Why Obama won

[davefoc]

I expect over the next few weeks to see a variety of explanations offered as to why Obama won.

My unresearched list in order of my unresearched view of their relative importance:

1. Economic crisis that worked against all Republicans
2. Dissatisfaction with Iraq war and perception that McCain was less right than Obama
3. Obama's thoughtful charismatic style more appealing than McCain's bluster. Also included here are McCain's various verbal gaffes.
4. Abandonment of the Republican Party, perhaps temporarily, by many in the moderate libertarian wing.
5. Sarah Palin

It is easy to pick on a single cause because it fits your personal belief structure as the most important and in the weeks to come I expect various pundits to emphasize one over the other. The fact seems to be that Obama would have won without some of the above but his victory would have been smaller. But even with all of the above reasons and some additional ones that might be added to the list Obama's popular vote victory was still fairly small given that almost all recent events cut against McCain.

The situation that did work in McCain's favor was the use of Fox News as a near full time McCain infomercial. My own guess is that this was the single most important factor in keeping this election as close as it was. For many people in this country Fox News has become their primary source of news. And those people are probably scratching their heads today with disbelief as they can't quite imagine how a guy that hangs with terrorists and radical black preachers, and who tried to steal the election with voter fraud and who is going to savage the country with massive public giveaways could possibly have been elected.

[RandFan]

I hate to be trite, but, change.

It's been a long 8 years. While I don't agree with the views of many that it has only been bad I do believe that Bush was a poor choice and made to many fundamental mistakes. Katrina was the turning point for me. McCain isn't Bush but he is iconic of the right and that, in the end, spelled his doom IMO. I don't think America liked the direction we were moving in and wanted a change.

[pgwenthold]

You know, if you want to get to something specific, the most important thing I can point to is "The fundamentals of the economy are strong."

If there were no better indicator of how John McCain was out of touch, that was it. While Obama didn't advertise that as much as I would have, he hammered it home by comparing McCain to Bush in economic policy. Basically, he sent the message that, not only did McCain say the fundamentals were strong, he actually believed it.

So I think "It's the economy, stupid" is a pretty good summary, it is than that. It was "John McCain is the "stupid" one who doesn't get that it is the economy."

[Upchurch]

McCain isn't Bush but he is iconic of the right and that, in the end, spelled his doom IMO.
It was a mistake for McCain to say that he had voted with Bush 90% of the time during the primaries. I don't even know if that is actually true or not, but because McCain said it, he couldn't argue the point as an Obama lie during the general election. He was also stuck with the double edged sword of appeasing his base that loves Bush and everyone else.

This isn't necessarily why Obama won, but I think McCain lost because he ran as a Republican after the Bush Presidency.

[Vic Vega]

One of the commentators last night, I think it was on CNN, said that Obama ran the perfect campaign and made no real mistakes the entire way.

I agree. His campaign will be discussed in Political Science curriculum for ages. He could not have done better. He focused on the right states and the right issues, he picked a good running mate that complimented his weaknesses, he picked a tremendous campaign staff, he laid off of Palin because attacking her glaring weaknesses would have hurt him, etc.

I think that the quality of his campaign should give us all hope that his administration will be run in the same way with the same quality of people.

[dudalb]

I would rate the Palin factor a little higher. She alienated a lot of swing voters. I an not sure the "moderate Libertarians" are a big enough voting bloc to make much of difference.
Fact of life: Libertarians in general are a very small percentage of the voting public. They make a lot of noise, particularly on the internet, but it does not very many people to do that.

[HawaiiBigSis]

<snip>Katrina was the turning point for me.
Boy, you gave him a long trial. Hanging chads, crying to baby brother, and stealing the first election did it for me.

One of the commentators last night, I think it was on CNN, said that Obama ran the perfect campaign and made no real mistakes the entire way.

I agree. His campaign will be discussed in Political Science curriculum for ages. He could not have done better. He focused on the right states and the right issues, he picked a good running mate that complimented his weaknesses, he picked a tremendous campaign staff, he laid off of Palin because attacking her glaring weaknesses would have hurt him, etc.

I think that the quality of his campaign should give us all hope that his administration will be run in the same way with the same quality of people.

I believe the quality of his campaign DID give people hope, and that's why he was elected. And I do hope the his campaign foreshadows the quality of his administration, governance, and ability to effect the change people are hoping for.

I do hope he runs a relatively bipartisan presidency, and that he's re-elected in a landslide four years from now, because his presidency has delivered on the promises (implicit and explicit) he made.

[davefoc]

One of the commentators last night, I think it was on CNN, said that Obama ran the perfect campaign and made no real mistakes the entire way.

I agree. His campaign will be discussed in Political Science curriculum for ages. He could not have done better. He focused on the right states and the right issues, he picked a good running mate that complimented his weaknesses, he picked a tremendous campaign staff, he laid off of Palin because attacking her glaring weaknesses would have hurt him, etc.

I think that the quality of his campaign should give us all hope that his administration will be run in the same way with the same quality of people.

I thought about amending my opening post to include this. Obama's campaign was skillful, entrepreneurial and courageous. It was the most creative campaign of my life. Despite the chances it seemed to take there was hardly ever even the appearance of a misstep.

Also included in this was Obama's skill at maneuvering his positions to appeal to the widest range of the electorate. It is reasonable to see this skill as a bit cynical. I see it as Obama being skillful at an essential area of politics that per force is cynical.

I think I would rank this reason for Obama's victory at around a tie for third in my list.

[godofpie]

Subject: How this happened
From: "Barack Obama" <info@barackobama.com>
Date: Wed, November 5, 2008 2:01 am
To: "Jim XXXXX" <jim@xxxxxxxx.net>
Priority: Normal
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version

Jim --

I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first.

We just made history.

And I don't want you to forget how we did it.

You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change.

I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign.

We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next.

But I want to be very clear about one thing...

All of this happened because of you.

Thank you,

Barack

Obama is going to be successful because he has built a vast grassroots base and as long as he stays
1) honest-if he doesn't know the answer he won't just make crap up
2)open-he will not segregate himself from the media and will keep us informed
3)on message-he will continue to stay out of the gutter and keep his message positive but realistic

Someone on NPR this morning said that running a campaign and running the country are not comparable or compatible but I disagree. If he will run the country like he ran his campaign, and my belief that the way he ran his campaign is a direct reflection of his ethics and morals and integrity, then he should be able to govern more effectively than any president in my lifetime. If the NPR commentator is right, and Barack just did what it took to get elected and after he takes office it will just be business as usual, then an Obama presidency probably won't look much different than a McCain presidency.

[Jorghnassen]

I thought it was because Obama had the most campaign money.

/cynical response

[Quad4_72]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.

2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.

3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama).

4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy.

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.

[davefoc]

I would rate the Palin factor a little higher. She alienated a lot of swing voters. I an not sure the "moderate Libertarians" are a big enough voting bloc to make much of difference.
Fact of life: Libertarians in general are a very small percentage of the voting public. They make a lot of noise, particularly on the internet, but it does not very many people to do that.

I thought a bit before I labeled that group as moderate libertarians, but probably the term wasn't quite right for what I meant.

Libertarians are a small group and I think they are significantly different ideologically than what I meant by moderate Libertarians. I was thinking about the group represented by the various prominent moderate Republicans that expressed support for Obama in this campaign. Many in that group have been very dissatisfied with the Bush governance and if they were going to be McCain voters needed to be assured that McCain wasn't Bush. The failure of McCain to successfully explain why he wasn't Bush and the selection of Palin was enough for McCain to guarantee the loss of a significant percentage of that group.

Many of these people have already left the Republican Party so calling them moderate Republicans wasn't quite right either Maybe I should have just called them moderates, but that's a bit ambiguous also.

[davefoc]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.

I thought about including this reason in my list. In the end I suspect it was close to a wash. The black vote has been around 90% Democratic for awhile. Being generous to your point one might assume that the black vote went from 90% to 96% Democratic because Obama was black. So that's a 6% pickup of 15% of the population. And that understates it a bit in that more blacks voted than normal. But even combining those effect the increased black vote because Obama was Black probably was only good for a 1% or so increase in h his overall total. After that the calculation is more difficult. The vast majority of liberals were going to vote for the Democratic candidate anyway so no upward bump in that group, but there was probably some loss as racist liberals voted for McCain. The effect on the swing voters was probably in net negative. The idea that Obama was a muslim, or some kind of radical resonated deeply with some people especially with the older voters and that went almost entirely to the fact that he was black. So in net I suspect that a white candidate with Obama's skills in the current circumstances would have gotten somewhat more votes than Obama.


2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.
I agree with some of this anyway. This is a subset of what I meant by Obama's charisma. Youth was definitely a part of that over McCain who showed various signs of aging throughout the campaign.



3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama).True again, but in net much less effective than the combined effects of Fox News and the various right wing radio pundits. So in net not really an advantage to Obama.


4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy.I agree. I should have included it in my list.


5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.When Americans don't vote the way I think they should I think they're ignorant also. Right now it looks to me like something over 52% of the electorate was well informed and thoughtful, the other 44% not so much.

[FreshHat]

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.


Well, that would explain G.W. Bush.

[Marquis de Carabas]

He's taller.

[chulbert]

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.

I have little doubt that some African-Americans voted for Barack Obama simply -- or mostly -- because of his race. However, most blacks already vote Democratic so I'm not sure his race bought him as many votes from the black community as you imply. I certainly think it is an unfair characterization to claim that most black people voted for him simply because of race.

Also, if we acknowledge that some blacks voted for Obama on the basis of race, we must also include that some whites voted for him on that same basis. Further, I have little doubt some whites voted against him for that very reason. No one can say at this point where the chips fell. As a function of population size along it's possible that race cost him more votes than it gained, but that is pure hypothetical musing on my part.

I'm sure we'll see some analysis in the upcoming days or weeks.

[Denver]

Two years ago, when the country voted the congress over to Democrat control, Obama wasn't even running yet. The country sent a message then. It wasn't heard. And so sent it again this year, with now turning over the presidency to the Democrats.

So I believe a large reason Obama won, was because the country was voting out the Republicans, like it did 2 years back.

[chipmunk stew]

I thought it was because Obama had the most campaign money.

/cynical response
Cause or effect?

/skeptical rebuttal

[Pookster]

I believe Obama won because he ran an excellent campaign, had a clear focus, stayed on message, and looked Presidential when he especially needed to. Sure, McCain made some serious tactical errors. But I believe McCain could've still won if Obama had not carried himself and his campaign in such a professional way.

[Pookster]

He's taller.


And he's got game too.

[joobz]

I thought it was because Obama had the most campaign money.

/cynical response

Actually, It's because he won the most electoral votes

/blatantly obvious response

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can tell you why I voted for him: It'll be good to have someone in the White House who can speak.

~~ Paul

[dudalb]

Yeah, I think Davefoc made a mistake in leaving off that Obama ran a simply Brilliant campaign. Yeah, having a lot of money helps. but knowing how to spend it is very important. A lot of candidates have spent huge amounts of money but still ran badly.
Whoever was the strategist for the Obama campaign can pretty much write his own ticket as a political consultant now.

[Dr Adequate]

I'd add an item 1a. McCain's response to the crisis was clueless. He announced how sound the economy was, before deciding it was "cratering", whereupon he "raced back to Washington" by hanging around doing TV interviews about how important he was racing back to Washington, in which he thrust himself into the limelight by claiming to put country before politics, he bounced Obama by claiming it before he did, he suspended his campaign by continuing it, and he wasn't going to debate ... until he blinked. The effect he gave (to me at any rate) was of a man playing politics with a crisis and doing it very badly.

Now up to that point I had strongly believed that McCain, if put to the test, would turn out to be a good President; and also that the argument from experience was salient (though not enough to sway me personally). At that point I started thinking that maybe "maverick" meant "erratic", and began to contemplate how much executive experience McCain had as compared to his opponent. And once you start thinking like that, and considering the quality of the two campaigns as evidence of who shows better judgement ...

There then followed the first debate, in which Obama managed to come across as reasonable, level-headed, calm, and moderate, whereupon the McCain campaign actually put out a video of clips of Obama saying: "John is right". Who were they targetting there? Obama debated perfectly: he appealed to moderates and to the many people who said that they weren't going to make their minds up until the debates.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the scary MUSLIN TURRIST who you hadn't heard of this time last year, managed to come out of this looking like the reliable pick and the safe pair of hands to anyone who didn't already think that he was the Antichrist.

[Ohmer]

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.

Palin did her best the appeal to them. In the end it wasn't enough.

[davefoc]

I'd add an item 1a. McCain's response to the crisis was clueless. He announced how sound the economy was, before deciding it was "cratering", whereupon he "raced back to Washington" by hanging around doing TV interviews about how important he was racing back to Washington, in which he thrust himself into the limelight by claiming to put country before politics, he bounced Obama by claiming it before he did, he suspended his campaign by continuing it, and he wasn't going to debate ... until he blinked. The effect he gave (to me at any rate) was of a man playing politics with a crisis and doing it very badly.

Now up to that point I had strongly believed that McCain, if put to the test, would turn out to be a good President; and also that the argument from experience was salient (though not enough to sway me personally). At that point I started thinking that maybe "maverick" meant "erratic", and began to contemplate how much executive experience McCain had as compared to his opponent. And once you start thinking like that, and considering the quality of the two campaigns as evidence of who shows better judgement ...

There then followed the first debate, in which Obama managed to come across as reasonable, level-headed, calm, and moderate, whereupon the McCain campaign actually put out a video of clips of Obama saying: "John is right". Who were they targetting there? Obama debated perfectly: he appealed to moderates and to the many people who said that they weren't going to make their minds up until the debates.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the scary MUSLIN TURRIST who you hadn't heard of this time last year, managed to come out of this looking like the reliable pick and the safe pair of hands to anyone who didn't already think that he was the Antichrist.

This goes to the difficulty I had putting the reasons into categories. There was overlap and ambiguity about what things went where. I was thinking of this as more part of item 3, Obama's charisma, by which I meant to include things like his calmness in difficult times and the fact that McCain wasn't.

This also goes to McCain's inability to make a case for his ideas. I think some of McCain's ideas were definitely good if not better than Obama's. His approach to health care looked right to me. The country needs to break the tie in between employment and health insurance. It is part of the Democratic idea that you can just go impose stuff on employers and it's free.

McCain also needed to make the case that the current financial crisis wasn't caused by the failure of free markets it was caused by the failure of government organizations, out of control spending, out of control cronyism, and out of control federal borrowing. He needed to make the case that the answer wasn't to fix problems caused by government excess with more government excess. Unfortunately for him the principal perpitrators of government excess were the Republicans and he needed to explain why he was going to be a different kind of Republican something to my eyes he was completely incapable of doing.

I don't think intellectually he ever came to grips with that. In the end, he was just one more of the cronies who didn't think he'd done anything all that bad with his Keating Five involvement. His potential choice of Lieberman also went to his inability to make a case for limited government. He could spout the slogans but he didn't understand the intellectual underpinnings so he was perfectly willing to pick what is a standard Democrat except for his Israel first ideas to be his Vice Presidential running mate.

[Dr Adequate]

This goes to the difficulty I had putting the reasons into categories. There was overlap and ambiguity about what things went where. I was thinking of this as more part of item 3, Obama's charisma, by which I meant to include things like his calmness in difficult times and the fact that McCain wasn't. Yes, it is hard to catagorize. Nonetheless, with respect, I think that's a bit of a stretch of the word "charisma".

Showing character and making the right choices isn't "charisma", Obama didn't do it by being all sparkly while riding on his rainbow-colored unicorn.

[Thunder]

McCain may have indeed won..or at least come close to winning..if not for two simple words:

Sarah Palin.

[Thunder]

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.

Yes, and they voted for McCain.

[Undesired Walrus]

To be honest, I think the consistent McCain's constant claim of being a 'maverick' probably hurt him more than he (clearly) thought it helped him. In my opinion, It simply summons up an image of someone who is unstable, even if that is not its correct definition. In a time of great economic stress, people want their leader to be calm and measured, not appearing erratic like McCain did when he suspended his campaign only to unsuspend it 48 hours later. If McCain had acted like he did in his concession speech last night (honourable, dignified), he could have been in with a good chance.

The following photo really does epitomise the McCain and Obama campaigns:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/D/O/2/mctongue-pic.jpg

[NotJesus]

There then followed the first debate, in which Obama managed to come across as reasonable, level-headed, calm, and moderate, whereupon the McCain campaign actually put out a video of clips of Obama saying: "John is right". Who were they targetting there? Obama debated perfectly: he appealed to moderates and to the many people who said that they weren't going to make their minds up until the debates.

My main impression of the first debate was of McCain repeatedly saying, "Senator Obama doesn't understand... " and Obama giving responses that showed he understood perfectly well; he just didn't agree with John McCain.

[davefoc]

Yes, it is hard to categorize. Nonetheless, with respect, I think that's a bit of a stretch of the word "charisma".

Showing character and making the right choices isn't "charisma", Obama didn't do it by being all sparkly while riding on his rainbow-colored unicorn.

Agreed, but my original description of the category encompassed a little more than just charisma.

3. Obama's thoughtful charismatic style more appealing than McCain's bluster. Also included here are McCain's various verbal gaffes.

But I agree the category might not have quite been large enough to include the issue of not running off like a chicken with your head cut off when a serious issue arises.

Regardless, there weren't many opportunities to show how either candidate might perform with a real world problem, but when the opportunity came up Obama looked better. George Will even wrote a column about it. It was one of several times that Will seem to come close to endorsing Obama.

I wondered why he didn't. Would his access have been reduced by backing a Democratic candidate? The Republicans weren't likely to have that much access to grant for awhile and he's been pretty independent anyway to be afraid of what the Republicans might do to him. Maybe he was truly undecided. I think I'll ask him the next time we go out for a beer.

Oh and thanks for the respect. It wasn't necessary but I appreciated it.

[Dr Adequate]

My main impression of the first debate was of McCain repeatedly saying, "Senator Obama doesn't understand... " McCain kept recycling his stump speech.

He kept saying: "Senator Obama doesn't understand ..." this, that, and the other, and also saying "I know how to ..." this, that, and the other, and it so made people clap at his rallies.

It didn't go down so well with undecideds.

[eeyore1954]

I can tell you why I voted for him: It'll be good to have someone in the White House who can speak.

~~ Paul
He certainly is an excellent speaker. Even when it is non rehearsed. My father says one reason he won was because he is an excellent orator.

[eeyore1954]

McCain may have indeed won..or at least come close to winning..if not for two simple words:

Sarah Palin.

maybe but bad mortgages were two words that were more instrumental. ALthough I believe if the economy had hung on for a few more months Obama would still have won because of Iraq although it would have been much closer.

[eeyore1954]

Yes, and they voted for McCain.
there are plenty of informed intelligent voters who wanted McCain and plenty of uninformed voters who wanted Obama.
And
there are plenty of informed intelligent voters who wanted Obama and plenty of uninformed voters who wanted McCain.

Neither party has the market cornered on informed voters or uninformed voters

[davefoc]

McCain kept recycling his stump speech.

He kept saying: "Senator Obama doesn't understand ..." this, that, and the other, and also saying "I know how to ..." this, that, and the other, and it so made people clap at his rallies.

It didn't go down so well with undecideds.

Exactly, instead of using his opportunity to speak to the American People as a chance to explain the reasons why he thought his ideas had merit he spent the time putting out the same old Republican sound bites. And the problem with that was that the Republicans had been in power for eight years and stuff had not gone well. Without some sort of explanation about what had gone wrong and how he was going to do something different he just wasn't going to get enough of the swing voters that he was already in trouble with to go along with him.

[Sabrina]

Regarding race; as I watched the election results last night on NBC, they actually did a breakdown in one state (I can't recall which though) as to who admitted they voted based on race. There was a vast majority (something like ninety to ninety-five percent) of blacks who voted for Obama because of his race, yes, but there were also at least thirty percent of whites who voted for Obama based on his race, leaving McCain with a much smaller percentage of voters who voted based on race.

[Grizzly Bear]

My main impression of the first debate was of McCain repeatedly saying, "Senator Obama doesn't understand... " and Obama giving responses that showed he understood perfectly well; he just didn't agree with John McCain.

For better or for worst it was several things:

personality: Obama's speeches were much better than McCain's when you look at their presentation. Obama's an excellent orator, McCain spent much of his campaign subdued, and particularly in the debates, he simply did not attack Obama as aggressively on the issues as he should have. McCain started to pick back up near the end, but at that point it was essentially too little too late.

Campaigns: Obama had much more organization, and a helluva allot more money to spend on his campaign activities than McCain did. I'm personally against the way Obama made his decisions for the funding, but that aside, he had the money and the resources, and the following behind him. McCain simply didn't

Outgoing president: I'm not ready to say Palin is the reason McCain lost, although some people did vote Obama because of that choice, I think if Bush's approval ratings hadn't been so low McCain might could have still pulled a win. But Bush's reputation pretty much screwed the party this election cycle and the democratic party was able to capitalize on that to gain more voters (this doesn't include all the new voters that sprang up under Obama's campaign).

And frankly the concerns over the economy overshadowed McCain's strongest points in foreign policy...

Probably much more that can be said, but those are my impressions... not much I can say without repeating, but as a McCain voter and knowing how the Bush term panned out the results aren't particularly surprising...

[President Bush]

This (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/855343/) is why.

[Elizabeth I]

A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.

Case in point: it's "A good number of Americans..." Items which can be counted (people, parakeets, buttons, Hershey kisses) form "a good number;" substances which cannot be counted (water, mustard, snow, mud) form "a good amount."

Palin did her best the appeal to them. In the end it wasn't enough.

:D

I can't tell you how many people who were wavering between the two candidates told me Palin was the thing that put them over the top for Obama.

[Meadmaker]

I don't know if there was "a" cause, but the day Hank Paulson went up to Capitol Hill and said, "Pardon, me, fellas, but I really need 700 billion dollars," I said, in reference to the McCain campaign, "Stick a fork in it. It's done."

[Slayhamlet]

I can't tell you how many people who were wavering between the two candidates told me Palin was the thing that put them over the top for Obama.

You can add one more to you list. Palin has been an absolute disaster for the McCain campaign. He didn't need to solidify his base, he needed to convince the moderates.

[Policenaut]

You can add one more to you list. Palin has been an absolute disaster for the McCain campaign. He didn't need to solidify his base, he needed to convince the moderates.

I think you underestimate how much a lot of republicans hated McCain. It's even more obvious now that McCain wasn't even invited to the CPAC but Palin was. And people seem to forget that McCain was ahead after his convention, fell off a bit afterward and went for the final nosedive after the economic armageddon and never came back up in the polls.

[Tricky]

It's the economy, stupid.

[davefoc]

Isn't CPAC where Ann Coulter made her homophobic comments about Kerry?

Nice group. And being invited to attend a convention where people think that insulting gays is funny is seen as a stepping stone to a national political career? Maybe one of the reasons that McCain had any chance at all is that he wouldn't be invited to a meeting with this bunch of bozos.

[Tricky]

Isn't CPAC where Ann Coulter made her homophobic comments about Kerry?
Kerry too? I remember Edwards (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html), but not Kerry.

[Policenaut]

Actually I thought CPAC was something else. Oh well. But still it shows that the true repubs didn't like him and were never fully invested in him.

[davefoc]

Kerry too? I remember Edwards (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html), but not Kerry.
Yeh, I probably just made a mistake. At the time I remember being amazed that big time politicians would have been willing to associate themselves with a slime ball like Coulter and this little incident would do her in. My understanding about what the Republican Party was really like was slow to develop and was hampered along the way by excessive naiveté on my part.

[Tricky]

Yeh, I probably just made a mistake. At the time I remember being amazed that big time politicians would have been willing to associate themselves with a slime ball like Coulter and this little incident would do her in. My understanding about what the Republican Party was really like was slow to develop and was hampered along the way by excessive naiveté on my part.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Coulter is such a slimeball that no Republican would dare quote her.

Out of sick, train-wreck curiosity, I just looked at her post-election column (I'd link it, but I'd be afraid of dissolving the forum in acidic slime). Of course, she's mad. But interstingly, much of her anger is directed at McCain for not being vicious enough. Palin, she absolutely loves. Her kinda woman.

[peptoabysmal]

McCain ran a truly abysmal campaign. Not that I mind that. The economy was the last straw. We are in deep doo-doo when the government can actuallly fix the economy. Here's to hoping... cheers! :D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I can explain the Obama victory in two words: Economic Crisis.

McCain was ahead of Obama when the market crashed and he simply never recovered. It was the best 3 trillion dollars of Obama campaign advertising that the American people paid for.

If Lehman Brothers were able to cook their books and hold on for just another six weeks, you'd all be checking into Bellvue with terminal cases of Palin Derangement Syndrome right now.

[SezMe]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.

2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.

3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama).

4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy.

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.
1, 2 and 5 are all statements that voters are ignorant. Arguably 3 could also be put in that category. So basically you believe that people who don't think like you do are ignorant. Got it. The only redeeming observation I can make is that you do not appear to have a corner on the arrogance market.

[SezMe]

This (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/855343/) is why.
Your posts are as inane as the statements of your namesake. Jan. 20, 2009 cannot come too soon for both of you.

[Ausmerican]

I can explain the Obama victory in two words: Economic Crisis.

McCain was ahead of Obama when the market crashed and he simply never recovered. It was the best 3 trillion dollars of Obama campaign advertising that the American people paid for.

If Lehman Brothers were able to cook their books and hold on for just another six weeks, you'd all be checking into Bellvue with terminal cases of Palin Derangement Syndrome right now.

Yeah right keep telling yourself that.

The week of September 8-14 McCain was ahead for the first time – but by only one point. Obama reclaimed a one-point lead the following week. Basically the race was tied going into the last six weeks of the campaign.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mccain_s_fortunes_fell_with_the_stock_market

Please explain how, if this financial collapse WASN'T the republicans fault, why it was only damaging to them. And if it was their fault, why would they deserve to win?

[Ausmerican]

there are plenty of informed intelligent voters who wanted McCain and plenty of uninformed voters who wanted Obama.
And
there are plenty of informed intelligent voters who wanted Obama and plenty of uninformed voters who wanted McCain.

Neither party has the market cornered on informed voters or uninformed voters

Yes this is totally true. However it is interesting that you didn't choose to post it in response to the original poster that made such a ridiculous blanket accusation. Instead you posted it in response to a semi humorous rebuttal of same.

[DevilsAdvocate]

There are many factors for Obama's win or McCain's loss, but I think if you put it in a nutshell you get: Hope vs. Fear

I think Fear is more powerful than Hope. Bush, most Republicans, and even many Democrats, for decades have won elections based on Fear. Fear works. However, Fear generally benefits those that caused the Fear, and not those that became fearfull. Fear divides.

Obama gave a new message: Hope. Hope is a hard sell. Fear is now. Hope is the future. You can promise the Now, but you can't promise the Future. So, Hope is not as strong as Fear.

Many people became sick of Fear, because it has not worked. So there must be a Unity of Change for Hope. Obama nailed all those key words. He can support those words with his experience and proven commitment. And he can convey that message with his charisma and spirit of community service.

[volatile]

Out of sick, train-wreck curiosity, I just looked at her post-election column (I'd link it, but I'd be afraid of dissolving the forum in acidic slime). Of course, she's mad. But interstingly, much of her anger is directed at McCain for not being vicious enough. Palin, she absolutely loves. Her kinda woman.

Whoa.... I just read it.

Who pays that woman to write? She can barely string a thought together, let alone a sentence, with all that froth foaming at the corner of her mouth. She's absolutely, certifiably insane.

[President Bush]

Your posts are as inane as the statements of your namesake. Jan. 20, 2009 cannot come too soon for both of you.


The only redeeming observation I can make is that you do not appear to have a corner on the arrogance market.

[JWideman]

Because, while racism in the US is still alive and well, we as a nation have learned to judge a person by his character rather than the color of his skin.

[Marquis de Carabas]

My friend's eight year old son offered these three reasons for selecting Obama in his class mock election:

1. Some people are creepy when they smile. Obama isn't.
2. I don't like old people. He's not that old.
3. Sometimes, I just choose randomly.

[Wolfman]

McCain kept recycling his stump speech.

He kept saying: "Senator Obama doesn't understand ..." this, that, and the other, and also saying "I know how to ..." this, that, and the other, and it so made people clap at his rallies.

It didn't go down so well with undecideds.
...well, that was bleedin' obvious...

[Jorghnassen]

Cause or effect?

/skeptical rebuttal

It's a feedback loop!

/loopy counter-argument

[Unabogie]

Haven't posted here for a while, but as a strong Obama supporter, I think I can articulate a few things that I think contributed.



William Ayers. The reason that this, and all of the other smears, failed this election is because the Republicans made a tactical choice to avoid talking issues and philosophy. Instead of arguing WHY market based health care is better than government subsidized health care, they argued that Obama was a scary Black Muslim Terrorist. They decided to make this an election about how bad Obama is as a person. They utterly failed to argue the virtues of conservatism. While this energized the base, it worked on the soft middle only up until...
The debates. Once the American people saw the crazy scary guy up close, and it didn't match the fear mongering smears, the Republicans appeared to be liars (I would assert that they attempted to conduct an entire campaign based on falsehoods), but for my point to stick, all that needs to be proven is they were perceived that way.
"Barack Obama". That's what Republicans said to me when I knocked on their doors and asked them why they supported the Democrat for the first time in their lives. They simply recognized an extraordinary candidate when they saw him and resolved to vote for him.

[Crowlogic]

Obama won because "we the people" were astute enough to realize that the house is on fire and the Repuiblicans were offering us another 4 years of dousing the flames in gasoline.

[Darth Rotor]

I'd add an item 1a. McCain's response to the crisis was clueless. He announced how sound the economy was, before deciding it was "cratering", whereupon he "raced back to Washington" by hanging around doing TV interviews about how important he was racing back to Washington, in which he thrust himself into the limelight by claiming to put country before politics, he bounced Obama by claiming it before he did, he suspended his campaign by continuing it, and he wasn't going to debate ... until he blinked. The effect he gave (to me at any rate) was of a man playing politics with a crisis and doing it very badly.
This goes hand in glove with his self assessment earlier in the year that he wasn't all that strong on economics.
Now up to that point I had strongly believed that McCain, if put to the test, would turn out to be a good President; and also that the argument from experience was salient (though not enough to sway me personally).
And he might have, but it is well to recall that winning an election is not the same as doing the job well. McCain's problem is that he had to do one before the other, and he simply could not. As I have noted previously: he could not beat W in 2000 to get the nom.

As to your mild case of Obama woo: he has demonstrated little to nothing presidential, so far, and that's fine since he doesn't have to until he takes the job. As I've said elsewhere, I sincerely hope he's a fast learner, as the job he is facing is a real bastard. Given how well he adapted to the environment and beat Hillary, I think betting the over on him being a quick study is a well placed bet.

DR

[Tricky]

As to your mild case of Obama woo: he has demonstrated little to nothing presidential, so far, and that's fine since he doesn't have to until he takes the job.

You think not? What about this (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html).?

Sen. Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday discussed a "general time horizon" for any American troop withdrawals from Iraq, al-Maliki's office said.

Or his European trip? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/will-obamas-trip-have-an_b_115436.html)
If, however a major foreign trip by Obama which included visits to Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel, a major speech to a huge audience in Berlin and meetings with numerous heads of state, does not help Obama increase his lead, it is not clear what will.

Or his breifing with General Petraeus? (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html)


Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.

While it is difficult to "be presidential" when you are not President, I think there have been plenty of instances where President-elect Obama has displayed that he has the skills, the temperment, and the knowledge to be a good president. At this point, I don't think it would be fair to ask for more.

[GreyICE]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.

2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.

3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama).

4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy.

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.
I hope you're not an American, because I found a candidate.

[Dr Adequate]

As to your mild case of Obama woo ... Be more specific.

... he has demonstrated little to nothing presidential, so far ... I never said he did, possibly you're confusing me with Pookster, who said that Obama looked Presidential.

Well, he did. The polls suggest that his manner provided reassurance to undecideds who were equally prepared to fear him as a flakey unknown quantity if he'd come across like that.

As I've said elsewhere, I sincerely hope ... Welcome to Obama's brainwashed hordes!

Given how well he adapted to the environment and beat Hillary, I think betting the over on him being a quick study is a well placed bet. Yes, so far the signs are good. Let's see.

[gdnp]

I would guess that the single greatest factor was the Ronald Reagan question "Are you better off now than you were 4 (well, 8) years ago? "

Obama rode a Democratic tide in a time of economic crisis, job losses, rising unemployment, falling housing prices (most American's major source of wealth), and massive deficits. It would have been hard for any Democrat to lose in this situation. This was a year for change, and Obama as the Democrat made a better case than McCain running as the maverick Republican.

Other factors:
1) The war dropped off the headlines and thus became a relative non-issue
2) Race played both ways. Although many like me were proud to vote for a black candidate, I doubt it was the deciding factor for most whites, and most blacks would have voted Democratic regardless. Black turnout may have been higher, but this did not account for a 6-7 point victory. Hispanics went more heavily Democratic than usual. Race or economics? Not sure. I think it really helped that Obama did not run as a black candidate as Sharpton and Jackson did. He geared his message towards the middle class, knowing that the poor were already in the bag.
3) Obama is smart, informed, and at times eloquent (especially when presenting prepared remarks). He looked more presidential in the debates. He allayed the fears that he was some sort of scary radical.
4) Obama developed a campaign organization unparalleled in history. Without taking PAC money he raised unprecedented amounts of money, allowing him to blanket the airwaves and set up many more campaign offices than McCain. He can now govern without being beholden to special interests. He doesn't need trial lawyers, drug companies, teachers, or any other pressure group to run for reelection 4 years from now.
5) Sarah Palin. I know several people who were on the fence until the Palin pick, then said "no way".

[Philip]

Many of the right-wing talkers are saying Obama won because the Republican Party didn't nominate a true conservative and thus too much of the conservative base didn't vote.

If this becomes the popular meme among Republicans and they nominate someone farther to the right in 2012, I think they'll be trounced even worse.


I think it hurt McCain that he was constrained by having committed to public financing of his campaign, but the most significant reason for his loss is that the Republicans were blamed entirely for the financial meltdown even though both parties contributed to it.

[Undesired Walrus]

I can explain the Obama victory in two words: Economic Crisis.

McCain was ahead of Obama when the market crashed and he simply never recovered.

Hmm.. I don't think so. I seem to remember Obama was up by 5 when the crisis came round.

[gdnp]

Hmm.. I don't think so. I seem to remember Obama was up by 5 when the crisis came round.

It all depends on when you date the financial crisis. The burst of the housing bubble, Bear Stearns takeover, Leahman failure, or stock market crash/bailout/rescue plan?

I think it comes down to the general feeling that the country is on the wrong track. That makes it virtually impossible for an incumbent to win. It's not so much Obama had coattails as he was swept in in the Democratic tide.

[leftysergeant]

Losing the media and entertainers really put a hurt on McCain. How many of the major stars had to tell McCain and Palin to stop using their music, because they thought that it was an abuse of their material? Just tonight, I heard the woman who wrote "Independence Day," the Martina McBride hit, talking about how offended she was when Palin used it after the debate.

A good candidate, an inspiring candidate, will get the artistic community behind them right away. This time, they all seem to have gravitated to Obama. Even some very unlikely ones. Never underestimate the power of music in a campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLvgwHGlpdQ

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.

2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.

3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama).

4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy.

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.
As further proof of what you said being true, this is what I saw being sold in a black neighborhood here in houston:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2186349195940678c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14271)

[Tricky]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved.
Why then haven't we had a stream of black presidents? Why has there never been a black nominee... even for vice president before now?

2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.
Oh horrors! Kids who get their info from the news! Why can't it be like the good old days when all kids read The National Review?

3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama).
Liberal media pushed Obama. Conservative media pushed McCain. That's how it works. There were a few crossovers this year though. My home newspaper, which hasn't endorsed a Democrat since Johnson, this year endorsed Obama. It's no liberal conspiracy. Die-hard conservatives were actually convinced Obama was the better candidate.

4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy.
He was able to defuse potentially derailing situations. The talk he gave after the Reverend Wright brouhaha hit the fan was masterful. He turned it into a minor issue.

5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant.
Just a hint for you. When you accuse anyone of being ignorant, it is best to do so in grammatical sentences.As further proof of what you said being true, this is what I saw being sold in a black neighborhood here in houston:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2186349195940678c2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14271)
That black people are proud of Obama is proof of what Quad said? You have very low standards of proof.

[pgwenthold]

That black people are proud of Obama is proof of what Quad said? You have very low standards of proof.

I thought the poster looked really nice. Obama is certainly an impressive figure.

I don't think you could pull something like that off with either of the Bush's. Maybe not even with Clinton. Reagan maybe.

[pgwenthold]

OK, so my folks were visiting this weekend and Dad was watching Fox News. I was in the other room and overheard some crying on there about how biased the news was in favor of Obama. The topic was that the Wash Post (I think) did an analysis and reported that they had 60some negative stories about McCain, but only 38 for Obama. Oh the outrage! was the claim. See, the media even ADMITS they are biased.

I was thinking, how does that say anything about biased media? "Objective media" does NOT require that you have the same number of "negative stories" about everyone. For example, I'm pretty sure when Fox News covered Saddam Hussein, they had a lot more negative stories than they did for, say, George Bush. Does that mean Fox News is not objective? No, that doesn't mean that (doesn't mean they are objective, either :)).

If there were more negative things to say about McCain, then objectively there should be more negative stories. I'm not saying there were more negative things to say, but just to point out that it needs to determined before you can conclude that more negative stories shows bias.

[uk_dave]

Although polls going into the final weeks of October showed Sen. Obama in the lead, it remained unclear whether the failing economy, dilapidated housing market, crumbling national infrastructure, health care crisis, energy crisis, and five-year-long disastrous war in Iraq had made the nation crappy enough to rise above 300 years of racial prejudice and make lasting change.

"Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have said, 'Things are finally as terrible as we're willing to tolerate," said Obama, addressing a crowd of unemployed, uninsured, and debt-ridden supporters. "To elect a black man, in this country, and at this time—these last eight years must have really broken you."

Added Obama, "It's a great day for our nation."

http://tinyurl.com/6jfhmk

:D

(It's a 'tinyurl' because the site (The Onion) has a naughty word in it's URL and I don't want to tweek anyones suspenders....so to speak.)

[Tricky]

OK, so my folks were visiting this weekend and Dad was watching Fox News. I was in the other room and overheard some crying on there about how biased the news was in favor of Obama. The topic was that the Wash Post (I think) did an analysis and reported that they had 60some negative stories about McCain, but only 38 for Obama. Oh the outrage! was the claim. See, the media even ADMITS they are biased.

I was thinking, how does that say anything about biased media? "Objective media" does NOT require that you have the same number of "negative stories" about everyone. For example, I'm pretty sure when Fox News covered Saddam Hussein, they had a lot more negative stories than they did for, say, George Bush. Does that mean Fox News is not objective? No, that doesn't mean that (doesn't mean they are objective, either :)).

If there were more negative things to say about McCain, then objectively there should be more negative stories. I'm not saying there were more negative things to say, but just to point out that it needs to determined before you can conclude that more negative stories shows bias.
Correct. News is news. Can you see the editor saying, "Sorry, you can't run that story about Palin being charged with ethics violations. We've already reached our quota of negative articles about her."

Or worse: "We don't have enough Obama negative stories. Go dig up Bill Ayers again."

[gdnp]

http://tinyurl.com/6jfhmk

:D

(It's a 'tinyurl' because the site (The Onion) has a naughty word in it's URL and I don't want to tweek anyones suspenders....so to speak.)

Just to make it perfectly clear to those (like me) who were confused until I checked the link, the comments you quoted are satire. Obama never said them.

[gdnp]

Correct. News is news. Can you see the editor saying, "Sorry, you can't run that story about Palin being charged with ethics violations. We've already reached our quota of negative articles about her."

Or worse: "We don't have enough Obama negative stories. Go dig up Bill Ayers again."

Especially when one considers what a "negative story" is. If you do a poll after a debate and 60% think Obama won and 40% think McCain won, and you report that result with no spin at all, that counts as a positive story for Obama and a negative story for McCain. If Obama outraises McCain by 50 million dollars in a month, that is a story that is positive for Obama and negative for McCain.

[Ryan O'Dine]

It’s also possible that many undecideds simply weren’t paying attention to the race until near the end, which happened to coincide with the financial crash. This would make the crash look at least a little more of a factor than it necessarily was. That is, I wouldn’t write off all the other factors (Palin, the war, etc.) as readily as some in this thread seem to have done.

Not that I have any data. Just running it up the flagpole.

[aerosolben]

2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news.
Daily Show viewers are a demographic well-informed on the issues. It would be a mistake to think these young voters are any dumber than the rest of the population.

I can explain the Obama victory in two words: Economic Crisis.

McCain was ahead of Obama when the market crashed and he simply never recovered. It was the best 3 trillion dollars of Obama campaign advertising that the American people paid for.

If Lehman Brothers were able to cook their books and hold on for just another six weeks, you'd all be checking into Bellvue with terminal cases of Palin Derangement Syndrome right now.
Hardly. Obama had been consistently leading by about 3 points throughout the summer. He bumped up slightly during his convention, and McCain bumped it backed to about even with his. Had the crisis not intervened and changed the nature of the game, Obama would probably have gone right back to his 3 point lead (instead of 6-7 points), which would be very consistent with historical elections.

And before you criticize the polling, recognize that it pretty much nailed this election (with exception of Indiana).

Please explain how, if this financial collapse WASN'T the republicans fault, why it was only damaging to them.
Because they hold the Presidency. I'm not saying they don't bear responsibility, but that's who the hammer falls on regardless of the reality.

[Sefarst]

I don't think it's any big mistery why Obama won. Unpopular president, unpopular war, and a tanking economy. It's a classic recipe for kicking the incumbant party out of power. The Presidency was being handed to the Democrats on a silver platter and I think their biggest strategy was just to not screw it up. But everybody saw the tide was turning against the Republicans since 2006 and it was long anticipated that this would be the Democratic year. The only real question that was up in the air was by how much the Democrats would win.

[Elizabeth I]

Daily Show viewers are a demographic well-informed on the issues. It would be a mistake to think these young voters are any dumber than the rest of the population.

I heard a "traditional" news reporter quote a young "Daily Show" fan to the effect that the "Daily Show" isn't funny unless you follow and understand the news.

[GreyICE]

Here is what I think are the primary reasons Obama won (unresearched):

1. He is black. Most black people voted for him simply because of the color of his skin. Many did not even know the issues involved. Oh please. Keep telling yourself that people don't understand Obama's plans, that America is a conservative nation.
2. It was "cool" or "hip" among young people to vote for him (And the older crowd for that matter). Again, many young people had no idea of the issues. They go off of what they see on the Daily Show and in the news. Shall we discuss Republicans who don't know what they're punching? How many people pull the lever on one issue - abortion? The Republican party has milked that one for decades, keeping their nice core of ignorant people who have no idea what they're doing, except pulling a lever for one issue that NEITHER party has the intention of more than cosmetically touching.
3. Liberal media pushed Obama much more than McCain. (For young people especially, MTV and BET only advertised for Obama). Given John McCain was on MTV, I think we need to talk about ignorance here.

Ignorance is: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

Yeah.

4. Obama actually did have a very effective campaign strategy. Running on the issues, and winning on them. Yes. McCain's strategy was to run away from them top speed. 5. A good amount of Americans are very ignorant. And most of them were won over by Palin's smile and winks.

[Paulhoff]

I voted for Barack Obama in the Florida Primaries when my son and wife voted for Hillary Clinton. We all voted for Obama in the main election. Now for the first time in years, since John Kennedy, I watch the news to see what is going on with the political scene and haven’t felt the need to throw up. I haven't felt this happy about an outcome of a presidential election in decades.

As for one reason Barack Obama won, he looks and acts the part of being the Presidential, McCain on the other hand looked has to be on the edge of losing it many times. Other reason Obama won, was his first important decision after being selected to run was his running mate. On the other hand McCain could have picked a good running mate from many good women, so what does he pick, a Gold-Digger.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Ausmerican]

Because they hold the Presidency. I'm not saying they don't bear responsibility, but that's who the hammer falls on regardless of the reality.

This is certainly in part true. However I am an Obama supporter and I certainly do not blame one single party for the financial crisis. To do so would be silly.

To me, and I would assume those like me, the way the financial crisis mattered to the election was in how the two candidates reacted to it. McCain muffed it badly.

To listen to the spin now going on on many conservative sites and by many commentators however McCain was whuppin butt in this campaign until this nasty financial crisis came along and messed him up. I understand why conservative pundits might like it to be remembered that way. I do not understand how coherent humans that were not in comas at that time remember it that way this soon after.

[pgwenthold]

I still say it wasn't the economic crisis that did in McCain, it was his CLUELESSNESS about the economic crisis that was the problem.

When you come out a day before the economy collapses and proclaim that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, you really lose all credibility when it comes to talking about fixing the economy. In fact, you have to avoid discussing the economy at all costs, because your opponent will just bring up the fact that you have no cred. So you can't really address this serious problem.

I think the amazing thing in this campaign was how Obama really restrained himself. Other than releasing that internet video, did they ever even bring up Keating 5?

[King of the Americas]

Obama is a liberal who ran as a centerist, and McCain is a centrist who abandoned the center and ran to the right.

Winning national elections is about capturing the center.

That AND the economy is in the pooper, McCain openly admitted knowing very little about economics, and it is time for the Republicans to swing out of power.

[Rorgg]

As for the polls and McCain lead at the start of the financial meltdown -- yes, he did have a lead, but it was the remaining part of a very typical convention bounce, slightly dampened by the Dem convention that immediately had preceded it. Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com had a good model of the historical trends of post-convention poll bounces, and it was pretty simple to combine the DNC and RNC bounce trends, with a diminished factor for the DNC being eclipsed, and the polling was following a very predictable cycle... after the Biden VP pick, there was some backlash for Obama, and his lead had dropped to about 1.5 points. The DNC raised him to around 9, and then the RNC put them slightly ahead.

It wasn't until the financial meltdown (notably, McCain's weird reaction to it) and the first debate immediately thereafter that there was notable movement off that predicted curve. There's no real reason to think McCain had anything but an ephemeral and temporary slight lead at the time.