(Washington, D.C., Right Commentary): I believe that elections are about simple things. This is not because the electorate is stupid. Unless one is “in the business of politics,” it is difficult to follow all the in’s and out’s of policy choices, promises, evaluate the ability of the candidate to deliver, etc. Instead, I believe that most people use what psychologists call “Fast and Frugal” reasoning when it comes to candidates. As a result, the electoral victory of Barack Obama over John McCain can be explained by comparing the simple value propositions that each campaign forwarded. In the process, I can also dispel some myths that many “pundits” are currently forwarding about the GOP’s electoral bloodbath last Tuesday. I’m not going to talk about tactical considerations - there were many tactical problems that led to McCain’s failure. Instead, my analysis is focused on a simple issue - namely, how the voters understood the key elements of the election and what each candidate represented on those elements.

Before going into my analysis, let me briefly outline what is “fast and frugal” reasoning. The term comes from an article by Gerd Gigerenzer and Daniel Goldstein, called “Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality.” The key argument made in this article is that human beings often make decisions about complex problems under limited time and knowledge boundaries and despite what we often believe, that people evaluate their choices fully and then decide, the reality is - people use quick and simple mechanisms to reason through the vast majority of the decisions they make, especially ones that embedded in high degrees of ambiguity. Without going into great detail, Gigerenzer and Goldstein describe a mental model whereby people attempt to use their personal experiences to quickly sort out facts that they believe are relevant and then put those facts together quickly to make a decision between two choices. This amazingly scholarly article attempts to essentially “scholarize” something that most people know intuitively, when faced with a problem, sometimes, you have to “go with your gut.”

I think that most Americans vote their “gut,” they engage in “fast and frugal” reasoning, about politics. This is for two reasons: 1) despite the electoral process being almost two years long, the reality is that the vast majority of voters who believe they are facing a choice (i.e., those who have not already decided who to vote for in the election), do not start paying attention to the election until about 6 weeks out. In cases where the election is hotly contested, I believe this attention window is even smaller. I believe this explains why the “polls tighten” as we get closer to election day. People begin to pay considerably more attention to the problem of making a choice as the deadline looms, thus, the “tightening of the polls” reflects the fact that people who were previously undecided making their final analysis and leaning towards one candidate. During this period of time, the last month or so of an election, the amount of data in terms of advertisements, promises, speeches, debates, is overwhelming. It is way too much information for people to process, thus, the idea of fully logically reasoning through all the arguments would be a fruitless and futile endeavor. The second reason is, 2) unless one is in the business of politics, or is a highly motivated observer, it is nearly impossible to seperate rhetoric, fact, and the complexity of the electoral issues that confront the voter. Most people do not have sufficient experience to understand what might be better - an increase in capital gains taxes, or increasing the nominal income tax on the top 5% of income earners (the essential differences between what McCain and Obama proposed in terms of higher taxes). As a result, all the data being thrown at them, combined with a basic inability to evaluate the claims, forces fast and frugal reasoning. They attempt to sift through everything, but in the end, they go with their gut. The question of what forces them to ‘go with their gut’ is what is the key factor.

What struck me about most Obama supporters was this - I would aks them, “Okay, why are you supporting Barack Obama?” Not one person whom I asked could articulate anything substantive. Instead, most replied with some variant of, “well everything is totally screwed up and I’m tired of it - so I’m voting for change.” Funny thing about many Obama policies - they didn’t represent any real change, at least not from a Democratic political perspective, and in many cases, they weren’t even a real change from the current US policy. So what “change” were the voters actually looking for?

Hence what enters is what the key ‘question’ for most voters really was. The candidate who understood what motivated the electorate - in this case Obama - would prevail overwhelmingly over the candidate who did not, or could not, understand it and connect with voters.

As I said initially, I think elections are ultimately about simple things. In the case of this election, the simple thing was this - who is going to turn America around, put it on the “right course,” and not make life so onerous for the millions of Americans who want to try and “get ahead” in life. That was the ultimate question for the vast majority of voters. They expressed it in exit polls in several ways, concerns about the economy, concerns about health care, concerns about their jobs, concerns about their house, concerns about the future.

All those concerns boil down to a simple question, “Why is everything so hard, and what… Candidate X… are you going to do to lessen my struggle?”

Barack Obama understood that this was the key question being asked by the electorate. As a result, his entire message was oriented towards developing a very compelling package whereby he could answer that question using the least bit of information engineered to impart the maximum cognitive effect for voters.

Put more simply, perhaps, is that “Hope and Change,” was Obama’s equivalent of, “Are you better now than you were four years ago?” And it was extremely effective because it captured the heart of what the vast majority of voters wanted to know - how are you going to change things for the better.

For me, the simple telling point was this. After Senator Obama’s “me-mercial” where he had all of these Obama supporters explaining in detail why they supported Obama, John McCain said in his campaign speech that the ad was a “feel good piece of rhetoric,” and then launched into his stump speech explaining how Obama was essentially a “socialist” who would lead us to a path of ruin, and oh by the way, was possibility a terrorist because of his Rolodex of associations.

As soon as I saw that response, I knew McCain was completely, and utterly, out of touch with the electorate.

Is there anyone among us who can’t say that they didn’t believe that President Bill Clinton was being sincere when he said, “I feel your pain.” Bill Clinton did feel the pain of many people who felt they had been left out of the Reagan revolution, he tapped into it, and it propelled him to victory. Similarly, Ronald Reagan’s “are you better now than you were four years ago?” explicitly forced the question that many people now ask every election. Reagan’s promise in 1980 essentially was this - I will get government off your back and out of your way. I will make our country strong - you will not see helicopters burning the desert, Arab terrorists laughing at us on the news, and the Soviets pushing us around. You will feel good about your country again. Our economy will not be measured in misery, but rather, in profitability and largess. Against this backdrop, what could Carter promise - since he was the face of all of these problems. In 1980, Reagan wins in a landslide, bringing with him an entirely new cadre of voters, including many democrats.

Even more brilliantly, in 1984, Reagan reminded the electorate of the fact that he delivered. What has to be the absolutely most brilliant commercial in the history of Campaigns, the “It’s Morning in America,” commercial reminded the voters, Reagan delivered on what he promised, vote for him again and he’ll finish the job. And the fact remains, he did - and became one of the most beloved Presidents and political figures in history since George Washington.

Walter Mondale in 1984 essentially had the exact platform, the exact approach, and even almost the exact same slogan, as Obama. Mondale’s slogan and message was “We need a Change” and “America needs a Change.” Sounds awfully like “change we can believe in,” doesn’t it? So why did Mondale get the worst electoral blowout in the history of American politics, and Obama wins with 375 delegates? Again, simple - wasn’t the answer to the question the voters had in 1984, which was, “Who offers the best prospects for continuing good times?” The answer to that question was clearly Reagan.

Slogans and branding, however, are not the real story here. The slogans capture essentially the concept of the answer to the quesiton the voters are asking. Understanding what drives the voter is key, understanding why the voter is asking the question is key. These are things I’m not going to get into in this post, however, they are important and I want to recognize them.

This election boiled down to these questions, “What the hell does everything suck so much? Why am I busting my ass 20 hours a night to wind up with nothing? Why are we continuing to fight in Iraq when they don’t even want us there? And most importantly, why the hell despite all my work is my money shrinking, my house worth less, and my life so fricking miserable?”

So when McCain said Obama’s commercial was a “feel good” message. I knew that he fundamentally misunderstood the electorate, and the questions they were asking. 

I wrote a post lamenting that “When the Facts Matter, Democrats lose elections.” I still think that analysis is on point. However, I know realize in retrospect that I wasn’t being systemic in my analysis, rather symptomatic. The reason why the “facts” didn’t matter is that they were the wrong set of facts. They didn’t help the electorate answer the simple question - namely, why does everything suck and my life is miserable when you promised me a brave new world? 

McCain (and worse Palin) harping on Tony Rezko, Ayers, Wright - none of that stuff mattered. McCain’s confused message of “the economy is just fine and dandy” and then three days later of “oh my God! The Sky is falling! I’m suspending my campaign,” drove voters insane. I knew it drove me insane - and I’m a Partisan. I can only imagine what it did to nonpartisans.

The financial crisis intensified and exacerbated a trend that had emerged since accepting the nomination - McCain just didn’t have a real clue about what the electorate cared about. Alternatively, if he did understand, he had no idea how to address it convincingly. That is why we lost this election. It’s plain and simple.

“Hope and Change” to the vast majority of Americans who supported Obama meant that their lives would improve under Obama’s Administration. Obama also answered the question that many Americans cared about which was “why the hell does everyone in the world hate us so much - we’re nice people, we do nice things… what did you do - Bush - that everyone hates us so much?”

Every message, every action, every deed, by Obama, was calculated to answer these questions. “Yes we can,” gave a sense of empowerment to people who felt dis empowered, namely, blacks, Latinos, and other minority voters. “Yes we can,” also gave idealistic youth a cause upon which to rally, capturing some romanticized notion of JFK. “Hope and Change” embodied for the vast majority of supporters the idea that if Obama was elected, the change would be for America. It would be “Morning in America,” again.

What did McCain offer - a grumpy old man with grumpy old man ways, and a svelt and sexy power hungry lunatic who was so perfectly lampooned by Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey’s character and Palin’s actual character, became indistinguishable. So the answer to the question of “how are you going to make my life better,” was answered by the McCain camp with rhetoric of “Obama is a socialist, Obama will blow up the economy. Obama is cavorting with terrorists.”

I realize this will anger some of my readers, but despite McCain claiming he would take the high road, almost all of his Commercials went with a voice track similar to this, “Obama eats babies. Obama is completely insane and will blow up the world. Obama is an evil person with evil ways… and oh by the way, we think he’s also secretly a terrorist that will destroy America.” 

Palin’s stump speeches - absolutely embarassing. 

McCain’s stump speeches - self delusional. Truly. 

Joe the Plumber? I’m sorry - at the last possible second, McCain and Palin gravitate towards a guy who by chance gets thrust into the limelight, and fails to actually use Joe appropriately. Again - Joe the plumber mattered because it spoke to how most people in this country feel the tax question should be solved. But guess what - the tax question was not the top of the list question people cared about.

And in the end - it was so obvious everyone was out for themselves. Thus “country first” also rang hollow - and it also didn’t answer the question… or if it did… it answered it with more pain. McCain’s macro message could be “Yeah you may be hurting… but piss off… it’s country first. Buck up and do your share.”

That was not the message the electorate wanted to hear. It may have been the truth, but it was absolutely ridiculous to talk about Country First, when McCain was seeking redemption for 2000, Palin was off grabbing power and looking for the prize without paying her dues, not to mention enjoying being the center of attention and dressing like Ivanka Trump.

All of this - all of it - factored in subconscious and conscious ways into how the electorate made its choices. This is what got millions of people to the polls. This is why Obama had 100K staffers across the United States. This is why people fell over themselves to give him 200 bucks or 20 bucks, or 2 dollars.

In the end, Obama won not the race for better ideas - all of his ideas are the tried and true failed ideas of Carter, of Clinton, and Lyndon Johnson. Obama did win the race to embue hope, to answer the question that the electorate had of why things were so terrible (it was all George Bush’s fault, and McCain agrees with Bush), and most importantly, who would promise to make it all right again.

Obama promised convincingly to make it all right again. It would be Morning in America again…

In short, this is why we lost.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Being Rod Blagojevich
• Eve of Destruction: Are we headed for a Global Recession?
• Treasury Bills “crack the floor” and deflation becomes a greater risk.
• The next “bubble” to burst - US Government debt?
• Now, I’m genuinely worried… friends.