Turnout Thoughts

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:02


I am still gathering my thoughts on Obama's win.  In all likelihood, his vote count is lower than actual turnout for his candidacy due to the excessive weighting of rural precincts that went for Edwards.  And while Obama performed fantastically, Clinton and Edwards did better than any Democrat has ever done in Iowa... except Obama.  This is very very good news, and continues the trend of huge infrastructure gains for Democrats.  Obama's coalition was also extremely liberal and Democratic, with 41% of self-identified very liberal Democrats going his way.  Edwards actually walloped Obama among conservatives, beating him 42-21 among that group.

I'm going to have more on turnout, but exit poll comparisons between 2004 and 2008 show that this was a Democratic primary with increased turnout from Democrats.  Lots of Obama staffers and media types want this to be a show of independents and Republicans coming over to Barack, but the reality is actually better.  In the 17-29 age bracket, Obama took 57% of the voters; in the 30-44 age bracket, he took 42% of the vote.  He took 41% of new caucus goers, while Edwards led with prior caucus goers.  This was a liberal, Democratic, young group that went for Obama.  In other words, Obama is in fact capitalizing on or creating new Democrats.  And demographically, this generation is as large as the baby boomers, and if they vote as Democrats, which it looks like they will, that's huge.

In terms of share of the vote, the 17-29 year old demographic made 11% of the Republican vote versus 22% of the Democratic vote.  Young people are coming out, they are Democrats, and they like Barack Obama.  The crowds I saw at various Obama events last night and over the past two days were really remarkable.  Normally, political events are mostly segregated, and it's a big deal to build multiracial crowds.  Obama is doing that, and it's genuinely a beautiful thing.  I saw plenty of biracial couples coming out and standing with their kids admiring this man, and a huge multiracial staff and activist core can provide a new nucleus to rejuvenate politics.

I think two things drove turnout.  One is far superior field tools deployed over the last five years, including the Voter Activation Network (VAN) and Catalist, as well networks of field staffers who know how to use them and a commitment to invest in field from all the major campaigns.  This was a field battle, for once, and finally, the tools were great.  That means that more voters were touched earlier and more often than ever before with sophisticated chunks of information.  And they turned out.  Voting is kind of hard, and the campaigns made it easier.  And two is the internet and young people.  I was talking to a Rock the Vote staffer last night who told me that they hit 40,000 caucus-eligable high school seniors in Iowa on Facebook with messaging, and 7500 were responsive.  More than that, they were arguing with each other on Facebook walls and debating issues.  It's a dream of civic engagement experts, and there's no reason to think that both trends won't continue. 

The race goes on, and Obama will now face real negative attacks.  We'll see how he handles that; the internet is set up well for such a candidacy, as it allows supporters to respond directly and goes around the media directly to supporters and detractors.  I have deep reservations about Obama, as readers of this site know.  I spent time discussing with exuberant Obama supporters and staffers some of these reservations (including his abandonment of Ned Lamont and his failure to fight the Military Commissions Act), and they just couldn't understand how anyone could possibly doubt his commitment to progressive values.  I loved his speech and the phrase the 'tyranny of oil', though I must confess that the theme of unity and America coming together to promote Obama struck me as weird at a victory speech for a Democratic caucus.  It's not like the Republicans didn't also have a caucus.  But on another level, there really is a multiracial emergence here, a new generation of activists taking over the party.

The electorate really is changing in dramatic ways, and Obama is a key part of that shift.  This country is turning far to the left, and while I don't expect media pundits to talk about pandering to youth the way they do values voters, they should.

Matt Stoller :: Turnout Thoughts

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Turnout Thoughts | 36 comments
Misgivings and hope (0.00 / 0)
This from Obama'supporters scares the heck out of me: "they just couldn't understand how anyone could possibly doubt his commitment to progressive values." Clintonites were like that in 1992.

But just maybe a new generation will generate a new democratic politics (small "d") and you gotta love folks for wanting one. That's where it starts.

Can it happen here?


Indeed (4.00 / 2)
I have the same trepedation.

Hopefully the major difference is that Clinton was elected by a populace that was still largely disengaged from the process. It was a "put this guy in charge" mentality.

This is one reason why he got trounced on health insurance reform (no real organizational support nationwide) and also probably why he didn't do more (no meaningful pressure from the left to offset the conservative noise machine).

This cycle will not be like that. It's a different generation much more oriented around participation, and it's a different time for Democrats in general. Any Democrat who gets elected in 2008 is going to have an energized "loyal opposition" from the left, as well as a powerful national grassroots constituency to call on in enacting his or her agenda.

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
Big difference (0.00 / 0)
I remember 1992.  Bill Clinton was the most right-wing Democrat running.  It was pointed out repeatedly that he has a piss-poor environmental record as governor of Arkansas (most notoriously allowing large highly-polluting chicken operations to skirt the law), and had done little to nothing to improve labor.  In short, your typical conservative southern Democrat.

Then he ran around talking about "hope" and "change" and, with the media in his pocket (The wheel turns...) people were encouraged to ignore his record and focus on the fact that he'd avoided going to 'Nam and puffed on a joint once.

Obama, by contrast, has a very strong progressive record, particularly as a state senator.

In truth, the 1992 Dem. race is refected much more in the 2008 Republican contest, insofar as all of the candidates (or maybe all but 1) were B-list politicians, as most of the A-list people figured it wasn't their party's year and stayed out.  I mean, seriously, the so-called "progressive" choice was Jerry Brown, who proposed a flat tax a la Mike Gravel and Steve Forbes!


[ Parent ]
Bill Clinton (0.00 / 0)
Although I still maintain affection for Bill, I've come to realize how top down was his approach.  Obama is a bottom up person:  he understands that change can't be effected without support from the people.

Regardless of who gets the nomination, I nominate Obama for building the party that will benefit candidates at all levels.

P.S.  Do you realize Obama has campaign offices in weird plces, like Idaho, Utah and Alaska?  Now that's implementing the 50 state strategy.


[ Parent ]
Up vs Down (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure it is quite right to say Obama is bottom up.  Howard Dean was bottom up, but that didn't quite work out so well, as it turns out all the kids didn't really know what they were doing.

I loved hearing that all the young captains for Obama had beads for counting the caucusers (is that a word?) and were all very well prepared for the event.

Like much of Obama, its about balance.  True empowerment requires both bottom up people power and top down training.

Those stuck with the Us versus Them mentality have a hard time seeing balance.  They equate talking, negotiation and openness to compromise as weakness.  (Ironically, sounds like someone else's foreign policy, doesn't it?)  It isn't -- or, at least, need not be.


[ Parent ]
This is the way I remember it too (0.00 / 0)
Clinton was pretty conservative.  He was just clearly better than GHW Bush and Perot was a kook.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Just wanted to win (0.00 / 0)
At that point, Democrats had been out of office for so long we really just wanted to win.  Yea, Clinton was a pandering jerk (I thought he was going to punch Brown in one of the debates), but he was  our jerk.  The guy could and would fight the Republicans.

[ Parent ]
The Difference (0.00 / 0)
I think the difference between Clinton in 92 and Obama today is what Matt points out- Obama is drawing a multiracial crowd.  All Democrats not totally involved with DC insider politics talk about change.  Carter did in 76 for instance.  Hell, all "outsider" Repubs do too.

So what is that difference with Obama and why is he drawing such a diverse audience unlike any before?  Obviously its not because he follows the liberal blogosphere's talking points and legislature battles.  Its because in these times of despair and non-action people are buying that Obama is really a different type of person.  They are buying the hope.

Cynics will say that Obama won't change anything- and they are right up to a point because he hasn't yet changed anything.  But how he talks... he's flat-out different than Edwards or Clinton who are obviously fighting the same battles that Dems have fought for the last 40 years with no success.  (He's also flat-out different than the bloggers here who like Edwards and Clinton are fighting in the trenches.)

So Obama is using rhetoric to rise above the normal fray that has deadlocked American politics since the 60's.  No politician of either party has done that since FDR.  In this very important way he's the only progressive in the campaign. (And, no, I wouldn't have said that two months ago as I didn't get it.)  Can he follow through as president?  Beats me- and anyone else here too.  But I'm beginning to at least want to give him the chance since he's the only one who's willing to try.


What am I missing? (0.00 / 0)
"...Edwards actually walloped Obama among conservatives, beating him 42-21 among that group."

Edwards got the conservative vote?! Edwards message has been distinctly anit-Establishment, pro-Union, pro-labor, anti-Corporate and he got that vote?

I can see Obama getting the "youth vote" and younger voter turnout but his message is definitely more mainstream and establishment ("bi-partisan") than Edwards. I don't get it.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain


It is odd (0.00 / 0)
Yes that's interesting.  And Obama got the union vote.

[ Parent ]
Guesses (0.00 / 0)
A conservative Democrat is not necessarily a conservative. They may be socially conservative but vote on economic issues, for example.

Or they may equate populism with conservatism, as we've seen so little left-wing populism lately.

Or they may just be the idiots voting for the southern white guy without bothering to listen to the message. Who can tell?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
I Am Confused Too, But the Media Narrative May Explain (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand this either.

But, if we consider the media narrative:

* Obama is for "positive change" and he is relatively young and black so he must be liberal (notwithstanding the examples of Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice).

* Edwards lives in a big house and gets expensive haircuts so he must be a rich elitist.

For low-information voters (which is most people, unfortunately), this narrative establishes Obama as the liberal and Edwards as a moderate/conservative -- completely the opposite of the actual policy proposals they have put forward.


[ Parent ]
Don't forget ... (0.00 / 0)
Edwards is the southern white guy .. and the media(especially the right) .. paints Hillary as some far left Chavez loving person .. when she is actually the most conservative Dem in the race .. and Edwards represented NC .. so he must be conservative thing

[ Parent ]
Edwards is the conventional, known quantity (0.00 / 0)
Obama is different, new, offers hope, he requires taking a chance.  Conservatives (true ones) vote for the known over the unknown. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
"This country is turning far to the left..." ???? (0.00 / 0)
If that were true, people wouldn't consider voting for Obama.
Funds the war, supports Lieberman, Goldman-Sachs, Patriot Act, Donnie McClurkin...etc. ad nauseum.

We're being played for chumps.


Well, no (0.00 / 0)
It just shows that people are a mixture of unaware about details like this, and/or are more concerned with bigger themes. Nothing new there.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
Nothing new here... (0.00 / 0)
I agree.
We are being played for chumps.

[ Parent ]
I think the revolution will be sedated (0.00 / 0)
as the young flock gets older.

Middle Age people are inherently more conservative because they have much more at stake. They can't build a career as easily, they have families to pay for, they generally are more invested in the system, whether that is home ownership, a job, stock purchases, etc. So maybe this is a revolution and maybe not. As these youth get older they will become more conservative.

To have a "youth" revolution I think you would have to consistently bring in youth voters year on year on year. so that youth over time are participating in the process consistently in greater numbers. But I suspect this is more of a short term interest. Right now the things DC are doing are not so good for future generations, so younger voters are interested. If those issues are resolved then I think it would be likely that youth interest in politics would die off again.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


Jesus (4.00 / 2)
can't we just enjoy this huge victory for youth civic engagement for one day before people start assuming they will get more conservative?

Sheesh.


[ Parent ]
I (don't) wanna be sedated (0.00 / 0)
As 36 year olds, my husband and I are truly hoping for a revolution.  Yes we have a child, morgage, a small business, etc....but instead of being more conservative as we age, we are freaking out even more.  We not only see how dire the future is, but we put it in context.  How will our child go to college?  Can we manage to have *no debt* to get through the recession?  How the hell are we going to retire?

I see this fear in the 30s & 40s people around us.  I would say at times we are more progressive and revolutionary. Not only do we see the writing on the wall, we are struggling to deal with the reality of what it says.


[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 2)
I think that's a reason that 40-55 contingent seems very invested in Edwards' message, while the youth vote is going so heavily for Obama.  They're both thinking progressive, but dealing with the increasing daily pressures of being squeezed left and right, those older with families know that Edwards' concerns about the system are their own and they don't completely trust Obama's ability/desire to make the bread and butter changes that will actually make their and their kids lives better.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance



[ Parent ]
Boomers weren't sedated (0.00 / 0)
They were bought off, sold on consumerism and personal self-growth and happiness and forget everyone else.

Don't fall for that this time.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
I know you, (0.00 / 0)
Jane, and others are always speaking of how Obama "abandoned" Lamont. Lamont, however, doesn't appear to have the same reservations, given that he maxed out his donations to Obama back in May. Nothing to Edwards or Clinton.

Annie too! (0.00 / 0)
Hah. I just checked OpenSecrets and both Ned and Annie Lamont are max $4,600 donors to Barack Obama. Good catch. What's that line "they have remembered everything, and learned nothing"? Every day is 2006 in the netroots, even when it's 2008.

John McCain

[ Parent ]
In Defense of the "Bipartisan"/Unity Messaging (0.00 / 0)
Obama's record leaves a bit to be desired from a progressive point of view, as does some of his rhetoric on important issues, but watching last night's speech I think I finally "got" some crucial aspects of this "no politics, one America, get beyond what divides us" talk.

1. I think he is using this as a stand-in for race. The first two states in this primary are overwhelmingly white, and he is still trying to appeal to a very broad audience on a national level as well. Using this "you did it - put the divisive politics of tearing each other down behind us" language is a way to talk about race, and the historical aspects of his victory in that sense, without ACTUALLY talking about race. He says "we've made history" and deep down, everyone kind of knows what it means even though he's using different words. SO the people who think this is great because of Obama's race (AND his personal story) get to feel like he's talking about that, even though he is transcending race in a way. Many Democrats are certainly giddy about the potential of finally electing a black president - as well they should be! - but it's kind of tough to actually make that a campaign talking point.

2. Independents can be crucial in IA - and they were for him. They may not have been as important as the media is making them out to be, but it was a demographic that went SOLIDLY for Obama so that helps. And yes, he did get some of those crossover Republicans which helps him going into the general, and more importantly, in NH. In NH, Independents are the deciders - and many of them have voted Republican way more in their lifetime than Democrat, so the 'reach across the aisle' tactic could be effective for them. Now, independents in NH went overwhelmingly Dem in 2006, and the Dem field is just better this year, so presumably they are turning out to vote in the Dem primary anyway, but Obama was openly courting these people last night. He even mentioned NH like 5 times - if it works, like it seems to have worked in IA, Obama will get huge turnout from independents and they will deliver him a solid victory in NH.

3. I won't go into this too deeply, but the third thing I think has to do with an effort to reach people in maybe the 25-40 year old demographic who have just been absolutely alienated from the two-party system and still have not gotten over the thorough brain washing they've received that it's not okay to be liberal or a Democrat (for whatever reason)... Obama doesn't seem apologetic for Dems in my view - he seems like he is just saying "I understand"... now let's hope he follows it up with, "But this is why we are right!"


No. 3 is very important (0.00 / 0)
Remember that anyone who is 29 or under pretty much remembers only the Bush fear and conflict years, the Clinton impeachment years, maybe back to Gingrich and the 1994 Congressional elections, and the 3-way 1992 election.  They don't really have a semse of what a functioning 2-party system and functional politics would look like.  So his message of transcending the acrimony and stressing commonality rather than differences of identity even as he sets out broad policy goals like health care and ending the war, must sound like music to the ears and a tonic to the spirit.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Raw vote numbers were in line (0.00 / 0)
AP has raw vote totals, via the Des Moines Register:

http://data.desmoine...

Obama 38%, with 93952 out of 250005 votes cast. Edwards 20%, with 74377, and Clinton with 73666. Edwards and Clinton 30% and 29% respectively.

These numbers are undoubtedly fromt he second alignment, as there are zero votes for Kucinich, and he got a lot of votes in first alignments (well, he got some).
 


Liberal (4.00 / 1)
Last night I saw the talking heads on MSNBC use the word "liberal" without even a hint of scorn to describe both Obama and his supporters.  I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.  I'm not sure if it was Obama or something bigger going on, but it was awesome to see.

It's also interesting that the voting population acted exactly opposite as the folks on the blogs.  Could the blogs be the new MSM, just as out of touch with the people as the old MSM?

We just saw an candidate do extremely well with an internet driven campaign, but without much support from the MSM blogs.  I bet there is someone out in MySpace land talking about breaking down the gates to blog power.  :-)


Analogy (4.00 / 1)
Just to take you somewhat tongue in cheek post further I offer up this comment that is sure to upset some folks:

Obama is not particularly interested in the trench fighting that Dodd is doing so well in the Senate.  Instead he believes in exercising presidential power to make changes.

The blogosphere likes the fighting that could-or not as so happens to be the case- happen in the legislative wing.  Thus the blogosphere loves Dodd's filibuster, and is so frustrated with Pelosi and Reed.

But what Dodd is doing is not presidentail/exectutive and for some reason the blogosphere doesn't get that.  Neither is Edwards' "two americas" theme, as much as I love it (and I do).  Neither is Clinton's careful acknowledgments of her base interest groups.  Being truly presidential rises above that and drags everyone else along. 

This I think is the reason why so few Senators get elected President.  Its a different type of energy.  Being a Senator doesn't prepare you for President.  Obama is fairly disengaged as a Senator, yes.  So was JFK.  For both people the Senate was/is not the forum for how they want to lead.

So the liberal blogosphere is left wringing their hands about how to deal with Obama as they want concrete results of battles fought and hopefully won- but they ain't there.  You have go beyond that measuring stick to look at Obama.

As we know (and is stated above) Edwards won the conservative vote.  What does that mean?  It means he won the vote of people who look at the traditional demo-repub battles as the way to go.  These folks don't see beyond this never-ending battle between good and bad (as kos puts it).

But the unions voted for Obama, much in the same way they voted for Reagan.  They don't care so much for a rigid us vs them world that the blogosphere thinks exists.



[ Parent ]
Very astute observations (0.00 / 0)
The distinction between Presidential and legislative is good, and probably is why Senators make bad candidates.  Also, what one needs to oppose Pres Bush is different from what one needs to build a coalition and then take on the renmant GOP minority in the Senate a President.  We need all kinds of people in this fight, as it is a very long struggle to take back the country.  Don't expect everyone to be/think/do the same things.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Which talking heads? .. (0.00 / 0)
KO and Rachel Maddow?

[ Parent ]
This is because Edwards has a conservative (0.00 / 0)
voting record and Obama has one of the most progressive.

Edwards actually walloped Obama among conservatives, beating him 42-21 among that group.

So people in Iowa voted on records - not on rhetoric. It would be useful if bloggers could do the same.


Edwards isn't that conservative personally .. (0.00 / 0)
he just represented a conservative(but now changing) state

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately for him, (0.00 / 0)
his record says otherwise.

[ Parent ]
Amd what would you do .. (0.00 / 0)
if your home state included the world HQ of at least 2 banks the stature of Wachovia and BoA?  Besides, are you gonna disparage FDR, JFK, and RFK for being rich?

[ Parent ]
Thank you. (0.00 / 0)
What a tremendous post. Thank you. It is so interesting to hear about the field work described in these terms. So much for me to learn. It is groundbreaking and the potential is exciting. As everyone knows, building coalitions at any level is hard hard work and these new tools should allow us to reach more like-minded individuals--like the internet and the blogs have provided us with communities, when none exist on our block or neighborhood. Exciting stuff.

Remember when you bring people into a coalition via the grassroots you have to let their ideas in as well.  The dem party is going to grow and it will be filled with more ideas that may not jive with all the old ones. How we handle the new diversity of thought will be interesting.


Turnout Thoughts | 36 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search