[ by Larry Goldfarb ]

In the absence of a compelling issue, presidential elections are more about execution than they are about ideas.  They are more about organizational behavior and operational efficiency than about a personal attack or a compelling advertisement.  It is clear that President Obama knew early on that the only way he could lose the election is if he uttered a faux paus.  He knew that as long as the election was split down party lines, even with the independents breaking for Mitt Romney, he could not lose.  That’s why he was pretty quiet in the first debate.  That’s also why in the absence of public and media pressure, which might have created a compelling issue, he would have been quiet in the other two debates.  He knew it didn’t matter.

President Obama knew that his coalition from 2008 had grown much larger than John McCain/Romney.  Latinos made up a greater percentage of the population in Nevada and Virginia than they did in 2008 and they would vote for him with a significant margin.  He also knew that his car company bail out would make it difficult for Romney to win in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Ohio.  Unfortunately for Romney, that was the election.  Even though each state was close, Romney actually had no path to winning the election.  Obama merely had to sit back and wait for the polls to close.

Notwithstanding the Presidents growing constituency, his organization and operations were critical links to ensure his victory.  In that, the incumbent has an unfair advantage.  While Romney had to fight a long, arduous primary campaign, Obama activated a “get out the vote” operation that had been in place for 4 years.  Romney’s was probably effective, but it could not have been as honed as the "four year machine."  In fact, President Obama represents the first time that three consecutive presidents had won at least two terms in over 200 years.