How Obama won.
| Author | Crabtree, James |
| Position | Notebook - Essay |
Imagine a seesaw. Now imagine an election. The parallels are clear. Two parties, broadly in balance, seek to bring the seat down on their side. But how? That the seesaw of American politics has just swung decisively in favour of the Democrats is not in doubt, bringing with it hopes of an end to the generation-long rise of conservatism, and a renewal of America's (unfinished) social contract. But understanding why the seesaw tilted progressive means understanding two larger changes, relating respectively to policy and organisation.
First, Obama's campaign brought to the fore a decade-long Democratic economic rethink, which in turn allowed it to respond quickly to voters' concerns about the credit crunch. Second, Obama's campaign managed to develop a new organising strategy, capable of motivating the Democratic base without frightening off independent and moderate voters, squaring a circle that had puzzled previous Democratic campaigns.
Tipping the seesaw
American academic Thomas Shaller, the author of Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South (Shaller, 2006), argues that commentators see only one seesaw strategy: moving people from one side to the other (1). Shaller sees this as broadly analogous to attempts by both parties to attract independent, often conservatively-minded groups. But this is only one of four possible ways of winning the seesaw battle. In addition, the application of momentum, thrusting down to provide extra weight at the right moment, can tip the balance. Thirdly, others can be persuaded to join one side or other. And finally, in a more complicated piece of engineering, the fulcrum can be moved towards either side, creating a structural imbalance.
If the first move corresponds to appealing to independents, the second and third closely resemble getting out the vote, and enlarging the pool of available voters through, for instance, voter registration drives or persuading younger voters to vote for the first time.
The fourth--long-term structural change in the make-up of a nation's politics and electorate--is the most tantalising. In the UK the sale of council houses, for instance, moved the fulcrum of politics to the right. Likewise, in the US, Republican attempts to create a permanent majority, or political realignment, have sometimes focused on the gerrymandering of congressional districts. Equally, such a structural change can also come from an intellectual imbalance--as was the case with American liberalism until the 1970s, and conservatism thereafter.
Assessing Obama's victory means examining his progress against these four measures, and especially examining whether his victory, and the governing project coming from it, is likely to herald such a new realignment.
An inevitable victory?
Obama's victory on each of the first three measures is clearly remarkable. The facts are now familiar, but worth repeating. Obama won a majority of the popular vote, only the fourth Democrat in American history to do so, and the most decisive Democratic victory since LBJ. He won African Americans overwhelmingly, and substantially increased the Democrats' majority amongst important swing demographics, in particular younger voters and Hispanics. And exit polls showed the Democrats easily winning the seesaw battle, taking independents 52 to 44, and moderates (who make up nearly half of the electorate) by a massive 60 to 39.
Obama's ability to win over moderates and independent turned, in particular, on the rising importance of the economy during the campaign. US elections can be divided between those dominated by either domestic or foreign concerns. Democrats rarely win the latter.
Iraq was seen as the election's defining issue during the Democratic primaries. This benefited Obama, and harmed Clinton. It also gave McCain an opening, given his early support for the surge and perceived credibility on foreign policy issues. In December 2007, during the run-in to the primaries, a Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg poll confirmed that 32 per cent of Americans saw Iraq as the election's defining issue. The economy (25 per cent), health care (19 per cent) and terrorism (18 per cent) came next (2).
But, as...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
