Even more succinct: Bush

I can't agree with that. It discounts his message and stance on the issues.

I thought that the 527 series of articles on offces from both campaigns painted a strong picture. McCain ran a business hours team in a 24-7 world. It may be a product of his age and that of his base, but for the most part people no longer think in terms of nine to five.

Bush, McCain, Palin.

Hindsight being 20/40, I think even Cindy McKinney would have had a good chance of beating McCain. That is how bad I think Bush destroyed the Republican party.

I think the role of the Internet in the outcome is overrated.

So, when was the last time the bloke who raised less money won?

(well, spent less, I suppose...)

As any good development officer can tell you, if you can't raise the money you don't have a winner.

Freakonomics makes the interesting claim that you've got that backward -- it's not that the guy who makes the most money is the guy with the best chances, but that it's the guy who has the best chances who makes the most money.

I think the main reasons were:

1. More campaign money.
2. More charisma.
3. Disgruntlement with opposition party.

But Drew Westen's The Political Brain is also worth a look. He points out that the Democratic campaigns run by Bob Shrum (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry) all tried to concentrate on facts, avoided emotion, and avoided making negative attacks; which Westen regards as poor strategy. So also:

4. Appeal to emotion not reason.
5. Go negative on your opponent.

Or possibly just:

6. Don't hire Bob Shrum.

My personal theory on this is that, along with many of the other things that have been mentioned, Obama had an advantage with the tone of his campaign. Reagan won in 1980, and Clinton in 1992, at least partly because their message was sunny and optimistic. For a lot of people who arent closely aligned with either side of the political spectrum, Obama's vibe just felt better.

And, we must not forget that Obama is a lean 6'2" or so, while McCain is a portly 5'7".