Why Obama won

[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.

1. 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...
2. 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.
3. "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.?

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?

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?

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:

 

[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:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2186349195940678c2.jpg[/URL]

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



(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."