Happy Inauguration Day

Today we conclude our series on Why Obama Won. We have seen many good points made, and are grateful to our panelists.

Some thought the victory was due to the poor strategy of John McCain - others believed it was the good strategy put together by Plouffe and Axelrod. Some pointed out Obama’s strength with the youth vote - some said that Americans simply weren’t going to elect another Republican after Bush.

A few were right to point out the unique spirit of this particular campaign - built more on hope than any previous presidential campaign in memory.

Yet every panelist agreed that there were indeed a great many factors involved in this historic victory. Demographics shifting came just in time for an inspiring candidate with a team of genius campaign strategists, as well as the collapse of the financial market and a careless opposition - it all created the perfect storm for an Obama win.

There will be a lot to learn about this particular election cycle in the years to come - 2008 was an incredible year for the study of campaign politics.

Yet today we will honor the man rather than the accomplishment, and soak up the spirit of this Inauguration.

In the words of our friend, Sherwin Hughes, God bless our new President and God bless America.

Why Obama Won - By Dan Weinberg

One answer is that Hillary Clinton dropped out and she gave all her voters over to Obama. People who thought in 2007 that Obama 'wasn't Black enough' changed their tune once Clinton dropped out.

Another reason Obama won was that in states like Indiana voters who hadn't voted in years or had voted Republican evolved into voters for Obama. The Democratic get-out-the-vote effort in Indiana was a huge factor.

Another reason that Obama won was that his rhetoric sped light years beyond what McCain could offer. Speeches and economic analysis that were intelligent, comfortable, and realistic gave Obama a push to the final prize.

The last reason that Barack Obama won is that he wanted it more. From his kindergarten essay to the November 2008 election he was like an eagle at the top of the food chain. Obama had his eyes on the White House for a long time.


Do you agree or disagree with Dan? Be sure to leave a comment!

Dan Weinberg is a librarian at Gary Public Libraries in Gary, IN. He lives in Chicago and is a staunch political observer.

Why Obama Won - By Sherwin Hughes

I've been playing this game for a long time. I have never seen an offense like this one. The formations they used were simply unorthodox. As the plays began to unfold this team marched down the field and defeated each of their opponents one by one—including the previous national champion Clintons (John Edwards ultimately penalized himself out of contention). Election by election, they took state championships in places no one ever imagined. Iowa is one huge political football state—the string of victories started there. Those states, now marked by the hue of blue, were enough to crown a new champion in this game that can only be described as larger than the super bowl.

The Obama presidential campaign was nothing short of a phenomenon. This "Obamanon" will be the subject of study for political professionals for many years to come.

It is impossible to describe this campaign without the mention of the very basic intrinsic value of hope. It was the overarching theme throughout the campaign. When a charismatic figure is able to do more than talk, but inspire, you have the trappings of something incredible. Bill Clinton, also a charismatic figure, did little to kindle the American spirit in the same ways as Barack Obama. There are things that are simply intangible about Barack Obama as a man.

He is the combination of what divides America. He is as black and he is white. He stands a man in, and of, racial contrast. Ultimately, nothing can unite more than the very things that divide. He is, remarkably, every American. In his books he reveals his angst, his uncertain identity, and even his drug use. There is little about this man that people can't relate to. For those who tout "he's not black" or "he's not black enough" I offer you Michelle Obama and his beautiful daughters. These black women are the final and ultimate justification of this great man.

In the universe of campaigns, the candidate, sometimes, is of the least importance. For it is the organization and the message therein that will assume the momentum. Obama had the luxury of both.

The selection process to be a paid staffer in the campaign was unlike any I had ever before witnessed. In democratic presidential campaigns, we often start with the usual suspects. Individuals from organized labor, the slue of activists, (women's rights, environmentalists, GLBT, etc.) after that, campaigns are usually honored to take whoever else is willing—and sympathetic.

This campaign was exceptionally different. Not just seasoned political professions (only of a specific pedigree) but lawyers, PhD's of all sorts, master degreed professionals, and graduate students alike surrendered their lives of upward mobility and academia to join this movement.

This campaign was damn smart, Ivy League smart by design. I mean that literally.

Some of my most seasoned colleagues in campaign politics, people who do this to feed their families, people whom I worked and trained side by side were not paid staff of the Obama campaign. That was on purpose.

Some of us, like it or not, represented the old way—politics as usual. That Clinton way, that Kerry way was not how this thing was going to work.

I can recall the days when GOTV was a campaign bedding down in a minority community three weeks before an election with a big bag of money (clearly before the party-pooping McCain-Feingold Act). The "Obamanon" stood in antithesis of such antiquated ways. Instead of political professionals who expect payola, some of us were replaced with ordinary people. Ordinary people who were so inspired that they sought to volunteer. Imagine that. A campaign made overwhelmingly by people who were so inspired that they willingly walked their own communities, talking to their neighbors, friends, and family about the message of hope and change. The longer you think about it the more apparent the genius becomes.

Then of course, there's the money.

I liken right-wing conservative donors to gamblers. These poker players, drunk on their own hubris and wealth, are sitting down to a game of presidential stud, hold 'em or betting on horses at the track. The max buy-in is a cool $2,300. Their hands contain a peculiar set of face-cards—which include: Joe "The Plumber's", Sarah "The Palin's", and John "The McCain's". Those who previously held Rudy "The Giuliani's" and Mike "The Huckabee's" folded pretty early.

Those hands would ultimately be trumped. Millions of ordinary people sat down at that high stakes presidential poker game. The same people who haven't been invited to play for the last 8 years, and arguably the last 200, seated themselves with confidence at this exclusive backroom game. They pooled their $5 and $10 chips, raised, re-raised and splashed the pot. The cards were dealt face up and revealed a beautiful royal flush which consisted of the face cards of disenfranchised Americans, war veterans, and jobless individuals.

There were great complexities that existed within this campaign—the details of which we will be sorting for the next two decades. To the dismay of some, Obama was not farmed, and exclusively cultivated by the Black community. However, everything seemed to work. From NOT picking Senator Clinton as VP, to unleashing Biden only where his off the cuff style would be prudent, was the work of intellect and intention and not ignorance.

This was an airtight, largely gaffe-free campaign. So slick in its rhetoric, that the critics of Jeremiah Wright disappeared into obscurity.

The organization was foxy, cunning, and mostly free of missteps. The many financial contributions were obtained from a wide and exceptionally diverse constituency, making them seemingly unlimited. Most importantly, this campaign inspired us so much and kindled our spirits. In fact, the hope spilled out into the entire world. From goat herders in Africa to the cobblestone streets of Western Europe, we heard the world simultaneously shout "Yes We Can".

On a fateful day in November, America matured from her adolescence and blossomed into a woman. She now stands a beautiful woman who has begun overcoming her previously prejudicial ways.

There are some who are so obstinate to change that they only consult their grandmothers for advice.

They lost this time.

Then there are others whose sun was replaced by an "O" rising at dawn. They, this time, were the victors. God bless our new president and God bless America.



Do you agree or disagree with Sherwin? Be sure to leave a comment!

Sherwin Hughes is the Principal and Chief Strategist at STH & Associates, LLC - a political consulting firm in Milwaukee, WI. He is also a former Chair of the Wisconsin State Elections Board and has directed several community organizations.

Why Obama Won - By Derrick Shapley

The reason Obama won can be boiled down to four main reasons. The first reason is Howard Dean. When Howard Dean’s campaign ended its members did not leave the Democratic Party but became an integral part of it. Creating and maintaining blogs that challenged the right wing media of talk radio, Fox news, the Wall Street Journal and others.

No longer could the right wing go unchallenged in the media with its often-unfounded allegations of Democratic candidates being either elitist, who are out of touch with the American public or calling Democrats immoral and godless. Anytime there was an allegation by the right wing media the blogs and other form of Internet media was there to counter the allegation, which was then disseminated through traditional media outlets.

Another way Howard Dean helped Obama was when he became chairman of the Democratic Party he created the fifty state strategy. Democrats were no longer going to cede parts of the country to Republicans. This led to Obama challenging every state in both the primary and the general election.

In the primary fighting in caucus states that were small and that Hillary thought were not worth fighting in and in the general fighting in states such as Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia, states that used to be hostile to Democratic presidential candidates and winning. If it wasn’t for the fact that both Howard Dean and Barack Obama saw that Democrats had to expand the electoral map Democrats may still be in the minority in congress.

The second reason Obama won is because the American public was tired of not only Republican Party ideology but also there campaign tactics. In this election the tired old traditions of the Republican Party in branding people Liberals and tax and spenders didn’t work.

With the problems of the economy, social issues within the campaign became almost irrelevant. We heard almost nothing on gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control, and other wedge issues this campaign cycle. Republicans and even Hillary tried to make wedge issues throughout the campaign with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright but combined with McCain’s lack of enthusiasm about those issues and the American public’s distaste with this sort of politics of association these wedge issues did not succeed in the last election.

The third reason Obama won was because of the McCain campaign itself, like Dr. Shober said before me. McCain’s campaign made three crucial mistakes. First, it thought it could win on McCain’s record as a Prisoner of War, Senator, and as a reformer of campaign finance without offering much in the way of any ideas about what to do about the future. The McCain campaign set up a campaign theme that rarely acknowledged issues and, in which even their campaign manager Rick Davis declared, “This election is not about issues.” Unfortunately for the McCain campaign this election became about issues like fixing the economy, and restoring our standing around the world.

When the McCain campaign attacked Obama with almost trivial and sometimes disgusting advertising it went over like a lead balloon with the American public. Every reputable poll conducted during and after the election showed the American public viewed the campaign ran by McCain as negative.

The second mistake by McCain was to nominate Sarah Palin for Vice President. This took away McCain’s argument about experience. McCain was arguing that people should vote for him because of experience but then put somebody who was a heartbeat away from the presidency who had never been on a national stage before. The majority of America did not view Palin as experienced and after the pick Obama always could counter the experience angle with Palin. Palin herself did not do McCain many favors.

Yes, she did energize the conservative base, however this was at the expense of alienating moderates and even conservative democrats. Her lack of ability to address questions in interviews brought to the American public memories of a soon to be former president and her polarizing effect on voters was not the message McCain needed when people were wanting something to get done in Washington and to move away from this era of partisanship.

The third mistake McCain made was saying, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.” After he said this and then a week or two later suspending his campaign and coming back to Washington the American public perceived him as not understanding what is going on in our economy. They viewed him as out of touch with economic issues and were really something McCain could never recover from.

The fourth reason Obama won was because of a certain person in the White House named George W. Bush. I could go over the list of failures of this administration but it would be too long to count. The bottom line is the American public lost confidence in the government’s ability to deal with major crises and the party in charge was the Republican Party so the people who get the blame are going to be Republicans. The almost abysmal favorability ratings of Bush was like a cloud that stood over the entire Republican party this election cycle and one from which they could not recover.


Do you agree or disagree with Derrick? Be sure to leave a comment!

Derrick Shapley is a graduate student in sociology at Mississippi State University. He has formerly worked for numerous campaigns across the country as a field operative.

Why Obama Won – By Scott Simpson

Barack Obama will become President of the United States later this month having won the popular vote and Electoral College by significant margins. How did the same "center right" country that elected George W. Bush twice, and according to Karl Rove was on the cusp of a permanent Republican majority, vote so overwhelmingly for a black guy with a funny name who had been a measly state senator just 6 years prior? There were four factors that ultimately contributed to Obama's success:

Raw Talent: At his core, Barack Obama is a political savant with a unique perspective and understanding of American culture. While I believe that virtually any of the mainstream Democratic candidates probably could have won the general election in 2008, Obama's natural ability to comprehend the dynamics of both the primary and general electorate helped him beat both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Whether it was speeches after primary victories in Iowa, South Carolina and North Carolina and during Reverend Wrightgate, or his performance during the economic collapse, Obama seemed to naturally adjust the tone and tenor of his message to communicate exactly the right thing at the right time. One can argue that eight years of George W. Bush may have created the perfect storm for Obama's particular set of political skills, but like my tenth grade basketball coach told me, "If the talent's not there, the talent's not there."

A Near Perfectly Executed Campaign: Simply placing a talented individual into a situation does not guarantee success (See: Michael Jordan pre-Phil Jackson) the other players still need to do their part. While Obama should get credit for bringing in the right people and using his political talent to generate enough money to pay for the whole thing, all members involved in the Obama campaign team deserve high praise for execution. Both the primary and the general election offer vivid examples of just a damn well run campaign. By focusing on caucuses instead of big state primaries Team Obama derailed what many considered an unstoppable Clinton Machine. In the general election consider the differences between Obama's well orchestrated process for selecting Joe Biden, compared to McCain's dysfunctional process for picking Sara Palin which was more akin to a reality television show, which admittedly had a fascinating first episode, but ended up giving voters the same disgusted/freaked out feeling they got from Trashelle in the Real World Las Vegas.

Mo Money, Less Problems: Beyond execution, Obama's massive financial advantage obviously gave him an overwhelming advantage down the stretch —no one has ever suffered from a 2 to 1 advantage in paid media. In the late summer many voters were still unfamiliar and somewhat skeptical of Obama, but by early-October he had sealed the deal. The increase in Obama's favorable ratings in polling was quite dramatic and could have only been achieved by using television advertising to reinforce his best attributes. Television advertising makes up the bulk of the modern campaign budget, but having ample resources means you also don't have to skimp in other places. Obama's ground game was indeed well funded and well executed. Multiple phone calls, along with canvassing and thousands of volunteers drove supporters to the polls and may have made the difference in some close states

Friendly Democratic Map: George W. Bush may have made it easier for a Democrat to win in 2008, but there is no way to deny that the modern electoral math favors Democrats, a pattern that should continue for some time. In both of George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004, one change in the Electoral College would have given the race to Al Gore or John Kerry. There are simply too many solid blue Democratic electoral votes in the modern map for Republicans to easily overcome. Much of this "new math" is due to the country's changing demographics. Republicans are simply not winning in states populated with any significant minority populations, outside of the Deep South. Additionally their success in the South may actually be alienating the party from white voters in other parts of the country.

The combination of a once in lifetime political talent, backed by a well financed, well executed campaign helped put Barack Obama over the top, and helped America say "Thanks, but no thanks," to John McCain and Sarah Palin. What should be heartening for Democrats however is that even in the year where our self destructive nature seemed to temporarily dissipate, the changing makeup of America has made it very difficult for the party of Jefferson to lose. While I won't get all Rovian and say that this is the beginning of a permanent majority for Democrats, it's going to take some serious changes in order for Republicans to regain control of the White House in the near future.

Do you agree or disagree with Scott? Be sure to leave a comment!

Scott Simpson is a political consultant at Hamilton Campaigns in Washington DC. He has experience as an analyst conducting focus group research and developing political software. He also has a particular interest in helping minority candidates win tough seats and helping clients understand the cultural differences and dynamics of minority communities.

Why Obama Won - By Arnold Shober

John McCain.

Pundits and the party faithful might swoon over Barack Obama's delphic message of hope and change. Or the solid support he received from the under-30 crowd. But that message had little resonance with most voters who didn't already have a horse in the race. Instead, Barack Obama's campaign was able to sit by while John McCain's strengths — recently one of America's most popular politicians — became liabilities.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 in many demographic groups in the population. He improved his standing with most demographic groups compared to John Kerry, but especially so with those under 30. He did much better among African Americans (88% of African-Americans voted for Kerry, versus 95% for Obama). African Americans in Indiana and North Carolina tipped those states for Obama and helped significantly in Ohio and Virginia. But Obama still lost whites by definitive margins and was effectively tied with McCain in other age groups. And he didn't produce any new patterns among religious voters (whatever their affiliation) despite all of his efforts to reach out to non-African American Christians.

These patterns, if not the numbers, are consistent Democratic patterns.

Except that he won. And he had the best Democratic victory since 1964 (though nowhere near Johnson's margins).

What happened?

John McCain, his opponent, was John McCain. And John McCain lost crucial Republican voters.

McCain has a clear political philosophy that structures how he thinks about politics. McCain says what he thinks, even when he shouldn't. He knows what he doesn't know. And he says what he doesn't know, even when he shouldn't. McCain has significant legislative experience and, right through election day, trumped Obama on the question "Does [candidate] have enough experience to be president?"

McCain's candidacy opened three avenues for victory for Obama. Though any election is a combination of many factors — the precipitous drop of the stock market in September did McCain no favors — McCain's legislative pragmatism; his consistent opposition to government subsidies; and his weak support among white, evangelical Protestants proved fatal to McCain's chances for winning.

Having a political philosophy doesn't mean ideologue. The McCain campaign had no trouble producing a web ad featuring Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden — and Barack Obama — praising him in variously glowing terms. One cannot quite picture the '04 Bush team doing the same thing. There was chatter in '04 about Kerry picking McCain for a running mate. "I'm a pro-life, free-trading, defense and deficit hawk," he responded, in typical fashion. "I'm a Republican for chrissakes."

The legislative experience that led to his pragmatism made conservative Republicans uncomfortable. Chief among his sins was McCain-Feingold. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the National Review, and Commentary all provided a forum for conservatives who lambasted McCain's involvement with undermining free speech, in their view. Viscerally anti-liberal Ann Coulter denounced McCain for this and similar transgressions.

McCain should have been more worried about Republicans coming to the polls than the favorable commentary of ousted South Dakota Senator Daschle.

Second, McCain has repeatedly attacked government subsidies for various programs, services, and commodities. None was more damning, perhaps, than his opposition to so-called bio-fuels — many of which are produced in the Midwest. Over the last decade, midwestern politicians of both parties have been loath to criticize these subsidies, especially ethanol, because of the generally positive reaction voters have had to the idea of ethanol. When McCain repeated his opposition to ethanol in his closing remarks to the third presidential debate, he only further repelled rural, likely Republican voters.

John McCain received 2.6 million fewer votes in the Midwest than George W. Bush did in 2004.

Third, McCain could not overcome the distrust of a significant block of white, evangelical Protestants. In 2000 and 2004, George Bush actively courted the white evangelical and Hispanic Pentacostal vote. Bush had no trouble talking about his own spiritual regeneration on the campaign trail. In 2000, he sought to project a "compassionate conservatism" based on that faith. He sought, and received, the active support of several white, evangelical Christian leaders.

Even though McCain is one of the most consistently pro-life U.S. Senators, a sine qua non for many evangelical Christians, he has not been warm toward them as a political bloc. Though he attends a Baptist church that is most certainly evangelical, he keeps his faith away from public view. And, in his 2000 campaign, he publicly disparaged some prominent Christian leaders.

In 2008, McCain knew he was viewed coolly by evangelicals but, given his temperament, was unable to change himself for their benefit. McCain's lively performance at the August 16 Saddleback Civic Forum on the Presidency convinced some doubters to support him (notably James Dobson) — but that was months after McCain had become the Republican nominee. Such lukewarm support could not have endeared him to this important Republican constituency. There were 4.1 million fewer voters who attended church at least once a week in 2008 — by most lights, these likely would have been Republican voters. And many of them live in Ohio (where Obama received fewer votes than John Kerry), Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina.

McCain could not overcome this deficit.

John McCain was perhaps the best chance Republicans had to keep the White House in 2008. Obama's election returns were not impregnable and showed no new patterns in the electorate. Indeed, they showed that the voters who did not show up — the '04 Republicans who did not vote at all — took Obama from a 50-50 candidate to a 53-46 candidate. McCain could have won, too, perhaps with a more consistent campaign style, an even-keel economy, or a more positive message. Like the only heartfelt political rhetoric in 2008: McCain's concession speech.

Do you agree or disagree with Arnold? Be sure to leave a comment!

Arnold Shober is an assistant professor of Campaigns and Elections at Lawrence University in Appleton, WI. He studies electoral politics, education policy, and American federalism. His forthcoming book, Building Government (SUNY Press), argues that competent and independent state-level bureaucracies make it difficult for government officials to avoid responsibility, thus enhancing the democratic process.

Why Obama Won - By Jason Rae

When people look back at the 2008 presidential election, everyone can claim that this policy or that program or this group made the difference and helped propel Barack Obama to the presidency. In the end, it is probably likely that many, many factors went in to play, from issues like the economy to events like the debates and even to specific campaign tactics. There is one group of the electorate though that was pivotal in helping Obama secure the necessary electoral votes: young voters.

The media has often failed to properly portray the youngest generation of voters. Instead of identifying them as a civic minded and service oriented generation, the media and some political elite have labeled young voters as apathetic and uninvolved. The media, party elite, and others who underestimate the role of the youth vote need only look at the 2008 election results to see how important young voters are in any given election.

CIRCLE, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tuft's University, estimated that in the 2008 election 23 million young voters (defined as under 30 years of age) cast ballots for president. This is an increase of about four percentage points based on the 2004 exit polls, and the highest youth turnout since 1972 – another election held right in the midst of an international conflict.

One of the greatest strengths of the Obama campaign strategy was a concerted effort to register new voters. In states like Wisconsin, that is not as important because we allow same-day registration at the polls. However, in places like Virginia and Ohio, two states that were crucial to Obama's victory, the Obama campaign made a targeted effort to register new voters. Obviously, new voters are not synonymous with young voters. However, the efforts made on college campuses and large urban areas to register young voters before registration deadlines certainly helped to contribute to the over 23 million young voters casting ballots.

Beyond the number of voters, there is a number that is even more striking: 34 points. That is the margin between Obama and Senator McCain. President-Elect Obama received the support of 66% of young voters, while Senator McCain only had the support of 32% of young voters. This difference is one of the largest since the reporting of exit polls in 1976. The 34 points is crucial to understanding why Obama won in November. Had the margin been smaller, like previous elections, many of the states that were decided by only the narrowest of margins would have gone the other way. Take for example places like Indiana or North Carolina. Drop the support of young voters from 66% to say, perhaps, only 60% and you would likely see an entirely different person taking the oath of office on January 20.

An important question to be asked then is "why did President-Elect Obama finish the election with such a historic margin of support from young people?" Young voters today are the most progressive and most diverse group in the electorate. Despite government failures of leadership in trying times like September 11 or Katrina, young people see government as a vehicle for social change. This is different from the Generation X which saw business as the main force for solving problems.

Obviously, it was not young voters alone who got Obama elected, but young voters were instrumental in the effort. The campaign deserves credit for their work in developing peer-to-peer organizing efforts and providing for youth directors on the ground in most battleground states. The campaign knew full well that it could not neglect the youngest generation of voters and knew that we Millennials do matter. The Obama campaign, rightfully so, invested millions of dollars in targeting and turning out the youth vote.

However, this is not the end. Sadly, the record turnout did not necessarily translate into as many down ticket wins as Democrats may have hoped. This shows the party on a national and a local level must continue the efforts and funding of specific efforts to engage young voters. When young voters are engaged and involved, with campaigns specifically reaching out and involving them, we can see record turnouts. It shows that young voters are not a group that can be taken for granted. For when young voters vote, they help make decisions in elections.

Young voters have played and will continue to play an important role in elections in this country.

Do you agree or disagree with Jason? Be sure to leave a comment!

Jason Rae is a member of the Democratic National Committee and the current Chair of the College Democrats of Wisconsin. As one of the country's youngest Superdelegates and a leader within Wisconsin's Democratic political scene, he has worked to increase turnout among young voters and advocated for a greater youth participatory role within the Democratic Party.

Why Obama Won - By Kelly Fero

The oldest campaign slogan in the book is, "It's time for a change." In 2008, it really was.

The president-to-be earned his victory by running a campaign of nearly flawless mechanics. He assembled a crack staff, honed a message that was both relevant and emotional, stuck to that message with admirable discipline, and worked hard to guarantee that his tone almost always matched the mood of the country. His ground game had genuine spark. He outraised and outspent the opposition. He adhered to his strategy of a state-by-state march toward 270 electoral votes with a great mix of confidence and flexibility, especially after Hillary Clinton revived her primary campaign with narrow wins in Texas and Ohio on March 4. He harnessed technology and targeting to tap into new voters where they live, not where media consultants say they live in order to rake in bigger commissions.

The next president won by capitalizing on an international yearning for an end to Washington's failed foreign policy. On the night of the election, President Christina Kirschner was speaking to an outdoor rally in Argentina and paused to announce that Obama had been elected; the crowd gave him a 20-minute standing ovation. While Obama was being hailed on his European tour last summer, a poll in Australia — a largely white nation and proud member of George W. Bush's "coalition of the willing" — showed that Aussies favored Obama over John McCain by a 76-10 margin. In nation after nation, the hope for a man of the world in the Oval Office was palpable, and U.S. voters showed that sometimes what others think matters.

The President-elect won because in September, just as attention focused most fully on the race, the global financial system went into free-fall. Initially viewed as a little halting in his response, Obama benefited by comparison with the bizarre behavior of his opponent, who first declared the fundamentals of the collapsing economy "sound," then suspended his campaign to rush back to Washington but instead rushed into the arms of Katie Couric for a CBS News interview. Erratic, indeed.

In the end, every presidential election is about accomplishing two goals: taking away the voters' permission to vote for your opponent and granting them permission to vote for you as an acceptable alternative. After 22 months of coolheaded and evenhanded campaigning, Obama was the one left standing when the economic crisis hit during the third week of September. For all the rhetoric about "turning the page" and "leaving the old politics behind," he won by embodying the oldest campaign slogan in the book: "It's time for a change."

Do you agree or disagree with Kelly? Be sure to leave a comment!

An award-winning journalist and author who covered politics and civil wars from Central America to California, Kelly Fero has three decades of experience in developing political and public policy strategy at the state, national, and international levels. He is a recognized expert on how to create messages that communicate complex programs to the broadest possible audiences.

Why Obama Won: A New Series

From now until the Presidential Inauguration on January 20th we'll be taking a look into why Barack Obama was elected – hearing different perspectives from a panel of sources.

Perhaps it was the strength of his campaign's strategy. Perhaps it was mistakes made by the McCain campaign. Perhaps it was demographical shifts. Perhaps it was really just time for a change.

Our "Why Obama Won" panel will consist of respected Democratic consultants and strategists, academic minds in the political science field, and other progressive political professionals. Ever other day (or so) will feature a post with a different analysis from a different source.

A great many factors went into the President-Elect's decisive victory in November. But there are many perspectives as to the key reason or reasons why the United States has chosen this Commander in Chief. We hope you enjoy the different accounts to why Obama won.

Have your own ideas to why Obama won? Give us the full scoop on your own Key Reason at HogensenStrategiesGroup@gmail.com.