Friday, November 7, 2008

Why Obama Won

How did Barak Obama win the election to become the next President of the United States?    On the surface, he faced insurmountable obstacles, but he still managed to overcome them and win the election.   His achievement is absolutely remarkable, and he deserves tremendous credit for it.  

Obama faced many major obstacles, any one of which could have killed his chances of becoming President.   He is just a few years removed from being a state senator in Illinois, and he had the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate in 2007.   He has virtually no experience in foreign affairs at a time when the country is engaged in two wars and faces numerous threats from terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and from other countries, including Iraq, Russia, and Venezuela to name a few.   He was a black candidate for President in a country that has never elected a black as President.   He had a history of relationships with some fairly dubious characters, including William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko.    

How did Obama overcome these obstacles and win the election?   My observations are not unique, but here they are for whatever they are worth. 

(1)    Obama ran a nearly flawless campaign.    He ran to the left of Hilary Clinton when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, and he moved to the center after winning the nomination.    His campaign was well organized at the grass roots level.    He understood how to use the internet to raise money and attract supporters, especially young people.   He was extremely disciplined throughout the campaign.    He never allowed himself to be distracted, to lose control, or to make a major fatal mistake.  

(2)   Obama took perhaps his most important step toward winning the Presidency by breaking a promise.    He pledged to accept public financing if his opponent did.    His opponent, John McCain, agreed, and Obama then broke his promise.   The net effect was that Obama had a huge financial advantage over McCain, which enabled him both to fund his well-run organization and to buy considerably more media exposure than McCain.  The Democrats have been the chief proponents of taking money out of politics, but they excelled in doing just the opposite.   In a twist of irony, McCain also has worked hard to reduce the influence of money in politics, but he was defeated at least in part because his opponent had much more money to spend. 

(3)    The media fell in love with Obama, and their bias toward him was shameless.    I am going to deal with the subject of media bias in a subsequent post, but it is undeniable that the media virtually acted as an arm of the Obama campaign.   In recent days, some of the most liberal members of the media have acknowledged that the media coverage was strongly biased in Obama’s favor.    Now that the election is over, some members of the media are even beginning to show some remorse for their behavior. 

(4)    There is a certain amount of luck in everyone’s success.    Obama’s luck came when the economy went into the tank in September.   McCain was leading in the polls before the economic collapse, and he never recovered from it.   Obama’s message of “change” took on new meaning and importance when the economic crisis facing the country became the number one issue in the minds of voters.    The economic crisis shifted the attention of the voters from the dangers in the world to the economic insecurities that all of us are currently facing.   When luck comes your way, you have to be smart enough to know how to take advantage of it, and Obama was. 

(5)    Obama was successful in making the election a referendum on George Bush, who has been a very unpopular and ineffective President.   He repeatedly talked about the “failed” Bush policies of the last eight years.   He was able to tie McCain to Bush and, with the help of the media, to deflect attention from the role that policies supported by the Democrats played in causing the economic collapse. 

(6)    Obama has tremendous personal appeal.    He is young, charismatic, and articulate, and he has outstanding oratory skills.   His demeanor is comforting and reassuring.    Everything he says sounds good, even when there is little substance behind his comments.    To many voters, Obama’s style was more important than the substance of what he had to say.    Obama was able to attract and create excitement among many new young voters because of his style and personal appeal. 

 (7)    The country is extremely tired of the bitter partisanship that has poisoned the political discourse in this country.   Obama promised to end it and to unite the country.  He successfully convinced voters he would govern in a bipartisan manner.  

(8)    Obama was able to use his race as an advantage rather than a disadvantage.   He ran as a candidate for President who happened to be black rather than as a black candidate who was seeking redress for past grievances.    There is no comparison between Obama’s candidacy for President in 2008 and Jesse Jackson’s candidacy for President in 1984 and 1988.   Obama was able to use his race in a subtle but effective way.    Early in his candidacy, he warned that he would be attacked because of his race, and his surrogates were quick to cry racism when Obama’s opponents objected to some of his liberal policies.   There is no doubt that some people voted against Obama because of his race, but I think there were also many people who voted for him because of his race. 

(9)    Obama stole from the Republicans one of their strongest issues—tax cuts.  He promised that 95% of “working families” would get a tax cut under his tax plan.  His claim, of course, was highly misleading for the reasons previously discussed in this blog.   But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that a politician will get a lot of votes if he can convince 95% of the voters that they will receive a tax cut or a government check if he is elected and that someone else will pay for it.  

(10)   Finally, Obama benefitted from a weak and ineffective Republican Party and a weak Republican opponent.   I will have more to say about McCain’s campaign in a few days.  

In conclusion, Obama ran a brilliant and virtually flawless campaign.   His two major campaign themes were “hope” and “change.”   Let’s hope he can run the country as well as he ran his campaign, and let’s hope any doesn’t change the things that have made this country great.  

2 comments:

Robert said...

I don't think Bush has been ineffective. I think he has been treated unfairly. This is another example of a biased media.

George Bush inherited an impending recession at the beginning of his first term and was able to ward it off with his tax policy.

George Bus was surprised the same as everyone else, including Bill Clinton, by the the worst terrorist attack in our history. There has not been another attack since then, due to his policies. I don't know how anyone can argue with that unless they say it was just dumb luck. You never see any mention of this in most media outlets.

Bush won a second term against an extreme leftist whose picture is in a place of honor in the Hanoi museum dedicated the Vietnam War.

The constant criticism of Bush in the biased media enabled (in my opinion) the Democrats to take control of congress. But the Democrats have been unable to implement any of the agenda they campaigned on. Bush has won a war in spite of them. Public opinion of congress has fallen to historicly low levels since then. Maybe someone can help me understand how the Democrats were able to increase their control after that.

Bush tried to do something about the impending catastrophe of Social Security but was unsuccessful. I guess that was beyond his reach but it took a lot of courage.

Bush hasn't gotten credit for anything.

Jennifer, Michael and Caleb Anderson said...

I think Bush has gotten credit for a few things, mostly, the fact there has not been another attack on the US since 9/11. However, I think anyone will realize that as with anything, the leader will always be the one people look to in both good times and bad....regardless of who deserves credit in either scenario. Take a CEO for example, if a VP makes a terrible decision that causes the company to lose one of the companies largest customers, sure the VP will be fired. In the end though, people will say that the CEO is responsible for everything that happens underneath him.

Bush, in essence, is the CEO of this country. People will always tie everything good and bad that happens to the current president.
Most people may not understand that a large part of the housing crisis can be linked to the passing of the bill that told banks they had to lend money to everyone and not just a few. But what people do understand is that the housing crisis happened under Bush's watch. The same could be said for gas prices. What was a barrel of oil when Bush came into office? $30? What was it 3 months ago, $150? Was it Bush's fault? Who knows, but gas prices did hit $4/gallon under his watch.

I think the media has been unfair to Bush as I think they would be to any president or leader who was in office during these times. The media is out to make money, they make money via ratings and they get ratings talking about things that people want to talk about. In this case, that is what people believe has failed them...and that is the White House.