Obama’s turnout victories
A friend of mine frequently derides Obama’s “unity” rhetoric as terribly unrealistic. She is doubtful that Obama will be able to create enough public support and enthusiasm to do much of anything, and as a result, she sees him ending up as a hopelessly ineffective president. It’s a criticism that has a fair amount of validity, since we really had no evidence of Obama’s ability to motivate or enthuse anyone; we were taking the man solely on his word.
In the wake of the Iowa and South Carolina primaries though, it seems that we do have some evidence by which to evaluate Obama’s claims. And truth be told, it looks like Obama may be correct about his ability to mobilize voters. When you compare Obama’s and Clinton’s victories, what’s most notable is the margin of victory. Clinton has won with small, respectable margins; in New Hampshire’s eight person race, Clinton won with a 2% margin over Obama and in Nevada’s five person race, she won with a 7% margin. Again respectable victories, but only in the latter case does it approach “decisive.”
Obama’s wins are a different story. In Iowa’s eight person race, Obama won by a very respectable 8%, and as we all know, in South Carolina’s four person race he won by a shattering 28% of the vote. More importantly, his Iowa and South Carolina wins were driven by huge increases in voter turnout. In Iowa turnout almost doubled the previous record, with 220,588 participants compared to 124,000 in 2004. In South Carolina, turnout was ridiculous with 500,000 voters participating, up from 290,000 in 2004. The two contests tell similar stories, in both, the huge increase in turnout was driven mostly by younger and first-time voters.
For me at least, this suggests that a President Obama may be able to make good on his assertion that he can change the public conversation on a whole host of issues by getting voters informed and involved. Experience is certainly important, but I don’t think we should discount Obama’s ability to organize and energize.
another staggering number from the South Carolina primary was:
Obama, himself, won more votes in South Carolina 2008 than were case in the ENTIRE 2004 S.C. primary.
Exactly. I wouldn’t attribute this massive increase entirely to Obama, but there’s no denying that his influence is at least partly responsible for the turnout increase.
Obama said inan interview recently that, as a general election candidate, there are votes he can get that Clinton can’t get. And there isn’t a single vote she can get that he couldn’t get were she out of the running (which I think is true for the majority of her support).
I think that’s a good point. He should keep bringing that up.
I definitely agree that he should bring up his electability. And though I don’t think he should say this directly, he should have someone talk about how looking at the numbers, it seems like Clinton only appeals to white women.
Clinton’s win in Nevada is questionable, since Obama got the edge in delegates.
There is definately a lot of excitement for Obama, and even the pundits on the conservative talk shows have had very little to say about him negatively. That might be because they want to see Hillary lose more than anything, or it might be a sign that Obama is the real deal. I lean towards the latter.
Anyway, Obama seems poised to take this thing, but the Clintons won’t go down without a fight. The next week or so is going to be a war of words like no other, so grab your popcorn.
But…but….Clinton won Florida! Heh.
Obama’s turnout factor is his appeal. The guy gets people out the door and on the floor. I’d love to see him spend more time discussing how he will continue to do this while in office. Make the JFK legacy fit.
::fishing for stove-top popcorn::