Double Down

Game Change #2

by Mark Halperin, John Heilemann

'What am I supposed to do when he starts spewing his bullshit?' Barack Obama preparing for his first debate with Mitt Romney








In their runaway bestseller Game Change / Race of a Lifetime, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann captured the full drama of Barack Obama's improbable, dazzling victory over the Clintons, John McCain and Sarah Palin. With the same masterly reporting, unparalleled access, and narrative skill, Double Down picks up the story in the Oval Office, where the president is beset by crises both inherited and unforeseen - facing defiance from his political foes, disenchantment from voters, disdain from the nation's powerful finance figures and dysfunction within the West Wing. As 2012 looms, leaders of the Republican Party, salivating over Obama's political fragility, see a chance to wrestle back control of the White House - and the country.





So how did the Republicans screw it up? How did Obama survive the onslaught and defy the predictions of a one-term presidency? Double Down follows the gaudy carnival of Republican contenders - ambitious and flawed, famous and infamous, charismatic and cartoonish - as Mitt Romney, the straitlaced, can-do, gaffe-prone multimillionaire from Massachusetts, scraped and scratched his way to the nomination, while Obama is seen storming out of a White House meeting with his high command after accusing them of betrayal, and gradually transforming a tense d�tente with Bill Clinton into political gold.





Double Down takes you into back rooms and closed-door meetings, laying bare the secret history of the 2012 campaign in a panoramic account of an election that was as hard fought as it was lastingly consequential.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Presidents, American History, Journalism, Audiobook

528 pages, Paperback

First published November 14, 2013

About the author

Mark Halperin is editor-at-large senior political analyst for Time, founding editor of 'The Page' on time.com, and former political director of ABC News. He is also a senior political analyst for MSNBC.

Reviews

[Ben Jackson · Rating 3 out of 5]

So here's the thing with this book:

I wish somebody else had written it.

The research was impeccable, the stories compelling. There was no discernible bias. I'm a bit of a politics junkie, and followed the campaign in considerable depth as it happened, and there was plenty I didn't already know crammed into this book.

But the writing? It's about as pompous, full-of-itself, ridiculously verbose tripe out there.

I'm a man with a fairly expansive vocabulary. I make my living in words. And I had to read this book with a dictionary at hand.

If you take that language is there for communication, this book fails its very basic task: make oneself easily understood. Why say "there was a great distance between the two" when you can say "there was a chasmal distance between the two." Chasmal? Really? Throughout the book, these words are all over the place, and for no good reason. Here's an apt quote from the NYT Review of Books, who say what I'm getting at with more aplomb than I can:

"O.K., but how about “acuminate”? Or ­“appetent”? Or “pyretic”? Or “hoggery” and “noisomeness,” or “coriaceous” or “vomitous” or “freneticism”?"

Also throughout, the authors double (and triple, quadruple, and quintuple) down on their title, cramming the phrase "double-down" in to every conceivable (and a few inconceivable) nook and cranny they can find. They force alliteration where it needn't be: using these devices can be effective literary tools, but usually only if they are fluid, lurking beneath awareness to bring out depth and texture in the writing. Here, the authors appear to be so enamored of being capital-W Writers, they linguistically masturbate themselves all over the pages.

[Bren fall in love with the sea. · Rating 4 out of 5]

“It was Bill Clinton who once pithily captured the contrast between the two parties when it came to selecting a presidential standard-bearer: "Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans just fall in line.”
― Mark Halperin, Double Down: Game Change 2012



I enjoyed this book greatly although I think the first one is a bit better. But this is a great political read! I read many political non fiction books and sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are overly long, sometimes they are to gossipy or bland. None of those issues here! The book, like the first installment is a delicious read, brimming with information and is any political junkie's dream.

I am still waiting for a number three. I hope there will be one although with the news cycle being what it is today I am getting a bit burnt out on Political reads. I did enjoy this one though.

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed the original "Game Change," but it's hard to take this one seriously when a Vice Presidential candidate is referred to, almost exclusively, as "Fishconsin." Or when Barack and Michelle share an emotional moment and they're referred to as "FLOTUS and POTUS." Former presidents Clinton and Bush are referred to as "42" and "41". I appreciate that the authors want to set an insider's bitchy tone to make it more fun to read, but the constant nicknames make it feel intellectually fluffy. It is. The inside access that they have boils down to staffers protecting their own professional reputations after the fact and bland details like how Romney takes ambien when he's having trouble sleeping.

Each of the characters involved are cast as gladiators that can only be felled by witty debate barbs, attack ads, and their own mistakes (aka "gaffes"). The candidates lead their little armies onto the open battlefield and the best team wins. For example, the authors don't make any attempt to explain how complicated the Republican electorate was. Romney struggles to win primaries not because he has to somehow appeal to the Tea Party, mainstream Republicans, and the general electorate simultaneously. And for years. It's because he's not much fun to be around. My guess is that the authors didn't want to accurately project Romney as doomed and needing a miracle so that people wound continue to read, but even the postmortem doesn't touch the underlying issues that made his candidacy so complicated. If this book was your only source, you'd think that Obama was fighting from behind until October.

Also, there is no media criticism in this book, which is bizarre because there were parallel narratives about who would win, one of which was entirely wrong. The most bizarre example is that Sean Hannity gets credit for asking tough questions about Mitt's "forty-seven percent" comment, but Fox News gets barely mentioned again despite peddling bogus poll numbers for months. The HBO version of "Game Change" is mentioned more times than Nate Silver and Five Thirty Eight, who most people who followed the election would say was the top pundit and has inspired countless "new media" columns about whether the data dorks are overtaking the old school horse race pundits. It's pretty clear which side the authors land on.

I do appreciate that the authors have a tough job making Romney and Obama interesting, because they are both capable professionals who don't bring personal drama to work. Their VP picks were similar. I wish that instead of trying to dredge drama out of them (oh look, Ann Romney is outraged about something stupid and expresses that to her husband privately), they had focused more on the people casting the ballots. Or, even better, the pundit class saying dumb things, which is fertile ground for mockery, but I got the impression that the authors want to be booked on every TV show possible. So that wasn't an option.

This book does a good job with the lesser candidates. I wound up feeling sorry for Rick Perry, which I never expected. Jon Huntsman comes across as an entitled brat who whines about asking his billionaire father to fundraise for him. That I did expect. Biden, with his consuming desire to be taken seriously, is fun to read about. Herman Cain gets only a few pages, which was funny in itself.

If the authors were dead set on their strategy of only chronicling the drama, I wish that they had focused more on the Republican side of things, because the most interesting part of "Obamaworld" is that the president doesn't like debates. Once the narrative moves past the Republican primaries, the authors expend most of their energy propping up the possibility that Romney could win.

Overall, I don't think I'd recommend this book to anyone unless they want to know how big of a jerk Chris "Big Fish" Christie is for 2016. For an illuminating look at the 2012 campaign, look elsewhere.

[Donna · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gets 4 stars for content, but severely marked down for writing style.

I follow politics quite a bit, especially presidential campaigns. I might be one of the very few people in America who is grateful for CSPAN's coverage of the conventions because it comes without any commentary or analysis -- just point the camera at the stage and shoot. I will watch this kind of thing for hours. This book gives the behind-the-scene look at campaigns that no one who is not in the very inner circle would ever know like how money is raised and what debate prep is actually like. I love the intimate knowledge these authors provide.

However, their ostentatious writing style gets in the way of their message. One needs to be of two minds to read this book -- one to follow the course of the campaign and one to tally up the goofy words, phrases and metaphors they use. When you come to one of these literary atrocities one literally stops reading the story and thinks: "OK which one of you chose that word?" Do both of these guys talk like that? Was not one able to put the brakes on the other? WHERE WAS THE EDITOR?

Good Grief! Great story; questionable writing.



An afterthought: Each of the Republican candidates -- regardless of the likelihood of their prospects -- gets a few pages of commentary, except Ron Paul. While he may never have had his week on top of the polls, he did stay in to the end and the Ron Paul acolytes were a loud, ever-present bunch of people.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

2012 was a longtime ago. It might not feel like it but it was.

Gay marriage was still illegal in most states and it was considered a political hot potato to be in favor of it.

Donald Trump was just a racist game show host, that most people didn't take seriously.

Paul Ryan was a thing.

Everyone thought Hillary Clinton would one day be President and nobody really thought that Joe Biden ever would.

Sexism was something that would turn voters off.

Herman Cain hadn't been killed by Darwinism yet.

I had never heard of Bernie Sanders(how is that possible?)

Mark Halperin was considered a respected journalist.(Google him!)

Cardi B wasn't a household name.

Most importantly Blu Ivy Carter was born in 2012.

So basically I'm saying that things have changed.

The 2012 Presidential Election seems quaint and old fashioned compared to the hellscape that was 2016 & 2020.

President Obama was running for his second term against Mitt Romney. I personally never thought Obama would lose to Romney so I didn't spend much time thinking about it. My sister and I did watch all three Presidential debates and the Vice Presidential debate like we do every 4 years and I did laugh about how awful Mitt Romney seemed to be at trying to act like a human(Mitt Romney is a robot...Change my mind). But for the most part I sat back comfortable in my view that America would make the right decision.

2012 was a longtime ago!

Double Down wasn't as interesting as Game Change but then again anything involving Mitt Romney is gonna lack interest. But I will say that the Trump as "comic relief" parts hit a whole lot different in 2021. Reading Double Down was like stepping into a time machine, we really were so naive back then.

Double Down was a fascinating account of the direction that the Republican was heading in. Trump didn't come out of nowhere, the roots were already there. I couldn't help but be unsettled by all the troubling signs that we all just ignored....everyone but Michelle Obama of course. SHE KNEW IT WAS GONNA GET REAL BAD.

I like books like Double Down because I love learning about all the craziness that those down behind the scenes of a political campaigns. To most people it might be boring. If you're not interested in politics than dont read this book you will be bored. But if you love politics in all its messiness than Double Down and its predecessor Game Change will be right up your alley.

I highly recommend it!

[Steven Z. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having recently survived the 2012 presidential election and placed it in my memory bank I thought I was totally satiated with the details that the Obama-Romney contest brought forth. I was greatly mistaken as in DOUBLE DOWN, the sequel to GAME CHANGE the bestselling book that chronicled the 2008 election by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann; the reader is presented with certain details that open new vistas that I was unaware of. The book rekindled the nuttiness, along with the viciousness, and at times emotionalism of the contest. From the “birthers,” to the 47%, the massive funds that were raised, the personalities involved, and the behind the scenes machinations one emerges with the strong conviction that these two authors are on top of their material. When one thinks of what Halperin and Heilemann have accomplished one thinks back to the MAKING OF THE PRESIDENTS books written by Theodore White from 1960-1972. DOUBLE DOWN compares favorably and perhaps offers more interesting details, in large part because of the insider access that the two authors had, and the ultra-partisans times in which we live. If you are a political junkie the narrative will leave you satiated, and though a good part of the material was publicly rehashed if you followed the campaign last year you will find enough new material to pique your interest and read the book from cover to cover.

Once the public went to the polls in November, 2012 it appeared that Barack Obama won an easy victory over Mitt Romney, but based on DOUBLE DOWN that was not necessarily the case. Immediately the reader is exposed to the angst and concern that afflicted the Obama campaign following the first presidential debate in Denver in October, 2012. Romney thoroughly defeated Obama and what appeared to be a sure victory up until that night brought the former Massachusetts governor to the lead in the polls. Perhaps one of the best parts of the book are involved in the discussion of the behind the scenes reactions among the “Obamans” as they dissected what happened during the debate and what could be done to save the election from the “jaws of defeat.” What emerges is a president who does not enjoy the political campaign process. Obama despises the compromises he must make in order to come across as an effective debater. His tendency to assume a professorial tone when responding to questions and the need to harness “the bad Obama,” the candidate who does not suffer fools gladly, evidenced by a somewhat caustic and sarcastic tone needed to be harnessed. Obama’s aides are at a loss at it appears that their man has lost his mojo and the discussion of how the president deconstructs his style and thought patterns along with the role of Michelle Obama are priceless as the second and third debates seal the reelection.

Halperin and Heileman take the reader behind the scenes beginning with Romney’s failed 2008 candidacy and how his people went about rebranding their candidate for another run in 2012. We witness the internal discussions leading to the new campaign structure and strategy that would emerge in 2010. The reader revisits the contentious and at times amusing and at the same time appalling events from the long presidential primary season that produces a number of strange happenings and personal interaction ranging from Herman Cain’s 999 and “women issues,” to Rick Perry’s “oops moment.” Not to be left out, Romney’s “self-deportation” comment, his offer to wager Perry $10,000, the rise and fall of Rick Santorum, who at one point was a real threat to Romney, and Newt Gingrich’s propensity for theater and ego are all included. As the primary season evolves certain important facts emerge that was not clear at the time. The health of Rick Perry was a major issue and helps perhaps to explain some of his difficulties. Having undergone back surgery in early July, 2012, the former Texas governor was back on the hustings just a few weeks later. Suffering from extreme pain, lack of sleep, and ingesting a number of medications it might explain some of Perry’s faux pas, including his inability to remember the third governmental department he wanted to abolish during one of the numerous Republican debates.

On the democratic side the book concentrates on personnel changes within the administration and the campaign staff. The familiar faces of the two “David’s,” Pllouffe and Axelrod are ever present. Concern about Joe Biden’s propensity to make pronouncements is related in detail, as is how to deal with Bill Clinton during the campaign. What struck me was the issue of money. The decision to take funds from the fall allotment and use it during the summer was brilliant. It allowed the Obamans to paint Romney as an uncaring plutocrat and hammer him as a flip flopper, a “Richie Rich” character who made his money at Bain capital on the back of the employees he fired, and the issue of Romney’s stonewalling when it came to his income tax were all used to brand the Republican candidate before he could do so himself. Obaman angst emerged as the Romney people took advantage of the Supreme Court decision, Citizen’s United and set up Political Action Committees to rake in the money. Bundlers abound throughout the narrative and President Obama who always disdained setting up PACS was forced to even the battlefield when it came to fund raising. The issue of Benghazi, events in Egypt, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obama care among other important issues is rehashed along with their impact on the campaign.

The style in which the book is written captures the reader’s interest from the outset. As they did in GAME CHANGE, Halperin and Heilemann lift the curtain on both campaigns as all the warts and positives are exposed. What struck me was the number of “F bombs” that were espoused by all the players concerned, including President Obama. It reflects their access to the major characters and how open they were as sources for the book. The cleanest language was spoken by Romney and his wife Ann as well as John Huntsman, perhaps because of their Mormon faith. The phrasing is marvelous and it appears the author’s are having a conversation with the reader as they lay out the narrative of the campaign and the expert analysis they provide.

Each candidate and the major people that surround them are explored and dissected. Whether the authors are taking about Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi and his propensity to imbibe or Mitch Daniels, the former chief executive of Indiana’s interesting marital past, it is all present. Two of the most impactful individual’s one on each side of the campaign ledger are nicely integrated into the story. The role of “Big Boy,” the nickname labeling Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey is offered from a number of angles. Obviously the “weight issue” is dealt with as is Christie’s “New Jersey” personality. His profanity, sarcasm, and ego are all visible in addition to his importance for the Romney campaign. As Romney stumbles the Republican big wigs tried to convince Christie to enter the race, but are met with refusal. The arrival and importance of Hurricane Sandy and its affect on the campaign as it produces what the author’s describes as a “bromance” between Obama and Christie are fully evident, along with the conjecture as to what Christie’s actions mean for 2016. Another individual, perhaps the most important person who was not a candidate was William Jefferson Clinton. The authors trace the evolution of the forty second president’s relationship with Obama. Diving back to the contentious 2008 primary season involving Hillary Clinton through her term as Secretary of State we see a rather dysfunctional relationship in Democratic Party politics evolve into a meaningful one between Bill and Barrack throughout the election season. It is clear that Obama can only take Clinton “in small does” but they develop a mutual respect for each other as they bury the hatchet and the former governor of Arkansas becomes a major campaign asset through his advice, speeches, especially to the Democratic convention in Charlotte, and his campaign presence. One wonders what might have happened without the “Clinton effect.”

The only commentary that the author’s offer that I disagree with are two remarks describing what a wonderful job Romney did in 2006 when he supposedly oversaw and micromanaged effectively the crisis that developed “when a concrete panel collapsed in Boston’s Fort Point Channel Tunnel” resulting in the death of Milena Del Valle. (100) The details of Romney’s appalling and vindictive behavior during his overseeing the crisis are fully developed in ROMNEY’S TRUE LIES ABOUT BOSTON’S BIG DIG by Michael J. Powers. Other than that I found the book an exceptional read and was amazed at the intricate details in all aspects of the campaign that the author’s provide. They did an exceptional amount of legwork in gathering their material and what transpires is eye opening even in our atmosphere of extreme partisanship. If you are addicted to politics as I am, you will thoroughly enjoy this work.

[Skip Ferderber · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's a scene near the end of "Double Down" when the President's debate prep team is working with Obama to get him in shape after the disaster that was the first debate of the 2012 faceoff against Mitt Romney. Of all the books I've read about the president and his term in office, this felt to be the most incisive look at who this enigmatic man might be. It's also one of the few times the book allows enough down time to be truly inciteful about the Wild West Show that was the 2012 national election. The book was a fast read--I finished it in three days--and it gave a Cliff Notes summary of the campaign and its characters, but its Front Page writing style worked against getting to know virtually anyone except the President, in that one scene, and, to a lesser extent, Romney. As I was reading it, I kept saying, "Oh, I remember that." So it's a great memory jogger, and certainly a full compendium of names, but I would have wanted a more thorough examination of what that election was about. Last thought: for people looking at the career of Chris Christie as a potential 2016 candidate, there's plenty of red meat here about his background that might make his coronation as the Republican candidate a little less inevitable--and the irony that it was dug up by the Romney campaign.

[happy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed their book on the 2008 campaign, this volume has serious problems. While Halperin and Heilemann obviously have good sources in the various campaigns, in many ways this book is very difficult read. The authors seem to have fallen in love with their thesauruses. As I was reading this it became obvious that they decided not to use a one syllable word when there was a three or better yet a 4 syllable word available. Another irritating trait was there use of ever changing nick names. For example the presidents past and present were often referred to by their number ie Pres Clinton was 42, Obama 44, the Bushes 41 and 43 respectively. The President and Michelle were often referred with their Gov’t acronyms (POTUS and FLOTUS). For me this made a very disorienting read. I felt the authors were trying to be too cute.

On the plus side – they provide an interesting insight to the various campaigns. In reading this, I felt the authors were biased towards the Obama campaign, but they did show a President who did not take his opponent seriously. This especially comes out in his preparations for the first debate. I also felt that they came to grudging respect for his opponent – Mitt Romney.

When covering the Republican Primary fight I thought the authors did a good job on Romney’s various challengers. The only one who doesn’t make it to the book is Ron Paul. In reading the section on Gov Perry I almost felt sorry for him. It seems he had back surgery just before his announcement and it actually did affect his performance. The picture they paint of Chris Christie is not flattering in the least. The search of the Republican money men for any main stream Republican with serious credentials to challenge Romney was well done.

All in all for content – this is probably a 4 star read, but the writing style is a 2. Over all this is a 3 star read and only for political junkies who can put up with the writing style

[Lightreads · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked this up the day it came out, which is one of those character-revealing statements, probably. Anyway, this is perhaps more gossipy and personality-driven than the 2008 volume, which is pretty impressive considering this book contains no John Edwards and very little Sarah Palin. The buzz in the circles I move in was mostly about Christie, as this book contains leaked details of his vetting file compiled by Romney's VP search team. And pretty unpleasant stuff it is, too. But you don't need to read the book for that; just wait about two years and you'll get the lowdown, whether you want it or not.

Mostly, though . . . eh. The funny thing about 2012 was, the more you knew about the election, the less interesting it was. And by necessity, I knew a shit ton about it. I can't count the number of times my friends were caught in spasms of anguish over it and I was like, "eh, take a chill pill." I mean, 2008 was genuinely interesting and, for a long time, genuinely suspenseful. 2012 was neither – the narrative crystalized early and never budged, and the electoral math was writing on the wall not long after. So what you've got left is Romney sticking his foot in his mouth, the President demonstrating to everyone how much he fuckin' hated debates, and The Donald. Just not that interesting, and this is me saying that.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was concerned that the book wouldn't tell me much I didn't already know, but I had a hard time putting it down. The first section, between the 2010 mid-terms and the Republican race was a bit boring, but not mind-numbingly so. The primary coverage was fascinating, and took up over a third of the story -- I had no idea that the establishment had been working so frantically behind the scenes to get Christie into the race, to avoid being stuck with Mitt. The final part on the general was largely focused on the debates I felt, with some reference to Hurricane Sandy and other events, seeming a bit tacked-on/rushed in that regard. In the final post-mortem, it was obvious that Mitt and his team failed to acknowledge that they lost because they were out-of-step with the American people, blaming the loss (pretty much) solely on higher-than-predicted Dem turnout (by the infamous 47%).

Audio narration was very good, a few minor quibbles aside.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the aftermath of the election of 1960 Theodore H. White wrote "The Making of the President 1960" detailing for Americans the nuts and bolts of just exactly how a campaign for the Presidency of the United States is actually run. That book won the Pulitzer Prize and it caused White to subsequently write three more books on the following three races. In 2008 Halperin resurrected the genre with "Game Change" a groundbreaking look at the historic election of the nation's first African-American President.

Granted, it figured that they were hoping for lightning to strike twice. For the 2012 Presidential Campaign cycle Halperin wrote "Double Down: Game Change 2012." It's basically an account of the Republican race/Primary cycle with a various smattering of the incumbency of President Obama thrown in for good measure. If you remember the campaign itself then everything that made it memorable is all here - and after both living through the campaign and now reading about it, I can say that the moments of memory are few and far between, yet they are here.

If anything, this book was an evisceration of Mitt Romney, never really putting him in the best of light by any means. I guess that the campaign itself just wasn't as memorable as the previous one, but then how could it have been? America was poised to make history in 2008, we were just playing the game and going by rote four years later. I guess the thing that still stuns me the most not only about this book but the election itself was that for all the griping and bitching about President Obama, he was still able to take, make and have a commanding and sizable victory over his opponent. And that to me is no small accomplishment in itself by any means whatsoever.

So, in conclusion what you have here is a very well told story of a seemingly regular election.

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN 2013.

[Unsupervised · Rating 3 out of 5]

I assume that the media elite have anointed Heilemann and Halperin as this generation's presidential campaign chroniclers as previous generations anointed White and Cramer.

I found this book a much less enjoyable read than their first effort from 2008.

First of all, the campaign itself was a yawn compared to 2008. It was clear from the beginning, in my opinion, that the Republicans had torpedoed any ability to win both by their primary process and the turkey they nominated. The book tries to make it exciting, but fails miserably. There are some interesting anecdotes, but really nothing I had not already known about from media coverage during the actual campaign.

Secondly, the "double-down" verbage was crammed inappropriately into every possible venue, making it clear to the reader that the authors were trying to "brand" their product rather than to inform the reader.

Finally, on almost every other page, the reader will encounter words that are just absolutely ridiculous. Yes, words. Words I have never read before. Words that are not an indication of education, rather, words that are attempting to be fro-fro, and in that effort fail miserably.

This book should be reserved for students being forced to read it by their professors or pure political junkies.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gossipy and fun. I doubt I'll enjoy these books so much when they're writing about elections that don't turn out the way I want them to.

[Rob1109 · Rating 2 out of 5]

Double Down is more of a Let Down

I was very much looking forward to reading `Double Down' by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. Years earlier I read and thoroughly enjoyed `Game Change' and was excited about the `sequel.' I expected a similar account of the 2012 election as was depicted in Game Change about the 2008 election. With the exception of the author's name, the books were completely different.

Whereas Game Change was good, Double Down was more of a Let Down.

Game Change (GC) was well-written, educational, informative and read like a novel. Double Down (DD) was educational and informative but read like a text book. A text book provides facts and dates and is not read for "enjoyment," nor is a text book written to be read for `pleasure.' DD reads like a text book. Facts, but not necessarily an `enjoyable' read.'

GC had much behind-the-scenes info that the general public was unaware of. For that book, the authors cite hundreds of references. DD had virtually nothing new to offer, nothing new to anyone who followed the election was already aware of. There were a few `new' pieces of info, maybe 3 or 4, but this book is just a look back at the 2012 election. I viewed this book (regrettably) as a 471 page Wikipedia page. Nothing against Wikipedia, but I wanted more, expected more.

As for the writing style, I found it...cumbersome and awkward. I read a lot, about one book per week. I've got a college degree and consider myself fairly intelligent. Yet, the author(s) try to impress us with big words I've never heard of. Having to stop reading to look up a word's definition not only takes the reader out of the book but also stunts the flow of the novel. The point is to tell a story and make it enjoyable, not to impress us with your ability to use a Thesaurus.

On the other hand, however, the author(s) frequently uses analogies that make no sense or resort to teenage lingo. At one point, Obama gave (someone) a `STFU' glare.

No pun intended but whereas GC was `Fair and Balanced,' DD is not. In GC, both candidates--Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin are equally portrayed in negative lights. You read that hoping NEITHER wins the election. GC was divided 50/50. DD was Unfair and Imbalanced. I'd say this novel was about 90-10 anti-Romney.

Romney made mistakes in the election. And so did Obama. However, Romney's miscues (The 47%, Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, etc...) are analyzed, dissected, picked apart and mulled over for pages and pages and pages. Obama's miscues (the debate in Denver, his perceived aloofness, etc...) are simply glossed over and chalked up to Obama being `human.' No one is perfect. We are all flawed. Obama is flawed. One reason for Obama's poor performance in the first debate in Denver is somewhat sloughed off by the author: The premise is basically that it's hard to run the most powerful country on the planet, be the Commander-in-Chief, focus on the economy and jobs--AND prepare for a debate. Of course, Romney did better. He has a lot more free time.

Another glaring difference is the way a chapter is devoted to each convention. The theory is this: Republican Positives--glossed over quickly, Republican negatives--heavy focus. Democratic Positives--Praised. Democratic Negatives--glossed over. And this is evident in the 2 chapters devoted to each convention.

Examples:
Ann Romney's convention speech, which even Dems praised, got one paragraph. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama's speech got 3 pages.
Paul Ryan's speech, which had some great `zingers' got 3 or 4 sentences. However, Chris Christie's speech, which both parties agree was a bust, got about 5 pages.
Romney's acceptance speech, which was admittedly on point, got one page. Obama's acceptance speech, which even Dems admit was less memorable than his past speeches, got 2 paragraphs.
The most blatant, however, is this. Clint Eastwood's debacle, the LOW POINT of the RNC, had about 8 pages devoted to it. Bill Clinton's speech, arguably the HIGH POINT of the DNC, got about 8 pages.
Unlike GC where both candidates, Obama and McCain, are criticized, DD mainly criticizes Romney and only Romney. Whereas Obama is described as largely calm, collected, cool and thoughtful, Romney is portrayed as a wealthy bumbling fool, out of touch who constantly puts his foot in his mouth.

One other letdown of Double Down is that the ending is identical to that of Game Change. GC ends with, in spite of the tough and brutal 2008 campaign, the Obama's and Clinton's become friends. DD ends with, in spite of the lingering bitterness from 2008, Obama and Bill Clinton become friends.

It was not until I was near the end of this book when I looked at the back jacket and realized both authors are associated with MSNBC. That explains it. I'm not trying to make this political but MSNBC leans left...as FOX leans right. That's a fact. Perhaps if I read a book about the election by Bill O'Reilly, it would be the opposite. However, author affiliated with a left-leaning network obviously are going to view the 2012 election through a left-leaning prism. (This was NOT the case with GC and not what I expected.)

My suggestion is this: If you're a Democrat, you will like this book. It will basically confirm everything you feel about Romney. If you're a Republican, don't bother. I WILL say if anyone wants to read a good, subjective honest and well written book about the 2012 election, do yourself a favor and read "Collision 2012" by Dan Balz. THAT was a good, informative, interesting and well-written book.

I am giving this book 2 stars. I only give 1 star to books I deem unreadable. This book, while not a good read, IS readable. It's low on new information, low on enjoy-ability but high on political agenda.

[Carolien · Rating 4 out of 5]

We should be sated with American politics at this point, but watching the drama unfold from a different continent and hemisphere, I wanted to go back to see how the position of some of the main actors changed over the past decade. This was as good a place as any to start with the advantage of amusing writing and a fast pace.

[Mal Warwick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Red Meat for Political Junkies

For a campaign junkie like me, reading Double Down was sheer pleasure, as was its predecessor by the same authors, Game Change. I’ve been reading book-length accounts of presidential campaigns since Theodore White’s The Making of the President 1960. This has something to do with my having been personally engaged in six campaigns for the presidency, including several with significant fundraising roles. But there’s more involved than that.

There are few human experiences that so predictably and so routinely subject the individuals involved to such excruciating stress as a big-time political campaign, and those for the presidency are the most extreme case. It’s difficult for anyone who hasn’t experienced something similar to understand what it’s like to be forced to make highly consequential decisions within minutes, or sometimes even seconds, with only the barest minimum of information to go on — at the end of a stretch of several 100-hour workweeks when an uninterrupted night’s sleep is only a distant memory. And not just once, but repeatedly: for weeks or months on end, the pressure never stops. If anything mimics the pressure that routinely comes to bear on the President of the United States, it’s a campaign for the office. And getting a ringside seat to witness the behavior of these highly influential people in extremis is a rare privilege, worth far more than the price of this book.

Double Down makes it possible for those of us who prefer the role of spectator to that of actor to enjoy this experience vicariously (if “enjoy” is really the right word). An Author’s Note claims that Halperin and Heilemann conducted “more than five hundred full-length interviews with more than four hundred individuals . . . between the summers of 2010 and 2013.” And this isn’t hard to believe, given the innumerable references to the state of mind, or the actual words, of many leading actors in the latter-day reality play that was the presidential election of 2012. For example:

Mitt’s wife, Ann, was even more upset — and it was all about Palin. . . She could barely comprehend McCain choosing anyone but Mitt, but this moose-hunting woman from Wasilla, Alaska? Really?
[Referring to his strange performance at the Republican National Convention, shouting at an empty chair on network TV] “If somebody’s dumb enough to ask me to say something,” [Clint] Eastwood remarked, “they’re gonna have to take what they get.” [It was Romney who'd asked him.]
[After stealing Obama's thunder by stating on Meet the Press that he favored same-sex marriage] Biden went home after the taping thinking that he hadn’t made news and had done nothing wrong. That he’d been clear he wasn’t enunciating new policy, just stating a personal opinion.
You can’t make this stuff up! Or, rather, you can, but if you put it in print, you might get sued.

For any political junkie, Double Down is a must-read. The lengthy narratives about the two candidates’ preparation for the debates are priceless by themselves.

Mark Halperin is the senior political analyst for Time magazine, Time.com, and MSNBC. John Heilemann covers politics for New York magazine.

[John Kaufmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comprehensive, detailed, behind-the-scenes look at the 2012 election. A great summary - if you have the stomach to relive it. The book exposes the personalities, idiosyncrasies, and failings of the candidates (as well as their strengths). Because there were so many Republicans who vied for their party's nomination, the majority of the book is devoted to them (Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and of course Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan). Absolutely incredulous. As several of the donors and even a few of the candidates themselves expressed, what a bunch of fringe idiots. Reading all the gory details about their missteps and gaffes, as well as their backstabbing of each other, I came away shaking my head even more than I remember when it was actually happening.

Not that Obama got away scot-free. Some of his flaws were exposed - he can be detached, pedantic, and brusque, he didn't necessarily have the best relationship with Biden or Bill Clinton, and he had trouble summoning the will to campaign like he needed to. But while he has his foibles, was fundamentally intelligent and was able to rise to the occasion.

My one criticism is that the book deals very little with the candidates ideas, particularly between the Republicans during their primaries. Perhaps that's because they really didn't have any - in particular, no new ideas, no big idea, and very little difference between the candidates as they pandered to the conservative wing of the party. In the contest between Obama and Romney, it focused some on whether the election was a referendum on Obama and his policies, or a choice between visions.

[Josh · Rating 1 out of 5]

Double Down, a disappointing recounting of the 2012 election and the sequel to Game Change, was incomplete and punishingly one-sided in favor of Obama. Republicans were cast as near villains and Obama as the flawed savior. On the whole, very little deep analysis or fact checking was provided. The strongly worded language shaped the feel of the work into more of a self-aggrandizing left-wing op-ed then a balanced retelling of a historic event.

It was shockingly inconsistent in its focus on Romney’s mistakes – reporting virtually every Republican fumble in full – while ignoring most of Obama’s gaffes and negatives. It was clear from the tone that the authors detested their conservative subjects, finding almost nothing positive to credit Romney or the other Republican candidates with except Mitt’s strong first debate performance. For example, while the authors appeared overjoyed to discuss Romney’s “47 percent” comment and the post-election “gifts” assessment, they never once mentioned Obama’s “they didn’t build that” argument or the “that’s the best revenge” slight.

In another illustration of the imbalance, the coverage of the two conventions stressed the falsity of only Democrats highlighting ethnic minority and women leaders. However, Double Down never mentioned how the Republican convention in Tampa was loaded with non-white-male high profile charismatic speakers including Susana Martinez, Mia Love, and Nikki Haley. How many ethnic minority governors were present at the Democratic convention in Charlotte? The answer of course is none. And the book also served to fuel the truth-free reimagining of Bill Clinton as a god and George W. Bush’s administrations as nothing but a “reign”.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

I need help. It all started so innocently with "What it takes" an account, and a very lengthy one at that, of the democratic and republican primaries for the 1988 US presidential elections. This was quickly followed by "game change" following Obama's 2008 win. Double down takes up the 2012 election with the same addictive, albeit perhaps only to me, mix of recurring themes which would lend themself brilliantly to a wonderful drinking game. Th following elements are always there
1. Spouses who don't want the aggro but feel they must support their partner
2. Candidates who convince themselves that only they can save the country
3. The visceral dislike they all have for each other especially if they are in the same party
4. Moments of insane overpreperation like recreating the exact debate room in another location 300 drafts of the same speech
5. Moments of insane lack of preparation where they don't show the speech to the candidate until one hour before the candidate has to give his speech. Or no one knowing what Clint Eastwood was going to say before he strode out and talked to an empty chair for three times the alloted time
6. Somebody screaming it's all lost over something beyond trivial
7. A defining moment which appears to have been created with the benefit of hindsight in the desperate attempt to impose a narrative on total chaos

I guess the new things I learnt was just how difficult Mitt found it to communicate anything and how poorly his campaign served him, the uncanny ability of the republicans to self destruct with Latinos and finally how utterly sick of everything Obama seemed of the whole thing.

Now on to the Pottsville decision: a thrilling blow by blow account of the bitter 1935 election to the school board

[Zach · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'll be honest: I didn't think it was possible to make Mitt Romney sympathetic. From the very first chapter, this book paints a portrait of the GOP's 2012 whipping boy that is at times laughable, unbelievable, and heartbreaking. From his unremarkable and fortuitous ascendancy to the Republican nomination to the massacre in the general election, the authors do their very best to make the average American care about Mitt -- something the candidate never accomplished in his campaign.

A lot of hay has been made about the book's verbose writing style, but I personally relished the opportunity to sink my teeth into the text. The language isn't particularly dense, but the use of nicknames -- especially to those without an insider's knowledge of the Washington political machine -- can be helpful in distinguishing the key players from one another. The biggest issue with the text, perhaps, is the large cast of characters, which can make it difficult to follow the concurrent narrative threads. However, the authors are bound by the realities of their trade; so many people were involved here, this person said that there, etcetera, etcetera, and to cut or dismiss any of it would be doing both the narrative and the readership a disservice.

Bottom line: if you liked "Game Change," followed the 2012 election, or have even a passing interest in American politics, this book is a must-read. As a postmortem of an unquestionably disastrous GOP campaign and as an object lesson on the perils of getting high on your own supply, it surpasses all expectations and makes for one heck of a good read.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

This probably represents everything that's worst in political reporting, including turning politics into a horse race, superficial analysis, and gossip. All of which makes it a fun read, though the tone was irritatingly arch in places and I got tired of presidents being referred to as numbers (What did 44 think of 42's comment? Really, guys, it's okay if you repeat someone's name twice in a paragraph) or various candidates/political figures by nickname (Chris Christie constantly referred to as Big Boy; Paul Ryan as Fishconsin; Bill Clinton as the Big Dog or even something on the order of Maximum Canine. Really?). And I wanted more info--a LOT more info on Team Romney's meltdown after the election, b/c I am all about the Schadenfreude. And to gin up suspense/the horse race aspect, they kept citing Newhouse's polling numbers, when everyone knows the in-house polls were very inaccurate. And nowhere was there a mention of Nate Silver to be found. Still, as I said, a fun read and worth the money for the e-version.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

4 stars for content and being such a fascinating behind the scenes view of a presidential campaign. I'm awed how the author got so much detail from both sides of the campaign.

B...u....t, a serious ding in writing style (over the top) and word choice (excessively verbose). I'm convinced that the author wrote this book with a thesaurus in each hand. After first being impressed with the vocabulary, I then started writing down words that made me go, "Huh?" and here are just a smattering of them: aphasia, somnolent, brio, dyspepsia, leitmotif, strophes, klieg, panjandrum, vomitory, simulacrum, poltroonery, puissant, contumely, mau-mauing, semaphoring, plenipotentiary, peccadilloes, apercus, grokked, pusillanimous (my computer spell check doesn't even have 5 of these!).

I'm sure the authors could come right back at me for not having a vocabulary developed enough and that literature has become too dumbed-down. That is probably a point well taken so please take my complaint with a grain of salt!

[Frank Kelly]

The take-away of this book is that President Obama is deeply flawed and indeed lacked any real talent or experience to be President of the United States. His portrayal as a petty, arrogant, small-minded man who was somehow vaulted into office is truly disturbing. And the authors do not make his surrounding aides look capable at all.

But you also realize Republicans have failed to foster real leaders within the party. Men and women capable of leading and governing. And the candidates who bubbled to the top were either completely out of touch with the average American (much less the party itself). Romney looks awful and the nominee by default. Truly depressing book.

[Adam Dalva · Rating 3 out of 5]

Incredibly addictive and well done - I don't know that I learned a ton reading it but it is illuminating on a personal level. It of course has the most steam and fun with the republican primaries and Clint Eastwood (a backstage moment in the midst of his speech earned an lol), but it does drag for some other intervals and the ending feels abridged. Really recommended for junkies and people wanting a breezy political read. It's tough to rate it much more than liked it, but I read it with pleasure.

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book, although it didn't seem very even handed. The coverage of Obama was largely adulatory, while Romney was often portrayed as a villainous plutocrat. Since the authors are both aligned with MSNBC, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. I'm willing to assume the book is accurate in many of the details. I'm skeptical about some of the portrayals and about some of the larger points. In the end, though, Mitt had a golden opportunity to defeat a very flawed incumbent President and he didn't do it. The book shows why.

[nomadreader (Carrie D-L) · Rating 5 out of 5]

(originally published at http://nomadreader.blogspot.com)

The backstory: After reading (and loving) Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's first book, Game Change, about the 2008 U.S. presidential election, I grabbed a copy of their follow up, Double Down, which chronicles the 2012 election, as soon as my library had it.

My thoughts: Admittedly, I'm fascinated by politics. I won't go as far to say I enjoy it most of the time, as I far too often find the antics and actions of politicians maddening, but I do love it in retrospect. Looking back at the minutiae of how elections are won and last, bills are passed, and scandals embraced or ruined fascinate me. Double Down offers all of those things and more. It begins with a prologue of the first debate between Romney and Obama (remember the one when Obama bombed and Romney came off as charming and likeable?) Then the book shifts back to the beginning of the 2012 campaign.

Much of what I loved about Game Change was the lengthy piece about the Iowa caucuses in 2008. It was my first time living in Iowa and participating in these first in the nation events, and both parties had wide open races. That wasn't the case in Iowa in 2012. Obama was the Democratic nominee and Romney was an early national front-runner. In this election, there was so much more drama behind the scenes in the Republican race, and one of my favorite chapters in this book was the one detailing all of the qualified, popular, and well-respected Republicans who opted not to run for a variety of reasons. As fascinating as these insights were, within them is a reminder of why my fascination with politics fares better in hindsight than the present: our election system does not entice the best, most-qualified candidates to run. I also think it's a refreshingly reasonable decision to not want to be president (or go through the brutal election for a chance at the job.)

As with Game Change, my favorite parts of Double Down were the earlier parts, simply because the narrative at the time was so muddled. In the summer of 2011, the Republican nominating contest was a delightful (or appalling, depending on your take) circus to watch...if it weren't part of the process of choosing a president. At the time I found it stressful, but in retrospect, it was fascinating and amusing to relive.

Because I read Double Down only one year after the election, its final chapters held fewer surprises for me. I followed the general election carefully and watched at least an hour of political news coverage each day. Halperin and Heilemann do a wonderful job of placing each event into current and recent historical context, but with the details so fresh in my mind, there were few surprises. It's certainly not a fault of Halperin and Heilemann, but I think I would have enjoyed the ending chapters more if I read them in a few years.

The highlight of Double Down was once again the part closest to my life. In this case, it was the night before the election when Michelle and Barack came to Des Moines. Our little city may play an important role in the beginning of campaigns, but it was a shock to have the president spend his last day of reelection campaigning right here. Mr. Nomadreader and I were there that night, sitting outside on a very cold night, first listening to Bruce Springsteen play, then cheering for Michelle, and finally crying along with President Obama as he gratefully recounted the role Iowa played in his first presidential election. To have caucused for Obama in 2008 with my heart full of hope and to have shared that moment with him (and thousands of others) the night before the 2012 election was a poetic bookend for me. I cried again as I read Halperin and Heilemann recount that night, which will always be a very special one for me.

Favorite passage:  This example of Mitt Romney valuing fitness: "Oh, there’s your date for tonight," he would say to male members of his traveling crew when they spied a chunky lady on the street."

The verdict: Double Down is as fascinating, beguilling, intriguing, depressing, frustrating and hopeful as the presidential election it recounts. There were moments I muttered "I can't believe that really happened," and moments I laughed and smiled while saying the same words. It's faithful, entertaining account of a fascinating election.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

[J · Rating 3 out of 5]

The authors of the gossipy book on the 2008 election, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, are back with another book, this time on the 2012 race between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. As in the first book, the authors rely on a lot of background information, interviews, and some well-positioned hearsay to show how the race for the White House took shape over the course of a year or so.

Overall, this is some interesting stuff. I had a hard time putting it down. Although the 2012 race was not as exciting as 2008, as a now-familiar Obama sought a second term, and with no wacky wackadoodle like Sarah Palin hogging the spotlight, it still gives a good insight into the American primary system through which the two major US political parties choose their nominees.

In 2012, Obama faced no primary challenger, so there is little about the Democratic side of the contest, but there were a zillion or so (give or take) Republican candidates, and this book tries to do most of them justice. Some minor leaguers are barely mentioned, and quick-to-rise only to quickly fall candidates like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain are given just a few pages. Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Speaker Newt Ginrich, and, to a lesser extent, former Senator Rick Santorum, are the highlights of the Republican side.

One non-candidate, surprisingly, is given a large (ha--pun intended) amount of coverage, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie, who had difficulty making up his mind whether to run or not, and who also took his time deciding to endorse Romney, sucks up a lot of the oxygen in this book. It's a curious choice, to be frank, but I suppose because Christie was a significant player in the election, by rubbing elbows with Obama during Hurricane Sandy, it makes sense. I was surprised to read that Christie was almost the choice for Vice President, but was bypassed because of too many legal skeletons in Christie's closet.

Most of the attention on the President dealt with his friction with the Republican Congress, his disastrous debate in Denver, and the Obama team's strong dislike of Romney, who they considered a phony and self-promoter. Obama comes across as rather tired of the presidency, with little fire in his belly, until he finally whips himself into campaign mode and takes the presidential bully pulpit by the horns.

Mitt and Ann Romney aren't depicted as being very nice people. They come across as elitist, entitled, arrogant, and convinced that Mitt is the only person that can "save" America. Romney was full of gaffes and too confident in his own self-image. He doubled down too many times on missteps instead of showing leadership and taking responsibility for them.

My main problems with the book concern a couple of issues. First, the fact that the Romney campaign was overly reliant on their own internal (and inaccurate) polling gets short shrift, in my opinion. I think a lot of the campaign's mistakes were built upon this false confidence. This is not covered as extensively as it should have been, and even the massive meltdown by Karl Rove on FOX news as the network called Ohio, and thus the presidency for Obama, is left out. This was a major part of why Romney lost and should have been covered more deeply.

Second, the Republican postmortem after the loss of Romney, although not technically part of the presidential campaign, was a direct result of it. The GOP realized, at least briefly, that the party could not win future elections by neglecting non-whites, younger people, single women, and working class people. Although the GOP of Donald Trump in 2016 has entirely flushed those findings down the toilet, it did seem for a while that the Republican party had finally realized it had to put the Tea Party, the crazy white racists, and the one percenters on notice that in order to win, the party had to be inclusive and dedicated to governing, not opposing government.

The writers are not putting out any Shakespeare here, and there's little in depth analysis of anything, but it was still nice to revisit the 2012 campaign and all the follies within. Looking forward to what they publish about this crazy 2016 election come next year.

[Bill · Rating 1 out of 5]

“Popular history” is a phrase I’ve seen on more than a couple of occasions. From what I can tell, it refers to history books that aren’t boring. I would say that Lauren Hillenbrand’s Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption would be a fine example of popular history. It’s a biography written with the loose informality of a novel. It’s also a very good book that tells a fascinating story. I only bring this up to show that I’m not a history noodge who judges his tomes by how many footnotes they have. I just want to make that clear when I say that Double Down: Game Change 2: The Changening, has all the historical weight of a book of “knock-knock” jokes.
The first inkling I had that things weren’t going to go smoothly between myself and authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann was when I ran into OBL. Did I miss something? When did we give a cute nickname to Osama bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for the murders of thousands of Americans? “Oh, OBL! LHO is on the horn and he wants to know if you can do lunch on Thursday. After all, you both happen to be in Hell and your schedules are pretty free.”
Ah, LHO. I’ve read my fair share of Kennedy history books and I can’t say with certainty that I’ve never seen Lee Harvey Oswald referred to as LHO. Maybe I was being a little too thin-skinned on the subject. Then I was assaulted by this “sentence”: “Watching WJC in 2008, BHO thought, QED.” At this point, I have to wonder if the authors have confused writing with shitting out their tweet-thoughts. When Halperin and Heilemann aren’t sewing “WJC” monograms on Bill Clinton’s boxers, they just simply call him “42”. Why refer to a former president of the United States by name when you can just mention the number that was on his jersey while he was in office?
It’s the whole Chuck-Lorre-sitcom style that this book is written in that I find offensive. And that’s because this is my history! And it’s your history, as well. The one simple job these two clowns are supposed to do is build us a mirror. Give us a fair reflection of what we lived through. I can almost guarantee that the one thing I have in common with whoever is reading this, no matter what your political beliefs, is that, at some point during the 2012 election, the idea that our country was swirling around the toilet bowl passed through your mind. Yet the authors would like their readers to believe that we were all just a bunch of 14-year-old girls passing notes in algebra class about how much cuter BHO is than that pervy old 42.
“So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine.” That’s a quote from my favorite presidential-campaign book, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, just to let you know I’m not some joyless prig who takes politics too seriously. There’s a lot of things Hunter S. Thompson (or, as the authors know him, HST) can be accused of, but not being a reflection of his times sure as hell isn’t one of them. His raw, biting and bitter coverage of the 1972 election aptly reflected a country going through the post-traumatic-stress of four years’ worth of war, assassinations and riots from sea to shining sea. Double Down believes that the 2012 re-election of our country’s first black president which took place four years after a catastrophic economic collapse in the midst one of the most poisonous political atmospheres in modern times had all the historical weight of an airy fart of a tweet. It will make a fine HBO movie.

[Bookworm · Rating 4 out of 5]

I broke my rule in waiting for books to come out into paperback before buying them, but I could not resist here. The sequel to 'Game Change', or the story of the 2008 election unsurprisingly looks at the story of the 2012 election, from the Republican primary to the incumbent's term to the general election.

In some ways this book is not quite as good as the original, although I admit it may be my biases. The original benefited from being able to focus on a relatively narrow field of characters: Obama vs. the Clintons, John McCain and his eventual VP selection of Palin. Here the authors have to tackle the entire Republican field, which remained unsettled until late in the primary process, which might explain why some of the candidates (Bachmann, Cain, and even people like Santorum who seems very much like an afterthought) get the short end of the stick. I don't know if the authors chose not to focus on those who had little chance for those who did or if they couldn't get sources to talk (which I somewhat doubt and doesn't explain the focus on Jon Huntsman).

However, there are definitely places where it seems there are holes or a lack of information that was troubling. Marco Rubio was talked about pretty widely, but the rumors that the Romney campaign was never seriously considering him for the VP slot or had even asked for his vetting materials don't get much mention. Neither does Paul Ryan, who is the GOP VP nominee and yet doesn't make much of an impact once in the text he is selected. Romney's disastrous trip overseas doesn't really discuss what else went wrong besides what happened in London. Nor do the authors discuss that Romney had no concession speech ready once it became clear he wasn't going to win--the R campaign had not paid attention to all of the polls (just the ones that were good for them).

The Democrats' side is also different, since now Obama is the incumbent rather than a challenger in a wide-open field. It's interesting (and frustrating) to see how some of the campaign's mistakes (such as the Denver debate) were needlessly self-inflicted. I was also somewhat disappointed that there wasn't much discussion about the voter outreach or polling/data strategy the campaign used to get voters, but this is more of a book for gossip than political strategy.

I re-read GC every once in a while to compare and contrast where people are in the book vs. at the time I re-read GC, and it's fun to do the same here. People who played a big part in GC don't always do so here and vice versa. Romney is the nominee here and obviously dominates, but he disappeared once he withdrew in 2008. It's the flip with McCain, who gets mentions here and there in this book. The same with Palin. There is no "Where are they now" feature in the book, but as a mental exercise it's fun to do.

If you are a political junkie, or followed the election closely,or loved the first book, it's a good book. If you are a neophyte this isn't a good place to start but is a good book once you get familiar with the people and the groundwork. I would say someone would definitely benefit from supplementing this book with various other references. It's impossible to capture everything from an election in one book, and this book definitely assumes the reader has a certain level of knowledge.

I probably could have waited to buy it, but it was a good read (especially once we got rid of the Republican nominee wanna-bes) and I'll be buying the paperback for sure.

[Amitava Mazumdar · Rating 2 out of 5]

I finally got around to reading "Double Down," a book about the 2012 campaign given to me for my birthday two years ago. I delayed, not being eager to invest a lot of time in a product of Politico reporters. A lot of it is the typical horse race political reporting you would expect from Politico journalists for whom every verbal flub by Obama or Romney, or change in poll numbers in favor of one or the other, is imbued with deep historical significance that they probably feel justifies their 400 page deep dive into trivial political matters.

That said, there are some anecdotes in the book that can be revealing about about the characters and the process. Several immediately stuck in my mind:

1. According to the book, in an effort to gain their support, Rick Perry had to persuade a group of prominent evangelical leaders that he wasn't gay.

2. Rick Perry's performance in the Republican debates was lousy (remember "oops"?) not because he was dumb, but because he had undergone painful back surgery and was operating on pain medication and without sleep. I'm not sure why the Perry campaign preferred to be mocked than to be honest about his health.

3. All the Republican candidates really hated each other.

4. The Romney campaign was really full of social liberals who were quite consciously manipulating social conservatives.

5. The campaign of Jon Huntsman, the reasonable Republican Mormon and former governor of Utah, fed dirt to the press regarding Mitch Daniels' marriage and Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment.

6. And then there's the Clintons. Bill Clinton's 2012 convention speech, in which he placed Obama's name into nomination is really only one of three convention speeches of either party I admire, after Ted Kennedy's in 1980 and Mario Cuomo's in 1992. In it, Clinton emphasized the point that we liberals think distinguishes us from conservatives: "We believe that 'we're all in this together' is a better philosophy than 'you're on your own!'" It was as fine a defense of liberalism in America as I had ever heard. It turns out, according to the authors, that Clinton agreed to give this speech only after demanding that the Obama campaign help Hillary pay off the remaining $300,000 of a $20 million campaign debt from 2008. I found this revelation to be utterly shocking.