The Final Word on the Election of Barack Obama

“It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America”. Chicago’s Grant Park erupted in applause and a striking image was beamed around the world; a singular tear rolling down the face of American civil rights activist Jesse Jackson. A black, one-term Senator from Illinois had become the leader of the free world- President Elect Obama. This was, without a doubt, a historic moment in American history. To many Americans this was the moment when America’s original sin of slavery had been erased, whilst to others it was a seat change election along the lines of 1968- this time with a shift to the left. What is clear is that Obama won the 2008 Presidential election down to five major factors: the countries ailing economy, his character, an emerging Democrat demographic majority, McCain’s disastrous choice for Vice President and the problem the McCain/Palin ticket faced with being the perceived incumbents. This election was without a doubt is the most consistently astonishing and historic elections in history; from Hillary Clinton’s tears to the Obama’s “terrorist” fist bump, from McCain’s suspension of the campaign to Joe the Plumber, this election defined America in 2008- and produced a result that will fundamentally change how the world views the United States.

Bill Clinton’s immortal lines- “It’s the economy- stupid!” won him the election in 1992, and this same issue once again helped the Democrat ticket to victory in 2008. Without a doubt it was a deciding factor for many Americans going to the polls on November 4th, with one exit poll claiming that 62% of the electorate felt it was the most important issue. This is was a factor outside of McCain’s control- as a candidate he admitted to the electorate in 2007 that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should” and then in September uttered the words that wounded his bid irrevocably; “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”. The collapse of Lehman Brothers and the accompanying collapse in U.S stocks and shares was an issue that would always lean in Obama’s favour, just as a National security scare would lean in McCains. However, Obama’s success lay in the fact that he had a coherent policy on the subject. He re-iterated the point that he wanted to end the norm of “trickle down” economics, which had been the political consensus since the Reagan years. More importantly, Obama focused on the idea of tax cuts for the Middle Class. This message was re-iterated at every point along the campaign trail. This was an issue which Obama, like Clinton with welfare in 1992 and George W Bush with education in 2000, managed to “blur the lines” of what is another party’s territory. One shouldn’t underestimate this move; taxes have been a GOP issue since time immemorial. Meanwhile, McCain instead focused on the banking bail-out culminating in the suspension of his campaign. This was a gamble for McCain, and it didn’t pull off. What was more damning for McCain though was that the extent of the bail out (0 Billion) did not prove popular with Americans. For a vast number of traditional Republicans, the only news they receive are from the Talking points on Fox News, who strongly disapproved of the bail out. Primarily, this was down to ignorance- but Obama made a politically astute move by distancing himself from the bail out. What was more important, however, was that the bailout was seen by many members of the American people to be organised and driven by the incumbent- the deeply unpopular President Bush. McCain’s attempts to identify himself as the leader of the financial bail out simply made the electorate identify him more with Bush- a fatal wound to the candidate which was shown in the opinion polls. From the collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 13th McCain never reclaimed his lead. This was down to the economic situation, although the bounce he received post-convention was always going to corrode pretty swiftly. The McCain campaign then moved to attack mode on the economy- to try and define Obama as “too risky” to manage the economic condition. This was done by painting Obama as a “socialist”: a particular popular move for the GOP during the 1950s and 1960s. However, McCain’s line of attack was not Obama as a Soviet socialist, but rather as a European Socialist. Like Sarah Palin, this moved failed to move anyone outside the base. The McCain campaign worked hard for “Joe the Plumber” to become the figurehead of how Obama would affect working families, but a truth lay in this simple discerning fact: Joe wasn’t a very sympathetic figure. It is ironic really that McCain “the maverick” became the candidate who simply appealed to the rock steady core of the Republican Party. This resulted in the people who were worried about the economy voting for Obama with a 60% majority.

The McCain campaign team originally felt that they could run and win on the subject of character. McCain was the maverick: the man that stood against his party and his president. Obama, on the other hand, was the risk. Public perception ranged from him being the second coming- the man who would cleanse America from the racism of the past, whilst the other extreme painted him as a both a radical, a terrorist and a Muslim. What occurred as the 2008 campaign progressed, however, was the opposite thing. There appeared to be a massive style difference between McCain and Obama- Obama was the calm, collected candidate whilst McCain slowly became the erratic, risky candidate. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the idea of Obama as “risky” shut down, and the candidates’ personalities switched sides. Obama’s cautious behaviour and his promise to restore normality to America made him into a Conservative candidate- whilst McCain’s gambles on both his VP pick and later with the bailout just proved disastrous (a telling sign is that not a single Arizonan Congressmen voted for the bailout). McCain became the risk, and this crippled his chances of winning the White House.

Race was obviously a major factor in this race, the fact Obama was the first major African American candidate for the Presidency makes it elementary so. Racism was also still prevalent- former Confederate states like Kentucky and Tennessee which went for Clinton in 1992, failed to turn blue in 2008- despite the economy particularly affecting these areas. However, states like Ohio and Pennsylvania which went so strongly for Hillary during the Democratic Primaries, did seem to go for Barack Obama when it came down to Election Night. Why was this? To put it simply, racism appears to be a luxury you can only afford in times of economic prosperity. Where racism did seem to be noticeable, in solid Republican states of the Confederate south, these states went for McCain the same margin they went for Bush in 2004. What more of an effect in the 2008 election was a “reverse Bradley Effect”, as people normally disenfranchised from the political process, such as young voters and of course African Americans themselves, voted for Obama for the first time in record numbers. This reverse effect dented any Bradley effect, and made race a non issue in this campaign- bar the historical nature of Obama’s victory.

Sarah Palin was asked to be two things for her ticket: to energise the base and to Hillary Clinton supporters. She failed to do the former, but did prove successful in energising the base. One shouldn’t forget the electoral playing field pre-convention. There was little palpable enthusiasm for McCain: 42% of registered Republicans said they were enthusiastic for John McCain, which rose to 60% after the Palin pick. It was a necessity for the GOP to mobilise the base. George Bush managed to do this in 2000 and 2004 and it was a key to his success in Ohio. None of the other potential Vice Presidential picks would have managed to mobilise the base: Mitt Romney’s mormon faith did prove an issue for many evangelicals. Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, could have proved a more successful choice for McCain. Lieberman would have appealed to a number of independents, and once more could have secured the Jewish vote which went Obama in a landslide of 78%. Palin could have been a success, and if you look at the choice in September it was logical. She was seen by many members of the McCain campaign team as someone who would attract alienated Hillary supporters. However, she failed to deliver- exit polls show that an overwhelming 83% of Hillary supporters voted for Obama. Pennsylvania, a state which Hillary won in a landslide went for Obama with a 11% majority. Palin’s choice was a transparent one: it was to appeal to Clintonites. Paradoxically, Palin shared little (or virtually no) policy with Clinton; she was a traditional pro-life, small government Republican. What she could fundamentally do was ignite the Culture war which had proved so successful to the Republican party since the days of Bush senior. It destroyed Dukakis in 1988, and proved just as fatal to John Kerry in 2004 with his painting as a member of the ‘liberal, Massachusetts flip flopping elite’. Obama was a Northern Senator, and it is indisputable that he did have a liberal voting record whilst in the Illinois Senate between 1997 and 2004. Palin, as a member of the Republican base, would prove important to ignite such a “culture war” against Obama. However, it seems in a time of economic recession and decline the Culture War became a side issue. Barack Obama’s strength was that his message of hope and change transcended this. Without a culture war or an appeal to Hillary Clinton’s alienated voters, Palin’s only function was to appeal to the base. This didn’t kill the McCain campaign, but was of no object use to him. What came later; the disastrous interview with Katie Couric, her abject lack of interest in foreign affairs slowly weakened the idea of him being a credible choice for the White House. Like the Watergates tapes talked of a cancer on the presidency, Palin was the cancer on the McCain campaign. Weakening him severely, ye not fatally. The failure of the campaign doesn’t rest in Palin’s hands alone; in fact the mobilisation of the base could be seen as a relative success for McCain. She turned out the core voters in states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina which could have ended up in Obama’s column given a combination of high African American turnout and a lack of traditional GOP voters.

Another reason for Obama’s success was that David Plouffe ran one the most successful political campaigns in history. Not only was it the first Presidential campaign to really harness the power of the internet- from Viral videos to its MyBO.com application, but it managed to franchise thousands of young people and make them excited for the first time about the future of there country. The election managed to harness a massive “Get out the Vote” strategy which resulted in 11,000,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans. Perhaps more fundamentally, however, Obama managed to raise 0 million dollars from over 3 million internet donors. This has changed the way politics is run in the U.S. and made a grassroots Presidential campaign the blueprint for any future election. McCain’s campaign, on the other hand, remained rather stagnant. They relied heavily on PAC and party donations with McCain receiving 8,200 from the chief executive officers of the 100 biggest Fortune 500 corporations. It was also a much less disciplined campaign (especially towards the end) with rumours of tension between the McCain and Palin camp rife. This strengthened the case that Obama was the only credible choice for America

Finally, it can be argued that Barack Obama achieved what up until a year ago was thought to be impossible, due to a simple case of demographics- the “emerging Democrat majority” or, perhaps more entertainingly, “McGovern’s Revenge”. This is prevalent particularly in areas like Northern Virginia and suburban Colorado, with the emergence of an increasingly educated middle class. They remain liberal on social issues and fundamentally democrat. Add to that the fact that the U.S. is swiftly becoming a majority minority country, and the Democrats have a clear track to victory without the support of the white, working class. The coalition which McGovern lost so resoundingly to in 1972- white, educated middle class-youth vote-minorities became a path to victory in 2008. What becomes clear then is that for the Republicans to survive at National level they will have to appeal outside the base, the socially conservative Latino vote being a strong demographic to target- as Karl Rove realised in 2000 and 2004.
The 2008 Election was without a doubt an important election. Not only was it the longest in history (hitting the 24 months mark), but it brought to the Oval Office a Democrat with a majority of the popular vote not seen since 1964. Many pundits claimed that this election wasn’t only historic; it was a tectonic shift in the American political map along the line of 1932 and 1968. It proved was to be a complete breakdown of the Conservative coalition which had been so important to the GOP’s electoral success. What this election was at heart was not the market correction of 1992, or a so called “re-alignment” election- it was a seismic shift in public perception. Primarily, it was a rejection of both free market fundamentalism and anti-intellectual cultural populism personified in the candidacy of Sarah Palin. McCain failed to connect to the electorate on the big issue of the day- the Economy, and his campaign and character suffered as he made gamble after gamble. The Obama campaign proved highly successful in it’s smearing of McCain as a third term of an exceptionally unpopular President. What was more vital to Obama’s success, however, was his message of change. As Victor Hugo said “Greater than a tread of armies is the idea whose hour has come”. The American people wanted normality restored to the White House: and Obama was able to deliver that with a sense of hope and optimism not seen since Reagan. Now comes the real challenge. He needs now to deliver.