Behind Obama's Wave of Victories: The More They Know Him.....

In a race where Clinton seemed to have every advantage, why has Barack Obama now won eight primaries and caucuses in a row? If you look at the rhythm of the campaign, this is the first point where most of America's voters have a chance to consider him as a candidate with a serious chance of victory, and to genuinely engage his message. Democrats passionately want a candidate they can believe in, but also one who can win--and reverse the Republican disasters. As the presumed nominee, Clinton did everything she could to play on this, proclaiming herself as tough, experienced, and capable of taking everything the Republicans could throw at her. She lined up massive insider support, including commitments from 154 superdelegates (versus 50 for Obama) before a single vote was cast.

But as Obama began winning, voters who'd been paying only peripheral attention have started taking him seriously. The more familiar they've become with him, the more they've liked his message and chances, while their reservations about Clinton have only grown. Now, she and her surrogates are in a position of trying to rationalize eight straight Obama wins, including his 29-point Virginia victory in a state where she was up by 24 points less than four months ago, and her-23 point loss in Maryland, which she also led by roughly the same margin.

These recent losses, claims Clinton, were due to states with caucuses, major African American populations, or large numbers of young liberal professionals. But not only did Obama rout Clinton in Virginia among younger voters, African Americans, and independents, he also won a majority of white voters, staked a 55-to-43 lead among white men, and led among voters in every income and education level. Maine is one of the whitest and poorest states in America, yet Obama won it convincingly despite election-eve reports that blue-collar women might hand it to Clinton. And if you compare caucus margins, Obama won Iowa by a modest nine points and narrowly lost in Nevada. Since then, he's now won Washington, Nebraska, Colorado, Minnesota and Kansas by more than 35 points, and Idaho and Alaska by more than 50. In my state of Washington, Obama took every single county, including the highly conservative rural ones, and the blue- and white-collar suburbs and exurbs. These weren't just latte-drinking liberals. Participants in my caucus couldn't stop talking about relatives and friends who'd never voted Democratic in their life, but were inspired by Obama's message.

The pattern in every state has been the same: Clinton started out with a massive early lead based on her (and Bill's) huge name recognition, connections with Democratic insiders, and the early endorsements gained in significant part on the desire of key leaders to go with the inevitable winner. Then Obama started campaigning, people responded to his story and his message, and the gaps begin to narrow. As recently as mid-October, national polls had Obama 28 points behind, and he trailed by 20 points going into the Iowa caucuses. He's now won 22 of the 32 legitimate elections, not counting Michigan and Florida. And given that he's now far ahead in recent momentum, even or ahead in national polls, and ahead in elected delegates, Democratic voters who earlier dismissed him as a candidate are far more primed to take his message seriously.

Before Super Tuesday I remember thinking, "if Obama only had three more weeks." To establish his electoral viability, he had no choice but to focus overwhelmingly on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, hitting town after town to convince people who'd barely heard of him that he should be America's next president. He had no choice about doing this--a Rudy Guiliani big-state strategy would have been disastrous, as it was even with Guiliani's far greater name recognition. But it meant that Obama had no chance to create more than the most fleeting presence in the 22 states that voted on February 5th.

Although Obama and the other candidates did campaign earlier in some of those states, few voters were paying much attention until the caucuses and primaries began. And because of the massive compression of schedule, Obama didn't have time to do more than jet in and out of states that represented over half the total convention delegates. Think about the states that Clinton ended up winning that day. Following his initial Iowa victory, Obama had time for just three brief visits to California, one to New York State, one to Massachusetts, two to New Jersey, one each to Arizona and New Mexico, and none at all to Tennessee, Arkansas, or Oklahoma. Clinton faced the same time constraints, but began with infinitely more name recognition and institutional connections, and a superstar surrogate in Bill, so needed the boosts from her personal visits far less. By the time most Super Tuesday voters began to realize that Clinton was no longer inevitable, Obama barely had a chance to do more than briefly get their attention.

That doesn't even count the impact of early voting, where people made up their mind before they had the chance to be seriously exposed to Obama's ideas. As many as half the California ballots may have been cast well before Super Tuesday--before the Kennedy endorsement, Obama's major California campaign stops, or the massive Los Angeles Oprah rally. Most were cast before Obama's massive South Carolina victory, and the backlash against Bill Clinton's racially charged attempts to dismiss it. Early voting had a comparable likely impact in New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee, with Obama surging late, but with much of this momentum being moot for the significant numbers of people who'd already voted. In the words of Clinton campaign director, Ace Smith, "our whole campaign is based on reaching those voters....with millions and millions of ballots cast before election day. And we've been trying to identify those people for months." No doubt the Obama campaign tried to reach these voters too, but they had far less initial visibility to use as leverage. Obama still emerged from the day with a plurality of delegates, but would certainly have had even more if voters had just had more time to get to know him.

Even in constituencies where Obama is still making up ground, you see the same pattern. White voters backed him in Virginia, for the first time in a Southern state. Maine was supposed to go to Clinton because of blue-collar women, but Obama won by 18 points. He got 26% of the Latino vote in Nevada, and polls before Super Tuesday showed him getting just 19% of the national Latino vote. But he averaged 35% on Super Tuesday, even counting the early voting and other obstacles, and actually won Virginia's small Latino population. Clinton began with massive advantages among Latino voters, having locked up early endorsements from people like LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros, and United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta. Their political networks helped immensely, but mostly the margin has been simple name recognition. Clinton supporter Huerta joked that when Latino voters were interviewed about Obama, "A lot of them would say, 'Señor como se llama?' They didn't know Obama's name." But as Obama stressed in one of the debates, Latino voters did vote for him in his Illinois races, and are beginning to in his presidential quest. In the words of Obama supporter Miren Uriarte, head of a Latino research center at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, "What we've seen is the longer people become familiar with Obama's thinking, the more prone they are to vote for him." So his challenge with Latinos really does rest significantly on their simply not knowing him--a situation he's now beginning to change.

All this creates a critical argument to stress, both to residents of states yet to vote and to the superdelegates who will hold the convention's balance of power. In addition to Obama's dramatically expanding Democratic participation among young voters, African Americans and independents, and polling ahead of Hillary when matched against McCain, it means that his baseline of support may actually be much greater than we've seen so far. Those of us who support Obama need to raise this not as an excuse for complacency--we'll need to keep doing everything we can to get him nominated in August and elected in November. But we can make clear that his potential electoral strengths may just be starting to come into play. It seems the more voters know him, the more they like him.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org To receive his articles directly email [e-mail] with the subject line: subscribe paulloeb-articles

Comments

[jcharliemiller]

Amen! Most people are absolutely blind to what's happening around the nation. The people in the streets talking to each other matter more then anything.

[BeyondKen]

Paul boldly predicts an Obama victory in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania!

We'll see, won't we?

[DinahMoeHum]

I started out as a John Edwards supporter, but when he dropped out, I took a good long hard look at how Obama and Clinton were running their campaigns - and how they measured up against Howard Dean's DNC template of the "50-State Strategy"
That is, in Dean's words, you compete "election by election, state by state, precinct by precinct, door by door, vote by vote". It means not writing off ANY states, even though they may not win it in November, because, who knows? Stranger things have happened; the party may make gains in the "down-ballot" races for that state - Senate, Congress, governor, state legislator, DA, etc.
I concluded that Obama's campaign runs closest to Dean's template and Clinton's only pays it lip service, relying on the same losing formula of high-paid consultants and mass-market saturation.
My vote in the NY primary went to Obama.

[Sloane7]

If you are a sports coach or GM and your team loses the way the Clintons have with the kinds of resources and reputation the Clintons have had, you would not be considered a very good coach or GM. If you are an unknown team that develops a grass roots following and in a year, manages to come from behind and win numerous victories when no one expected you to even last the season, you would be considered an excellent coach or GM. I would definitely call that leadership with demonstrated effectiveness. Was it Obama's work in communities? I don't know, but who would have guessed these unseen skills would show these kinds of results in primary this large against a competitor the likes of the Clintons. It very impressive. Remember when George Stephanopoulos and Bill Clinton did that documentary on his campaign? It's too early to say this, but I would be really curious to see a documentary on what the Obama campaign did to be this effective.

[Nutcase]

Wait until the contest really begins with the Republican attack machine. Then you'll know more about Obama and the likelihood is that it will begin to turn people off. There is some dirt that will come out. That, of course, doesn't count the lies that the Republicans will concoct.

cognito ergo populistae

[XYZ]

What are the republicans going to attack his message of hope? His thin record, his noble attempts at bring up the poor minorities. I'm affraid every candidate that attacks hope looses by landslides.

[Nutcase]

What about Rezko?

What about the fact that in the state senate he took money from health insurance companies while helping them re-write a bill more to their liking.

What about his wife's connections to WalMart. Hillary wasn't the only one. Who scores the most points on hypocrisy vis-a-vis WalMart?

There is plenty out there in the real world. Hope is nice for dreamers but I have lived in the real world.

cognito ergo populistae

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Assume the post is dead on, and I'm not saying it is.

I would point out the focus is on Democratic voters -- and crossover Republicans in "open" (i.e. bullsh*t) primaries.

What matters to the tea-leaf crowd SHOULD be movement amongst INDEPENDENTS and REPUBLICANS.

These are bigger wild cards at this time than the party-internal dead heat.

But first things first: winning, cajoling, stealing, maneuvering, for the nomination.

[AnninCA]

I'm always surprised when I see a writer spreading misinformation.

CA hadn't even counted the absentee votes. Sorry.

Today there's an interesting article in Real Clear Politics about someone who finally actually listened to the message of Obama's speech.

His take? Depressing. Victim talk.

Finally, someone is paying attention to content and finding it deeply disturbing.

So, the more people know, the less impressed they are.

I'm sure not impressed when he lifts Hillary's economic plan and calls it his own.

[Samson1]

Obama reminds me more of GWB than JFK. He is for Hope and Change, won't talk about how he will achieve bi-partisan cooperation or what the plan is if it doesn't work out. Won't talk about how he will clean up the bureaucracy that has a lot of imbedded Bush incompetents, won't talk about how to rein in the CIA, the military et al on torture etc., won't talk about much. But, his wife isn't sure she can support HRC if she is the nominee. Sounds like a real Democrat, or may be not.

He really is starting to lose some of us on the left. No we won't vote for McCain, but I gotta admit, my enthusiasm is ebbing fast.

[avraamjack]

Perhaps Americans are tired of living in a country where the government and police allow gang stalkers to torture people with poisons and radiation.
.
This is a Bill Clinton policy and Hillary is unlikely to change it. If you want real America back you have to choose an alternative to Hillary and hope.
.

[SearchingForPericles]

Nice article, but a couple of nits.

1) Georgia is a primary state. I think you meant North Dakota. Though Obama did win by 35+ points.

2) Obama did put down lots of organization pre-2/5 in the caucus states. Though he couldn't visit much (some to Colorado, Kansas, Idaho, off the top of my head), he did have organization.

3) Choices. HRC chose to spend almost all her pre-2/5 time in NYC, NJ, Mass, Calf, AZ, and MN (maybe CT also). Obama spread out more, appeared in Kansas, Idaho, Colorado, and other states. Those stops and the organizational investment paid off huge!!!!

[Ides]

2.3 million votes!?!?!?!? That's not even close to what I thought. No wonder the exit polling was so far off in California.


And, if I might add, Obama got 44% of the Latino vote in New Mexico and 53% in Colorado. Not too shabby.

[honeybee49]

As a Hillary supporter, I'm loving this. In Ohio, Obama will probably win eastern Cuyahoga County and other areas with concentrations of African American and yuppie voters, but the longer this thing goes on, the greater the exposure of blue-collar voters and other rank-and-file Democrats to Obama's twee followers. Can't wait!

[Optimist]

As an Obama supporter, I am loving this as well; common ground!

As far as your gleefully divisive rhetoric, that is *so* 20th century. Get with the program, camper.

BTW, in the Chesapeake Primary Obama won those "blue-collar voters and other rank-and-file Democrats" after they got to know him. The times they are a changin'.

[NC4Obama]

I assume you will be telling us why Ohio doesn't matter come March 5th and Texas as well.

[JasonEverettMiller]

You are also buying into the idea that Obama supporters are irrational cult members. Actually, most are well-versed in the issues and Barack's solutions to those problems.

The more "blue-collar voters and other rank-and-file Democrats" are exposed to Obama supporters the more likely they are to switch their vote from DLC to YWC!

Obama '08!

[AnninCA]

I think they are irrational. They are easily the most naive group of voters ever.

They spout Republicanism daily with absolutely no sense of context.

They dismiss people with such sexist remarks, I blush to think how their mothers must be cringing.

Now they are being completely rude about age.

It's like being taken over by teenagers in pubescent hormonal rage.

God help us.

[AnninCA]

Bingo. And the Democratic party better start doing some real thinking, too.

The party faithfuls who vote year after year, whether it's sexy or not, should not be dismissed.

[serena1313]

You are correct Paul once the voters get to know Obama the better they like him. His campaign is widely growing in stature, viability, strength and popularity.

His and Hillary's policy platforms differ ever-so-slightly, however, Obama appeals to our better nature. He inspires hope for the future therefore Americans feel their aspirations and dreams are possible to attain.

Whomever gets the nomination and wins the presidency has a long hard slog in front of him or her cleaning up the mess Bush and Cheney will leave behind.

Either candidate will be a far better cry than what we have now. Yet Clinton is closer to Bush on foreign policy. And she declined 3 times to support amendments that would have slowed Bush's rush to war. Also check out her affiliation with Monsanto and her time spent as a Wal-mart board member.

Obama is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in -- without demonizing those whom differ. They are the same causes that a majority of Americans believe in.

Furthermore his record shows he believes justice is a strength and the rule of law matters, accountability and transparency are vital components for a healthy democracy. Legislation and bills he's written and/or co-sponsored are proof he is a man of his word.

He earned my trust based on his actions, not just his words. "Actions speak louder than words."

Voters, for the first time in decades, are voting for their hopes, dreams and aspirations rather than holding their nose and voting for the least objectionable candidate.

[TRex86]

It is a tragedy that the first electable woman has collided with the first electable African-American. Both present compelling reasons for becoming the next president. Moreover, we are at a time that we cannot afford another minute of rule by the Republican pluto-kleptocracy. (We may even be too late to undo the damage).
Then who offers the best chance to unite us behind common goals, the technocrat or the dreamer? Sadly for Hillary the answer is all too obvious. Her cautious, calculated role the past seven years does little to inspire the hope that she will morph into the next FDR or JFK or whomever. And she has far too much baggage. Trying to turn her battle-tested skills fighting the Republican hate machine into a virtue is a stretch. And what will Bill be doing while she's minding the store?
The fact that Obama is a bit of a cipher is a strength not a weakness. This is not a time for ideological rigidity or wonky solutions. Bush is leaving us with a welter of problems that aren't amenable to pre-fabricated policy papers. We must unite Democrats, Independents, and a few remaining sane Republicans behind a common purpose: Fix the Broken Machine. Make it serve all Americans not just the top one percent.
We must not pass up the best candidate so that we can at long last elect a woman. This isn't another case of "wait til next year" for women. Hillary is a good candidate who would be a huge improvement over McCain. We simply need more from our candidate this time. Cautious, poll-tested Democrats contributed to this mess (by losing to the slimers). We have only one way out. At stake is the mess we leave our children and grand-children. That's the future Obama is talking about.

[AnninCA]

Yes, of course, which is why Hillary was voted most admired woman year after year......­over Oprah, I might add.

Yeah, right. She's a total lightweight.

*jeesh*

[serena1313]

You are correct Paul once the voters get to know Obama the better they like him. His campaign is widely growing in stature, viability, strength and popularity.

His and Hillary's policy platforms differ ever-so-slightly, however, Obama appeals to our better nature. He inspires hope for the future therefore Americans feel their aspirations and dreams are possible to attain.

Whomever gets the nomination and wins the presidency has a long hard slog in front of him or her cleaning up the mess Bush and Cheney will leave behind.

Either candidate will be a far better cry than what we have now. Yet Clinton is closer to Bush on foreign policy. And she declined 3 times to support amendments that would have slowed Bush's rush to war. Also check out her affiliation with Monsanto and her time spent as a Wal-mart board member.

Obama is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in -- without demonizing those whom differ. They are the same causes that a majority of Americans believe in.

Furthermore his record shows he believes justice is a strength and the rule of law matters, accountability and transparency are vital components for a healthy democracy. Legislation and bills he's written and/or co-sponsored are proof he is a man of his word.

He earned my trust based on his actions, not just his words. "Actions speak louder than words."

Voters, for the first time in decades, are voting for their hopes, dreams and aspirations rather than holding their nose and voting for the least objectionable candidate.

[ConservativeFootSoldier]

Sen. Obama spews empty rhetoric in front of frenzied crowds. Big deal. We are not electing a Televangel­ist-in-Chi­ef. What matters is the capacity of the President after the teleprompters stop rolling, when the harsh realities must be faced and the actual work must get done. Obama is a fad, an unproven, untested fringe politician blessed with oratory presence. That's not the job description for President of the Greatest Nation in History.

[AnninCA]

I agree. He's a fad created by the media desperate for ratings.

[TRex86]

Pray tell how would you characterize our current dyslexic, dysfunctional president?

[LeeScho]

Paul! If you are going to use facts and truth about Obama, then we just can't talk at all! (Not that we need to; I have supported Obama for some time now.)

[daveny]

So you've noticed that, too? The very HRC supporters who attack Obama for being "vague" can't come up with actual facts or examples of what Hillary's done, or why her plans are better? I LOOOOVE those convos. :-)

[AnninCA]

Her health care proposal is the only way to go. Her economic savvy has now been usurped by Obama....w­ith good reason. Her intelligence about HOW to get us out of Iraq is reassuring. Her work on behalf of veterans..­spot on. Her educational policies? The real story in this decade and one that absolutely MUST be addressed. Know why we're behind in every single measuring device in the world? Because we're not educating people properly. We can't compete. Try even talking election result numbers with some of the young Obama supporters. They can't add, nevermind analyze.

Today, the story is about how Obama did NOT work well with McCain in the Senate.

Guess what. Hillary did work well with her Republican peers.

Want unity? It's obvious.

Vote for the guy who insults everyone over age, race, the past?

That's Obama.....­.the candidate of negativity.