Tweet
To make it clear, this is entirely copy and pasted from another forum I go to occasionally. I would've written it up here first, but there were no new threads to click to get me to Off Topics, so meh on you guys.
I've heard this mentioned some, and I kinda wanna nip it in the bud, although it's probably too late for that considering that seems to be the official RNC position on it.
There's this myth going around that McCain was doing well in the polls on mid-September, and then the economic crisis happened and the country turned against the incumbent party. While this is ostensibly true, it is incredibly misleading.
This election has pretty much always had Obama leading the polls. When McCain was up, it was right after the GOP convention, which naturally leads to improved opinion and polling for some time. See:
The bottom line is a rough prediction of what overlapping convention bounces look like, and the top line is the actual result. Even though they're in different scales, you can see very clearly that the prediction was very accurate. This is from fivethirtyeight.com, and I strongly recommend reading more here: FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: What a Convention Bounce Looks Like
Basically, even when McCain was up in the polls, the numbers were certain to swing back to Obama quickly enough, with or without a crisis.
Now, of course the economic crisis was a factor in Obama's win. But there were many other factors, possibly even more influential. Demographic shifts have largely benefited the Democratic party, such as the relatively huge amount of new black voters. George W. Bush was probably a larger factor as the "McCain is a third term of Bush" meme sunk in, rightly or wrongly, that turned voters away from the GOP in flocks. This was partly because of the economy, but a lot of it was also people not liking more social issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
McCain's campaign was also, simply put, horribly run. Constant 'hail mary's, seeming unsure of what to do, and giving the appearance that they were just trying random shit and hoping something stuck (both in their actions and their words) were possibly their largest damage. McCain undermined the 'experience' argument by bringing Palin to the ticket (which, by the way, also probably drove more people away than it brought in), and had little left to flail but claims so unbelievable ('Socialist', 'Terrorist', 'Comprehensive Sex Education for Kindergarteners', the claim of not caring about the troops, and so on) that many people found it more laughable than scary.
Obama's campaign was alternatively extremely well run. The 50-state strategy worked beautifully in forcing McCain to spread himself far too thin. The huge grassroots component was a major factor in not only getting people enthusiastic for Obama, but also in increasing turnout and registration by huge amounts. The volunteers were, generally speaking, far more enthusiastic and hardworking than the volunteers on the McCain campaign; although I by no means would suggest that there are not hard working volunteers for McCain, there were far fewer of them, and frankly I think a lot of that is because McCain was not nearly as much of an inspiring candidate.
Inspiration and motivation was a factor that is hard to talk about without comparing the two campaigns. There was a lot of "You need to go out and vote, and get other people to vote, and vote democrat!" coming from the Obama campaign, whereas the McCain campaign seemed to have this sort of lasseiz-faire "We will win this!", 'let god take care of it', so-sure-you-think-they-might-be-cheating attitude. While Obama was sitting on leads so large that some publications had called the election a week or two ahead of time, and basically everyone was trying to figure out how McCain could possibly win, he was saying things along the lines of "We can't be complacent", and urging people to get to the polls, and make sure that the election goes properly and such. McCain, when he was down so far that he himself was saying that the media had given up on him winning, and saying that Obama was 'measuring for drapes', actually said "We've got them right where we want them!"
Basically, what I'm saying is, this was far more of a 'perfect storm' for Obama than it was some one thing that either candidate did very well or very poorly, or some occurance with awful timing. Calling this election a result of the economic turmoil is sort of like calling the Civil War a result of a disagreement over slavery. That was part of it, certainly, but there were many other factors involved. I'm just hoping that people realize this before it goes down in history books with such a dumbed down and overly simplified explanation that it's insulting to many people, reality itself, and doesn't truly explain what an incredible election it has been.
-----------------------------------
BONUS POST: In reply to someone who posted this link Newsvine - Which contributed most to Barack Obama's victory?
Asking people what contributed most is not the same as asking them about THEIR vote.
For example, most people might think that the majority of people drink coffee for the caffeine. At the same time, a majority of people might PERSONALLY drink coffee because they enjoy the taste.
All that poll really teaches us is why people THINK other people voted for him. This leads us a sort of Abilene paradox; see Abilene paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Except instead of doing something nobody really wants to do, it's thinking something nobody really thinks. That poll is also completely unscientific, as the population is self-chosen; not to mention the fact that it only has very narrow options. For example, if you like Obama's plan for healthcare reform, 'His Message of Change' would really be the only option there, even though that's incredibly misleading.
His message was another part of his success, of course, I forgot to offset the mention of how McCain's campaign was firing blindly looking for a message with comments on how Obama's campaign has been pretty much on message the entire time. There are basically three parts to that message (to be clear, I'm just stating the message, not a support or lack thereof of it): A- "Hope". "Yes We Can". The idea that with hard work and sacrifice, you can do anything, and that's American. B1- The Bush administration has done horrible damage to America and her people, both through neglect (healthcare) and through bad decisions (War in Iraq). B2- Many people in America have fallen on very hard times, and most are in a worse position than they were eight years ago, and we need to change that. C- McCain willingly associated and helped Bush, using his own words, "Over %90 of the time", and would be a continuation of Bush's policies and decision making.
I'll agree that there's actually not that much substance in there, but the important thing was that they stuck to it and stayed calm even when it seemed like they might be falling behind, or running into trouble; or when McCain gave them a giant hole to attack him on (this happened once in a debate, McCain put up a comment which Obama almost certainly could've had a perfect retort for, considering most of the audience did, and Obama realized it was probably a trap and ignored it). McCain's campaign never once found a consistent message. They'd say "Country First", and then they'd do something which would endanger the country if he were elected which was little more than a ploy to try to gain votes (Palin, also somewhat condescending to female voters). They'd say that Obama had 'radical ties' and that he was 'Too Risky' for America, and then McCain would go on stage, in front of cameras, and talk about how Obama wasn't a bad guy, and his supporters shouldn't be afraid of him becoming president. They'd call Obama a socialist, saying he wanted to redestribute the wealth, and then he'd support a $700 billion injection of funds for the financial industry. They never found something that would stick with voters, let alone not being hypocritical.
I've heard this mentioned some, and I kinda wanna nip it in the bud, although it's probably too late for that considering that seems to be the official RNC position on it.
There's this myth going around that McCain was doing well in the polls on mid-September, and then the economic crisis happened and the country turned against the incumbent party. While this is ostensibly true, it is incredibly misleading.
This election has pretty much always had Obama leading the polls. When McCain was up, it was right after the GOP convention, which naturally leads to improved opinion and polling for some time. See:
The bottom line is a rough prediction of what overlapping convention bounces look like, and the top line is the actual result. Even though they're in different scales, you can see very clearly that the prediction was very accurate. This is from fivethirtyeight.com, and I strongly recommend reading more here: FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: What a Convention Bounce Looks Like
Basically, even when McCain was up in the polls, the numbers were certain to swing back to Obama quickly enough, with or without a crisis.
Now, of course the economic crisis was a factor in Obama's win. But there were many other factors, possibly even more influential. Demographic shifts have largely benefited the Democratic party, such as the relatively huge amount of new black voters. George W. Bush was probably a larger factor as the "McCain is a third term of Bush" meme sunk in, rightly or wrongly, that turned voters away from the GOP in flocks. This was partly because of the economy, but a lot of it was also people not liking more social issues such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
McCain's campaign was also, simply put, horribly run. Constant 'hail mary's, seeming unsure of what to do, and giving the appearance that they were just trying random shit and hoping something stuck (both in their actions and their words) were possibly their largest damage. McCain undermined the 'experience' argument by bringing Palin to the ticket (which, by the way, also probably drove more people away than it brought in), and had little left to flail but claims so unbelievable ('Socialist', 'Terrorist', 'Comprehensive Sex Education for Kindergarteners', the claim of not caring about the troops, and so on) that many people found it more laughable than scary.
Obama's campaign was alternatively extremely well run. The 50-state strategy worked beautifully in forcing McCain to spread himself far too thin. The huge grassroots component was a major factor in not only getting people enthusiastic for Obama, but also in increasing turnout and registration by huge amounts. The volunteers were, generally speaking, far more enthusiastic and hardworking than the volunteers on the McCain campaign; although I by no means would suggest that there are not hard working volunteers for McCain, there were far fewer of them, and frankly I think a lot of that is because McCain was not nearly as much of an inspiring candidate.
Inspiration and motivation was a factor that is hard to talk about without comparing the two campaigns. There was a lot of "You need to go out and vote, and get other people to vote, and vote democrat!" coming from the Obama campaign, whereas the McCain campaign seemed to have this sort of lasseiz-faire "We will win this!", 'let god take care of it', so-sure-you-think-they-might-be-cheating attitude. While Obama was sitting on leads so large that some publications had called the election a week or two ahead of time, and basically everyone was trying to figure out how McCain could possibly win, he was saying things along the lines of "We can't be complacent", and urging people to get to the polls, and make sure that the election goes properly and such. McCain, when he was down so far that he himself was saying that the media had given up on him winning, and saying that Obama was 'measuring for drapes', actually said "We've got them right where we want them!"
Basically, what I'm saying is, this was far more of a 'perfect storm' for Obama than it was some one thing that either candidate did very well or very poorly, or some occurance with awful timing. Calling this election a result of the economic turmoil is sort of like calling the Civil War a result of a disagreement over slavery. That was part of it, certainly, but there were many other factors involved. I'm just hoping that people realize this before it goes down in history books with such a dumbed down and overly simplified explanation that it's insulting to many people, reality itself, and doesn't truly explain what an incredible election it has been.
-----------------------------------
BONUS POST: In reply to someone who posted this link Newsvine - Which contributed most to Barack Obama's victory?
Asking people what contributed most is not the same as asking them about THEIR vote.
For example, most people might think that the majority of people drink coffee for the caffeine. At the same time, a majority of people might PERSONALLY drink coffee because they enjoy the taste.
All that poll really teaches us is why people THINK other people voted for him. This leads us a sort of Abilene paradox; see Abilene paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . Except instead of doing something nobody really wants to do, it's thinking something nobody really thinks. That poll is also completely unscientific, as the population is self-chosen; not to mention the fact that it only has very narrow options. For example, if you like Obama's plan for healthcare reform, 'His Message of Change' would really be the only option there, even though that's incredibly misleading.
His message was another part of his success, of course, I forgot to offset the mention of how McCain's campaign was firing blindly looking for a message with comments on how Obama's campaign has been pretty much on message the entire time. There are basically three parts to that message (to be clear, I'm just stating the message, not a support or lack thereof of it): A- "Hope". "Yes We Can". The idea that with hard work and sacrifice, you can do anything, and that's American. B1- The Bush administration has done horrible damage to America and her people, both through neglect (healthcare) and through bad decisions (War in Iraq). B2- Many people in America have fallen on very hard times, and most are in a worse position than they were eight years ago, and we need to change that. C- McCain willingly associated and helped Bush, using his own words, "Over %90 of the time", and would be a continuation of Bush's policies and decision making.
I'll agree that there's actually not that much substance in there, but the important thing was that they stuck to it and stayed calm even when it seemed like they might be falling behind, or running into trouble; or when McCain gave them a giant hole to attack him on (this happened once in a debate, McCain put up a comment which Obama almost certainly could've had a perfect retort for, considering most of the audience did, and Obama realized it was probably a trap and ignored it). McCain's campaign never once found a consistent message. They'd say "Country First", and then they'd do something which would endanger the country if he were elected which was little more than a ploy to try to gain votes (Palin, also somewhat condescending to female voters). They'd say that Obama had 'radical ties' and that he was 'Too Risky' for America, and then McCain would go on stage, in front of cameras, and talk about how Obama wasn't a bad guy, and his supporters shouldn't be afraid of him becoming president. They'd call Obama a socialist, saying he wanted to redestribute the wealth, and then he'd support a $700 billion injection of funds for the financial industry. They never found something that would stick with voters, let alone not being hypocritical.
Comment