Big Turnout

The fact that big turnout seems to have powered Obama to his big win strikes me as perhaps more significant than his margin of victory as such. Obama's message of "bringing people together" to create "change" is often castigated by his critics as a "kumbaya schtick" but it looks like something very different whenever he can deliver on promises to mobilize new people and bring them into the process. At the end of the day, politicians respond to facts on the ground. A presidential candidate who can change the facts on the ground by bringing new people into the process can carry a lot of supporters on his coattails. A president who can organize people at the grassroots in support of his agenda could get amazing things done.

Could Obama really do that? Well, it's hard to know for sure. But it does fit his background as a community organizer, and it does fit his results in Iowa and South Carolina.

Comments

"Could Obama really do that?"

This is key: will all of these young voters, energized on the state level in these primaries, do the same, or with even nore gusto, in November. I hope so.

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 7:52 PM

November isn't the problem ... people will by psyched. The question is if Obama can bring enough people in by February 5th.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 26, 2008 7:59 PM

It is also important to note that even if Obama couldn't win outright in November in certain really red areas (Northern Nevada, South Carolina etc.), if he increases turnout among Democratic leaning voters in these places this could be very helpful downticket.

Posted by ikl | January 26, 2008 8:01 PM

A president who can organize people at the grassroots in support of his agenda could get amazing things done. Could Obama really do that?

You see anyone else on the horizon who even has a remote chance of doing so?

Posted by Econobuzz | January 26, 2008 8:17 PM

Hillary's no slouch in this respect - if she wins the nomination she'll bring millions of new Republicans into the GOP.

Posted by Steve C | January 26, 2008 8:19 PM

Bill Clinton is a piece of shit.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 26, 2008 8:28 PM

Econobuzz speaks the truth.

Posted by Duke | January 26, 2008 8:34 PM

There seems to be a clear difference from what Obama is trying to do, and what he is being accused of with the "kumbaya schtick".

The kumbaya criticism assumes that Republican constituencies are well represented by Republican policies. There is a sub group for which this is true (tax cuts for the wealthy advocates), but for the most part this is not true.
Obama, if I am reading him right, is not suggesting a strategy of reaching across the aisle for compromise, but rather appealing to the majority of Americans so that the people across the aisle become of higher quality, or at least are pressured to pursue better policies.

Posted by theCoach | January 26, 2008 8:36 PM

By the way, if anyone out there has any lingering doubt that the Clintons are intentionally bringing race into the campaign and trying to paint Obama as a "black candidate", heres Bill Clinton today talking about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina twice:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064875.php

Notice how the question didn't prompt that response at all.

Posted by bwaage | January 26, 2008 8:44 PM

Numbers of interest:

Turnout in 2004, overall, was about 290,000. Obama is on track to get about 250,000.

Edwards won in 2004 with 132,000 votes; Clinton will get nearly that coming in second.

Total turnout will be almost 500,000; total vote for John Kerry in SC in the 2004 general was about 661,000.

Edwards 2008, at 3rd, will beat Kerry, 2004, at 2nd.

Posted by sdm | January 26, 2008 8:46 PM

It's still unclear if the tide of new voters can offset more traditional Dems (older women, blue-collar folks in purple states) that at the moment fall into Clinton's camp. February 5th should give us a lot more data to work with. I'll vote for Obama over Clinton in the New York primary, but I still think he's got some work to do to shore up a couple of key demographics.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 26, 2008 8:48 PM

Exactly, theCoach.

It's interesting. "Framing" is important because framing issues in your favor helps you get votes. But some liberal bloggers (and, perhaps, prominent liberal columnists?) have begun to view "framing" as an end in itself. The name of the game is to win elections by as many votes as possible. If you'll win more votes by proposing liberal policies with unity rhetoric than by proposing liberal policies with us vs. them rhetoric, you should do the former. Prioritizing rhetoric over results gets things backwards.

Posted by Led | January 26, 2008 8:48 PM

It looks like the most crucial demographic of all are people who decide in the final 24 hrs. They've swung NH and SC in a big way. So Feb. 5th could be quite interesting.

Posted by lampwick | January 26, 2008 8:51 PM

What is crystal clear is that SOMETHING is happening with Obama that isn't with Hillary Clinton's campaign. I think that if Obama is a nominee with a female VP like Katherine Sellibus he'd pick up the female vote and the historic nature of the candidacy would kick the GOP out of the water.

The most important part of today, Obama winning the expectations game among the the chattering class regarding the white vote. He gained a quarter of the white vote and split the white male vote evenly with HRC. That is a huge story coupled with his blowout win that is larger margin than Hillary's in Michigan.

This was a good day for the Obama campaign. But it's one day.

Posted by Rhoda | January 26, 2008 8:58 PM

I note that Edwards did exceptionally well in "has some post graduate education" category. I had no idea there were so many underemployed trial lawyers in South Carolina.

Posted by RW Rogers | January 26, 2008 9:39 PM

There's a saying in the Marine Corps about winning hearts and minds.

Applied to American politicians, it translates: "grab them by their constituencies, and their hearts and minds will follow."

Posted by Carrington Ward | January 26, 2008 10:39 PM

There's a Democratic tide running.

Do we have any hard data that shows what portion of the tide is generic Democratic (not Republican) appeal, and what portion is Obama in particular?

Posted by lambert strether | January 27, 2008 12:03 AM

A presidential candidate who can change the facts on the ground by bringing new people into the process can carry a lot of supporters on his coattails. A president who can organize people at the grassroots in support of his agenda could get amazing things done.

Well, that's it, isn't it? To not only get the biggest piece of the pie but to actually expand the pie. Bringing new people into the process is political gold, as is winning swing-voting independents and disaffected Republicans. This is what Obama is talking about when he refers to a new Democratic coalition (and references Reagan's similar feat in the '80s.) Obama has the persona, the ideas, the organization, and the ability to inspire required to pull it off. That has the potential of creating not only a Democratic victory in the presidential race, but sizeable majorities in both houses for years to come. Most importantly, it would create context for true progressive reform in this country. If Obama can get that message out in time for Feb 5 (admittedly a tough task) he could see a repeat of the Iowa/South Carolina groundswell.

Posted by Garth | January 27, 2008 1:58 AM

"The kumbaya criticism assumes that Republican constituencies are well represented by Republican policies. There is a sub group for which this is true (tax cuts for the wealthy advocates), but for the most part this is not true.
Obama, if I am reading him right, is not suggesting a strategy of reaching across the aisle for compromise, but rather appealing to the majority of Americans so that the people across the aisle become of higher quality, or at least are pressured to pursue better policies.

Posted by theCoach | January 26, 2008 8:36 PM"

This is very well put. If current trends hold and Romney is the nominee, I don't think the contrast between our parties will have ever been so obvious in favor of the Dems. Romney is only a recent convert to the social conservative wing of the party and is likely to the left of most of his primary opponents in private on abortion, gay rights, etc. and maybe even foreign policy, but will just say anything to get elected (and yet admits he won't get his home state). He is very much a Republican just to get low taxes and lax business regulations. It will easily be a rich white straight guy vs. everyone else election at that point.

Posted by Reality Man | January 27, 2008 6:13 AM

Posted by Garth @ 1:58 AM

Re:

A president who can organize people at the grassroots in support of his agenda could get amazing things done

Do you have an example or two in mind? This is a sincere request.

I don't get how being a talent community organizer is applicable to a skillset for the main chief executive position in the world.

I do definitely see how it could win you elections, I can see for example, that getting out a lot of the blacks and youth that usually don't vote could win him the election easy.

I don't see how it could, for example get troops out of Iraq the best way, get the proper Federal economic policy, or get the health insurance thing moving.

Since reading George Packer's piece in The New Yorker, which I found very helpful about Hillary's possible governing style but extremely short and vague on Obama (probably because he had no access to Obama's people), I've been looking for hints on his executive skillsets. I am not finding anything. Until I have that, or his cabinet picks, I am sorry, I am going to worry about his possible presidency, thinking the first years might end up like Bill Clinton's first years or Jimmy Carter's last. Bill Clinton first years of presidency did not have the serious situation this country has now, there was plenty of room for making plenty of mistakes.

This does not mean I didn't read anything in Packer's piece that bothered me about Hillary, as some things did. It's just that there's no there there for Obama on this topic at all yet. We don't even have videos of him questioning executive branch people in Congressional hearings, at least we have those with Hillary. His debate skills, as many have noted, are not thrilling in this regard. And I don't find Caroline Kennedy's op-ed very reassuring at all, I don't really see much practical benefit in another "Camelot" as regards out major problems. I definitely like his attitude towards working with Republicans and various religious contingencies, but beyond that, it's a big question mark. It is not reassuring that he has traveled little as an adult. I just don't see how removing old domestic electoral divisions gets you to solving the problems facing the next president.

To be clear, I don't really feel I have a bone in this race, I am not pushing one result or another, I am just trying to get a bead on what the future will bring if he wins.

Posted by artappraiser | January 27, 2008 12:46 PM

Obama, if I am reading him right, is not suggesting a strategy of reaching across the aisle for compromise...

Your point is well taken, but I am sick and tired of having to listen to people explain away Obama's statements by telling me, "well, what he really means is..." I mean, if this is what he means by all is talk of "reaching across the aisle," why doesn't he make the point more clearly, rather than depending on surrogates and supporters to assure liberals about "what he really means" by all of that?

Posted by Tyro | January 27, 2008 1:19 PM

Obama could well bring out the black vote in the South, which would be good for any Democrat if it carries through to November.

Posted by skeptonomist | January 27, 2008 3:13 PM