Did Obama overperform, underperform, or match the fundamentals of 2008?

[darklordoftech]

?

[Hydera]

The economy was collapsing and you'd think it would give Obama an 10%+ landslide. He underperformed but for the reason that so many Republican voters consisted of people who were extremely steadfast in their beliefs so they turned out regardless and McCain only got 2 million votes less than Bush. This wasnt like 1992, 1980, 1932 where a economic decline resulted in a larger margin.

[dw93]

I think it was just as much an overperformance by  McCain (despite Palin and "fundamentals of the economy are strong") as Obama underperforming.

[EJ24]

I think he matched it considering how unpopular the Republican party was under Bush, but you could make the argument that by flipping Indiana and North Carolina, he somewhat overperformed.

[Hope For A New Era]

On the nationwide scale, he slightly underperformed.

The state-by-state picture is more complicated.

[Hydera]

I think it was just as much an overperformance by  McCain (despite Palin and "fundamentals of the economy are strong") as Obama underperforming.

Consider that half of republican voters were evangelicals. a quarter were non religious nationalistic/right populist. And a quarter were suburban well to do people who just liked tax cuts. Compared to past elections the vote for the party that was incumbent during a economic crisis held up far better. In the past a lot of people for the incumbent party would either switch, vote third party or stay home. Carter dropped by 9% for his percentage of the total vote. HW bush dropped 16%, Hoover dropped by 18%. Im going to give credit where credit is due. The GOP has a very enthusiastic voterbase that holds up well because they found so many crazies that will still vote for them despite an economic crisis.

[Mr. Smith]

I think he matched it considering how unpopular the Republican party was under Bush, but you could make the argument that by flipping Indiana and North Carolina, he somewhat overperformed.

Didn't flip the reliable bellwether Missouri though, and that NEVER happens.

[Orser67]

In another era I might say that he underperformed, but for this era I think he roughly matched the fundamentals given the high level of polarization. Compare to the 1896 election, where Republicans won only by about five points despite the economic catastrophe that happened under Cleveland (though to be fair, WJB's nomination was more of a repudiation of Cleveland than McCain's was of Bush).

[Del Tachi]

He drastically underperformed, especially considering how much less polarized the country was in 2008. 

[Adam Griffin]

On the nationwide scale, he slightly underperformed.

The state-by-state picture is more complicated.

Simply speaking, this. The crux of it really is "could Clinton have mobilized as many/more fading types (conservative-leaning white voters) as Obama did (black voters)?".

In using Clinton as the alternative, there was significant evidence that she would have pulled back in a large segment of more rural Bush voters/Dixiecrats/Blue Dogs who otherwise had their last flirtations with the Democrats in early 2008, whether it be polling preferences or primary participation. However, these voters were not necessarily optimally distributed given their composition predominantly throughout the Upper/Mid-South and Appalachia.

In short, I think Clinton would have won by more in the PV, but would have done worse in the Electoral College. She'd have pulled a greater number of white voters back into the fold nationally than Obama managed with black voters, and in the process, would have done phenomenally better in states like TN, AR & WV (as well as some swing states like OH)...but worse in places like NC & IN (ultimately losing them to McCain). Perhaps she could have flipped MO in exchange of those, but I doubt it. I don't see her flipping any other state.

[Hydera]

He drastically underperformed, especially considering how much less polarized the country was in 2008.  

The country was still polarized even in 2008 and has been polarized since the recovery of the GOP in 1952(many elections were decided on close margins) what has changed is that the ability of a opposition party to overperform over a incumbent party over bad economic circumstances will probably be lower since the 1980s. As i mentioned his underperformance has to do with the GOP having a really radicalized base that wont ever vote democrat and will show up despite a recession and despite Bush's very low approval ratings. Two the expectation that given the circumstances that Obama will win regardless might of turned down one to three million fewer potential voters compared to if polls said despite a recession the election was tighter up to election day. Three, potential dem voters(as in those who agree with the dems on issues) are usually more apathetic and unwilling to come out, for a myraid of reasons from disenfranchisement of black voters, to a history of youth and minority apathy(black and hispanic voters especially). In contrast republican voters are made of people who are far more willing to go to vote considering white evangelicals are 40-60 million of the country's population but half which is close to 30 million of white evangelicals has turned out since 2004 for Bush, McCain, Romney, Trump.

[catographer]

Always funny to me how 2008 is not considered as much of a landslide as 1988, even tho the Npv was very similar. I know why, the EV was bigger for Bush. But Dukakis got a slightly higher vote share than McCain.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Always funny to me how 2008 is not considered as much of a landslide as 1988, even tho the Npv was very similar. I know why, the EV was bigger for Bush. But Dukakis got a slightly higher vote share than McCain.

Both Dukakis and McCain got 45.65%(using Wiki more) , while Bush got 53.37% of the vote compared to Obama 52.93% so Bush did win bigger in the PV as well.

Also the EV does infact matter more

[catographer]

Always funny to me how 2008 is not considered as much of a landslide as 1988, even tho the Npv was very similar. I know why, the EV was bigger for Bush. But Dukakis got a slightly higher vote share than McCain.

Both Dukakis and McCain got 45.65%(using Wiki more) , while Bush got 53.37% of the vote compared to Obama 52.93% so Bush did win bigger in the PV as well.

Also the EV does infact matter more

Oh I know. I wish we lived in a real democracy where the person with the most votes wins