Look at the Exit poll numbers again and tell me it was the financial crisis.
18-29 All Races
Bush deficit: 1.5
McCain deficit: 6.1
Blacks (over 29)
Bush deficit: 6.2
McCain deficit: 9.1
Latino (over 29)
Bush deficit: 0.45
McCain deficit: 1.4
Asian/Other (over 29)
Bush deficit: 0.5
McCain deficit: 1.5
Total
Bush deficit: 8.65
McCain deficit: 18.1
Bush won by 2.5%
Obama won by 6%
Obama won because of turnout and the overwhelming support of the young and minorities (and because older whites voted in more or less their same patterns). Why? Because of what Obama represents. A young, black, son of an immigrant President represents:
A rejection of the Bush years;
A rejection of the Clinton years;
A validation of where this country has been, where it is now and where it is going, racially and culturally;
A respite from the politics and divisiveness of the older generations;
A re-embrace of the American ideals by the younger generation and the historically disenfranchised.
The Math:
18-29
.54 x 17 = Kerry (9.18)
.45 x 17 = Bush (7.65)
.66 x 18 = Obama (11.88)
.32 x 18 = McCain (5.76)
Bush deficit: 1.5
McCain deficit: 6.1
Blacks (over 29)
.88 x 8 = Kerry (7.04%)
.11 x 8 = Bush (0.88%)
.95 x 10 = Obama (9.5%)
.04 x 10 = McCain (0.4%)
Bush deficit: 6.2
McCain deficit: 9.1
Latino (over 29)
.44 x 5 = Bush (2.2%)
.53 x 5 = Kerry (2.65%)
.32 x 5 = McCain (1.6%)
.66 x 5 = Obama (3.3%)
Bush deficit: 0.45
McCain deficit: 1.4
Asian & Other (over 29)
Asian (2%)
.44 x 2 = Bush (0.9%)
.55 x 2 = Kerry (1.1%)
.35 x 2 = McCain (0.7%)
.61 x 2 = Obama (1.2%)
Other (2%)
.4 x 2 = Bush (0.8%)
.54 x 2 = Kerry (1.1%)
Other (3%)
.31 x 3 = McCain (0.9%)
.65 x 3 = Obama (1.95%)
Subtracting 25% from the above Asian/Other for 18-29’s:
Bush deficit: 0.5
McCain deficit: 1.5
It was the financial crisis.
Every election in history comes down to turnout and support. That’s a no brainer. The question is, why the turnout and support? The answer is the financial crisis tipped the scales heavily.
Minorities and youth generally heavily favor democrats. Yet somehow an extra couple points of minorities and youth when the candidate is a young minority portends “A respite from the politics and divisiveness of the older generations”? Hardly. It’s still looking like this years turnout with be statistically identical to 2004, maybe less accounting for population/registration growth. I have a hard time imagining some groundswell of unprecedented political unification leading to a turnout identical to the bush/kerry election and race that’s won by 6 or 7 points.
Pundits were predicting MASSIVE waves of minority and youth voters for the very reasons you suggest, even in the face of contradictory historical precedent (if that even exists). They didn’t show. One could actually argue their lack of presence is, to use your words, a validation of the Bush/Clinton years. But that argument would be just as fallacious. No. Exit polls don’t do much to ascribe motive. Although the MSM would almost certainly have us believe otherwise. And to be honest, such a belief would feel pretty good.
McCains surge (and it WAS a surge) going into the final 12 weeks was completely obliterated by the collapse. It made his entire campaign seem hollow and useless.
The first debate, scheduled to exclusively cover foreign policy (McCains overwhelming strength) spent 30-40 percent of it’s time/questions on the economy. It exposed his weakness as a candidate. One year ago, 12 percent of those polled said the economy was their #1 concern. One month ago, the same poll showed that number jumped to 63%. Without the collapse, we’d be congratulating McCains campaign for it’s winning turnout and support.
Everything you describe sounds warm and fuzzy but isn’t much more than that. I would love to think this election represented some great mandate for political change. If I were 19 again, I probably WOULD believe it. But I’m not. I understand the reality of American life and voters vote their pocket books pure and simple. Voters vote for “me” and they vote for candidates “like” “me”. The economic collapse made McCain seem even older and more out of touch. The Obama camp brilliantly siezed on this constantly describing McCain as “erratic” It made Obama seem even more collected, more the Washington outsider and more the “everyman”.
I think maybe you’ve been digesting too much MSM for your own good. 😉
First, we can question the accuracy of the exit polls. Fine. But for the sake of argument let’s assume they’re mostly accurate.
Second, I’m working on a turnout post, so we’ll learn more soon. You are correct that overall turnout seems to be flat from 2004 to up about 3%. (In 2004, 122,294,978 people voted. The Census Department estimate of the voting age population for 2008 is 227.7 million (75.5 percent of the total population). Just to reach the same 55.3% that turned out in 2004, 125.9 million people would need to have voted. If 130 million voted, probably the high estimate I’ve seen, it would be an increase of 3.2 percent)
Third, even if overall voting numbers are flat, it appears to be incorrect to say “turnout identical to the bush/kerry election.” Analyzing overall turnout numbers doesn’t provide an accurate picture because it doesn’t tell you where turnout was up. Or where it was down. Using the provisional numbers I posted here, Virginia was up less than 10%, Ohio flat to down, North Carolina up 20%, Pennsylvania flat, Indiana up 10% and Colorado up barely. Early reports are that South Dakota and Wyoming are down.
Flat overall turnout can be deceptive if Bush voters who didn’t vote this time were balanced by new Obama voters. If you believe the exit polls then this probably occurred. Minorities accounted for 3% more of the electorate. The young accounted for an additional 1%.
Again, that’s if you believe the exit polls. If you do then the math seems pretty convincing to me.
I’m gonna do this in stages…
This is hard one to compare to 2004 because there’s no breakdown by age and race in those exit polls. Consequently, there’s no way to see how young whites or Latinos voted Bush/Kerry. Here’s 2008 though.
White 18-29 (11%)
Obama: 54%
McCain: 44%
30 and over basically flipped that: 56-42.
Latino 18-29 (3%)
Obama: 76%
McCain: 19%
This is 15% higher for Obama than Latino’s over 30.
As to the why, I don’t disagree with much of what you say. I understand that mine was a pretty fluffy answer. But I’m someone who voted for Perot in 1992 so I still kinda remember the idealism of youth.
Here’s the thing though. Let’s assume that the economy was fine. How would whites over 30 have voted? Even with the economy the way it is they basically ended up voting the same way they did in 2004. I doubt they’d have switched in large enough proportion alone to offset the minority/young alliance. As such, McCain would have needed to pick off some of that demographic.
Do you think that it was the economy which caused conservative blacks to switch their vote from Bush to Obama? Conservative Latinos and Asians? I don’t.
All of which means that McCain would have needed to flip the young white vote. On the substantive issues, is there really a reason why they would have gone with Obama over McCain? Iraq? Maybe. Taxes? They don’t pay ’em. On Healthcare, Immigration or Global Warming the candidates had similar positions.
For the last six months I’ve thought that the only issue McCain could win on was national security. That the election was about whether or not Obama could convince enough of the mushy middle that he was sufficiently experienced. Like Reagan in 1980, a majority wanted to vote for him but they had to become comfortable enough with him first.
Maybe if national security had not been overtaken by the economy on people’s minds McCain could have won. It certainly looked possible at the conclusion of the conventions.
But it didn’t work out that way. Why? You’re saying the economy. I just don’t know.
One more take.
If turnout ended up being flat, the young were an extra 1%, blacks 2% and other 1%, that means that 4% less whites over 30 voted. Were those primarily part of the Bush turnout machine?
Brian,
You raise some good points and a lot of good questions, but I think you’re confusing yourself by using each to answer the other. I don’t want to belabor the issue because that never works well in a typed medium so I’ll try to be as concise as I can. This is something best discussed over beers and hot wings (or Beaujolais and brie given the recent political changes). 😉
Some of my thoughts regarding your recent comments.
“First, we can question the accuracy of the exit polls. ”
This is functionally irrelevant. I don’t question the “accuracy” of the exit polls (ok, I do, but not with regard to this discussion). I question the conclusions drawn from them. Exit polls give us a tiny slice of information and while I’m confident your mathematical ability surpasses mine, I don’t think the raw data presented by exit polls gives us what we need to solve the equation. Basically, I think it’s incredibly challenging to calculate the how and why simply based upon the what.
“Flat overall turnout can be deceptive”
“Analyzing overall turnout numbers doesn’t provide an accurate picture”
I agree. I would use the same logic to describe exit polls, particularly when using that data to attribute causality.
For the cheap seats:
“Exit polls can be deceptive”
“Analyzing exit poll numbers doesn’t provide an accurate picture”
“it appears to be incorrect to say “turnout identical to the bush/kerry election.””
You’re right, and therefore, the following line of questions is problematic.
“Do you think that it was the economy which caused conservative blacks to switch their vote from Bush to Obama? Conservative Latinos and Asians? I don’t.”
To ask this question honestly, one must assume the voters in question are the exact same voters in both elections. I can’t prove it either way, but my money is that they are not.
Again, I agree with most of what you’re saying. I just think the timeline is off. I think all the reasons you mention as leading to Obamas victory are valid. (rejecting clinton/bush/old political thinking, resurgence of american idealism, etc) But instead of “causing” his victory, I think what really happened is that those things were what allowed an otherwise traditionally unelectable candidate (i.e. a completely inexperienced and very liberal black man that no one had heard of until 4 years ago) be viewed as a valid and responsible possibility. Those sentiments created a prism through which Obama was viewed less objectively and more subjectively, and that set the stage for a really tight race with a man, who by most any measure, is the epitome of presidential fodder (war hero/moderate/experienced/family and name recognition).
Given all that, I think Obama needed an extra push. That push was the financial meltdown. I don’t think it’s significance can be overstated, particularly with swing and undereducated voters in every demographic. It has absolutely dominated the conversation in a way that makes the swift boats of 2004 pale in comparison. I think you could remove any single variable you mention and not change the fundemental equation we’ve both witnessed the result of. However, if you remove the financial developments of the past 2 months and the ensuing nationwide turmoil and media blitz, all of a sudden the current result becomes significantly less likely.
Obviously, we’re arguing meta-bullshit here, but from an academic perspective, I think it’s still pretty interesting.
Whatever the reality, our nation has it’s first black president. Even if I don’t agree with a lot of his policy objectives (or at least what I understand them to be), that’s damn exciting, and the next 4 years are completely opaque which, if I were to let a little of the 19 year old in me bubble up, I would have to say that is pretty thrilling as well.
Now, what was it I was saying about not wanting to belabor this?
So, while it’s probably not fair to say the economy is the ONLY reason he won (it was truly a very elaborate brew of right place, right man, and right time), I certainly think it’s the most significant electorally.
First, I think you conclude with the correct answer: “it was truly a very elaborate brew of right place, right man, and right time.”
Second, on “the epitome of presidential fodder (war hero/moderate/experienced/family and name recognition).” While I think this is conventional wisdom, and something that at first glance I would tend to agree with, I saw an interesting stat the other day. This was the fifth straight election in which the candidate which either has not served in the military or did everthing in their power not to serve has beaten the war hero.
Finally, what really interests me are the implications for the future, if there are any. If I’m correct in believing that identity politics played a significant role in the last push over the wall, then I would tend to believe that this is a one-off election and their will be no lasting coalition between the groups which elected Obama.
“This was the fifth straight election in which the candidate which either has not served in the military or did everthing in their power not to serve has beaten the war hero.”
This MUST have been written by a hardcore democrat. No sane individual would describe Kerry as a war hero. In fact, whatever esteem is afforded war heros, I think Kerry’s behavior immediately after Vietnam has succeeded in earning him the opposite reaction. With regard to Gore, I’m not sure when “journalist” was elevated to the same status as “hero”. Sure, Clinton beat Bush Sr. but you of all people should understand (and shoulder the blame for due to your vote) that one. 😉 And lets not forget how good “W” looks in a flight suit.
“Finally, what really interests me are the implications for the future, if there are any. ”
I couldn’t agree more.
“If I’m correct in believing that identity politics played a significant role in the last push over the wall, then I would tend to believe that this is a one-off election and their will be no lasting coalition between the groups which elected Obama.”
I second that thought. I think this exact supposition is well supported by the Obama supporters unceremoniously dashing the gay rights hopes in California. I would add that whatever truth there is to the warm and fuzzy we talked about earlier (and there IS some truth), the ecosystem of DC (status quo, old boy network, strength of various lobbies, etc) and global politics (Obama will see harsh tests of his mettle, unruly behavior from every wannabe chavez out there) will bleed it out of Obama and his constituents pretty quickly.
Brian, im going to agree with you on this one, but Mike I am going to agree with you too.
First, Obamamania turned out the youth vote and energized his campaign, and be honest, Mccain never had a shot with this demographic. But I think it was the financial meltdown and McCain’s inability to put up a solid argument for his own capability to handle a fiasco of this magnitude pushed older white folks into the Obama column. As I write this, I just see McCain as a repeat of Bush sitting in the WH during Katrina as the disaster unfolded. Just completely on the wrong side once the full magnitude was known. I think that scared a lot of older folks.
Brian, if its not too much trouble, I would like to see if you could repost my letter to you several months during the primary, regarding the rise of a third party in the US political mainstream. Although my prediction was way off in that I predicted McCain would win, I would like to raise this point (and im not being a smarta**). Was the McCain campaign such a collosal distaster that an internal struggle for control of the party’s identity shatter the GOP or result in some fracturing? What are your thoughts?
This is Althouse’s review of her own writings in an attempt to find an explanation of how McCain lost her.
Joe on the rise of a third party.
……
What did I think of McCain?
I describe myself as a right of center independent. I suspect that I agree with McCain on more issues than any other politician in my lifetime. That said, the only issue that would compel me to the ballot box was Iraq. An issue that pretty much died over the last six months.
So, what was strong support for McCain from me in July became tepid into September and October. My continued support of McCain became an inability to support Obama more than a real support of McCain. In the week leading up to the financial crisis I was leaning towards not voting.
Then the crisis came to the forefront. I can’t complement McCain completely on his “to heck with the debates I’m going to Washington” because he made it too much about politics. But the reality is that both McCain and Obama needed to be in Washington during those days. Unfortunately, only one of them went and he ended up looking inept. In the end, neither Obama’s complete lack of leadership or McCain’s erratic leadership worked for me.
McCain is a good Senator. Probably, the qualities that make him a good Senator mean that he would not be a good President. Probably, Obama has a better temperment for the Presidency.
In the end I saw one flawed candidate with positions that I generally support. I saw another candidate with a better temperment but positions that, well, I guess we’ll find out what his positions really are eventually. I didn’t find myself supporting either of them.
That’s why when I walked into the ballot booth I simply wrote “Present” and walked out.