Rainbow coalition of voters sweeps Obama into office

There was plenty of evidence to support the view that Obama's candidacy was racially and nationally unifying, writes Simon Tisdall

Comments ()

• Simon Tisdall
• guardian.co.uk,
• Wednesday November 05 2008 11.13 GMT
• larger | smaller
• Article history

Barack Obama won the US presidential election by building a broad rainbow coalition of voters embracing younger people under 45, black people, Hispanics, independents, moderates, people from most income groups, and women. But the Democrat's race had a measurable effect, with 55% of white male voters backing his Republican opponent, John McCain.

According to exit polls conducted on behalf of a group of major US news organisations, Obama's share of the national popular vote was 52%, against 47% for McCain. This was an historic achievement, the first time since Jimmy Carter's 1976 victory that a Democrat had won a straight majority of all votes cast.

But Obama's five-point margin of victory fell short of the eight to nine point advantage predicted by national tracking and opinion polls before election day. This discrepancy may revive debate about the so-called Bradley effect – when racially prejudiced voters hide their true intentions from pollsters.

At the same time, there was plenty of evidence to support the view that Obama's candidacy was racially and nationally unifying. By winning the support of 41% of white men, and roughly half of all white women and independents, Obama did better than the past five Democratic presidential nominees. Race also seems to have been less of a factor among younger voters, two thirds of whom backed Obama.

White males apart, McCain attracted majority support in a limited number of categories, including older Americans, evangelical Christians, and conservatives – the bedrock of the Republican base. This apparent narrowing of the GOP's appeal will in fuel speculation about the end of the Republican "era" that began in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan owed his victory to so-called Reagan Democrats, southern white blue-collar workers. In the age of Obama, it is upwardly mobile, middle class suburban and ex-urban voters who are now changing the paradigm and setting the pace in states such as North Carolina and Virginia. Increasingly, they identify with the Democrats.

After much febrile discussion of which battleground states might swing the electoral college, actual voting revealed such broad, across-the-board support for Obama as to render these careful calculations redundant.

Obama swept through traditional Democratic territory in the north-east and west coast. But he also shattered the McCain campaign in traditional Republican states such as Virginia and Florida. The loss of Pennsylvania and then Ohio sealed McCain's fate on the night, but in truth, Obama had by then created so many routes to victory that individual state results, even in the supposedly crucial mid-west, became increasingly less important.

Records were broken throughout the night and history remade again and again. It was the first time, for example, that Virginia had voted for a Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Obama even won Indiana, not even considered a possible flip a few weeks ago, and was neck and neck in North Carolina.

The resounding results of the 2008 campaign appear to have permanently changed the electoral map of America. Until now it was neatly divided into red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states, with a few habitual toss-ups.

The deep South remained doggedly Republican on Tuesday but, in future contests, as demographics and attitudes change, even these hold-out states may succumb to America's new brand of multicolour politics.

The Obama phenomenon produced some remarkable results. One of McCain's main campaign themes, echoing Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, was that the relative inexperience of his opponent disqualified him from the highest office.

According to the exit polls, nearly half of voters agreed, with 6 in 10 saying the veteran Arizona senator McCain was preferable by this measure. Yet those qualms were not enough to swing voters against Obama.

Obama's more credible approach to fixing the economy – identified as the number one issue for most voters – appears to have trumped these and other doubts about the Illinois senator. Other issues, such as the war in Iraq, thought to be one of the Republican's strong suits, barely figured in deciding voting intentions compared with worries about bread-and-butter issues such as jobs, incomes and savings.

McCain's perceived bad luck in running into the worst financial crisis in living memory just after his post-convention bounce in early September raised him in the polls was compounded on the night by the deep unpopularity of his fellow Republican, George Bush.

More than seven in 10 voters said they felt Bush was doing a poor job, in line with his national job approval rating of under 30%. About 50% also said they believed McCain would continue Bush's policies – a figure that suggests Obama's persistent effort to tie McCain hand and feet to the Bush deadweight was fairly successful.

Despite reports earlier in the campaign that Hispanic voters were unhappy with a black candidate, they broke by 3 to 1 for Obama on the night, simultaneously turning their backs on prejudice and the Republican party. In Florida, Hispanic defections may have made the difference, with 57% voting Democrat (compared with the 56% who voted for Bush in 2004).

As expected, black voters went for the Democrat standard-bearer in overwhelming numbers, estimated at 95%. Their numbers were also boosted to record levels amid an overall turnout that was well above previous elections. High turnout also apparently boosted the Democrats in races for the House of Representatives and Senate, where they were poised to significantly increase their majorities.