Why did Obama win?

[Lonyo]

He won because he had the vote of the right people (the ones in the states he needed to win).
He got these by being, or appearing to be, the better candidate in those states.
This is through policies, perception created about him, a well run campaign, and basically having a better approach than McCain, as well as he himself being (IMO) more charismatic and appearing more authentic (even though he's a politician so you can't trust them at all)

I mean, the popular vote numbers don't really show a landslide for Obama, many people don't agree with him at all, but of the two he seemed the better choice, and he worked hard and in the right way in the right places to get what he needed.

 

[jackschmittusa]

McCain's errors are legion.

Not only was Palin a horrible pick, but it lead to questioning his ability to make good decisions since she was so obviously bad. It also alienated many women who felt McCain must think them feeble-minded if he thought he could garner their votes just because he had a female VP.

Comments like "here in real America" just highlighted the "us vs them" attitude that continuously chipped away at his stature.

Carnival tricks like Joe the Plumber were a sideshow that took away opportunities to actually say something of merit.

The past associations game was a fizzle from the start but they not only wouldn't let go of it, they tried to expand it, again squandering time and resources.

Lies that were so transparent i.e. socialist, confiscate your property, inventory, etc., that they turned off people who had already been fed up with the same thing for 8 years. It made trusting him pretty hard to do.

Poorly acted stunts like suspending his campaign and rushing off to Washington to fix the financial crisis. Not only did he not actually rush off (and got caught in a whopper to Letterman), but inviting scrutiny as to his effect, which revealed he had a really minor role.

He informed people several times that economics wasn't his strong suit. Then he boldly proclaimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Then the crash that highlighted that he was out of his element and maybe poorly qualified to handle such a situation. Then he tried to spin out of the fundamentals remark, and sounded like boob.

I could go on and on.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't think actual policy made a difference outside of the regular partisan voters. Past studies have shown the average American doesn't even know the policies of the person they're voting for. Sure, they might have had the impression that Obama had better policies, but I doubt they actually knew this. (Don't get me wrong I think most of Obama's policies are probably better than McCain's but I don't think this was an issue in the election.) I think the average voter makes knee-jerk reactions based on things like the economy, race, or even personality (a la Gore).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
McCain's errors are legion.

Not only was Palin a horrible pick, but it lead to questioning his ability to make good decisions since she was so obviously bad. It also alienated many women who felt McCain must think them feeble-minded if he thought he could garner their votes just because he had a female VP.

Comments like "here in real America" just highlighted the "us vs them" attitude that continuously chipped away at his stature.

Carnival tricks like Joe the Plumber were a sideshow that took away opportunities to actually say something of merit.

The past associations game was a fizzle from the start but they not only wouldn't let go of it, they tried to expand it, again squandering time and resources.

Lies that were so transparent i.e. socialist, confiscate your property, inventory, etc., that they turned off people who had already been fed up with the same thing for 8 years. It made trusting him pretty hard to do.

Poorly acted stunts like suspending his campaign and rushing off to Washington to fix the financial crisis. Not only did he not actually rush off (and got caught in a whopper to Letterman), but inviting scrutiny as to his effect, which revealed he had a really minor role.

He informed people several times that economics wasn't his strong suit. Then he boldly proclaimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Then the crash that highlighted that he was out of his element and maybe poorly qualified to handle such a situation. Then he tried to spin out of the fundamentals remark, and sounded like boob.

I could go on and on.

/nutshell

 

[Baked]

Black Power!

But seriously, Obama ran a better campaign, he and his running mate are less hated than the McCain/Palin combo.

 

[Jaskalas]

Obama won for a variety of reasons which I?ll sum up as these:

1: Not the incumbent party.
2: Socialist ideals.
3: Young and charismatic.

The fact that he was black clearly lost him votes, but those were irrelevant compared to the other 3 factors.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Obama won for a variety of reasons which I?ll sum up as these:

1: Not the incumbent party.
2: Socialist ideals.
3: Young and charismatic.

The fact that he was black clearly lost him votes, but those were irrelevant compared to the other 3 factors.

Ditto.

 

[Pepsei]

it's a combination of things. and the fact that my vote in virginia turn the state blue for that one.

 

[Siddhartha]

"George W Bush" and the economy.

 

[StageLeft]

Bush combined with a terribly run campaign that became a parody and selection of a terrible VP candidate.

 

[bozack]

Race for me...I am willing to bet he had the largest minority turnout in history along with a bigger amount of young and first time voters....had an older white guy been in his spot I doubt the situation would have been the same.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Four years ago I was wrong. I predicted in this forum that we wouldn't see a Democratic president for another 12 years until hispanics made a larger proportion of the population. I forgot something really basic: the economy.

In attempting to predict presidential races 12 years out, you forgot something even more basic: political tides are fickle and short-lived. How many times were the political careers of people like Nixon and Clinton dead, only to have them come roaring back?

Let me know if you have evidence to the contrary but to me this election was really about an cyclical economic downturn that had nothing to do with either party. Americans predictably voted against the incumbant presidential party.

I'd have to agree with you about that. This election reminded me so much of '92 - the electorate embracing a charismatic Democrat against a GOP-controlled White House during times of economic uncertainty. Both Clinton and Obama even used change as a buzzword.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Four years ago I was wrong. I predicted in this forum that we wouldn't see a Democratic president for another 12 years until hispanics made a larger proportion of the population. I forgot something really basic: the economy.

Let me know if you have evidence to the contrary but to me this election was really about an cyclical economic downturn that had nothing to do with either party. Americans predictably voted against the incumbant presidential party.

What do you think was the primary factor that favored Obama?

Edit: Consider fundraising, negative campaigning, Joe the Plumber stunts to be part of "Great campaign by Obama / Poor campaign by McCain." In other words, things that the candidates could directly control.

Ironically I dont know why in 04 you would think Hispanics would turn it around for the Dems. Bush scored well with hispanics.

That said a combination of things caused Obama's victory.

And in no particular order.

1. Unpopular president hurt republicans as a whole
2. unpopular war
3. economy tanking
4. Obama is a gifted speaker who comes off as pragmatic not divisive
5. Republicans ran a 70 year old man
6. Republicans lost their way and the public is punishing them for it.

The list could go on and on. I dont think it was any particular issue. It was a perfect storm that was created by Republicans themselves that the Democrats took advantage of.

 

[Tab]

All of the above. Hopefully, the republicans can eventually make comeback in my lifetime.

 

[dmcowen674]

All the Above plus Dave's did it.

David Plouffe

David Axelrod

and me

 

[MikeyLSU]

without the credit crisis, I think McCain would have won.

But it came at the absolute worst time and there was no way any republican could overcome it.

I think a dog could have won if he had a (D) by his name this year.

 

[ThePresence]

IMO, it was all about the economy. The race was very close until then with McCain actually ahead in some polls, and it really started separating with the first market shudder.

 

[clamum]

Combination of Bush's/Republican unpopularity and the economy. The economy goes to hell? Who's in office... Republicans? Their fault.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why? Because given the greatest political windfall since pearl harbor, repubs made a historic choice. Hold to the center and govern for decades, or charge Right, launch an ideologically inspired looting spree, sell it with knee-jerk emotionalism and a deficit driven illusion of prosperity.

It's like the Vandals and Rome in 455- they didn't stick around, either. Who'd want to? Hell, the place has been looted...

 

[Moonbeam]

Obama won because, at a time when he said he wasn't going to run I wrote him and told him he had to and that he would win and he did.

Nothing can stand before the Will of God. It is written into his name. Barack has baraka. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Baraka bashad.

 

[microbial]

A combination of all of the above, plus more.

To some degree, the succeeding administration is a reflection of the immediate preceding one. To what extent depends from election to election. Clearly you can attribute the war, economy and a few other things into one category that I would call: previous administration effect.

Beyond that, McCain's campaign did not help. The mudslinging, the lack of focus on a central message, and Putin rearing his head into our airspace--clearly a disaster.

To a lesser extent (although for me personally it was the main reason) was Obama as a candidate. Intelligence and decency were his hallmarks.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
It's a combination of everything. I'm sure if McCain had the history of Obama, he would have been slaughtered. Unfortunately, our "tolerance" clouds our judgment. We're too easily swayed by silly speeches and simple-minded attack campaigns.

+

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
People were convinced that all of the problems were Bush and the Republican's fault.

This simply is not true. There has been a lot of revisionism here.

So people wanted change. What will that change be?

The Dems now have control of the house and senate plus the president.

The bigger question is what will they do with it?

+

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
McCain's errors are legion.

Not only was Palin a horrible pick, but it lead to questioning his ability to make good decisions since she was so obviously bad. It also alienated many women who felt McCain must think them feeble-minded if he thought he could garner their votes just because he had a female VP.

Comments like "here in real America" just highlighted the "us vs them" attitude that continuously chipped away at his stature.

Carnival tricks like Joe the Plumber were a sideshow that took away opportunities to actually say something of merit.

The past associations game was a fizzle from the start but they not only wouldn't let go of it, they tried to expand it, again squandering time and resources.

Lies that were so transparent i.e. socialist, confiscate your property, inventory, etc., that they turned off people who had already been fed up with the same thing for 8 years. It made trusting him pretty hard to do.

Poorly acted stunts like suspending his campaign and rushing off to Washington to fix the financial crisis. Not only did he not actually rush off (and got caught in a whopper to Letterman), but inviting scrutiny as to his effect, which revealed he had a really minor role.

He informed people several times that economics wasn't his strong suit. Then he boldly proclaimed that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. Then the crash that highlighted that he was out of his element and maybe poorly qualified to handle such a situation. Then he tried to spin out of the fundamentals remark, and sounded like boob.

I could go on and on.

+

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ironically I dont know why in 04 you would think Hispanics would turn it around for the Dems. Bush scored well with hispanics.

That said a combination of things caused Obama's victory.

And in no particular order.

1. Unpopular president hurt republicans as a whole
2. unpopular war
3. economy tanking
4. Obama is a gifted speaker who comes off as pragmatic not divisive
5. Republicans ran a 70 year old man
6. Republicans lost their way and the public is punishing them for it.

The list could go on and on. I dont think it was any particular issue. It was a perfect storm that was created by Republicans themselves that the Democrats took advantage of.

= the reasons Obama won.

Basically OP, the reasons he won varied from person to person. Some will say the economy, others because the R failed, others because he is charismatic, and still others because he is the messiah. The reason he won was simply because he played the game well, and won. He let McCain hang himself.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
All the Above plus Dave's did it.

David Plouffe

David Axelrod

and me

Weren't you saying how McCain would win the whole time?

You really are delusional...

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Poor economy.

great packaging by Axelrod.

Lousy media coverage who gave Obama a pass on nearly everything.

And don't forget the right-wing extremists who were 'promoting' McCain/Palin on forums, which showed the rest of the country that noone in their right mind would vote for that combination.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

A maverick can't change a party...

There are many reasons why Obama won. One is that McCain NEVER challenged to break from Bush Republicans policy publicly in this election. It's not just Bush or McCain - it's the GOP itself. But as the nominee, McCain could have tried to lead the party in a new direction.

It's tempting to compare his failure to do so with Obama's wresting of the Democratic Party away from the Clintons and the DLC. But there's a better comparison: Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

Like McCain, Sarkozy tried to become president in the footsteps of an unpopular president from his own party. Like McCain, Sarkozy had an uncomfortable relationship, even a rivalry, with that president, and unlike McCain, he had on several occasions publicly opposed him. But Sarkozy didn't run as a maverick - he ran as an insurgent.

The difference is enormous. A maverick prides himself on having been right where his party wasn't. Every time McCain uses the M word, he implicitly reminds people that the GOP was wrong. Sarkozy, by contrast, offered a stark contrast with Chirac not to criticize his party, but to invite his party to break with the old president. They jumped at the opportunity. Another sign of this different attitude: McCain the maverick sucks his party's coffers dry, leaving nothing more than a few crumbs for the congressional candidates. Sarkozy - like Obama - did everything he could to help the legislative candidates from his party.

The GOP needs to change, even its own members say so. But it has no real leaders. A maverick isn't a leader; he's an outlier. Even if McCain wins the election, he will have failed his party. He just didn't invest any energy in it.