yes, another politics post!

[mamajoan]

You know, I know it isn't entirely fair to call out the pundits on CNN for whatever they might have said at like 11:55pm on Tuesday, when they had been at it nonstop for the entire day, and the results were in, and we were all just waiting with bated breath for PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA (frisson!) to come out and speak. Still, one of them, and I'm pretty sure it was Anderson Cooper but don't hold me to that, said something really dumb that I just have to post about.

I don't have the verbatim quote, but it was something to the effect of, "a lot of people may be wondering now how America could elect George W. Bush in 2000, and then turn around and elect Obama in 2008." *facepalm*

Okay, first of all, there are enormous numbers of us who will still argue that America DIDN'T elect George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004 (two words: hanging chads). But even that is kind of a side point by now. Let's not even go there.

Second of all, even if you put aside the voting irregularities and presume that Bush won fair and square, the fact remains that he won by very slim margins, both times. Obama, on the other hand, got more than TWICE as many electoral votes as McCain, and also soundly beat McCain in the popular vote, 53% to 46%. In 2000 and 2004, voter turnout was at all-time lows; in 2008, turnout records were broken across the country. So, yes, America said "yes" to Bush in 00 and 04 and "yes" to Obama in '08; but those first two yeses were actually more like "siiiigh, well okay, I guess..." whereas this last one was "OH HELL YES PLEASE!!!!"

Third: Let's remember that in 2000, we were coming off a period of relative prosperity. The dot-com bubble was just sort of beginning to pop, and granted we were all by that point VERY tired of Bill Clinton's sex life, but overall we (this particular "we" means liberals/Democrats specifically) were, generally, pretty satisfied with the kind of president he had been. And I'll go out on a limb and say that there was a certain element of complacency going on in that climate; a sort of "well, how bad can it really be?" when we got our first good look at Dubya. Not that we wanted him to win, mind you, but there was no real sense of urgency about it.

Then 9/11 happened, and we all found out that "how bad it could be" was way, WAY worse than we had ever imagined. So in 2004 there was a much stronger sense of "we have GOT to get this guy out of the White House!"

But in both cases, 2000 and 2004, unfortunately, what we lacked was a candidate we could really get enthused about. Don't get me wrong, I like both Gore and Kerry; I think they're decent guys with good ideas, and I think they would have been good presidents -- orders of magnitude better than Dubya, if that doesn't go without saying. But what neither of those men is, is charismatic. Neither of them had that kind of energy, the motivational speaking skills, the personal presence that we Americans want in a president. And for all that we liberals might find Dubya smarmy and smirky and grating, a lot of people really do respond to that "folksy" Texas drawl/down-home "nookyaler"/"misunderestimated" thing.

So: how did Bush win? He won on personality; he won on complacency (the first time) and fear (the second time) and on what we in baseball call "defensive indifference." When a party, like the Democrats in 2000 and 2004, is not really enthused about their candidate, it's hard for them to make any headway with the undecideds, which is really what killed us in both of those elections.

Then along comes 2008. Bush's approval rating is lower than any president's has ever been; even his loyal base is disgusted with him. And what do we see on the horizon? Well, we've got yet another old white guy, trying to claim that he's not part of the Republican in-crowd; but he lacks the folksy charm of a Dubya, and doesn't really have anything else to replace it that would give him a spark of interest. And then on the other side we have yet another white guy...NO, WAIT A MINUTE!!! What's this? A guy talking about change - and he's NOT yet another white guy! ZOMG! Just by looking at Obama's face you already know that this isn't business as usual. Any politician can stand up there and talk about how we need change, but with this guy you can really see it!

So we're kidding ourselves if we try to say it's not about race. Of course it's about race, at least partly. But at the same time, that's not to say that Obama won because he's black. Hell no. All those undecideds who came out of the woodwork to vote for him -- and all those Republicans who switched allegiances -- they didn't do it because of his race. They did it because Obama has the oomph that I'm talking about. He has all that stuff we wished Kerry and Gore had had -- the charisma, the charm, the speaking skills. To hear Obama speak is to hear what Americans want to hear from their president. He's calm, but energized. He's intelligent, but respectful. He's confident, but not arrogant. Put simply, the man is presidential. This was the main thought that I had after the first debate (most of which I listened to on the radio while putting the kids to bed). McCain sounded like a grumpy, crotchety old man. Obama sounded statesmanlike. I listened to him, and I thought -- and obviously so did millions of others -- "This is a man who sounds like what I want in a leader."

So: How did America elect Bush in '00 and '04, and Obama this year? It boils down to this. Bush won because we had to pick someone, and he was handy. Obama won because we needed someone, and he is the someone we needed.

I also highly recommend maggiesox's post, here, which beautifully sums up how most of us liberals are feeling right now, and why we just can't stop weeping with joy.

Comments

[metafrantic.livejournal.com]

"In 2000 and 2004, voter turnout was at all-time lows; in 2008, turnout records were broken across the country."

Far be it for me to argue with my sister (ha!), but... that's not entirely accurate. I keep seeing people talk about record turnouts at the polls - and the long lines seem to support that - but the numbers don't agree.

In 2004, 62,028,285 people voted for Bush and 59,028,109 voted for Kerry, for a total of 121,056,394 votes (with 3rd-party candidates getting negligible numbers). At the time it was the most votes ever cast.

In 2008, 64,134,216 people voted for Obama and 56,555,649 voted for McCain, for a total of 120,689,865. (That's as of CNN's most recent updates.) Some states still have results trickling in, making it just barely possible that the 2008 totals for the two major parties will equal the totals from 2004.

The real difference this year was in the swing votes, like you said. Obama got 5,106,107 more votes than Kerry, while McCain got 5,484,957 fewer votes than Bush.

It doesn't make sense to me, though; everything I've read and seen and heard tells me that the voter turnout was monumental... except the numbers.

[mamajoan.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I found this from the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans voted in unprecedented numbers in Tuesday's election, topping the record set in the 2004 presidential race by several million.

Experts differed on the scale of the voter turnout increase in their analysis.

Michael McDonald of George Mason University estimated that about 133.3 million people voted for president, based on preliminary results from the country's precincts tallied and projections for absentee ballots.

A more conservative estimate came from Curtis Gans, director of the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. He said the total votes could be between 126.5 million and 129 million.

Each vote total surpassed the count in 2004 when 122.3 million ballots were cast, the most ever for president.

With 97 percent of precincts reporting, The Associated Press figures showed about 121.5 million people had voted in the White House race.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i34ao3tow5yhj2v7v24HM_wbT8JQD9492LAG0

I wonder why such different numbers. It says something later on about difference in what is considered an eligible voter, but surely that would only affect the percentages, not the raw numbers. hmm.

[metafrantic.livejournal.com]

All the numbers offered are questionable. Hell, I'm finding significant differences in the numbers from 2004! Now I'm not sure what to think.

One thing is certain: the 2004 election definitely set the all-time turnout record, and 2008 seems to have at least equaled it.

[techn0goddess.livejournal.com]

It might take several more days for all the absentee ballots to be counted. In Virginia, the total number of votes cast went up by 50,000 from yesterday to today. I presume that's all due to absentee numbers being added. There are still 11 precincts out of 2497 left to report. Yesterday morning, the No on Prop 8 people said there were still 3 million votes not yet included in the state totals for just California. So the 2008 total could go up quite a bit past the 2004 total.

[metafrantic.livejournal.com]

Could be. None of the numbers seem to add up, as different organizations/sites are reporting completely different things. Whose numbers are the "official" ones?

[techn0goddess.livejournal.com]

The only official source would be the board of elections or secretary of state or whatever is the equivalent position in each state. At some point the top dog in each state has to declare the election results official, and that might not be for several days. Or even weeks, in cases where there is a recount, like in Minnesota's senate race this year.

[maggiesox.livejournal.com]

What's with everybody making me blush today?