The Final Analysis
by digby
Throughout the presidential campaign a well connected friend I call Deep Insight has been providing me with analysis and generously allowing me to share it with you.
Here is his final report:
It’s a new day and it’s a new dawn
Nina Simone
If she were still alive, the outspoken Ms. Simone would also have some choice words about the last eight years. Americans often rectify a failed Presidency with its polar opposite. Without the disastrous Presidency of George Bush, the election of Barack Obama would have been improbable. Obama represents the perfect reaction to George Bush and his policies. But this was also special; hopefully it is a paradigm shift. Americans were willing to take a chance with an African American who four years ago had just left the Illinois State Senate.Due to the events of the last several years, 80% of the voters thought we were “on the wrong track.” Seventy-one percent of the voters disapproved of Bush on Election Day, and Obama received 67% of their votes. Bush is dissembling his way out the door, assisted by news anchors. White washing of the Bush record is under way as the elder Bush floats trial balloons for Jeb, his favorite. As he flees to Dallas and a comfy retirement giving speeches, W. continues to promulgate policies to harm the environment and restrict women’s health options. Given the damage Bush and his cronies have done to our economy, prestige and institutions, it is a sorry reflection on the major media and a minority of 2000 voters that he was even in the position to be appointed in the first place.
This takes nothing away from the supremely talented President-elect and his nearly flawless campaign. His background (Hawaii and Chicago with stops in Indonesia, New York and Cambridge), intelligence and temperament have forged a remarkable person. His natural charisma is a gift, but he made a very difficult run for the Presidency seem almost easy. His campaign was a model of technological excellence in the revolutionary use of the Internet, but it also maintained control of its message through traditional media.
The current challenges are opportunities to fashion a turning point for of the nation. Our crises will require an involved citizenry to counteract the entrenched interests infesting our politics. But there are very encouraging signs. The spontaneous worldwide celebrations on November 4th also give one great hope. After Bush and Wall Street peddling junk securities to the world, our nation could use the good will.
Perhaps no Republican could have won in 2008. But John McCain would have been better off with his 2000 persona. Once upon a time he knew better, and his “base” in the mainstream media was disappointed by his wholesale transformation. However, McCain decided the GOP nomination was not possible without slavishly tying himself to George Bush. With Bush as an anchor on his candidacy, he was stuck in a permanent catch-up mode. His campaign also spun like a compass at the Pole, looking for tactics and stunts to win daily media coverage.
He wasted the months necessary for Obama to confirm the Democratic nomination. The pick of Palin energized religious conservatives and helped in the short run, but she was a major drag in the end. Her media interviews only gave material to Tina Fey. However, she will be a factor in GOP politics in 2012.
McCain’s fate was sealed when the market melted down in September and his erratic response (bailout/no bailout; cancel the debates/no I’m coming) ended his advantage on the issues of judgment (Obama by 46-33). The three debates merely sealed his fate. His best moment was his gracious concession speech.
Of course, now that a Democrat is headed to the White House, the mainstream media is playing scandal politics with the President-elect and the delusional Governor of Illinois. Republicans are dusting off their guilt-by-association playbook from the Clinton era, and the AP, Time Magazine and others are jotting down every word. In the name of full disclosure, the talking heads are dreaming up new hurdles for the Obama team to mount. This is the same DC media that missed every manner of serious scandal and lawbreaking from the Bush Administration.
There is concern among progressives who worked very hard for Senator Obama’s election about some of the initial decisions. The choice of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural is too cute by half, and he is certainly not the best “unifying” symbol. Larry Summer is “wicked smart,” but the current economic challenges and solutions required are more in Joseph Stiglitz’s line of work. There are several other re-nominated Clinton era officials who hopefully have seen the light on deregulation of capital markets.
Obama was labeled the most liberal Senator by National Journal, a fact the right wing endlessly recited. The proof will be in the policy pushed through Congress. But the expectations for this President are out of line. He cannot possibly deliver what many progressives want in the first term. Grassroots activists will need to push from the states, or his program will be picked apart by special interests. On the other hand, he has to act boldly in the first two years or risk an Administration mired in small details.
Turnout
In the end, Senator Obama carried 365 electoral votes and 52.9% of the popular vote, the highest percentage for a Democrat since 1964. He picked up seven states George Bush had carried in 2004. He performed worse than John Kerry in only three southern states – Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. The counties where he did worse than Kerry were confined to the Appalachian South and parts of Arizona and Alaska.
Obama received 69.5 million votes to McCain’s 60 million. He received approximately 20% more votes than John Kerry did. McCain received approximately 2 million votes less than Bush in 2004. This nine million plus-vote margin is the largest ever by a non-incumbent. The overall turnout of 131 million plus is 9 million more than in 2004, a 7% increase. But if one compares this election to the 2000 one, there were 26 million additional voters in 2008, a 25% increase. After decades of static turnout, this is very impressive. Where there was no real campaign as in Democratic strongholds New York and California, turnout suffered. This is another argument for a national popular vote. Disaffected Republicans stayed home in states like Utah and Oklahoma. Thirty percent of the votes were cast before Election Day, a 10% increase over 2004. While absentee voting once helped the GOP, extended voting hours clearly aided Obama and his much better organized campaign.
There are some very interesting stories in the “swing” states. In Ohio, Obama received under 200,000 more votes than John Kerry had. He was able to win the state handily because McCain received 185,000 fewer votes than Bush did. Turnout in the state was up slightly, by 1%. But Democratic turnout underscores that NGOs did a good job of turning out Democratic voters in Ohio both in 2004 and in 2008 and the Obama campaign did a stellar job in November. Obama, for instance, received 21,000 more votes than Kerry in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland).
Florida, on the other hand, had an increase of 800,500 voters. A massive registration effort by the Obama campaign and progressive NGOs added hundreds of thousands of new voters, and on paper the Democrats now have an over 640,000-voter edge on the Republicans. Obama received almost 700,000 more votes than had Kerry, while McCain received 81,000 more votes than Bush in 2004. Extended early voting also helped swell the voter ranks.
The Obama victory was fueled by a 27% better performance among Latinos than Kerry. African Americans increased their performance and contributed an additional 264,000 votes for Obama. As Obama won the state by 236,000 votes, this is a big part of the result. But he also did better than Kerry among white men (+2 percentage points), 18-29 year olds (+3), white evangelicals (+16), and white Catholics (+3). Not surprisingly, Obama ran up big margins in Florida’s cities (in Miami/Dade an extra 69,000 votes), but also did +3 better in the state’s sprawling suburbs. But he did worse (by 3 points) than Kerry with voters over 65. If one were to surmise the reason why, it would be race.
In the Mountain West, McCain basically reproduced the Bush vote from 2004. Obama was able to attract over 900,000 new votes in the region. He was able to win Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico by dramatically expanding Democratic registration and turnout. In New Mexico, new voter registration was seven times the margin of the Bush victory in 2004. In Nevada it was five times the margin, and Obama won Nevada basically on the margin of turnout of new Democrats in Clark County (Las Vegas). He came within 2.5% of winning in Montana. Without spending any money, he did 2% better than Kerry in McCain’s home state of Arizona. Hispanics increased their share of the electorate by 5 points in Nevada and even more in both Colorado and New Mexico. The Mountain West will continue to be a region where Democrats and progressives must invest.
.