A post-mortem on the three biggest ways this year’s election went from political pageant to pop culture moment.

Having been politically aware for only a few presidential cycles in my less than three decades of life, I may not be the best qualified to make grand claims on why this year’s election turned out the way it did. Doris Kearns Goodwin I am not. But an interesting theory did occur to me in the last few months regarding the Obama Phenomenon (Obamenon? Phenomobama? The next four years are going to be delightfully punny, that I can say for sure), a thought that crystallized further every passing week. Part of me wanted to write about it in the final days leading up to November 4th, when our democratic juices were flowing at their height and all anyone could talk about was the pending decision. A bigger part was too busy devouring every news or blog story possible as if, it could be said, my future depended on it. Of course, there was also an admitted bit of superstition that congratulating ourselves a week early was probably not a good idea. So instead of a bold election prediction article, how about a fun election post-mortem?

Plenty of dramatic political pieces have already been written — my fellow under culture writer tells me the epic 7-part “Secrets of the 2008 Campaign” in Newsweek is a must-read — so I’ll leave those to the proper authorities. What fascinates me is how this contest went from political pageant to pop culture moment. One could chalk up my sense of the buzz level to having a peer group finally at an age to be informed and responsible enough to care, but that seems only half right. Maturity alone couldn’t have inspired almost everyone around me, some who’d never shown interest in politics during any conversation I’d witnessed, to care for the first time; to donate money, or cell phone minutes, or leisure time; to have strong, informed opinions that provoked passion. This time around it somehow became popular to give a damn, and the resultant increase in participation may have accounted for Obama’s margin of victory.

How did it happen? Three factors may have played a bigger part than they’re given credit for.

……….

Artists

The single image most associated with Barack Obama’s rise from freshman senator to 44th president is undoubtedly the one here. Not a photo taken on the trail, but a piece of art that started as a screen-printed poster and quickly became an icon.

Shepard Fairey launched a career doing provocative, political street art. Going back to interviews from January, when he sold out the initial run in a mere 15 minutes, he was just one of the many inspired by a figure who represented something different. He thought he could show his support with some cool posters and raise a little money for his chosen candidate in the process. But after getting in contact with Obama’s team (and making it more campaign-friendly by removing the Obey logo and changing the caption from ‘Progress’ to ‘Hope’), his little fundraising stunt quickly became the most famous image of the year. Not bad for a guy who rose to fame plastering creepy Andre the Giant images around the city.

We’ve all seen the poster everywhere. We’ve seen giant versions held aloft in the crowd at rallies on television. We’ve seen it on t-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, magnets, and an awful lot of computer desktops (I’ve kept mine set to this one since January — again with the superstition — but I suppose it’s safe to move on now if it isn’t permanently burned in already). Countless parodies and imitations have sprung from his original piece, enough to guarantee it meme status for years to come.

As a piece of pop art, it accomplished more than ubiquity though. It cleared the hurdle of making a political statement personal, emotional, and even hip. Imagine Fairey had never painted, digitized, and distributed this portrait. If the only campaign materials available to display in windows, on bumpers, or on clothing was the traditional name/year/slogan on a field of blue, the Obama message would not have been nearly as prevalent. The number of stickers, posters, and t-shirts would have been a fraction of what they were with the help of this image. But thanks to this painting, people who never would have stooped to putting a campaign sticker on their car made an exception for one this well-designed. Thousands of shirts (many sold in a cottage industry of sidewalk bootleggers) made it stylish to show support, whether worn by hip-hop fans or hippie activists. It transcended subcultures and conveyed the inspirational appeal of the Obama campaign in a way no classic insignia could possibly have succeeded in doing.

Musicians played their part as well, mainly by amplifying the moving, musical quality of Obama’s own words. Will.i.am’s ‘Yes We Can’ video played on tens of millions of computer screens, turning a great speech into a viral video. Adam Freeland plugged Obama into a Daft Punk mix at Coachella, and DJ Z-trip passed out a free mixtape that sampled heavily from various emotional campaign speeches. Weeks later, a DJ friend of mine did the same, with no knowledge of the previous attempt — anecdotal evidence that something about this candidate was energizing creative minds in every corner of the country.

Not that any of these elements alone had the power to convert voters. What they did do, collectively, was increase the feeling of a building movement. The excitement in the creative class around this inspirational figure, once put into artistic form, became that much easier to spread to others, giving Obama backers more ways to share their enthusiasm with a broader community. I think it’s safe to say it was the enthusiasm that became so infectious — more than a candidate on his own could have hoped to be. The early momentum that continued on into November came not just from a man and his message, but from the swell of artistic passion he sparked along the way.

……….

Technology

Another factor in swaying voters, more intangible than the candidates’ views on any single issue, is an over-arching sense that they ‘get it’. To connect with millions of people watching at home, they need to convey that they’re current on how things work for the rest of us — that they have a handle on today, so they’re capable of leading us into tomorrow. McCain’s priceless slips about not knowing how to email, or calling it “The Google”, didn’t do him any favors in fighting his old fogey reputation. The Obama campaign, on the other hand, went above and beyond in proving their leadership by harnessing technology like no presidential hopeful ever has.

Howard Dean’s 2000 primary campaign is widely credited as the first to make substantial use of the internet for amassing small donors. Two terms later Obama’s team perfected the art, shattering every record for money gathering. Millions of individuals, some in increments of five or ten dollars, contributed to the movement they saw happening around them and took a stake in this candidacy. Going beyond a portal for donations, the official site was more than a stiff piece of digital literature. It was a living, evolving tool for organizers and supporters, allowing them to stay connected to daily happenings and plan grassroots programs.

Designers fell in love with its clean, easy-to-use layout, web 2.0 boosters swooned over its social media features (designed by Facebook founder/Obama new-media guru Chris Hughes), and marketing observers could not find the words to adequately praise that spectacular logo. Top to bottom, Obama as a brand exuded the well-planned, well-executed actions he hoped to take as a president. More importantly, he showed that he meant to be the first truly 21st century president, reflecting the change he promised in his rhetoric.

It’s the little touches that stand out though. An active presence on Facebook kept millions of ‘fans’ current with the latest news and videos from the trail. In an innovative if somewhat gimmicky move, Obama promised to text message his VP pick to supporters before making the announcement in the news media. Reporters went into a frenzy trying to beat them to the punch. A memorable scene of Senator Biden handing bagels to the cadre of journalists camped out on his front lawn further supported his down-to-earth credentials, and word got out as he boarded a plane to Illinois, forcing a mass text push in the middle of the night. Despite the hiccups in its delivery, that message still gave the campaign a personal touch. Weeks later, they created a free Obama iPhone application, just to show that they were on top of every emerging tech trend. How necessary or useful that was may be debatable, but it conveyed a leader who planned to use technology to stay connected to the people who voted for him, and more importantly, one who understood the role technology would play in solving the nation’s problems.

A New York Times article during the primary season pegged Obama and Clinton as Mac and PC, respectively — conveniently glossing over that McCain was probably the Remington typewriter in the equation — and the characterization is probably most apt when looking at youth appeal. Where Macs have become the preferred choice among college students, nowhere does tech savvy gain a candidate more points than the plugged-in generation most apt to receive his Facebook updates or download his iPhone app. The research shows how strongly the social networkers turned out on election day, too.

Their unified support for Barack Obama combined with their high turnout made the Millennial Generation the decisive force in his victory. Young voters accounted for about seven million of Obama’s almost nine million national popular vote margin over John McCain. Had young people not voted, Obama would have led McCain by only about 1.5 percentage points instead of seven.

So while it doesn’t hurt that younger voters tend to identify Democrat by a nearly 2:1 margin, the fact that this year’s Democrat made a particularly good showing in their native digital haunts only cemented their conviction that he was the right choice for them. Compounded further by the tools that made it so easy to donate, discuss, register, volunteer, and vote (early or not), it’s no wonder that the higher tech candidate edged out the one who doesn’t understand email (or the VP who conducted secret business via a free Yahoo account).

……….

Comedy

Although the ways in which Youtube has changed elections could have its own entire section, nowhere was it more effective than as a lampooning tool. In an age where everything is videotaped, forever archived and accessible as reference, watchdogs have a much easier time pointing out spin and hypocrisy. Politicians have to be more careful than ever about flip-flopping or flubbing a line, because once it’s out there, it’s ripe for parody.

The Daily Show has become increasingly dependent on archival video to make its jokes, cutting from present day talking heads to their own counterarguments from the past. This season they used it to devastating effect, with a staff to do the legwork so we don’t have to. With good editing and access to limitless hours of speeches and interviews, they’ve become more than a comedy show, but a sort of Spin Police, keeping the bloviators honest — or at least, being right there to point and snicker every time they’re not. (I’m reminded of a favorite line, from Sandman or Shakespeare or possibly both: It’s the fool’s prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak.)

With the rise not just of access, but of easy sharing, it only takes a few clicks to send the truth and a laugh to everyone you know, making such videos an invaluable resource for balancing the scales. Just because the man (or woman) behind the podium says something doesn’t make it true, and here are several clips that prove it posted effortlessly to my blog or Facebook page. The ease of fact-checking automatically raises the level of  debate for everyone with access to the internet.

The Sarah Palin fiasco will someday be a case study in politics as well as satire, I have no doubt. The day after her debut speech at the Republican National Convention on September 3rd — while media figures were going wild over her potential to bring excitement, and more importantly votes, to the ticket — Jon Stewart and co. were already busy popping their balloon. As more info (and more videos from her past) surfaced, it only became easier to knock her off her pedestal.

But as skilled as the writers and editors at The Daily Show may be, their audience is nowhere near as wide as the institution that is Saturday Night Live. Tina Fey’s first guest role impersonating the Alaskan governor was laugh-out-loud hilarious and got everyone talking, as well as heading to their computers to see what they missed. Millions of Youtube and uncountable Hulu views later, popular perception had been shaped: this woman was a disgrace. Once it becomes a punch line, there’s no going back. Look at OJ.

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I borrowed a chart from some Daily Kos tracking data and matched it up with the SNL sketches to see if there was a noticable effect, shown here:

Although this is by no means a scientific or strict statistical study, two observations emerge. One, Palin was on a downward trajectory from the beginning, mostly of her own ridiculous doing. The extensive and embarrassing Couric interview alone made sure of that. Two, both she and McCain got slight upticks after they appeared in person with a sense of humor about themselves. Bear in mind, this isn’t a chart about who people would vote for, just their favorable/unfavorable opinion of the candidates. And by late October the majority of Americans had made up their minds already, so it was a personal measure more than an election predictor. After all, who doesn’t like to see a lovable loser able to laugh at their own shortcomings?

So is my theory that comedy played a part in tipping the scales in the closing months totally off-base? Well, maybe my chart didn’t turn out the way I expected, but if we turn to the professionals at Roll Call:

These and other conclusions are contained in a poll of 1,049 voters that was taken election night for Roll Call…

Two-thirds of voters saw the “Saturday Night Live” election parodies during the campaign season and 10 percent said the program had an influence on their vote. Asked whether they would prefer Alaska Gov. Saran Palin (R) or actress Tina Fey — who portrayed Palin on the show, to hilarious effect — as vice president, 51 percent said Fey.

Wow. So not only did comedy help change people’s minds and votes, it may have launched a Palin/Fey race in 2012. Digging in just a tad more to the survey company’s (First View) press release:

Non-traditional influencers also helped shape voter opinions. ‘The ‘“Saturday Night Live” effect’ absolutely impacted the election,” said Mike Dabadie, FirstView researcher. “We  saw that 10 percent of voters said they were influenced by the skits. At the same time, the data shows that 59 percent of those who saw the skits voted for Obama and 39 percent voted for McCain.”

None of this is definitive of course; I also have a source that says 88% of statistics say whatever you want them to. If slightly more Democrats watch SNL than do Republicans, it follows that the number who saw the sketches tilted slightly higher in Obama’s favor than the national vote percentages. After all, what’s more satisfying to a fighting Dem than seeing the opposing VP skewered so deftly? But in a world where as many young people stay informed through late night comedy as nightly news or the internet, it’s not surprising that these sketches molded opinions. As an expert who’s been studying the comedy/news relationship for years said,

“When individuals are familiar with the biography and policies of a candidate, an impersonation simply highlights well-known flaws in an exaggerated way. “But because Palin was widely unknown,” Young argues, “Fey seemed to co-opt the Governor’s identity altogether, reconstructing her as a down-home, cute, but ignorant small-town mayor, not quite ready for prime time.”

And not a moment too soon. I’m sure Tina Fey is well aware of the fact that Africa is a continent and not a country, to say the least. So if the popularity of her TV appearances shifted even a fraction of a percent in a fraction of the toss-up states, god bless her for being a patriot.

……….

Are you convinced? Fueling the buildup. Increasing the participation. Steering the conventional wisdom. From start to finish, the campaign was run expertly by the Obama team, but helped in small part by the participation of pop culture at every turn. Would things have turned out much differently without Shepard Fairey? Without Facebook? Without Tina Fey and Youtube? Possibly not. But with all of them in conjunction, there’s enough reason to believe the numbers tilted more comfortably toward Obama than they would have otherwise. We — and I say we, being of the vast young, connected, comedy-watching pool of voters who helped make the difference — got to seal the deal and go to bed early instead of dealing with a 2000 or 2004 situation. Now that we’ve proved that “Yes We Can”, maybe we can go back to our TV shows and video games in peace.

……….

Thanks to flickr user TaraLivesOn for the side-by-side Fey/Palin comparison shot used above.