Why Obama will win

I want to start off by saying that I am excited to be a contributor to this blog. I was able to read some of the content and consequently was forced to think analytically about the world and this upcoming election. My plan for contributions is simple. I hope to post at least once a week - usually on Sunday morning, and will add other postings at my discretion. Please, be gentle when judging my spelling and grammar. Throughout my youth I never received and A in English. I would also like to disclose my political leanings before I start my first post so readers can be comfortable reading my posts in the future.

I consider myself to be a moderate but lean right. I am registered non-affiliated. I will vote next Tuesday. I studied political science and international relations in undergrad and attempt to view politics through a prism of scientific analysis. I am not without bias, but I attempt to mitigate its effect on my analysis, and I work hard to engineer loaded opinions out of my presentation. It will ultimately be up to the readers judgement to discern if my postings support the view I have of myself.

WHY OBAMA WILL WIN

Contrary to popular opinion major presidential elections are not won or lost based upon a candidate's positions on issues. There are three main reasons for why one candidate will win an election over another.

The first is the macro situation as defined by the electorate in the run-up to the election. This situation can be summed up with two questions, "Are you better off today then you were four years ago? and Is the country headed in the right direction?" The second involves the extent to which the electorate identifies itself with one or the other candidate. The third depends upon the turnout of each candidate's political base on election day.

These three indicators are intertwined. The first can be easily measured by opinion polls, and often these questions are asked by pollsters during the cycle. The second and third are more difficult to quantify but are reflected in political enthusiasm and positive/negative headlines in the media. Obama is currently leading in all three and has been throughout this cycle.

For the better part of Bush II's second term the majority of Americans have considered themselves worse off than they were at the start. This is an advantage for Obama. In most elections this influences independent voters to vote for the party not in power and tends to depress turnout for the party that is in power. Obama, or any generic Democrat, started out with a lead in the 2008 Presidential election because of this first indicator. His lead has been enhanced by the economic crisis facing the globe. It would be difficult to argue, even for the most persuasive debater, that the country is currently headed in the right direction. This indicator would point to a strong showing for Obama.

Human beings identify with each other based on a plethora of criteria. The major identifiers are primal. They tend to be race, gender, family (tribe, community, nationality). The less prominent but likely more important involve an individuals personal self-esteem and how that esteem is actualized and reflected through the actions of others. Suffice to say judgement of an other's intelligence, personality, and presentation against oneself is the driver of these primary identifiers. Simply this is the likability factor. Obama, because of his eloquence, grace, looks, and sense of perspective wins significantly over McCain in this issue. He is more appealing to the eyes and ears. In fact he is the most appealing candidate in my lifetime (disclosure: the author of this post is 24 years old). Because of his appeal, more people will see themselves in him-be convinced by his political proposals and consequently pull the lever for him.

As far as the third indicator is concerned, it is heavily dependent upon the first two. Obama has become the benefactor of a national constituency. This constituency is unhappy with this countries direction and their place in it, and they are in search of a leader who makes them feel good about their own and the country's collective future. Consequently this constituency contributes enthusiastically to Obama's campaign, both monetarily and voluntarily. The macro tide and his overwhelming popularity are pervasive in this cycle. More Americans have registered Democrat than Republican this year as a whole in the US and in a majority of the battleground states. Obama has also received significantly more monetary contributions than McCain or the Republican party in general. These advantages allow him to put out more political adds in the battleground states and direct more foot soldiers nationally. This 'enthusiasm' snowball will benefit him greatly on election day and ultimately lead to his victory.

Some readers may not support this post's view of major indicators for the imminent winner in the 2008 Presidential elections. A regression test should add weight to the analysis. Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 is a good place to start but most Presidential winners can be predicted by this model. Going into the 1992 election the US economy was slowly pulling itself out of a recession but sentiment among the voting public was still negative. Many Americans considered a change in party to be a positive thing both for themselves and for the country. Both of the questions that encompass the first indicator pointed to a Clinton victory. Clinton was also more likable then the first Bush. He was younger, better looking, and connected better through rhetoric with the electorate. The second indicator, consequently pointed to a Clinton victory. The third is slightly more difficult to argue for but still persuasive. Clinton's political base was not as strong as Obama's currently is, however he benefited from having Ross Perot in the race. Perot siphoned off roughly a fourth of Bush I's base which, because electoral politics is a zero-sum game, ushered in a Clinton victory.

I could analyze most other Presidential elections ad infinitum using this model but will bore you no longer. I look forward to your responses.