How Obama Won
Nate Silver has a great explanation of why many pundits didn’t immediately grasp the scale of Obama’s victory:
My other annoyance with the punditry is that they seem to weight all segments of the debate equally. There were eight segments in this debate: bailout, economy, spending, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, terrorism. The pundit consensus seems to be that Obama won the segments on the bailout, the economy, and Iraq, drew the segment on Afghanistan, and lost the other four. So, McCain wins 4-3, right? Except that, voters don’t weight these issues anywhere near evenly. In Peter Hart’s recent poll for NBC, 43 percent of voters listed the economy or the financial crisis as their top priority, 12 percent as Iraq, and 13 percent terrorism or other foreign policy issues. What happens if we give Obama two out of three economic voters (corresponding to the fact that he won two out of the three segments on the economy), and the Iraq voters, but give McCain all the “other foreign policy” voters?
By this measure, Obama “won” by 14 points, which almost exactly his margin in the CNN poll.
Basically, people were impressed by John McCain’s handling of topics they don’t care about.
63 Responses to “How Obama Won”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 27th, 2008 at 11:47 am
thanks for the polls.. they seem reliable now.
http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/thoughts-on-the-first-presidential-debate/
September 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Obama dominated early on – right out of the gate and put McCain on the psychological defensive.
Everyone who saw the debate thought
Obama won – unless they had an interest
in pretending otherwise.
Hey – Matt – How come no one noticed
McCain mutter the word “Horseshit”
under his breath when Obama
stomped on him re Zapatero??????????
September 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I thought McCain managed a very narrow edge in overall debating style and aggressiveness — basically I thought he had a pretty good night and exceeded expectations. However, all the polling I’ve seen suggests most viewers thought Obama won. So, on that alone McCain arguably had a disastrous night. If he can’t “win” debates in which he does well, what’s going to happen when Obama attacks more aggressively and bloodies him a bit?
September 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
“Basically, people were impressed by John McCain’s handling of topics they don’t care about.”
This is a more far-reaching conclusion than just about last night’s debate.
As long as the overall news climate is dominated by economic woes, Obama is a shoo-in to win the election.
The interesting part will come if the overall news climate stops being dominated by economic woes…
September 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Gore destroyed Bush in the first debate, but Bush’s post debate spin and media Gore-hatred was so intense
that reporters now misrember the Gore debate – they
often add in details of the third Gore debate into the first
debate.
So Obama’s win has to remain in post debate spin
So far McCain’s post debate spin ad is very weak
and just seems anti-intellectual because
Obama concedes a bit in a gentlemanly fashion.
re Gore’s sighs were not noticed when Gore first debated
They were less noticable
that McCain’s snorts and uttering “Horsehit”
McCain’s amazing lack of discipline – swearing on stage –
should be an issue
September 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Nice site. There
September 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Also – McCain’s lost the debate when he sheepishly
conceded to Lehrer that he will vote for the bailout
Blount had his potential insurrection wounded.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Another metric is to award three points to McCain for the first nine times he invoked his fetish totem word, “General Petraeus,” then tally it against McCain for each use thereafter. About the same result.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
McCain’s only hope – when the Klondike Cutie (Palin) faces the Hairplug Pitbull (Biden)
Biden may win on radio, but Palin will win on TV
September 27th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
That makes a lot of sense if you think about it. McCain’s under a lot of pressure to be completely incoherent on the issues people care about because a coherent explanation of McCain’s position is a big loser. If McCain coherently explained his beliefs about the economy he’d be lucky to get 25% of the vote in November. McCain simply can’t afford to be coherent on issues that people care about because people disagree with him. Hence he loses the debate on those issues.
On the other hand, on issues that people don’t care about McCain gets a lot more value out of being coherent and presenting an argument that people can follow than he gets out of obscuring disagreement. McCain can afford to be honest about things people just don’t give a damn about, and honesty can come off well in a debate.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
This ties in to what bugs me about the question of saying in Iraq to handle the war.
If we intend to stay in Iraq, I can imagine a lot of folks would rather McCain, but if we intend to leave, who cares about fighting a war in Iraq?
One thing Obama kept repeating, and McCain reinforced is that the last seven years has been looked at through the tiny lens of Iraq. Strangely McCain accused Obama of not understanding that Iraq and Afghanistan were connected, he did this just after Obama accused McCain/Bush of connecting everything to Iraq. McCain is obsessed with Iraq.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I think the economic part dominated this debate. People are interested in Iraq too, but everyone already knows where the two candidates stand. And the last half hour bored even me, a policy junkie, to death.
Very few people actually care about earmarks, while Obama spoke directly to everyone’s problems.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The debate, surprisingly, showed the best of both candidates. However those are very different things. John McCain did an excellent job showing the senator he has been. Barack Obama did an excellent job showing the president he will be.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
One caveat that we’re not seeing in the echo chamber is that all the insta-polls we’re seeing showing the Obama win are of those who watched the debate, and it seems pretty clear that the debate audience skewed more D than the overall electorate.
In short, the debate insta-polls are actually a proxy for the differing enthusiasm levels of the parties.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
David Broder has an article about how, if you show the basic courtesy of acknowledging your opponent, while your opponent acts like an insecure asshole, then you’re somehow acknowledging the “alpha male” status of your opponent.
Broder deserves merciless mocking for this crap.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
When McCain talked about Iran – the audience
only heard some old guy talking about corpses.
McCain’s line about stinking corpses backfired.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Dean Broder is a loon – if you’re gonna play that
puerile “alpha” game – then Obama won because
McCain was blinking and blinking and pouting
and snorting defensively.
By contrast – Obama’s body language was commanding – he was polite, but forcefull – He treated the old man with respect
Plus – Obama made race disappear
Think – A black man just kicked McCain’s ass in Missippi debate – McCain’s ancestors were Mississippi slaveholders.
You can’t hold McCain’s slaveholding ancestors against him, but the symbolism of a black man beating him in a Presidential debate was interesting.
Pat Buchanan was angry at Obama last night – subconciously he saw the Confederacy humbles once more.
Look away …
September 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
> As long as the overall news climate is dominated
> by economic woes, Obama is a shoo-in to win the election.
>
> The interesting part will come if the overall news climate
> stops being dominated by economic woes…
Never forgetting that Petey finds it “freakishly easy to line out the politics”:
Because in the next 5 weeks the alien spaceships are going to land and give us the matter replicator, pollution-eating machines, and cure for cancer for free thus making our fundamental economic problems go away.
Cranky
September 27th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
And Petey is once again full of horseshit. Obama won in polls among independent voters.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Basically, people were impressed by John McCain’s handling of topics they don’t care about.
And in some of those topics — say, his attitude to Russia’s neighbours to the west — he was just bullshitting. But he’s been there, you know? And he’s been to Duzzenunnerstan too.
@17: As Gene Robinson said, Obama came across as the least-aggrieved black man in America. And Tweety was embarrassingly revealing when he asked about Obama being ‘non-ethnic’.
Broder deserves merciless mocking for this crap.
’sfunny: Josh Marshall had a commenter last night who actually studies monkey behaviour — Marshall looked up his faculty page to check — who said “low ranking monkeys don’t look at high ranking monkeys.”
September 27th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The 392nd piece of evidence that Nate Silver is one of the smartest guys blogging. What a great site he has.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
After long negotiations on the bailout, presumably little sleep, and his anger at the debate, I was a little worried that McCain was going to collapse. I don’t mean that as a tasteless joke. With McCain’s temper, age and the sort of schedule a president keeps during multiple US crises, we really could be looking at a Palin presidency.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“Never forgetting that Petey finds it “freakishly easy to line out the politics”
Indeed. As stated, if economic woes continue to dominate the zeitgeist for the next 5 weeks, Obama is a shoo-in. That really is freakishly easy to line out.
“Because in the next 5 weeks the alien spaceships are going to land and give us the matter replicator, pollution-eating machines, and cure for cancer for free thus making our fundamental economic problems go away.”
McCain doesn’t need “our fundamental economic problems” to go away to have a shot at winning. He just needs a different topic to replace the economic meltdown as the main headline.
I don’t find it freakishly easy to predict whether or not that will happen.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Mike Deaver would advise McCain to stop discusing
“stinking corpses” – The audience ignores the details
and they see the old man, angry and petulant, discussing corpses.
Last night was the night old Dixie died.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I thought McCain did better in controlling the tempo, and making Obama’s position the issue. He did some strawman’s arguments on Obama by putting judgements on positions that Obama used time to clarify. McCain came across as more forceful and in control.
However, McCain also came across as petty, dogmatic and grumpy, and a bit out of touch. Using Reagan and SDI was kind of disingenuous, when he states he was for cutting earmarks, when Missile Defense and SDI was a huge rathole of wasteful spending. McCain lost big time in his mannerisms, and he had this more of that “elitist” attitude about how dare anyone question my brillance. Obama was way too nice, but I guess he was nice to appeal to independent voters and especially independent women.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
However, if the economic news shifts, even slightly, we’ll be reminded of how far behind its game Team Chicago really is. The economy makes this a tough environment for Team Sedona, but their strategy has been brilliant. Lower expectations for Sarah Palin, so her triumph over Joe Biden will be even more stunning.
If Team Chicago has any brains, they’ll make sure that Biden is hospitalized for the debate. Otherwise, they’ll be steamrolled. You heard it here first.
Off to Intrade…
September 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
If Petey’s right, that the debate audience (even the indies/undecideds) were leaning Obama, how exactly is that good news for McCain? If, as has been suggested elsewhere, the undecideds in the CNN focus group and the CBS spot poll were really Obama leaners on average, how exactly is that good news for McCain?
September 27th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
These numbers basically say that Obama won because people agree with his positions. That may be a good definition of “won”, since it describes what the effect of the debate on the election. But it doesn’t really indicate how the candidates played the hand they were given. In general I thought McCain did pretty well (at least in the audio–I tuned in on the radio). He was attacking and making Obama play defense for much of the foreign policy debate. He was sharper than his younger buddies Bush and Palin have ever been or ever will be in a debate. No one was watching him and thinking that this is a confused old man.
All that said, Obama went toe to toe with him. If one candidate is claiming the experience and seasoning, he can’t draw to a tie in a battle over policy. That’s why McCain again and again tried to claim that Obama didn’t understand this or that; but for the most part it didn’t work.
On a different note, we may have an irony overload if it’s liberal bloggers that start raising the hue and cry about McCain swearing on stage.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Klondike Cutie (Palin) will defeat The Hairplug Pitbull (Biden)
Now is the time for Obama to adjust expectations.
We saw old dixie – incarnated symbolically in McCain – die last night.
But Palinism is the wave of the future for the new right.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“If Petey’s right, that the debate audience (even the indies/undecideds) were leaning Obama, how exactly is that good news for McCain?”
My point is that Obama supporters were over-represented among the debate viewership, and that is mostly a function of the enthusiasm gap between the parties.
However, I’m not sure how anyone would think I’m saying that the enthusiasm gap between the parties is somehow good for McCain…
September 27th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
In today’s speech in Greensboro, NC, Obama said that regarding the economic woes we’re in, Bush dug us into the hole, and McCain carried the shovel.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“The economy makes this a tough environment for Team Sedona, but their strategy has been brilliant.”
The current focus on the economic meltdown makes this an impossible environment for Team Sedona.
One of the deftest elements of Sedona’s strategy all summer long was to always find a way to smother Obama’s attempts to pivot the campaign to the economy. But external events over the past two weeks accomplished the pivot without Chicago having to lift a finger.
“Off to Intrade…”
I’ve been heavily long Obama since the meltdown story broke…
September 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Palin has to come across a comfortable and confident, no matter if she makes goofs.
The worse she can do is try to keep to her talking points as she was trying in her interview with Couric. She doesn’t have to be a policy wonk, but she has to know what she is talking about, and she believes in what she is talking about. If she is mouthing stuff to appease her handlers, she will fall flat on her face.
The most important thing for Biden is to appeal to Americans that he is a right person to be hold national office. Let Palin hang herself, or use a delicate touch on her. If he goes for the jugular on Palin, he becomes the issue. Remember the VP debate of Mondale and Dole, along with Quayle and Benson.
Palin will probably do much better at the Debate than her Couric interview, but it is pretty difficult to be worse than the Couric interview. Whether she has TV presence, she has to be pretty convincing to wow people in the VP debate.
September 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Petey, would you care to explain how a poll which shows that undecided voters who watched the debate thought that Obama won can be affected by the fact that more Obama supporters watched the debate?
September 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
They’re secret Democrats!! Planted Obama Shills! Liars!!
September 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“Petey, would you care to explain how a poll which shows that undecided voters who watched the debate thought that Obama won can be affected by the fact that more Obama supporters watched the debate?”
Nate and Matthew are quite explicitly talking about the CNN poll, not the CBS poll.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“They’re secret Democrats!! Planted Obama Shills! Liars!!”
Actually the methodology of the CBS poll is kinda fucked, best I can tell. Given the way they conducted it, it’s worth no more than a good focus group. They needed to push the leaners before the debate to winnow a better sample, but that would’ve been quite a bit more expensive. As it stands, I don’t think their sample really is what they’re calling it.
The real meaning to be taken out of the CBS poll is something that I think has been apparent for a while now, namely that the majority of so-called undecideds lean Obama, but their willingness to move from that lean to actually voting Obama on election day is the battlefield on which the campaign is being fought.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I fear that Petey may be approaching the Kaus Frontier, the Kaus Frontier being the dividing line between being a skeptical and heterodox but fundamentally progressive Democrat and being a Democrat who serves, in all practical respects, as a Republican aparatchik.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I fear that Petey may be approaching the Kaus Frontier, the Kaus Frontier being the dividing line between being a skeptical and heterodox but fundamentally progressive Democrat and being a Democrat who serves, in all practical respects, as a Republican aparatchik.
Only in the pure, cold light of the DLC can we be saved. To waver from the purity of the DLC, currently incarnate in the austerely divine figures of Bill and Hilary Clinton, can we be saved. Under the DLC – only under the DLC – can the vigorous heart of American capitalism and of the glorious New American Empire grant unto us health care.
Remember: Empire -> Corporate Vigor -> Health Care
My logic is impervious.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
“I fear that Petey may be approaching the Kaus Frontier, the Kaus Frontier being the dividing line between being a skeptical and heterodox but fundamentally progressive Democrat and being a Democrat who serves, in all practical respects, as a Republican aparatchik.”
I’ve got pretty different politics than Mickey. He’s right of center on economics and I’m pretty far left of center on economics. (Kaus thinks unions are instruments of Satan, fergawdsakes.)
But I think what you’re getting at is that Mickey feels no need to be “helpful” to Democrats in winning elections in terms of his commentary. And for this election, I’m with him in that aspect. I’ll vote Obama, but I don’t think it’s a given (or even particularly likely) that it’d be better for the left if he wins than if he loses, and thus I’m not restraining my commentary for “helpfulness” reasons.
My reasons for lack of enthusiasm come from a very different place than Mickey’s, but if you’re coming at this from a certain partisan place, I certainly can understand how you might confuse the two of us in terms of lack of “helpfulness”. However, unlike Mickey, I’ll be back to being a rabidly partisan Democrat on November 5th. (Also, I don’t date Republicans.)
September 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
The real key to understanding Petey is his explicitly held belief(albeit never stated quite so bluntly) that the key to long term progressive success is by murdering as many innocent people in places like Iraq and Iran as possible. That is, on foriegn policy he tends to be far the right of center (particularly fightening because our center is already insanely hawkish). (Of course, he doesn’t hold such hawkish beliefs out of principle – he merely believes that murdering innocent children abroad will have the instrumental effect of getting UHC for Americans.)
His real problem with Obama is that he doesn’t think that Obama has the stomach for mass murdering innocents abroad. He fears that that “failure” will undermine the long term prospects for progresive success.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I don’t think it’s a given (or even particularly likely) that it’d be better for the left if he wins than if he loses, and thus I’m not restraining my commentary for “helpfulness” reasons.
Don’t feel any need to restrain your commentary for helpfulness reasons — I don’t imagine that there’s anything you can do to sink the ship by posting blog comments. (I am pleased to see that Petey comment quality is on an uptrend.)
I’m wondering if you can see Obama doing for the Democrats on foreign policy what Clinton did on the economy. Clinton may not have gotten us a health care plan, but a lot of the good will that voters bear towards Democrats on the economy comes from good stuff that happened on his watch. Let Obama tie off Iraq nicely at a time when the American public really wants us to leave, and manage some foreign crises in the effective way that a smart well-advised guy like him can, and you’ll see him drive up the value of the Democratic brand on those issues.
Then Democrats are seen as right on the economy and right on foreign policy. That’ll win you a lot of elections, and put you in position to get good stuff done.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The real key to understanding Petey is his explicitly held belief(albeit never stated quite so bluntly) that the key to long term progressive success is by murdering as many innocent people in places like Iraq and Iran as possible.
You say that like there’s something wrong with building a hospital out of the bones of slaughtered innocents.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
RE: Petey
I can deal with our enemies, but God save us from our friends.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“I’m wondering if you can see Obama doing for the Democrats on foreign policy what Clinton did on the economy. Clinton may not have gotten us a health care plan, but a lot of the good will that voters bear towards Democrats on the economy comes from good stuff that happened on his watch. Let Obama tie off Iraq nicely at a time when the American public really wants us to leave, and manage some foreign crises in the effective way that a smart well-advised guy like him can, and you’ll see him drive up the value of the Democratic brand on those issues.”
It’s certainly possible, though I wouldn’t bet on it. The more dovish party is always going to face electoral challenges on foreign policy. FDR and Truman won the biggest war of all time, and five years later, McCarthyism had Democrats on the run.
Or put another way, Bill Clinton ran a pretty effective foreign policy, and two years after he was gone, foreign policy was again the Democrats’ achilles heel.
The long-term Party brand is to deliver on economics. Foreign policy doesn’t win for the Party. Obama could bring peace to the world, and it still likely wouldn’t change that particular equation.
—–
And on the topic of debates, isn’t it odd how Lorne Michaels has become the most powerful person in Presidential politics?
September 27th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Anyone who hasn’t decided who they’re voting for in this election by now is a low information voter, someone who’s incapable of discerning the instances where McCain was intentionally (or worse, unintentionally) misleading and/or factually inaccurate. With little more than a basic grasp of the complex financial issues at issue and having only a limited understanding or awareness of world events, the swinger is going to look to the candidates’ tone, confidence, and fighter instinct, among other qualities that are assessed on the visceral, rather than intellectual, level.
In this regard, McCain came in like a charging bull, a scrapper, yet, improbably, showed himself–unfortunately– to be polished, steeped in historical context, and even steady.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Shouldn’t you be calling it Team Arlington instead of Team Sedona?
September 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“Shouldn’t you be calling it Team Arlington instead of Team Sedona?”
In terms of office space location, I think you are correct. But in terms of synecdoche, I think my coinage works far better.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Although this is not Petey’s point (it has been a long time since Petey had a point I found interesting, by the way), it would be a fair point to note that more important perhaps than the perceptions of people actually watching the debate are the perceptions of people who hear about the debate afterward.
So, we don’t actually know yet how the debate will play in this secondhand sense. But the preliminary indications seem pretty favorable for Obama to me, although SNL has yet to weigh in.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Yeah, the public – and the morons here – don’t care about Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.
When their kids start dying in those countries instead of Iraq, and the cost of those wars exceeds the cost of Iraq by a factor of four, and the oil spikes finally tank the economy big time, then they’ll care.
Too late.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:40 am
You are a very smart person!
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:20 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 6:06 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:38 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:52 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 9:12 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Incredible site!
viagra