Too much explanation
I’m reading a lot about why Obama won, with long lists of stuff — it was the Palin effect, it was the skill of the Obama campaign, it was the 50-state strategy, etc..
At the risk of being a party-pooper, I’ll second Andrew Gelman: there’s not much evidence in the vote for anything besides a broad shift to Democrats, almost the same (~8%) across all the states, and probably a reaction to the state of the economy, stupid. There were a few big anomalies in McCain’s direction — what’s the matter with Arkansas? — and a few in Obama’s, mainly Indiana.
But basically there was a national wave against Republicans, suggesting that we don’t need a complex narrative.
Posted by Paul Krugman at Conscience of a Liberal on 5 November 2008 at 10:47am
The Election of the First Black President Owes Alot to George W. Bush (In a Good Way)
Would America have elected Barack Obama if white Americans had not gotten accustomed to seeing (in succession) two African-American Secretaries of State? I don't think so. Before Bush, African-Americans were appointed to some good posts but not to our #1 foreign policy job. Two African Americans (one with a pretty odd first name) served as America's face to the world. That eased Obama's way. It is not Tiger Woods in whose footsteps Obama is walking -- it's Rice and Powell.
Posted by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Café on 6 November 2008 at 7:35am
And So It begins
By "it", of course, I refer to the great post-election debate: why did we win? Far more importantly, now that we did win, what should we do now?
I have been predicting for six months now that on the Thursday after the election, assuming a win, we would start hearing from conservative Democrats and the establishment punditocracy about how we need to go slow, not over-reach, be careful. The only thing I was wrong about was the timing: with Obama clearly ahead in the polls, the not-overreaching calls began early, and have been well-chronicled on the pages of OpenLeft. Many of these calls, actually most now that I think about it, include references to Bill Clinton's "over-reach" in 1993-94 that caused the Democrats' downfall in the 1994 elections. This post, written from the perspective of someone who was in the Clinton White House and who studied in detail what happened in the 1994 elections, will walk through why this argument is dangerously wrong for Obama and the Democrats in 2009.
Posted by Mike Lux at Open Left on 5 November 2008 at 17:00
Steady as he goes
Are people's expectations too high? Maybe. Mine are certainly very high indeed. But I've also learned from Obama over the last 20 months that pacing is important and everything can't happen at once. He has the ball. He establishes the pace of play. The rest of us have to adjust. He'll do this his way.
Posted by Michael Tomasky at Comment is Free on 5 November 2008 at 20:00
Comments