2008 was filled with upsets, from Mike Huckabee’s Iowa triumph to the Democrats’ special election victories in the spring and to Obama’s general election victory in Indiana.
Yet, we had come to expect all of these events by the time they unfolded. Huckabee’s victory was an upset by the standards of the preceding six months and of the millions Mitt Romney spent in Iowa, but he started climbing in the polls early enough for us not to be stunned on January 3rd.
Here’s a list of the top ten shockers of the years, those events that no one saw coming, those that were so stunning that they left us shell-shocked!
1. Clinton wins the New Hampshire primary
Hillary Clinton ran well ahead in New Hampshire polls throughout the fall of 2007, but Barack Obama’s victory in Iowa unraveled Clinton’s campaign. Her New Hampshire numbers collapsed overnight, Obama’s rallies attracted huge adoring crowds, and the January 5th debate left Hillary on the defensive. By Election Day, Clintonites were preparing to be trounced in the Granite State and speculation was flying that her camp was considering an immediate withdrawal.
The rest, as they say, is history. Clinton won a stunning victory that prolonged the Democratic primaries by five months and left the Obama campaign searching for answers
In retrospect, Hillary’s comeback should not have been that much of a shocker. Bounces are intrinsically volatile, and the question was never whether Obama could make that bounce permanent but whether his surge would last long enough to carry him through the finish line. And there were only five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, such a compressed period that the electorate was bound to shift in much higher proportions than in a typical election. Most polls that showed Obama leading by double-digits were taken over the week-end, in the immediate aftermath of Iowa, and there is simply no way that any poll in the field at the height of Obama’s buzz could have picked up Clinton’s comeback. (Other factors that fueled Hillary’s victory were her gains among women and the last-minute decision of many independents to vote for McCain in the GOP primary.)
But all of these attempts to rationalize the results will never erase just how shocked we all were to see Hillary Clinton victorious just hours after staring political death in the face .
2. McCain picks Sarah Palin
Her name was mentioned in the Republican veepstakes, including by Campaign Diaries. But did anyone really expect John McCain to pick Sarah Palin as his running-mate? This bombshell dropped just hours after the end of the Democratic convention, leaving absolutely everyone scrambling to find information about the little-known Governor of a little-known state.
Within hours, we were treated to a flurry of revelations, the most high-profile of which would surely earn a spot on this list if I was willing to consider them separately. Who could have expected on the morning of August 29th that within six days Republican delegates would be cheering a former member of the Alaska Independence Party, a pregnant teenager and her high school fiancé?
What is most fascinating about the Palin pick is that it left Republicans (and many of McCain’s top surrogates) just as stunned as the rest of us! As the press broke stories, the McCain campaign looked completely unprepared to deal with issues it had clearly never heard of - which was quite painful to watch given that modern political campaigns are supposed to control everything down to the smallest detail. In fact, subsequent reports revealed that Palin’s name had emerged as a serious contender in the final days before McCain was set to announce his choice, leaving too short time for the vetting process. (For a larger discussion about the effect Palin had on the general election, check here.)
3. Eliot Spitzer is forced to resign
A headline popped up on The New York Times’s website on March 10. Within two days, Governor Eliot Spitzer had resigned, completing one of the quickest downfalls in political history.
After easily taking-over New York’s governorship in 2006, Eliot Spitzer looked set to become a major player in Democratic politics. He did suffer through a rough first year in Albany, but nothing that looked serious enough to durably damage his national ambitions. His days as Attorney General had earned him a reputation as a superactive crusader who prosecuted white-collar criminals with zeal, and not a single rumor had circulated about his (possibly criminal) ties to an elite prostitution ring until the NYT dropped the bombshell on an otherwise quite Monday afternoon.
That Spitzer was also known for prosecuting prostitution rings certainly increased our shock - not to mention how hypocritical it made him look. And the speed in which the state legislature started talking of impeachment and in which Spitzer accepted to resign was also breathtaking.
4. McCain withdraws from Michigan
In the afternoon of October 2nd, everyone’s attention was focused on the upcoming vice-presidential debate when Politico reported the stunning news that the McCain campaign was pulling the plug on Michigan - no more TV ads, no more mailers and the entire staff relocated to other states.
The Wolverine State and its culturally conservative, racially sensitive electorate had long looked like Obama’s biggest vulnerability, but the campaign’s sudden turn to economic issues dramatically undercut McCain’s support among blue-collar voters. Even so, the GOP had already bet so much on Michigan that no one had seen McCain’s withdrawal coming - starting with the GOP’s state officials who publicly expressed their anger. Even Sarah Palin revealed that she had been unaware of the campaign’s Michigan plans in what was one of her most bizarre interviews.
5. McCain suspends his campaign
By the end of September, McCain’s gains in the first half of the month had been erased and the Arizona Senator had once again fallen behind. And with the Wall Street meltdown shifting the conversation to the economy, he had lost the control of the narrative - something no trailing candidate can afford to do. With his back against the wall, McCain knew he had to take huge gamble.
And just as he had at the end of August, McCain delivered. On September 24th, he announced that he would suspend his campaign and seek a delay in the first presidential debate in order to focus on the financial crisis, immediately setting off cries of astonishment in already over-politicized office buildings and college campuses across America! McCain’s dramatic move certainly shook-up the race; unfortunately for Republicans, it massively backfired on the Arizona Senator who emerged looking erratic and indecisive.
6. Stevens is indicted
We had known for months that Ted Stevens was under investigation for money he had allegedly received in exchange for legislative favors, and his July 29th indictement was the logical continuation of a process that had started a long time ago. Yet, for any sitting Senator to be indicted is so rare as to be truly shocking news, especially when the indictment drops four months before said Senator is up for re-election!
Stevens’s indictement was yet another headache for Senate Republicans to deal with, as it seemed to practically ensure they lost the seat and got Democrats one step closer to a 60-seat majority. (As the next few months showed us, Stevens would have probably survived the November vote had he not insisted on an expedited trial that found him guilty.)
7. Ann Cao defeats Rep. Jefferson in New Orleans
Yes, Rep. William Jefferson was indicted on corruption charges and had been stripped of his committee assignments - but LA-02 is a heavily African-American district that is more Democratic than any red district is Republican! And even if the stars were aligned for an upset in New Orleans’ December 6th vote (the off-date election day caused a dramatic drop in black turnout), such districts simply never elect a Republican and practically no one thought that Ann Joseph Cao could prove an exception to that rule.
Yet, New Orleans residents had apparently had enough of their representative’s corruption and Cao defeated Jefferson by 3% in what should be described as one of the biggest upsets of the decade. An ecstatic John Boehner soon proclaimed, “The future is Cao.”
8. Rod Blagojevich is arrested
We long knew that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich had legal problems, and we had even learned that the FBI was wiretapping some of his private conversations - and this is prior sense that something smelled fishy in Springfield is the reason this scandal is ranked so much lower than Eliot Spitzer’s.
But nothing prepared us for the December 9th news that Blagojevich had been taken into custody by FBI agents on corruption charges, nor for the shocking allegation that he had attempted to sell the Senate seat left vacant by Obama. What made the day so surreal was the quasi-insane scope of Blagojevich’s schemes: The prosecutor’s complaint document alleged a plot to shake down Warren Buffet, extort money from Bill Gates, cut a deal with a labor union, and even prepare a presidential run in 2016!
And the charges surrounding Obama’s Senate seat are just the tip of the iceberg! Blagojevich faces numerous other accusations, for example of having announced an $1.8 billion plan to construct new highways in exchange for a highway contractor’s pledge to raise half-a-million dollars for his upcoming campaign.
9. Obama is ahead in AK/IN/MT/NC/ND for the first time
By November 4th, Indiana, North Carolina and Montana had undoubtedly become toss-ups in the presidential election and it no longer seemed wild to predict an upset in North Dakota. Yet, all of these states used to be staunchly Republican states (Bush won Indiana by 21% in 2004, for instance) and a Democratic victory would have been unthinkable at the start of the cycle.
It took a long time for us to get used to thinking of any of these states as competitive, and it is doubtful whether anyone really believed Obama could pull any of them off until the first poll from each state that showed Obama in the lead. Every single one of those surveys was so shocking that they single-handedly upended every assumption we ever had about that state! Here’s a rundown:
- On June 24th, a SUSA poll showed Obama ahead in Indiana by 1%. I wrote: “Today’s shocker comes in the form of a SUSA poll from Indiana — not the first state you think of when you wonder where the next exciting presidential poll will come from.”
- On July 3rd, a Rasmussen poll had Obama ahead by 5% in Montana. I wrote: “This is obviously a stunner: Montana went for Bush by 20% in 2004, and even though the state’s Governor and two Senators are now Democrats, Montana is still considered a staunchly red state.”
- On August 12th, Obama led his first Alaska poll, 45% to 40%. I wrote: “Today’s polling delivery does contain a surprise: The first Alaska poll to find Obama ahead (for that matter, this is probably the first Alaska presidential poll in quite a while to find any Democrat ahead)!”
- On September 4th, a DFM Research poll found Obama leading by 3% in North Dakota. I wrote: “Seeing a Democratic presidential candidate leading by any margin here is truly remarkable.”
- Finally, on September 25th, I devoted an entire post to a Rasmussen poll fro North Carolina with Obama leading 49% to 47%: “Today, the world as we know it changed in yet another red state: Obama has his first lead in North Carolina.”
Obama only won two of these five states, and by tiny margins. But these states proved extremely consequential, forcing Republicans to invest resources in North Carolina and Indiana at the expense of states like Colorado and Minnesota.
10. McCain’s rivals give him a free pass throughout January
This item might seem minor in comparison to the other stunners of this list, but the reluctance of McCain’s rivals to attack him throughout January remains for me the most incomprehensible event of the entire year!
The Arizona Senator was far behind throughout the fall of 2007, but he had emerged as a top contender by the first days of 2008. His New Hampshire victory left him as the man to beat; one more win looked like it would be enough for McCain to close the deal (which is exactly what happened).
Given that situation, I am still at a loss to explain why McCain’s rivals failed to challenge McCain throughout the South Carolina campaign - starting with the January 10th debate which left the Arizona Senator entirely unscathed. In my write-up of that debate, I asked, “Do Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee want John McCain to be the GOP nominee?”
As puzzling was Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson’s decision to not attack McCain from the Right in South Carolina despite the fact that a loss for either men was tantamount to the end of their presidential ambitions. Unlike 2000, then, no one arose to point out McCain’s apostasy on issues dear to social conservatives and McCain prevailed by 3%. A few days later, it was Rudy Giuliani’s turn to do the same in Florida, where he mysteriously gave up on an opportunity to capitalize on a rare major policy disagreement - McCain’s opposition to a national catastrophic fund, which Giuliani favors.
In fact, Huckabee spent more time praising the Arizona Senator than criticizing him. As Romney and McCain were engaged in some harsh rhetoric over the former’s alleged support of a withdrawal timetable, Huckabee rushed to McCain’s rescue.
—
Honorable mentions go to McCain’s unexpectedly flashy first celebrity ad featuring Britney Spears; to John Edwards’s unexpectedly early withdrawal a week before Super Tuesday; to Don Young’s November 4th survival; to McCain’s thoughtless mid-September decision to once again state that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong;” and to the dramatic September 7th Gallup poll that found McCain leading by double digits, leaving all Obama supporters speechless!


Great analysis Taniel.
As for number 10, I have long wondered about that myself. I think that there is a good chance that most of the other Republican candidates wanted McCain to be the nominee. Anybody with any common sense could see that he was the only candidate who could win, due to his moderate reputation and his past rivalry with Bush. Also a McCain loss could give the so-called “true conservatives” (Commentators and activists for example) a way to rationalize a loss. These people often talk about how “true” conservatives can win elections but moderate conservatives cannot. They could say and indeed some are saying that McCain “gave a sleeping pill” to America’s “conservative majority” and that’s why he lost. This argument has been used to rationalize every Republican presidential loss since Wilkie and Dewey with the exception of Goldwater.
Anyway, sorry for the long-winded response, but I thought about this a lot back in January.
A honorable mention should go to Obama’s poor performance at the Saddleback forum back in August. He was on his way back from a Hawaii vacation, and he was poorly prepared–remember his “beneath my paygrade” gaffe on abortion.
Another stunner might be the GOP convention getting higher ratings than the Democratic convention–part of that was due to the Palin pick, part of that was McCain’s strong acceptance speech.
And I can’t believe my comment on your September 7 writeup of that Gallup poll–which turned out to be an outlier. I think what happened was that in addition to McCain’s convention bounce, there was some 9/11 effect.
Obama’s acceptance speech was very strong at Denver, just overshadowed by the Plain news. This typified the McCain’s campaign obsession with short term tactical victories and winning news cycles. In the end McCain was defeated for two reasons 1) he articulated no positive message on the economy, health or any other domestic issue, other than capital gains tax cuts and 2) he undercut his negative message about Obama’s experience and celebrity by picking Palin who became a bigger celebrity.
Anyone else still think McCain didn’t actually pick Palin, but it was a behind the scenes choice to get the base back on board?
The two main reasons McCain lost were 1) Bush 2) the tanking econcomy. Everything else were just contibuting factors.
One of the big shockers missing from the list is Obama’s pastor, longtime friend, and spiritual leader Rev Wright and his American hating racist sermons. Those clips were seen by millions! After days of endless looping on cable TV, the next shocker was how the media let Obama off the hook and actually spinned it in his favor after he gave one speech on race.
Tezzy - you do not disappoint! Yes the Bush presidency and the poor economy were major factors but the McCain campaign could have been much better run. Steve Schmidt, the campaign manager, came on board in early July and brought some stability to the campaign. He authorized the “celebrity” ads and they did what they intended - as shown by Obama’s narrow lead over McCain. The convention also went well but they undercut their message on experience and celebrity by in part the Palin pick. Also they never had any message other than “tax cuts” for any domestic issue. The focus was on foreign policy, McCain’s bio and his maverick nature. Nothing was really mentioned on healthcare (other than when Obama brought up McCain’s policy), education, the environment etc.
As you mention the Wright tapes were seen by millions, the people made up their minds that it didn`t really matter. Are you really saying that people suddenly discounted it or forgot it because of some news programs. Give people more credit. The American voter this year showed that they were more concerned with issues than personality - as shown by the Ayers issue falling flat, or the Wright sermons.
It’s *Anh* Cao.
And they said to me the other day that Teezy isn’t really a troll.
Apparently at his neck of the woods he never heard about Hagee, Parsley or Palin’s witch-doctor.
Maybe Teezy is also dissapointed because the McCain campaign didn’t make ”Barack the Magic Negro” their official song.
Awe, poor poor Panos. Being exposed to opinions that are not direct reflections of his own! The HORROR! Sorry, kid. If you’re looking for an echo chamber, go elsewhere. Daily Kooks would probably be more to your liking.
I agree that McCain lost primarily to the (1) unpopularity of Bush and (2) the bad economy. I also believe a contributing factor is the natural fatigue that comes with a party that has control of the White House for 8 years. George H.W. Bush was the only exception to this rule in the last 50 years.
Mike, I agree the McCain campaign should have been run much better, but even a great campaign would have been hampered by Bush and the economy. Also, I believe that plans for energy jobs, energy independence, Rx drug reform, charter schools & vouchers would qualify as domestic policy. Just because the media does not cover something does not mean it doesn’t exist. If a tree falls in the forrest and NBC news isn’t there to cover it, does it make a sound?
I don’t believe that McCain selecting Palin was necessarily a horrible pick. Face it, McCain was not trusted by the conservative faction of the GOP because of his voting record (2001 tax cuts, McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, etc). If he didn’t select someone that was liked by the right-wing faction of the GOP, many of the conservatives would have voted with their feet. Palin did excite the GOP base, and, at the same time, was a factor for many moderate Republicans and Independents alike to switch their allegience to Obama. If it wasn’t for the fact of interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, she probably would have been a net plus for McCain. As it turned out, she probably attracted about the same amount of people to the ticket that she ran away.
If McCain selected Ridge, the GOP ticket probably would not have done any better (Ridge being pro-choice). If McCain selected Romney, IMO he would have alienated some of the evangelical voters.
The only person that may have helped McCain would be Huckabee. I must admit I like Huckabee’s personality, and I think they would have meshed well. Both men are quick witted, and Huckabee would have been viewed as a more stable outsider than Palin.
MSW - I agree that Huckabee would have been the better VP pick if you wanted to appeal to the base, since he was governor of a proper state (by that I mean not a petro state that can give cash handouts to all residents).
Teezy - there were noises about energy policy and independence which were summed up in that eloquent policy phrase “drill baby, drill”! That was more for national security than anything else. Tax policy was merely cut capital gains tax (anyone had a capital gain this year?) and spending policy was merely to cut pork barrel spending, which I agree with but is $18 billion a year out of a $2000 billion a year federal budget. The GOP campaign was primarily attacking the other side. This is legitimate to do but I question that amount - the Democrats attacked McCain but also spent time and money (in ads) with positive policy agenda (regardless if you agree with the policy or not at least they put some up).
If McCains campaign had been better (consistent message, VP pick, campaign “stunts” and debate performance) then McCain would have easily broken 200 EV’s and not lose NC, IN and one Nebraska vote. The worst performance for some time.
Teezy - one other point. If NBC (and the others, including Fox) do not cover something then for most people the tree did not fall and make a sound. Unfortunate but a fact. It has to be covered in the media, through stories, ads or debate lines to make it to most voters.
Mike, I don’t believe that McCain had any other chance unless he made some aggressive moves with his decisions. He reinforced his image as a “maverick” and was willing to be respectful to the hardline members of his party. If he took the more cautious route, he’d probably would not break 220 ev’s. By making a gamble, he had an outside (albeit small) chance of winning the election. However, as we all witnessed, most of these decisions backfired. His pick of Palin gave him momentum at first, and then it pretty much fizzled. His debate performance was erratic at best, and gave him the appearance of not being as Presidential as Obama. Another defining moment was when McCain suspends his campaign to work on the proposal to bailout Wall Street, even when members of his own party didn’t want him to help out. In essence, McCain tried to go against unconventional wisdom because he had no other realistic chance to win the Presidential race.
This election was a lot about appearance. You had a young, energetic man that was very articulate against a senior citizen that looked frazzled and old. You had a guy that was new to Washington against a person that is definitely a Washington insider. You had a guy that wanted to help the middle and working classes against a man that was painted as being more sympathetic to businesses and the wealthy. You had a guy who openly questioned Bush’s policy against a man who voted with the President’s agenda 90% of the time.
Although I’m a very loyal Democrat, I don’t believe it’s good for the USA that the minority party lacks true diversity in its ideas. Many of the moderate Republicans have either left the party or have been defeated in reelection. There are only a handful of GOP senators that I could really say are not conservative (Spector, Snowe, Collins). There are only a few GOP House members that are moderate too (Castle comes to mind). The GOP needs a bigger tent if they want to succeed in the near future. Right now, the GOP has really become the “anti-Democrat” party, and that’s not good at all. I imagine that the next 2 years the GOP will need to decide whether they are going to reform the party and run on ideas that had worked in the past, such as smaller government and socially conservative issues–like guns.
MSW - I agree McCain needed to make some unconventional decisions. Picking Lieberman could have been one. Or living upto his moderate image and talk about the middle class, the environment etc. The hard right had nowhere else to go and their hatred of Obama would have been sufficient for them to vote McCain. Just as in 2004 hatred of Bush made many people vote for Kerry. Not that many people truly voted FOR Kerry, he was just a vessel of Bush dislike.
Teezy: The two main reasons McCain lost were 1) Bush 2) the tanking econcomy.
I don’t think that (2) conforms to the facts. McCain’s lead in the average of the national polls was confined to immediately after the Republican convention. Obama had regained the lead before the Lehman Brothers collapse, which was itself prior to the financial crises which followed.
That’s not to say the economy was good beforehand. But there wasn’t a perception that it had “tanked” prior to Obama regaining the lead.
And when the economy did tank, McCain had the opportunity to show better leadership on the issue. He didn’t. So to the extent that the tanking economy had an effect on the election, I think it was due more to McCain’s failure to handle it well rather than the economic situation itself.