In this diary, I would like to challenge a piece of conventional wisdom, namely that Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner for most of the campaign, and that Obama's lead is something new. I think this view reflects the same flawed thinking that lead to Clinton's demise.
The ideas presented in this diary have been obvious to me since February 2007, when I first donated to Obama's campaign. It was clear to me then that Hillary was in a strategically disadvantageous position, and furthermore that she did not possess the political skill to recognize it. I never took an Obama nomination for granted, which is why I gave so much of my hard-earned money to his campaign, but I did realize that it was far more probable than anyone had given him credit for. Seeing the electoral results follow my predictions almost to the T, I felt like I ought to share the insights I had into the race.
Let's look at the facts:
*Barack went toe-to-toe with Clinton in fundraising from the very START of the campaign, outraising her AND assembling a much broader base of small donors.
*Barack won the first contest and has never trailed in the pledged delegate count.
*Barack has consistently had far larger crowds, far more donors, and a far more expansive organization than Clinton, dating back to the beginning of his campaign.
*He has always had lower negatives and broader general appeal than Clinton.
*While people have been expecting a Clinton run for years, and she was clearly positioned for it, Obama has always had a whiff of presidentiality about him. I defy anyone to count the number of people who have said of him "He's gonna be president someday".
*The Iraq war has been one of, if not THE, central issue of the campaign since before it even began, and Barack has always had the clear high ground on this vital issue.
Some may be surprised by Barack's dominance in the primary season and his eleven-state streak. Some bought into the inevitability meme, some just thought it was common sense that the Clinton machine was unbeatable. What we have learned from this election is that, with a broad enough base of popular support, even a powerful political machine can be taken down. But that's not my point. My point is that, if we had the sense to ignore the Mark Penns and the Very Serious People for the past year, we would've seen what was obvious by any objective measure: Obama has ALWAYS been the frontrunner. The facts were there for anyone who cared to look. In the end, this election is not the story of a star-blessed usurper; it's the story of a stealth juggernaut, flying below the radar long enough to secure insurmountable advantages. To take a line from a far less inspiring politician, Barack was misunderestimated; by the Clintons, by the MSM, by EVERYONE...except his supporters. And that has made all the difference.
Because you see, the Clinton collapse is the stereotypical "pride cometh before a fall" story. They were so infatuated with the Clinton name and their institutional "advantage" that they bought into their own hype. They actually BELIEVED that crap about "inevitability", and it shows in their election strategy. Sure, they had a big lead in the polls, but as we all know, and as was proved this year, polls mean DICK until about a week before the election. Somehow the Clinton campaign pulled a fast one not only on the opinion-making elite, but on themselves as well. Then, when concrete, undeniable VOTING began, the truth was slowly revealed; Barack has ALWAYS been ahead, because he was playing as if he was behind. Clinton was behind because she was playing like she was ahead.
Some may see the nomination of the first black major-party candidate as a surprise, or even a miracle. I see it just as I saw it in February 2007; inevitable.
EDIT: Let me address more thoroughly the issue of polls. Stolen from my comment below:
Polls are supposed to be gauges of election results, ie If the election were held today, how would you vote? What is missed by this whole enterprise is that the fact that the election is NOT being held today will drastically affect how a person answers the question. If it's for a pollster, there is still plenty of time to change one's mind, so a knee-jerk response based on name recognition or vague interest is more likely. When push comes to shove, though, voters are much more likely to inform themselves about their choices, since a vote cannot be taken back. Polls six months out that showed Clinton with a 20-point lead were accurate in what they were measuring, but what they were measuring was not true electoral strength. Not to mention that a 30-percent cushion of "undecideds" renders any inference to election performance spurious at best.