Pollster.com analysis: "Why Obama Won"

[Haruko]

"Why Obama Won"

Thought it was interesting that the following was included as one of the numerous reasons:

McCain's support of the bailout was the end of the end. This is not an indictment of the policy decision, but rather the political effect. When McCain announced his support for the bailout it robbed him of any chance to differentiate himself from Obama.

If memory serves, that was a point Newt Gingrich was trying to warn McCain about.

Even before the list of reasons for Obama's victory, the author of the above-linked article gave some observations he had about some of the "often misguided and extreme ideas that have been bandied about in the last week". I'm particularly interested in reading anything you guys may have to say about these observations ((1) that Obama's victory wasn't a landslide, and (2) that McCain's campaign wasn't as inept as some made them out to be, nor Obama's campaign as brilliant as it was made out to be).

[mingo]

OK, as for why Obama's win wasn't a landslide. It's the closest thing to it we've had in a long time. More often, in recent political history, the winner didn't have the majority of the popular vote winning either the electoral college votes (as with Bush, we'll leave aside arguments about stolen elections ect) or just the largest percentage, splitting the total (as with Clinton). Obama actually had more than half of ALL the people that voted, vote for HIM. this is something that hasn't happened since the 80s.

Why wasn't his landslide even bigger? Gee, is this really that hard to figure out? Do you really need me to point out the elephant in the room? If his name had been James Robinson, and his daddy had been from Iowa instead of Kenya, he would have won by 92%. Have you noticed he's black?

When my Republican friend called after the election and said "what's new?" I said 'I won and you lost". Tom went on to compare it too this story from our shared past. We Went out shooting with my brother and a friend of his from the city, nice Jewish kid that had never fired a gun in his life. So this kid lines up on a 4 by 8 sheet of plywood at 20 feet with a 12 gauge shotgun with birdshot. He fired, knocked the plywood over and shouted triumphantly "I hit it!". Tom's point was, this election was low hanging fruit for the Democrats. My mother was so mad at Bush she could spit, sorely disappointed in McCain's selling his soul, but couldn't get over her Tennessee upbringing that taught her black men are inferior. the best she could do was not vote. I'm sure her situation was multiplied many times over.

McCain's campaign wasn't terrible, but not great. He made some very poor decisions (most notably Caribou Barbie), He wasn't able to get the nomination without taking positions that would lose the general election (that is the party's problem, not just his). Last and most important, he was from the same party as a president LESS popular than Nixion the day before he resigned.

Still in spite of all this, it could only have been a nearly FLAWLESS campaign by a black man to both beat Hillary for the nomination, and overcome over 3 centuries of ingrained racism to become President. I don't think that accomplishment can be overstated.

In the months to come, I'm sure our new President will prove to be human and unable to turn all grey skies blue with a wave of his hand, but there is no way to avoid being impressed with what he's done so far.

[ray245]

The hard part for Obama in this election is winning the nominations. That is a hard part when you are running against Hiliary Clinton.

[Broomstick]

No, the hard part was getting enough people who aren't black to vote for a black man. Even if he had won 100% of the black vote (and, in truth, he didn't) that wouldn't be nearly enough to get him nominated, much less elected.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, the hard part was getting enough people who aren't black to vote for a black man. Even if he had won 100% of the black vote (and, in truth, he didn't) that wouldn't be nearly enough to get him nominated, much less elected.

Its not nearly as hard as you seem to think. They way you word it, you'd almost think he had to fight for every single non-black vote. When in truth he always had a good few white voters, I believe even a majority among younger voters.

Though its a historic accomplishment, to be sure. And he no doubt won over quite a few less hard core or closet racists, which is always a good thing.

[Broomstick]

Well, hell, I lived in Chicago when Mayor Harold Washington was elected, a black mayor of a city that was only 36% black. It's not inconceivable to me that non-black people will vote for a black man but you're kidding yourself if you think it wasn't an uphill battle and you think race didn't matter. It didn't matter as much as it would have 50 years ago, but it did have an effect. I sincerely hope that Obama does such a fantastic job that race will never be such a factor in electing a president in the future.

Obama didn't just capture white votes, he captured significant numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and other groups of voters. That's a good thing. I just hope the man lives up to the hype.

[Duckie]

The latest republican piece of spin is that capturing 66% of the electoral college isn't a mandate. That winning by the most crushing victory since Clinton isn't a mandate.

That Obama better not actually do anything because the people voted him in because they... don't want him and the congressional democrats... to... make any policies?

You can see why it makes no sense and why they're still spreading it.

[JCady]

The latest republican piece of spin is that capturing 66% of the electoral college isn't a mandate. That winning by the most crushing victory since Clinton isn't a mandate.

That Obama better not actually do anything because the people voted him in because they... don't want him and the congressional democrats... to... make any policies?

You can see why it makes no sense and why they're still spreading it.

I blogged this the other day (http://phoenixvtam.livejournal.com/13244.html). The last time a rookie President took the Oval Office by a margin this broad, they called it the "Reagan Revolution".

[Glocksman]

Well, hell, I lived in Chicago when Mayor Harold Washington was elected, a black mayor of a city that was only 36% black. It's not inconceivable to me that non-black people will vote for a black man but you're kidding yourself if you think it wasn't an uphill battle and you think race didn't matter. It didn't matter as much as it would have 50 years ago, but it did have an effect. I sincerely hope that Obama does such a fantastic job that race will never be such a factor in electing a president in the future.

Obama didn't just capture white votes, he captured significant numbers of Hispanic, Asian, and other groups of voters. That's a good thing. I just hope the man lives up to the hype.

His victory in Indiana illustrates that he did capture enough white votes to carry the state.
Contrary to what the media would have you believe, his winning margin didn't come from the counties he won, but from the counties he narrowly lost that normally would have went Republican by a 2/3 or larger majority and would have swamped the vote totals from Lake and Marion counties.

Shit, he won Spencer and Perry counties in southwestern Indiana, and those are about as whitebread rural as you can get here.

Of course the tale I read somewhere about a pollster asking a woman who her family was voting for is illustrative.
Supposedly she told the pollster 'Let me ask my husband', and he shouted back 'We're voting for the nigger' and she then smiled and repeated the answer verbatim.

I firmly believe that Obama won a lot of votes because the economy is tanking that he normally would not have won.

[Coyote]

By the time the bailout thing came along, Obama was already revealed to be the adult in the whole thing. He was able to support the unpopular bailout with stoicism, whereas McCain, already shaky from an unenthusiastic base and poor debate performance as well as "suspending my campaign; off to Washington to save the day" theatrical silliness pretty much left him looking like a fool.

By that time, also, the economic mess was overwhelming people, and if he'd stood up and said "No" to the bailout, instead of being championed as the man who reigned in spending and supporting the punishments as well as the rewards of the free market, damn the torpedoes, instead he would be asked why he was flushing all those jobs down the toilet when we needed them most.

He was in a way a victim of the circumstances, but my pity is molecule-thin because in this case "circumstance" happened to be named "George W. Bush" and McCain had tied himself to Bush pretty thoroughly.

[DaveJB]

Something I noticed (emphasis mine):

According to Curtis Gans at American University, turnout was approximately 127 million - way below what was predicted. Perhaps the biggest underreported story of this election is that the reason turnout was essentially flat (up approximately 1-2 points from 2004) is that some of the evangelicals/GOP base stayed home and there was a corresponding increase in the black/youth vote. Some key data points to focus on are that self-described evangelical turnout was down three points. Conversely, the African American vote was up two points and 18-29 year olds were up approximately one point. This is, of course, imprecise because not all evangelicals vote Republican and not all blacks and youth vote Democratic, but if one goes down three points and the other two groups go up three points, the net is a six point change. It is not a coincidence that Obama won by about six points.

So, was all that talk of Palin "energizing the base" a load of bullcrap then, or did her selection prevent what could have been an even bigger clobbering for McCain?

[mingo]

So, was all that talk of Palin "energizing the base" a load of bullcrap then, or did her selection prevent what could have been an even bigger clobbering for McCain?

Oh, I'm not sure. She did energize the Pro-life, fundy base of the party. She scared the hell out of the thinkers though. Notice Colin Powell said it was the choice of Palin that lead him to endorse Obama over his "friend" McCain. What the GOP learned was that God Guns and gays don't sway people that are more concerned for their jobs than anything else.

[Axis Kast]

I have to say that I find some of the opinions expressed in this thread to be surprising.

Broomstick, I fully believe that racism, both blatant and latent, was at play during this election cycle. Yet, I'm confused about the credibility of an argument that says Obama should have done considerably better, and that any shortfall can be explained mostly as the effects of racism. What about partisan loyalties? Policy disagreements?

For many of the folks here, Obama's issue positions were a welcome relief. For others, higher taxes, youth and inexperience, the bogey of "universal healthcare," and traditional perceptions that Democrats are "weak on Terror" really did matter quite a lot. Without evidence (and I don't think we're going to get it, either way, since the Bradley Effect would probably make polling useless), but it seems to me that racism is no more credible than, say, partisan doubt.

The truth is, Obama was unique because he ran an excellent campaign, embraced "hard(er) left" positions than many fellow Democrats, and because he was a minority. He did not, however, have exceptional credentials. I think he was intelligent enough to come up with answers for the problems we face, as a nation, but whoever commented (was it Coyote, or Mike?) that McCain ran on his biography, while Obama ran by stating his intentions, was correct. And those intentions ran hard against Republican mantras.

[Thanas]

This strip illustrates my feelings on the success of Obama.

[DaveJB]

Oh, I'm not sure. She did energize the Pro-life, fundy base of the party. She scared the hell out of the thinkers though. Notice Colin Powell said it was the choice of Palin that lead him to endorse Obama over his "friend" McCain. What the GOP learned was that God Guns and gays don't sway people that are more concerned for their jobs than anything else.

So it really goes back to what was said in the main Palin thread about McCain needing to get support from the GOP base and moderates, but blowing the whole thing by only appealing to the former. Still though, it is a measure of the ineffectiveness of their whole campaign that even with a hard-righter like Palin on-board, they managed less votes from the GOP hardcore supporters than Bush/Cheney ever did.

[Darth Wong]

I have to say that I find some of the opinions expressed in this thread to be surprising.

Broomstick, I fully believe that racism, both blatant and latent, was at play during this election cycle. Yet, I'm confused about the credibility of an argument that says Obama should have done considerably better, and that any shortfall can be explained mostly as the effects of racism. What about partisan loyalties? Policy disagreements?

Well obviously, they all play a role simultaneously. But blacks only constitute something like 13% of the American population (they actually have an absurdly outsized share of politics and media compared to their demographics), whereas a third of white Democrats say they have a problem with black people, never mind Republicans. That's some scary numbers.

For many of the folks here, Obama's issue positions were a welcome relief. For others, higher taxes, youth and inexperience, the bogey of "universal healthcare," and traditional perceptions that Democrats are "weak on Terror" really did matter quite a lot. Without evidence (and I don't think we're going to get it, either way, since the Bradley Effect would probably make polling useless), but it seems to me that racism is no more credible than, say, partisan doubt.

The problem with this argument is that racism is more one-sided: there are more white racists than there are blacks in total. Partisan doubt applies to both parties.

The truth is, Obama was unique because he ran an excellent campaign, embraced "hard(er) left" positions than many fellow Democrats, and because he was a minority. He did not, however, have exceptional credentials. I think he was intelligent enough to come up with answers for the problems we face, as a nation, but whoever commented (was it Coyote, or Mike?) that McCain ran on his biography, while Obama ran by stating his intentions, was correct. And those intentions ran hard against Republican mantras.

I said that, but I didn't invent the line. I was just repeating what somebody on BBC said. Yes, I watch BBC to get news on the American election. I find that distance helps get a better perspective, so CBC is better than anything in the US, and BBC is better than CBC.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, I'm not sure. She did energize the Pro-life, fundy base of the party. She scared the hell out of the thinkers though. Notice Colin Powell said it was the choice of Palin that lead him to endorse Obama over his "friend" McCain. What the GOP learned was that God Guns and gays don't sway people that are more concerned for their jobs than anything else.

So it really goes back to what was said in the main Palin thread about McCain needing to get support from the GOP base and moderates, but blowing the whole thing by only appealing to the former. Still though, it is a measure of the ineffectiveness of their whole campaign that even with a hard-righter like Palin on-board, they managed less votes from the GOP hardcore supporters than Bush/Cheney ever did.

OK, reality check: is there any way to determine just how much impact this "energized the base" effect had? I have a hard time believing that these people, mostly terrified that Obama would turn the US into a Muslim caliphate, would have stayed home on election day if Palin didn't rile them up.

[RedImperator]

and I don't think we're going to get it, either way, since the Bradley Effect would probably make polling useless

Just a little nitpick: the Bradley Effect refers to the phenomenon of black candidates underperforming their poll numbers in races against white candidates; judging by how close Obama's final totals, nationwide and in the states, came to the polling, I think we can safely say it's deader than Napoleon. What you're asking is for white voters to admit they're racist, and, surprisingly, they did in the Democratic primary exit polls. I haven't gone through the exit polls for this election (I'm all polled out after a two year campaign), but I'm sure they're out there and could give us an idea how many white McCain voters listed race as a consideration in their choice. That would give us, at the very least, a lower limit.

[Axis Kast]

Well obviously, they all play a role simultaneously. But blacks only constitute something like 13% of the American population (they actually have an absurdly outsized share of politics and media compared to their demographics), whereas a third of white Democrats say they have a problem with black people, never mind Republicans. That's some scary numbers.

Obama probably lost a good deal of votes due to race. The poll you've cited even tells us that he "probably" didn't make up the difference in terms of black voters (the majority of whom were already Democrats). Yet it does assert that, "[M]any whites who see blacks in a negative light are still willing or even eager to vote for Obama."

There is also support for my argument in that, whereas respondants registered negative views of blacks, there was an even stronger surge of doubt regarding Obama's political aptitude.

Granting Obama the six additional percentage points of voters that the pollsters conclude he should have won, it's difficult to say what the result would have been. We can't "take away" six percent of the total vote from McCain; we can't know if the Democrats in question stayed home, or whether they voted for the other candidate. Probably, the result would not have been radically different. Indeed, if we do strip McCain of six percent of the vote and throw it all to Obama, we do reach landslide territory -- but only if one can truly be buried after garnering 40% of the vote.

Obama wasn't a wonder candidate. He was an excellent orator; he ran a terrific campaign unparalleled in recent years; and he chose a very solid VP. That's it.

[DaveJB]

OK, reality check: is there any way to determine just how much impact this "energized the base" effect had? I have a hard time believing that these people, mostly terrified that Obama would turn the US into a Muslim caliphate, would have stayed home on election day if Palin didn't rile them up.

Well it did have a brief immediate effect in the form of McCain's poll numbers spiking and increased donations to the Republican ticket, as it says in the article... as for the final poll numbers though, obviously it didn't have that great of an effect considering that they performed worse in the "base" segment than Bush in 2000 and 2004 (possibly even worse than Dole in 1996, though the figures I've seen for him are a bit contradictory). Best case for the GOP was that Palin's selection stemmed the losses from the GOP core voters, and worst case is that she was just a vapid publicity stunt that turned hardcore voters off the ticket. Either way, it's nothing that they should be proud of.

What would be interesting to see is how many of the GOP's base voters abstained from voting (the article doesn't mention this figure) and a sample of their reasons why, bearing in mind that it doesn't look like they went over to Obama or any of the third-party candidates.

[The Guid]

Oh, I'm not sure. She did energize the Pro-life, fundy base of the party. She scared the hell out of the thinkers though. Notice Colin Powell said it was the choice of Palin that lead him to endorse Obama over his "friend" McCain. What the GOP learned was that God Guns and gays don't sway people that are more concerned for their jobs than anything else.

So it really goes back to what was said in the main Palin thread about McCain needing to get support from the GOP base and moderates, but blowing the whole thing by only appealing to the former. Still though, it is a measure of the ineffectiveness of their whole campaign that even with a hard-righter like Palin on-board, they managed less votes from the GOP hardcore supporters than Bush/Cheney ever did.

OK, reality check: is there any way to determine just how much impact this "energized the base" effect had? I have a hard time believing that these people, mostly terrified that Obama would turn the US into a Muslim caliphate, would have stayed home on election day if Palin didn't rile them up.

Energizing the base isn't just about votes, it is often used as a term for talking about how a particular candidate will encourage the "party faithful" to go out and campaign door to door. The theory goes that when Sarah Palin was chosen they became encouraged and rallied enough to want to go and do this. I have no idea if it is true, but its not just votes that people are after in these choices.

[DaveJB]

Energizing the base isn't just about votes, it is often used as a term for talking about how a particular candidate will encourage the "party faithful" to go out and campaign door to door. The theory goes that when Sarah Palin was chosen they became encouraged and rallied enough to want to go and do this. I have no idea if it is true, but its not just votes that people are after in these choices.

If it doesn't ultimately get you more votes though, what's the point? The only way for Palin to have done a good job in this situation would have been for McCain's polling numbers to be truly catastrophic among the GOP's core voters before making his VP pick. Either that, or the GOP base are just really lousy at persuading moderates to vote for their candidate.

[mingo]

If it doesn't ultimately get you more votes though, what's the point? The only way for Palin to have done a good job in this situation would have been for McCain's polling numbers to be truly catastrophic among the GOP's core voters before making his VP pick. Either that, or the GOP base are just really lousy at persuading moderates to vote for their candidate.

Persuading moderates to vote for McCain is where the GOP really dropped the ball this time. For the last several elections, and I believe this one included, that's where it's one or lost. In that regard, I'd say McCain didn't lose, or Obama win so much as Bush lost. I said a number of times that if McCain 2000 wase running against Obama, it would have been a much harder choice. I still think I would have voted Obama, but I would have give McCain lots more thourht. Having been welded to Bush's hip, I voted against Bush and he took McCain with him. This was McCain choice, he didn't have the courage to beleive that the base would hol threif nose and vote for him over the "other" they're so afraid of without pandering to their bullshit and driving off the persuadable votes.

[mingo]

Oh wow, I really should try to write in English on this little sleep. Why does the edit button NOT appear sometimes?

[Koolaidkirby]

If it doesn't ultimately get you more votes though, what's the point? The only way for Palin to have done a good job in this situation would have been for McCain's polling numbers to be truly catastrophic among the GOP's core voters before making his VP pick. Either that, or the GOP base are just really lousy at persuading moderates to vote for their candidate.

Persuading moderates to vote for McCain is where the GOP really dropped the ball this time. For the last several elections, and I believe this one included, that's where it's one or lost. In that regard, I'd say McCain didn't lose, or Obama win so much as Bush lost. I said a number of times that if McCain 2000 wase running against Obama, it would have been a much harder choice. I still think I would have voted Obama, but I would have give McCain lots more thourht. Having been welded to Bush's hip, I voted against Bush and he took McCain with him. This was McCain choice, he didn't have the courage to beleive that the base would hol threif nose and vote for him over the "other" they're so afraid of without pandering to their bullshit and driving off the persuadable votes.

If McCain had been running in 2000 instead of bush, he wouldn't have run with the platform that he did(he would have been running his real platform), that would have also probably won him a lot more votes as well.