Two narratives of the Obama win

Narrative one: There was nothing special about this election, it was determined by large scale phenomena that neither candidate had much control over:

• Demographic trends are shifting towards the Democrats. The Republican coalition of 2000 and 2004 just doesn't add up to electoral victory anymore
  
• When the sitting president is unpopular, the party of that president won't do well.
• On economic issues, voters favor the Democrats. Economic issues were salient for voters.
  
• When economic times are difficult during an election year, the party of the sitting president is at a disadvantage.
  

Narrative two: This election was the result of highly specific circumstances unique to this particular election and could have gone the other way had the campaigns done things differently:

• Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime uber-being who has superpowers of rhetoric, organizing, and political manoevering that no one else could possibly equal.
• John McCain shot himself in the foot so many times: Palin, not knowing how many houses he owned, "the fundamentals of our economy our strong", suspending his campaign, poor debate performance, etc.
  
• If only Republicans had stayed true to conservative principles, they would have won!
  
• Bush was hugely, spectacularly, singularly unpopular and that hamstrung McCain.
• The media was in the tank for Obama.
• People voted for Obama as a way to exorcise racist demons in themselves and in the country.
• Obama's campaign was run by super-genius demigods like Axelrod and Plouffe whose flawless performance is responsible for the election outcome.
• The timing of the financial crisis was what did in McCain. Oh, cruel Fate! The injustice!
  

I think you can tell by the snarky tone which narrative I prefer. I do think there were some specific things that made Obama's victory larger than it might otherwise have been. The campaign was well run. He had much more money. He had a much better ground game. He did better in the debates. He didn't pick a vice-presidential nominee who was completely ignorant about important issues. But I think fundamentals like demographics are far more important.

Part of me hopes that the Republicans subsribe to narrative #2, so they continue to suffer defeats. But I think the contry would be better off with a reality-based opposition party. The Republicans are going to have to figure out how to break out of their demographic death trap. There just aren't enough white, Christian fundamentalist, married, conservative, rural, angry, heterosexual men in Oklahoma and Arkansas to form a winning coalition. (OK, I'm being unfair there; the Republican coalition is larger than that.) I think the Republican party is going to require a major shift in focus: they're going to have to become the party that can offer a comprehensive green energy solution, or universal healthcare, or working class economic populism, or something.

A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if only they could find the right candidate, or the right campaign strategy, they could be victorious again. I disagree. I think it will require a full-scale re-working like the Conservative Party in the UK.

On the other hand, if Obama becomes associated with a huge economic collapse, I think the Republicans could easily come back despite their demographic disadvantages. In this case, the fundamentals would cut against the Democrats. But they'd still have to present bread-and-butter solutions.