Whether you’re a CNN analyst, an angry McCain supporter, or an RNC spokesperson looking for excuses, it’s important to look back and figure out why election night turned out the way it did. In politics, as in sports, looking for a scapegoat after a big loss is a time-honored tradition. With this in mind, we look to the numerous forces, both inside and outside the campaigns, that affected the race over the past few months. Who (or what) is really to blame for John McCain’s defeat?
Barack Obama
At first glance, this would seem to be the most obvious answer: Obama ran a campaign that was extremely tight and generally gaffe-free. His donor network allowed him to vastly outspend McCain, and energized voters, especially among black voters and students (and black students), leading to a Democratic advantage at the polls. Given the political climate, however, it is unlikely that Obama’s uniqueness as a candidate was the main factor in this election. Had Hillary Clinton won the nomination in the Democratic primary, she would likely have been the frontrunner against McCain. Replace Obama with Clinton, or any generic Democrat, and the end result is presumably the same.
John McCain
Richard Nixon said, “The mark of the good loser is that he takes his anger out on himself and not his victorious opponent or on his teammates.” McCain acknowledged his mistakes in the classy concession speech he gave last week. There were certainly missteps, including the ill-fated campaign suspension, the continued focus on distractions like Bill Ayers instead of the ailing economy, and most notably, the selection of Sarah Palin (more on that later). McCain’s biggest flaw, though, may simply have been the R next to his name. There was a decline in Republican voter turnout that, coupled with the rise in Democratic turnout, helped to do him in. Developments outside of either of the candidates’ control made it so any Republican would have had a tough time winning this election.
The economy
One of the most important outside factors was the economy. American voters tend to trust Obama more than McCain to deal with the country’s financial problems, so the current crisis was a definite factor in the election. The sharp economic drop in September was directly correlated with a rise in Obama’s poll numbers from then on. Historically, the growth (or lack thereof) of the economy has had a direct effect on whether or not the incumbent party keeps office in presidential elections. Basically, voters look for a change during hard economic times, and the incumbent party represents the status quo. Thus they turn to the opposition, in this case Obama and the Democrats. So who’s to blame for the state of the economy? Greedy corporations? Deregulation? Lizard people posing as world leaders? It will probably be a while before economists are able to come to a consensus, but whatever the cause, it undoubtedly helped Obama win.
Sarah Palin
After being the boost that McCain needed, Palin seemed to become the anchor that weighed the campaign down. She was mocked for her inexperience and interview performances, and a poll taken last weekend showed that her unfavorable ratings were twice as high as when McCain first picked her to be the vice presidential nominee. Recent reports from McCain aides say, among other things, that the Alaska Governor did not know that Africa was a continent. The blame can’t really be placed on Palin, however; to paraphrase Popeye, she is who she is. No one should have expected her to morph into Ronald Reagan with breasts simply by virtue of the office she was running for. It was McCain’s choice to make, and it’s pretty clear he made the wrong one. Imagine the possible changes in fortune had he picked a running mate with actual knowledge about the economy, like Mitt Romney. After all, the difference between a hockey mom and a qualified vice presidential candidate is way more than lipstick.
Political aides
These men and women serve directly under the candidate during the campaign. Unknown to all but the most devoted political junkies, these troopers basically run the campaign behind the scenes. Unfortunately, this anonymity means they are often the first to be thrown under the bus when things go wrong. For instance, one of Palin’s aides, Nicole Wallace, was blamed by the McCain campaign for not sufficiently preparing the Alaska Governor for her interview with Katie Couric. Republicans then placed Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe fiasco squarely on Wallace’s shoulders. Indeed, superiors have no qualms about writing off their political subordinates like this. In the days leading up to the election, things got rough. Aides and advisers from the McCain and Palin camps duked it out behind closed doors. While this strife certainly didn’t help, McCain was on a losing path before the infighting began. No matter how much public blame they get, a loss like this can’t just be blamed on inept aides.
George W. Bush
The former Texas governor and current Mary Poppins impersonator has been the face of the Republican party for the past eight years. With Bush’s approval rating hovering around 26 percent in the most recent polls, he’s not someone McCain wanted to be tied to. The Obama campaign’s broken record strategy of associating the Arizona senator with “four more years of Bush” seems to have succeeded. The Republicans’ plan from the beginning was to limit Bush’s appearances so as not to tie McCain down, but he has simply been too unpopular to not have an effect on the campaign. After handing him a primary loss in 2000, Bush may very well have defeated John McCain again.
Though fingers certainly will be pointed, it’s important to remember that there are many factors that led to the outcome of this election. Ultimately, the things McCain could have handled better (his campaign tactics, the vice presidential choice) were outweighed by factors outside his control (the flailing economy, Bush’s unpopularity). In his concession speech, he said he had no regrets about the way his campaign was run. There’s probably some truth to that. If there is anything to regret, it’s being in the right place at the wrong time.