I’ve been in love with Vanity Fair for as long as I can remember. That saying, it’s no surprise that they were one of the first accounts I started following on Twitter.
As if their brilliant articles and exposés weren’t enough, the magazine knows just how to complement them by coupling article hyperlinks with sharply written, and always humorous, tweets. The humor embedded in the tweets is very dry and may come off as brash to some, but they never cease to crack a smile on my face and make me LOL inside.
One such example is the lead-in tweet for the article I plan on discussing.
Written by Vanity Fair national editor Todd S. Purdum, the article, published on the morning after Election Day, goes by two titles: the first, “Hope Is Not a Strategy, Even for Karl Rove, and Other Takeaways from the 2012 Presidential Race,” and the second, “Morning After (Again) in America.” Although the former is a bit wordier, and more direct than the latter, they both properly encapsulate Purdum’s thoughts and analysis regarding what he claims to be “one of the most consequential elections in recent memory.”
Purdum goes on to list a handful of reasons why this year’s presidential election will require serious second-thought from political scientists and pundits alike. On two occasions, Purdum makes note of conflicting poll predictions and indicators that ended up working towards President Obama’s favor (although early indicators such as “job-approval rating, right-track/wrong-track numbers” made the President’s chances of re-election questionable at the start of the race).
Being a longtime Vanity Fair reader, I know what sort of opinions to expect. However, I was disappointed, yet not in the least bit surprised, that Purdum did not mention any successes of Romney’s campaign. I get that he lost but that doesn’t mean the Romney camp was completely devoid of efficient strategies or tactics.
Purdum praises Romney once (refer to tweet) and then quickly follows-up criticizing the shortcomings of his campaign and the Republican party. In order to make for a more thorough “morning after” conversational piece, I think Purdum could have benefitted from a Venn diagram-like comparison of the two campaigns and relate it to the states each candidate lost and won, respectively.
In order for Purdum to fully support his claim that this election was indeed “historic” and “consequential,” then it is worth analyzing both sides objectively and then relating it to what lies ahead for Democrats and Republicans in the coming elections.