1. It was a record turnout, right? Wrong. Despite all the claims from the Obama campaign that this was, “the most important election in your lifetime,” and the efforts to get out the vote and regsister new voters, turnout was only negligibly higher [PDF]. in 2004, 122.3 million Americans voted or 60.6% of eligible voters. This year, the best estimates so far are that 127.1 million Americans voted, a number that will likely reach 129 million once all the final counting is finished. That represents about 62% of eligible voters. The net increase is 1.4%, hardly the tsunami of turnout that has been expected. Compare that to the difference between 2000 and 2004, when turnout jumped from 54.2% to 60.6%, the highest percentage increase in turnout since 1952.

2. Early voting is a good thing, right? Wrong. Even with all the efforts to provide early voting and other convenience voting opportunities, like no-excuse absentee balloting and mail-in voting, that have been put into place in the last few years, turnout stayed about the same as 2004 [PDF]. In fact, the downside of these forms of voting might actually outweigh any perceived benefits. After all, voters who cast their ballot two or three weeks prior to election day do so without the knowledge of events that might occur during the weeks between when they cast their vote and then when it’s counted. What if, for example, there had been a damaging revelation about one of the candidates? Or a national security incident of some type? Once that early ballot is cast, it cannot be changed. Further, because mail-in voting and no-excuse absentee voting remove the opportunity for secret balloting, it increases the likelihood of intimidation and fraud. In the long run, the effect of convenience voting is, at best, a wash and, at worst, a serious problem.

3. The youth vote turned out and pushed Obama over the top, right? Wrong. The share of the electorate made up by voters under 30 in 2004 was 17%. In 2008, it was 18%. There was a big swing of this bloc in Obama’s favor. Kerry beat Bush in young voters by 9% in 2004. This year Obama spanked McCain by a margin of 34%. While the youth vote certainly helped Obama, he didn’t significantly grow this portion of the electorate.

4. Sarah Palin was a drag on the Republican ticket. Wrong. Not just wrong, but quite the opposite. (Also here.) Among the 60% of voters who said Palin was a factor in their decision, and McCain did very well among them. Voters who said Palin was an “important factor” in their decision — 33 percent of the electorate — went for McCain 52 to 47. And voters who said Palin was a “minor factor” — 20 percent of the total — went for McCain 66 to 33. In addition, as Dick Morris observes:

Compared to 2004, McCain lost 11 points among white men, according to the Fox News exit poll, but only four points among white women. Obama’s under-performance among white women, evident throughout the fall, may be chalked up, in large part, to the influence of Sarah Palin.

It’s clear that Palin provided a spark on the GOP ticket that might not otherwise have been there had she not been in the VP slot. Had McCain chosen someone else, like Romney, Lieberman, or Pawlenty, it could be argued that his loss would have been worse,  which probably says more about McCain’s appeal than any of these hypothetical running mates.

5. Obama’s victory was a mandate for a liberal agenda, right? Wrong. This is the most interesting piece of fiction to me. The natural assumption is that Obama — the Senate’s most liberal member — whose agenda contains a number of very liberal items, having pulled off a decisive victory, did so based largely on a desire by the electorate to see that agenda enacted. But if you look at actual public opinions, that’s just not the case. Rasmussen suggests that Obama’s campaign more closely echoed classic Reaganism than did McCain’s. For example, 55% of voters favored tax cuts as a way to help the economy. Thirty-one percent of voters believed that Obama would be the candidate that would enact tax cuts, compared to just 11% who thought McCain would cut taxes. In addition, 43% of voters believed that being compared to Reagan was a positive, while 26% viewed it as a negative. In addition, the success of gay marriage bans in places like California (Obama won by 24%; Prop 8 won by 4%) , Florida (Obama won by 2%, gay marriage ban won by 24%),  and Arizona (McCain won by 9%; gay marriage ban won by 12%). In all three cases, the gay marriage bans outperformed McCain.

So what made the difference for Obama?

1. The African-American vote was huge for Obama. The African-American share of the electorate grew by several points from 2004 and overwhelmingly for Obama, not surprisingly.

2. Overal Democratic turnout was up while Republican turnout was down. It was clear that Democrats were energized, motivated, and turned out for Obama, while Republicans just didn’t react the same way for McCain. Republican turnout dropped by almost two full points while Democratic turnout increased by just shy of three points. That swing made the difference for Obama. The cause for this enthusiaism and turnout is being attributed, by some, to the registration and get out the vote efforts of liberal groups like MoveOn.org and ACORN. There simply isn’t a Republican equivalent. The GOP strategy, developed and executed by Karl Rove, of running a 72-hour get out the vote effort simply fell flat in the face of Obama’s 30-day get out the vote efforts.

Could McCain have won this election? He would have had a chance, had the economy not completely imploded in the six weeks leading up to the election. He came out of the GOP convention with real momentum. September was looking good. But with the economy completely collapsing, McCain was at a loss. He didn’t have a good answer. He looked clumsy and ham-handed. His message was unclear, and ultimately, he wasn’t able to exploit any of Obama’s weaknesses, while Obama seemed to have McCain’s number.

McCain didn’t have the support of almost any of the segments of the GOP’s base — social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, in particular. The one issue that he was strong on — national security — became a non-issue, ironically, because the war in Iraq has been going well, due largely to the success of the surge, which was McCain’s doing. McCain also didn’t understand the importance of these core values in places like Indiana, Florida, and Ohio.

And on a hot-button issue like immigration, McCain already made his bed among conservative voters. They weren’t going to come out for him. This lack of motivation became more clear when McCain supported the pork-laden bailout out bill, completely killing any chance of success he might have had with the smaller government, tax reform, no more pork crowd.

The GOP has a lot of work to do, and they would be wise to separate the truth from the fiction of this election.