Another segment of the population that rallied around Obama were the youth (under 30 years old) of America. Obama had a couple advantages over McCain in garnering the youth vote. First, young people are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. Secondly, Obama’s “Change” theme was greatly embraced by the traditionally idealistic young people. Third, Obama’s strong use of the internet, especially Facebook, carried his message directly to the areas of common communications between young adults. Fourth, young people have an innate distrust of older people. When putting Obama and McCain side by side, who do you think they would favor? Finally, the young people that became a part of his campaign brought endless energy and enthusiasm which equated into many days and nights of valuable volunteer work.

Appearance. This factor has played a major role in many presidential campaigns throughout the years. It is widely believed that Richard Nixon lost the 1960 election due to the way he appeared during the televised debates. While John Kennedy appeared youthful, charismatic, handsome and polished, Nixon was perspiring and his 5 o’clock shadow gave him a dark, less-appealing appearance. In 1980 and ‘84, Ronald Reagon’s victories were in part due to his physical appearance and his communicational skills honed from his days in Hollywood. He made people feel comfortable and secure when he successfully utilized the media to talk directly to the public. Bill Clinton also parlayed his appearance into successful victories in 1992 and 1996. In 1992, he burst onto the scene with charisma and vitality and conjured up images of John Kennedy. In 1996, his charisma and flair was in marked contrast to Bob Dole, who came across as old and dry. In 2000, George W. Bush’s appearance was rated more favorable than Al Gore’s mechanical/robotic/monotone personality. Then, in 2004, Bush benefited by the public’s perception of John Kerry being aloof, cold and elitist.

McCain’s campaign strategy. A big part of McCain’s strategy to win the election was to go after the moderate vote. Since he knew it was unlikely that he would be able to get any left-leaning Dems to vote for him, and the right wing conservative Republicans weren’t enamored with him, he thought his best chances were to go after the people in the middle of the political spectrum. Unfortunately for McCain, exit polls revealed that 61% of the moderates voted for Obama while 39% voted for McCain.

Economy. The severe economic downturn that occurred in September and October was a huge gift dropped into Obama’s lap. Why? Because Obama was successfully able to make the connection between the bad economy and President Bush and John McCain. Even though presidents have little influence on the country’s economy, they are the ones who are usually blamed or praised. President Clinton benefited from a robust economy in the 90’s and received much credit. On the other hand, President Bush is being blamed on this economic downturn. Truth be told, neither man had much say in the economies during their presidencies. This latest financial debacle was not caused by President Bush, but rather by Wall St. and loose financial lending practices of various banks and mortgage companies. However, Obama was successful in convincing many people that the latest economic woes were the fault of President Bush and if they voted for John McCain, they would get another 4 years of the same failing economic policies. Obama’s argument was strong and convincing, since the old adage is that people vote by their pocketbooks and this current economy was strongly weighing against the current administration.

The Bush factor. Obama was extremely successful in connecting John McCain to George Bush. With Bush’s current approval ratings under 30%, this connection was a black hole that any candidate would want to avoid. The truth is, there never was a connection between Bush and McCain. Bush always regarded McCain as a maverick, someone who would cross party lines if needed. McCain also angered Bush when he ran against him in the 2000 primaries. Just the fact that Bush only appeared with McCain two times (both times were early in the campaign) after McCain became the Republican nominee, reflects this lack of connection between the two men. Even McCain’s proposed policies, except for the Iraq War, differed from the President’s. So obviously, there was no strong connection between Bush and McCain, but Obama was able to create this connection and instill concerns in the public’s mind that a McCain victory would be an extension of Bush’s supposedly failed policies.

There are many other factors that played vital roles in Obama’s victory, such as people’s perceptions that he had fresh, new ideas, his administration would bring needed change to this country, he will get the troops out of the Middle East, he can improve the economy and help the middle class, etc. The one clear fact is that he is going to be confronted in ways that no other president has experienced in the past. For the first time, an incoming president must deal with both an ongoing war and a failing economy. There will be no traditional honeymoon period for President Obama. He will have his hands full with many issues.

Moving to the U.S. Congress, the Democratic Party maintained and even strengthened their majorities in both houses. For the first time since 1992, the Dems control the White House and both houses of Congress. However, the Democrats were not able to reach the 60 seat level in the Senate that would have allowed them to avoid Republican filibusters. Originally, the Dems had 49 seats, the GOP had 49 seats and there were 2 independents. After the elections, the Democrats now have 57 seats, Republicans have 40 seats and there are still 2 independents (as of this writing, one race is still undecided). This means that the Dems have picked up at least five new votes in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, the Dems have gained at least 20 more seats. Add that to the 30 seats they picked up in the 2006 elections and it’s clear to see how the power has shifted in the House. As of this writing, the Dems have won 253 seats in the House of Representatives, the GOP have 174 and there are still 8 undecided races.

As for Wisconsin’s congressional races, all the incumbents won, with the closest race being between Steve Kagen and John Gard (neither one of our Senators were up for re-election). Therefore, there will be five Democrats and three Republicans representing WI in the next congressional session. The 2008 congressional elections will not do much to change the current leader positions in either chamber. However, now that the Democrats have even stronger majorities, plus a president from their own party, they will be under intense pressure to tackle and correct the many troubling issues facing our nation. After lambasting President Bush for the past eight years and blaming him for failed policies, the Dems finally have all the chips on their side of the table. Whether they’ll be able to successfully leverage their new-found power into political and economic success, only time will tell.

Turning to the State of Wisconsin’s election results, the biggest news is that the Democrats regained control of the Assembly. They had already taken control of the Senate in the last election. Now, for the first time in more that two decades, the Dems control both chambers in the state legislature, as well as the Governor’s office.

In the state Senate, the Democrats increased their seats from 17 to 18 and the Republicans increased their seats from 14 to 15 giving the Dems a 3 vote advantage in the next legislative session. Leadership positions have not yet been announced, but it’s unlikely that any major changes will occur from the last session since the Dems were already in power.

The nation-wide wave of Democratic victories swept into the state Assembly as well. Dems picked up new seats in the 2nd, 42nd, 57th, 68th and 92nd districts, thus increasing their Assembly seats from 47 to 52. The GOP reduced their seats from 51 down to 46 (there is 1 independent seat). The Democratic Party only needed to win three additional seats to gain the majority, but they did better than that by taking five new seats. This means the Dems regain the majority in the WI Assembly for the 1st time since 1994. It must be noted that there is one new Republican legislator, familiar to the dairy industry, that was able to win his district’s race. Ed Brooks, long-time chairman of the Foremost Farms USA board of directors, successfully ran for the 50th Assembly district seat. We wish to congratulate soon-to-be Representative Brooks on his impressive victory.

So, what does this all mean? First of all, it’s obvious the country voted for change. Starting at the top with Barack Obama, the democratic groundswell swept over all national and state races. Obama’s coattails were long and encompassing, enabling many national and state democratic candidates to win their races, even in long-time Republican districts. As previously stated, it will be the first time since 1992 that the Democrats control the White House and Congress. In Wisconsin, it has been over two decades since the state’s Democrats had the same type of control.

But, there will be no time for parties and celebration. On the federal level, the Dems must hunker down and address the ailing economy, the Middle East war and a host of other issues. They will no longer have the ability to blame the Republicans for scuttling their plans to fix these problems. The Dems have the green light to move forward with their policies, with the GOP being unable to do much about it. The success or failure of correcting the economy, ending the war, etc. will rest almost solely on the Democratic Party.

In Wisconsin, the Democratic majority will also be having to face a sickly economic picture. Current projections of a $3 billion deficit in the next budget will have to be addressed starting in February. Just like on the national level, state Democrats will have complete control over how the next biennial budget will be crafted. The Republican legislators’ roles in budget deliberations will be greatly minimized. It will be interesting to see if the budget will be approved next year in a more timely manner since one party now controls the legislature and governor’s office. Due to partisan bickering and lack of one party control, the last 3 or 4 biennial budgets have taken much longer to complete, exceeding their deadlines by many months.

Another significant change in the Assembly due to the Dems’ new majority will be the change in Assembly leadership. These changes have not yet been announced, but there certainly will be one change which will affect the state’s dairy industry– a new Assembly Agriculture chairperson. For the first time in a decade and a half, Representative Al Ott ( R), will not be the Assembly Ag Committee chairman. Representative Ott has done a stellar job leading the Ag committee for many years and WDPA has valued his leadership role on many important issues. We hope he will remain as a member of the committee and our association looks forward to developing a solid working relationship with the new chairperson of this important committee.

So there you have it. Election 2008. Change. Democratic majorities. Pressing issues. Time to put the elections behind us and get to work on the many problems that need to be solved. Hopefully, we won’t see another political ad for many, many months. And more importantly, hopefully we will never have to hear about Joe Six Pack ever again.

Change has come. Only time will tell if this change is good or bad. We can only hope that our elected leaders will do what is right for this country.