senator Obama's election to the Presidency in 2008 motivated and rallied the Republican Party and other faithful conservatives to begin mobilizing, and this formed what is now known as the Tea Party Movement. Furthermore, in early 2010, President Obama, after a protracted legislative battle in Congress, signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, further angering conservatives who viewed the law, which they dubbed Obamacare, as an infringement upon individual liberty and an unwise allocation of government revenues. The 2010 Midterms reflected this anger, as Democrats suffered major losses. Then, in 2011, two major legislative battles would become a prelude to the partisanship of the coming election. As the election began to be set up in mid-2011, it became clear that the 2012 Election would be long and protracted, unable to be definitively predicted until the very end.

Part I: The Aftermath of 2008 The 2012 Presidential Election really began as soon as the previous election, in 2008, ended. Conservatives were already beginning to plan how they could possibly unseat the newly-elected President Obama who, at the time, had a large amount of public support. Upon President Obama's election, many wondered if a new era of bipartisanship in the face of fiscal crisis (the United States and the wider world were both facing a destructive recession at the time) would be ushered in. This was not to be, as the skirmish over the new President's stimulus proposal proved. From the beginning, there was conflict over the bill. While few questioned that the economy

needed help, there was a significant problem with the proposal in the eyes of Republicans: it spent money. A lot of money. $831,000,000,000.00 (831 billion dollars) over ten years (from 2009 to 2019), to be exact, to be spent on such things as: tax relief ($288 billion), state and local fiscal relief ($144 billion), infrastructure and science ($111 billion), health care ($59 billion), education and training ($53 billion), energy ($43 billion), and protecting the vulnerable ($81 billion). President Obama responded to conservative criticism of the spending by stating that such spending would be necessary to jump-start recovery programs and heal the economy. Still, most conservatives would not have it, and political polarization was inevitable, with liberal commentators essentially calling Republicans sore losers and conservative commentators essentially, and sometimes directly, calling the bill a form of socialism (one distinct example was Sean Hannity labeling it the European Socialist Bill). Work on a stimulus package for the ailing economy was started by the Senate on January 6th, 2009, two weeks prior to President-Elect Obama's swearing-in ceremony. The House of Representatives began work on the bill on January 26th. The House passed its version of the bill on January 28th, with 244 votes for and 188 votes against. All but eleven Democratic Representatives voted for the bill, and the bill received no Republican support. The Senate passed its version of the bill on February 10th, with 61 votes for and 38 votes against. All Senate Democrats voted in favor, along with three moderate Senate Republicans: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter. The vote tallies made it clear that what many thought would be the beginning of a bipartisan era was actually the beginning of a hyper-partisan era, in which the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress would continually battle against one another, each trying to achieve their own agenda. It was this constant skirmishing and lack of compromise that eventually drove public approval ratings of Congress to below 20%. It also handed President Obama an important weapon during his campaign for re-election in 2012: he could run against a do-nothing Congress, much as one of his predecessors, President Truman, had done in his tough bid for re-election in 1948.

Now, back to the stimulus package. Because the Senate had amended the House version of the bill, there were now two separate bills: the House version and the Senate version. These two bills had to go to conference to hash out the differences between them and create a bill acceptable to both chambers. This was done on February 11th. The bill was passed by the House on February 13th, with 246 voting for and 176 voting against. All but seven Democrats voted for the bill, and all Republicans voted against. The bill was passed by the Senate on February 13th, with 60 voting for and 38 voting against. All Democrats voted for the bill, along with the same three moderate Republican Senators: Collins, Snowe, and Specter. The bill was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, thus ending the first of many major legislative battles during his term. Not long after the law was enacted, the Tea Party Movement held its first public protest, which criticized the federal mortgage refinancing plan. This was the beginning of a vocal movement that reached its height during the Health Care debate of late 2009 and early 2010. The Tea Party would go on to influence many Republican Senate primaries in the 2010 and 2012 Senate Elections, supporting very conservative Republicans over the establishment Republicans. The most high-profile and memorable of these candidates were Christine O'Donnell (Delaware), Sharon Angle (Nevada), Rand Paul (Kentucky), and Marco Rubio (Florida) in 2010 and Richard Mourdock (Indiana) in 2012. All of these individuals won the Republican Senate primary in their state for their given year. Rubio and Paul won the general Senate elections in their states, while O'Donnell, Angle, and Mourdock lost their races. The movement would also help shape, for better or worse, the image of the Republican Party, due to their influence in the Party's primaries. Due to some of its positions and controversies resulting from some of its members' behavior, it may well have damaged the Republican Party's image in the 2012 Elections. For example, there were allegations of racism as well as homophobia on the part of some Tea Party members, though this likely does not reflect the spirit of the movement at large. Polls conducted by the University of Washington and CBS/New York Times have indicated a higher prevalence within the Tea Party than in general public of the beliefs that President Obama was born in a

foreign nation and that the government should not guarantee racial equality. Many have also taken issue with the Tea Party's anti-tax, anti-entitlement, and anti-abortion (sometimes even in the case of rape) stances, viewing them as politically extreme.

Part II: The Battle over Health Care The next large-scale legislative battle of the President Obama's first term, and perhaps the most memorable and controversial, was over his and Congressional Democrats' health care reform proposals. The Tea Party, by my personal estimation, reached its zenith during this conflict, becoming extremely vocal in their opposition and, in a few instances, creating great controversy for themselves. The exchanges between Democrats and Republicans in the congressional debates over the proposal were often very heated and vocal as well, sometimes going almost to the point of forgetting the dignity of Congress. In the end, the measure was passed, but it was passed imperfectly, relying on some backroom deals and a complicated legislative maneuver to arrive at President Obama's desk. The battle had a great influence on the 2010 Mid-term Elections and the 2012 Presidential Election, with Republicans vowing to repeal the law, which they hated, if they were elected in great enough numbers. A health care reform plan began to take shape in March, 2009, when President Obama met with health care industry leaders and requested that Congress get to work on a bill. The bill that took form in the proceeding months included among its key provisions: 1. Banning pre-existing conditions influencing premiums costs Expanding Medicaid Allowing children to stay on their parents' health care plan until the age of 26 Mandating that employers provide health insurance to employees if the number of employees exceeds 50 Mandating that employers pay for a certain percentage of employees' health care

premiums after the total business payroll exceeded a certain amount Mandating that employers providing health care insurance must provide coverage for contraception as part of the plan (unless the employer is a religious institution) Mandating that individuals purchase health care insurance or pay a fine Imposing a surtax on tanning, income above $1,000,000.00, and medical devices Prohibiting insurers from implementing spending caps Creating tax credits to help individuals and businesses pay for insurance Setting maximum out-of-cost premium expenses for individuals (with the highest being 9.5% of income) Setting up state-based health care exchanges

One proposal that did not make it into the final bill was the Public Option, a government-run health insurance provider that would have competed with private insurance providers. This measure was a part of the House bill but was stripped from the Senate bill in order to make sure that enough Conservative Democrats supported the bill to avoid a filibuster (60 votes are required to end debate on a bill in the Senate, rather than a simple majority of 51). That will be discussed in more detail later on. Even in the early stages of the debate, it was clear that the Congressional Republicans would be opposed to the proposed reforms. In July of 2009, Republican Senator Jim Demint said, during a conference call, that If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.. His comment may or may not have reflected the motivations of the wider Republican Party, but it made it clear that Republicans would make every effort to prevent the reforms from becoming law and would take every opportunity to criticize them in the public sphere. Similar to their position during the debate over the stimulus in early 2009, the Republicans believed that the health care reforms would needlessly increase the public debt. Furthermore, they were

opposed to the new regulations and taxes that would be put in place by the reforms. In short, the conflict over health care was a conflict over the role of government: should the government be able to spend large sums, create new programs and regulations, expand existing programs, and impose new taxes to solve the problem of many people not having access to affordable health care, or should freemarket solutions be the ideal in confronting that issue? The Tea Party reaction to the proposal was strong, and they staged public protests in reaction to it. They also joined in with the Republican Party in calling the proposed legislation a government takeover of health care. Specifically, they were likely opposed to the price-tag that the reforms would come with (despite the fact that the reforms would actually decrease the deficit due to savings and new taxes), the expansion of what some of them viewed as un-earned entitlements, and the new regulations and mandates that would be enacted under the proposal. It was during the protests that the Tea Party generated a great deal of controversy for itself. Allegations of racism and homophobia occurred when some protestors allegedly shouted the n-word at black Representatives and the f-word (rhyming with bag it) at Representative Barney Frank (who is gay). Whether these events actually occurred has never been irrefutably proven or dis-proven. Additionally, some Tea Party protestors mocked a pro-reform counter-protestor who had Parkinson's disease, throwing dollar bills at him and saying If you're looking for a handout, you're on the wrong end of town.. These incidents captured media attention and likely helped negatively shape public perception of the Tea Party, though they likely do not reflect the attitude and spirit of the movement at large. Now, we will look at the detailed legislative path that the proposals followed. From the first time bill proposals were discussed to the day that President Obama signed the final bill into law, the debate took a year and eighteen days. The House and the Senate differed in their original versions of the bill, most significantly on the issues of abortion funding and the Public Option. Thus, the final bill needed to be a compromise and would eventually need to be passed in the Senate via a complicated

legislative maneuver so that a filibuster could be avoided. Actual legislative work did not begin on health care reform until October 29th, 2009, when the House introduced the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The bill passed the House on November 7th, 220 to 215, with all but 39 House Democrats voting for, and all but one House Republican (Joseph Cao) voting against. The bill included an amendment proposed by Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitts, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, that barred use of federal funds for abortion services with exceptions rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. This amendment played a significant role during the endgame of the health care reform legislative battles, as the Senate did not include it in its version of the bill. The Senate decided not to take up the House bill and instead used another bill that had been previously passed by the House, dealing with tax breaks for service members, as the vehicle for its own bill. The Senate had to do this because all revenue-related bills must originate in the House. The Senate version was called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. When the time came for the Senate to begin piecing together its bill, there were two major obstacles to clear: Senators Ben Nelson (Democrat) and Joe Lieberman (Independent who caucused with Democrats). These two Senators had demands for inclusions to, and exclusions from, the Senate bill. If these demands were not met, they would not vote to end debate on the bill, thus preventing it from ever coming to a vote. Remember: 60 votes are needed in the Senate to end debate on a bill, and the Democrats in the Senate, if the Independents who caucused with them are included, numbered exactly 60. Therefore, if even one Democrat or Independent sided against the bill, it would never even be voted on. Nelson wanted to a measure to prohibit the use of public funds for abortion services to be included in the Senate bill, much like the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House version. Until such a measure, or something close to it, was added, he would refuse to vote to end debate on the bill, thus effectively filibustering it. His vote was secured when the Senate bill received two additions: one

allowing the states to choose not to allow insurance exchanges to provide abortion service coverage and another that would provide federal reimbursement for the cost Nebraska (Nelson's home state) would have to pay for the mandated Medicaid expansion under the bill (about $100 million). The second addition came to be called the Cornhusker Kickback and it was repealed later, during the endgame of the health care skirmish. Lieberman wanted to eliminate the Public Option from the Senate bill and not expand Medicare. Until theses demands were met, he would also filibuster the bill. Because of this, the Public Option was left out of the Senate bill and Medicare was (to my knowledge) not significantly expanded. His support being won by these exclusions, Lieberman voted for cloture as well. The Senate voted to end debate on the bill on December 23rd, 60 to 39. All Democrats and Independents caucusing with Democrats voted to end debate and all Republicans voted against. The bill passed the Senate with the exact same vote tallies and party-alignment the next day (December 24th, Christmas Eve of 2009). It seemed that now, everything was going swimmingly for the bill: a form of it had passed both chambers and a compromise would be reached that both chambers could support. But this was not to be the case because on January 19th, 2010, a special Senate election to replace the deceased former-Senator Ted Kennedy was won by Scott Brown, a Republican. The Senate seat, which was being held by Paul Kirk (Democrat) during the special election, would now go to a man who would almost certainly oppose the bill, thus not giving the Democrats enough votes to end debate on the compromise bill when it came back to the Senate. There would not be a compromise bill, and the House would have to pass the Senate's version of the bill or else be responsible for the failure of the reform effort. By passing the Senate version, the House would avoid sending the bill back to the Senate (where it would certainly be filibustered). Therefore, it would be the Senate bill that eventually ended up on President Obama's desk for signature into law. The major obstacle in the House was Bart Stupak and his followers. Since the Senate had not

amended its bill to fully ban public funds for abortions services (which the House did via the StupakPitts Amendment), Stupak and his followers (who numbered anywhere from 15 to 20) were unwilling to support its version of the bill. Stupak and his followers were eventually persuaded to support the bill when President Obama signed an executive order re-affirming the Hyde Amendment (which, essentially, did the exact same thing as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment). The House passed the Senate's version of the bill on March 21st, 219 to 212, with all but 34 Democrats voting for and all Republicans voting against. Joseph Cao did not give his support this time, likely because of the abortion issue. President Obama signed the bill on March 23rd, making the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act the law of the land. There was one last thing to do, though: there would be a compromise bill after all, and it would come in the form of an entirely separate bill that would modify the just-enacted health care law. This bill was called the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Among its modifications to the new law were: Increasing the tax credits that could be used to purchase insurance Eliminating the Cornhusker Kickback that was used to get Senator Nelson's vote for the Senate bill and other special Senator-specific deals Lowering the penalty for not purchasing insurance slightly Offering larger subsidies to low income groups Implementing a $2,000.00 fine per employee for employers not offering coverage to their workforces if the workforce exceeds 50 (the first 30 employees do not count towards the fine) Increasing the Medicare brand-name and generic drug discounts

On March 25th, both chambers passed the Reconciliation bill. The House passed it 220 to 207. A few hours later, the Senate passed it 56 to 43. All Senate Republicans and three Senate Democrats

(Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor) voted against. The Reconciliation bill did not need 60 votes to end debate on it in the Senate because it was used for the purpose of making revenue-related changes to an existing law (this is the complicated legal maneuver I talked about earlier). President Obama signed the modifications into law on March 30th, thus ending the five-month legislative battle over health care reform. But though the legislative battle had ended, the ideological conflict had not. This conflict would eventually find its way to the Supreme Court, which issued a ruling just as the Republican Presidential Primaries of 2012 had ended. The ruling, which will be revealed later on, was a rallying cry for conservatives and put focus on the controversial health care law just in time for the general election season.

Part III: The 2010 Midterm Elections The Congressional Elections of 2010 (also called the 2010 Midterm Elections) resulted in major losses by the Democratic Party in the House and Senate. The Party lost its majority in the House and barely hung on to its majority in the Senate. During these elections, four Republican primaries were won by a Tea Party-endorsed conservative rather than a moderate Republican. Two of these Tea Party candidate went on to win the general election in their state, and the other two went on to lose. On November 2nd, 2010, Republicans gained six seats in the Senate, decreasing the Democratic members to 51 (53 if Independents who caucused with the Democratic Party are counted) and increasing their own members to 47. In the House Elections, Republicans gained sixty-three seats, increasing their members to 242 and decreasing the Democratic members to 193. The dramatic losses by the Democrats in 2010 can likely best be explained by the health care battle that preceded the elections. Popular opinion on the bill was mixed from the start, Key provisions of the bill, mentioned alone, tended to get the support of the majority of the public, but the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance was an exception to this. This provision, which came to be

called the individual mandate, was likely the main reason that the majority of the public disapproved of the bill and chose to elect officials whom they believed would work to repeal it. The loss of the Democratic House majority would increase partisanship in Congress. The Senate and the House, do to their different Party make-up, would clash on important issues in the times to come. The payroll tax cut, doc fix, and unemployment insurance extensions of late 2011 and early 2012 would be an excellent example of this. Another narrative emerging from the 2010 Midterms was the rise of the Tea Party's influence on the Republican Party. Four Tea-Party endorsed candidates defeated establishment Republicans during the Senate Primaries: Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and Sharon Angle in Nevada. With two of these candidates winning the general election and the other two losing, these candidates had a mixed record. Marco Rubio defeated a fellow Republican who was widely believed to be the front-runner, Governor of Florida Charlie Crist, during the Republican Senate primary in Florida. This upset was likely due to Crist's support of the stimulus bill signed by President Obama in February, 2009. Rubio was opposed to the bill, and was thus probably viewed as a purer Republican. Crist continued to run for the seat, but switched his party banner to independent. The Democratic candidate was Kendrick Meek. Rubio won 49% of the vote in the general election, while Crist won 30% and Meek won 20%. Rand Paul won the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky by accusing his opponent, Trey Grayson (Secretary of State of Kentucky), of being a career politician and not being a true conservative. The Democratic candidate was Jack Conway. Paul won the election, 56% to 44%. Christine O'Donnell won the Republican Senate primary in Delaware, defeating former Governor of Delaware Mike Castle, most likely due to the Tea Party's drive to oust the establishment Republican from the race. The Democratic candidate was Chris Coons. O'Donnell damaged herself during the general election with the I'm not a Witch ad, and the fact that Delaware is generally a Democratic state did not help her. Karl Rove, a very prominent Republican, was also skeptical of her

candidacy early on. She lost the race to Coons, who received 57% of the vote to her 40%. Sharon Angle won the Republican Senate primary in Nevada. The Democratic candidate was Harry Reid. Angle's candidacy was troubled from the beginning of the general election, when some prominent Republicans supported Reid instead of her. She was damaged by her avoidance of answering questions from the press and possibly by some of her political positions which included support for eliminating the Department of Education, opposition to the United Nations and support for the United States withdrawing from that organization, total disbelief in global warming, opposing abortion even in the cases of rape and incest (calling the pregnancies resulting from these cases God's plan), support for ending Social Security by transitioning it out of the system, and support for privatizing Medicare. She also suffered two public relations gaffes: one in which one of her campaign ads was viewed by some as having racist overtones and another in which comments she made about the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) appeared to some people to imply support for a military revolution against Congress. All of this damage taken together ultimately doomed Angle's candidacy, and she lost to Reid, receiving 45% of the vote to his 50%. While the larger narrative on November 2nd, 2010, was that Democrats had suffered major election defeats, the smaller narrative concerned the Tea Party's influence on the Republican Party and the consequences of this influence. Rubio and Paul, who both defeated establishment Republicans during their states' Senate primaries after being endorsed by the Tea Party, went on to win the seats they campaigned for. But O'Donnell and Angle, who won their primaries under the same circumstances, went on to lose their elections. Whether this was because of their affiliation with the Tea Party, their personal positions, or their campaign gaffes is open for debate, but there is no doubt that their losses forced the Republican Party to put emphasis back on electability during primaries. This emphasis on electability manifested during the 2012 Republican Party Presidential Primaries, when electability was cited as being the top concern of people voting in these primaries.