The 2008 elections, an election cycle some extempers have been speaking about for the last two and a half years has finally come to a close. The election result, unlike 2000 and 2004, was announced at the end of evening, with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois becoming the first African-American to be elected as the President of the United States. Obama won the election by a large margin in the Electoral College, at last count 365 to Senator John McCain’s 162, and also won a commanding margin of the popular vote, 52% to 46% (independent candidate Ralph Nader won 1% of the vote). Obama’s share of the popular vote was the first time a Democratic candidate has won over 50% of the popular vote since Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford in 1976.
Obama’s victory was accompanied by Democratic triumphs in Congressional races across the country. In the House of Representatives, Democrats expanded their majority by twenty seats and in the Senate, the Democrats added to their majority by six seats, with three races in Georgia, Minnesota, and Alaska being subject to recounts, absentee ballot counts, or runoffs. If the Democrats win all three of those contested races they would have a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which would be intact for the first two years of an Obama administration.
This topic brief will give a brief analysis of why Obama managed to win, why McCain lost the election, and where the Republican Party goes from here for the 2012 elections.
Obama’s Victory
Without question, Obama’s victory is owed to his ability to wage a campaign across most of the electoral map that kept John McCain on the defensive for much of the race. Assisted by an army of volunteers and raising a mountain of campaign cash to outspend McCain three to one on television (the final figure on the money war was Obama’s $639 million to McCain’s $360 million), backed by a thirty minute slot on primetime television that pushed back the beginning of the decisive game of the World Series, Obama managed to turn Republican-held territory in the Midwest, the West, and in the South red. States such as North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Colorado, and Nevada all fell into the Democratic camp as McCain failed to wage a close campaign in a single blue state, astonishing some political observers who felt that he might be able to swing a few blue states with his “maverick” image.
Also, states such as Georgia and Arizona, which never should have been close, tightened in the closing days forcing the McCain camp to spend significant resources just to keep the election from being a blowout. It would not be surprising to look back at this election in a few years and come to the conclusion that the McCain camp knew the race was over, just like Walter Mondale admitted that he knew he stood little chance against Reagan in the closing months of the 1984 campaign.
However, one has to wonder if this race may have turned out differently had it not been for the economic meltdown. Prior to the economic turmoil on Wall Street, McCain had taken the lead over Obama in national polls and had leads in states like Pennsylvania and Virginia. With the economy being on the same playing field as national security issues, it looked as if McCain might defy the odds and become the oldest president elected to a first term in U.S. history. Once the economic turmoil hit, though, Obama’s message of taxing companies and “spreading the wealth” to America’s middle class became a theme voters were willing to follow. Facing home foreclosures, threatened retirement accounts, and tightened credit, American’s were willing to take a chance on Obama, although exit polls concluded that more voters believed that McCain was the more experienced of the two candidates.
A final reason that Obama won this election was that he was able to turnout voters in record numbers and received a larger voting share in certain demographics than John Kerry received in 2004. For example, as the most recent edition of The Economist indicates, Kerry won 88% of the African-American vote in 2004, but Obama won 95% of it. Obama also managed to win 66% of young voters under the age of 30 and won 68% of the vote from people who were voting for the first time. Obama also won 66% of the Latino vote, a significant increase from 2004 where Kerry lost 44% of the Latino vote to President George W. Bush. Overall, the McCain campaign did a very poor job targeting these different groups, especially younger voters, and by losing each of these groups by a significant margin, it was very difficult for McCain to makeup ground.
Why McCain Lost
Besides re-listing the ideas in reverse order above as to why McCain lost, there are some trends that the Republican Party needs to reflect on from this race. First, it is surprising that McCain did not carry a larger share of the Latino vote considering his record on trying to pass immigration reform with Senator Ted Kennedy in 2007, a move that almost cost McCain the Republican nomination. Over the last several years, the Republican Party’s rhetoric on illegal immigration has become harsher and its moves in state legislatures to pass stringent immigration measures have most likely cost it significant shares of the Latino vote. With Latinos becoming a surging demographic in the United States, the Republican Party will need to craft a strategy to address these issues in the future.
Another reason McCain lost votes in this election can be attributed to his decision to move away from the center after he won the Republican nomination. Instead of sticking with a more centrist approach and distancing himself from an unpopular President, McCain continually felt the need to prove himself to the conservative base. While running without this base might have been a risky strategy, McCain’s decisions to embrace the Bush tax cuts he initially opposed and then talk around the immigration plan he had concocted a year prior helped Obama and his aides sell the idea to voters that a McCain administration would be the same as the Bush administration. McCain’s decision on these issues also hurt him among independent voters, which Republicans believed he would be attractive to in a general election.
The nomination of Sarah Palin as vice-president during this election season will also come under scrutiny for years to come from political scientists and campaign strategists. Coming out of nowhere to become the vice-presidential nominee, when it appeared that the choice was between Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, or Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, she initially energized the Republican base and caught the Obama team by surprise. However, after stumbling through several media interviews and suffering through the embarrassing revelations about Troopergate, Palin’s favorability ratings declined among voters. The choice to put her on the ticket also brought social issues such as abortion back to the forefront of the campaign and put McCain in the uneasy position of defending himself on those issues. Over the past week, McCain advisors have issued some not so kind reports about Mrs. Palin, such as her tendency throw temper tantrums, her willingness to berate campaign staffers, and her lack of knowledge of international events (ex. her belief that Africa was a country). Mrs. Palin denies all of these rumors, but it is clear that the McCain camp may have had buyer’s remorse once the economy went sour and wished that it had chosen a more experienced running mate such as Mitt Romney, who is a proven specialist on economic issues.
2012: The New Frontier
With the 2008 election over, talk has already emerged on the Republican side concerning who will want to challenge Obama for the presidency in 2012. Top Republicans would prefer that anyone harboring presidential ambitions keep their mouths shut until after the midterm elections in 2010, where the Republican Party needs to mount an offensive to reclaim some of the seats in Congress that have been lost over the last several election cycles.
The Republican Party does have several reasons to worry. First, the party is heavily divided against itself, which will make it difficult to make a tough stand against the Democratic Party, who has engineered an amazing political recovery. In 2004 political experts wondered if the Democrats had become too out of touch with American voters and if their hatred of President Bush had doomed them forever to second party status. However, aided by Hurricane Katrina, a corrupt Republican-controlled Congress, and an ailing economy the Democrats have emerged as the dominant party and it is the Republicans who now worry about being thrust into permanent minority party status. As this election demonstrates, the Republican map is shrinking to the South and performing well among limited demographics such as white men. The party must find a strategy to reach out to minority voters to expand its offensive against the Democrats.
The party is also infested with ideological divisions, some of which emerged during this election. Although Libertarian candidate Bob Barr got a disappointing .4% of the popular vote, there are fiscal conservatives who are tired of the social conservatism that has permeated the Republican Party for the last two decades. These conservatives function as social libertarians that would like to take the party more to the center in order to give it a more moderate image. They believe that by making this adjustment the party will become an acceptable alternative if they can sell the idea that they can be trusted to balance America’s budget. However, social conservatives argue that there is still appeal for family values within minority communities and that abandoning that message would lose a significant part of the Republican base, further depressing voter turnout and entrenching the Democratic majority. Basically, the Republican Party is about to enter a period of civil war where the side that wins will have control over the party’s nomination for president in 2012. In fact, Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to Bush 41, told the UK Telegraph on October 28th that the fault line in the Republican Party will be drawn over one pivotal question: “Where do you stand on Palin?” and those who fall on the negative side of that question will be excommunicated from the party, such as columnist Peggy Noonan who criticized the Palin choice when it was announced. It is extremely important that extempers follow what is going on in the Republican Party over the next two years because you are bound to get questions such as “What is wrong with the Republican Party?” over the next two seasons.
So where does the GOP stand on presidential contenders for 2012? Looking into my crystal ball there are a few:
Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska): As McCain’s vice-presidential nominee she has gained national exposure and primetime experience from the debate with Joe Biden. While her brand of social conservatism is criticized by experts who worry that it will not win a general election campaign, she is amassing an army of loyal followers inside of the Republican Party. She also has the benefit of being a female candidate, and the Republican Party would love to say that it did more for women’s political advancement by having the first female president in the White House. However, Palin will face a challenge to win the Republican nomination in states like New Hampshire and Michigan, which will not react well to her brand. Also, getting national exposure from a state like Alaska will be difficult, which is why many think that Palin may try to run against Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary next election cycle to build up her track record of experience. If Palin runs, look for her to most likely win the Iowa caucus and compete well in the South Carolina primary.
Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts): The former governor of Massachusetts and the man who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics is the favored candidate among the fiscal conservatives in the party. Moving to the right on social issues most likely cost Romney the Republican nomination, as he was characterized as a flip-flopper. Some Republicans have to be wondering if Romney could have beaten Obama’s message on the economy and he may still get his chance in 2012. However, in order to stand a chance in New Hampshire, where a stand will have to made against Sarah Palin, Romney will need to reorient himself on social issues, where he will again be open to charges of flip-flopping.
Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana): If you ask many Louisiana residents they will tell you that they wish Jindal was governor when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2006. Jindal would be a very young candidate if he seeks the presidency in 2012, clocking in at 40 years old. However, he brings to the table a good governing record of oversight and decision-making. Also, Jindal’s heritage as an Indian-American would redefine the GOP’s image and would help in raising contributions because of the wealth in the Indian-American demographic.
Governor Mike Huckabee (Arkansas): The former Arkansas governor who made health and wellness a major issue in his state, shocked the political establishment by defeating Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses in January. However, Huckabee’s campaign failed to build on that momentum and win the South Carolina primary which doomed his chances. Huckabee plans on making more trips to the Iowa area over the next several years and his new show on the Fox News Channel will help him build a base of followers if he does seek another run at the White House. Also, due to the fact that he was the last candidate to drop out of the race, Huckabee already has a working knowledge of some of the states down the stretch in the Republican primary calendar, an asset that may prove valuable if the nomination battle gets bruising and tight.
Governor Jeb Bush (Florida): I know what your thinking…is this crazy? Not necessarily. Remember, it was Jeb Bush who was pegged to run for the presidency in 2000, but when he lost a very close governor’s race in 1994 the momentum swung his brother George W., who emerged to get the nod. Jeb is seen as a better decision maker than George W. and would be seen favorable by both sides of the Republican Party. Also, while governor, Bush had good outreach to minority communities, especially Latino voters, the demographic the Republican Party will need to build on in 2012 to capture the White House. By being a Bush, he could rely on the support of a lot of factions in the Republican Party, both moderate and far right, as well as reach out to contacts in the Republican Party machinery. The only lingering questions are if America would be willing to put a third Bush in the White House if Jeb was nominated and if the Republican Party wants to move beyond the Bush years. While a wild card and showing little inclination of running, a Jeb Bush campaign would be interesting for all the attention it would get.