How Wrong I Was

It is both a joy and an excruciating pain that I have learned more during this American presidential election than any other I’ve ever witnessed. The coverage was suffocating. The polls were sophisticated, and pollster watchers more diligent. The candidates were inspiring and intriguing. (Sarah Palin was ... something about a pitbull.) But what made this election such good learning was the analysis—and how phenomenally wrong much of it was. And who was the idiot who thought they were right all along? Me.

Here are some of the (many, many) fundamental mistakes I made in predicting the nature and outcome of this presidential election, from the Democratic primaries to the winner’s rally in Chicago’s Grant Park.

Obama had no substance

This suggestion was closest to the truth—but it missed the point entirely. If substance = policy proposals and experience at the federal level, Clinton and McCain had Obama beat handily. (Contrary to some suggestions, he would probably run circles around Rudy Giuliani, who sounded like he was campaigning in 2004.) But when it came to national vision, he was the one that came off more like Reagan and Kennedy. In fact, it was his visionary consistency that drove his successful messaging, allowed him to pivot on policy when necessary without looking like a total flip-flopper, and rescued the Democrats from the niggling policy wish list that typified so many failed campaigns before—most glaringly those of Gore, Kerry and Clinton.

Clinton would be a better president

That brings me to why I was wrong about Clinton, too. I thought she would be a better president because I agreed with her more on policy matters. I thought mandated universal health care was better than the slighly watered-down version that was Obamacare. I thought Obama was crazy and reckless for saying he’d bomb Al Qaeda within Pakistan’s borders. I still believe these things. But Obama has pivoted on health care mandates, and I trust his foreign policy staff as much as I would have Clinton’s. There’s not a lot separating these two former rivals on policy at all. Moreover, I said Clinton would be a more successful president because of her respect in and knowledge of the Senate, much like Lyndon Johnson. But firstly, saying anyone is like Lyndon Johnson is not a compliment, and secondly, Obama is universally respected and has a powerful senate stalwart as a vice president-elect. Once again, it’s big vision and big rhetoric that won the day.

Decrying negative advertising would not work against Swift Boating

Whiners don’t win elections. But when Obama and his surrogates slammed the McCain campaign for its uniquely negative campaign, it successfully branded the Republicans as desperate and vile, and forced McCain to respond by saying such ludicrous things as how proud he was of a GOP flyer with stark racial overtones suggesting voters don’t know the real Barack Obama. Sure didn’t come off like a whiner. Screaming bigots from McCain/Palin rallies didn’t hurt.

Obama was naive to speak of bridging the partisan divide

I agreed with Paul Krugman that Obama sounded pie-in-the-sky when he talked about being a post-partisan leader. Could this guy actually find common ground with Republican Right culture warriors? Clinton seemed better at doing that in the Senate. But Obama did one better. His paradigm-shifting campaign was above the culture war and better than any recent Democratic campaign at attracting moderates and conservatives. He won more than 50% of the votes in an election with huge turnout. He even won Indiana and North Carolina for Christ’s sake.

Obama’s more lefty than people imagine

This one was maybe least foolish, but it carries little weight. Obama has a history as a community activist in Chicago, a liberal voting record, early opposition to Iraq and lefty stances on some issues like abortion. That doesn’t make it easy for an outsider to Chicago politics to see his distant association with William Ayers as anything but an affirmation of lefty leanings. But is he really that liberal? He’s moderated his positions on campaign finance, guns, capital punishment, and gay marriage. And some Obama-Ayers apologists have explained that the president-elect’s association with lefties in Hyde Park was more political expediency than a sign of his genuine beliefs. I don’t know if that’s true, but I can say that there’s little evidence of a strongly left-leaning Obama from his disciplined campaign. Then again, I’ve been wrong before.