Obama's Caucus Success: A Passion Gap?
Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:39:00 PM PDT
In the past week, there has been a lot of talk about Obama's tendency to excel with the caucus format. Several theories have been presented, including a superior ground organization, campaign stops in Super Tuesday caucus states that Clinton wrote off, and favorable demographics. While these explanations, particularly the first two, are definitely factors, there may be another factor that works in Obama's favor: an enthusiasm gap. The lopsided margins in a lot of the caucus states may be partially attributed to demographics and organization, but they might also be indicative of Obama's supporters being more passionate, and thus more willing to spend the additional time participating in a caucus.
Many Clinton supporters, as well as other Democrats who are concerned about fairness, have argued that caucuses are less democratic than primaries, since they require more of the voter's time and give a shorter time frame to participate. This is a valid argument, and this article is not a defense of the caucus format. It is simply an examination of why Obama has excelled at this format, with the premise that in addition to organization and demographic factors, Obama has benefited from an advantage in terms of the enthusiasm of his supporters.
Obama has undeniably had the superior ground organization in most of the caucus states. As a former community organizer, Obama probably understands the importance of a strong field operation better than a lot of candidates, who believe they can win elections on the air. Obama's ground organization was a big part of his success in Iowa, which most polls were showing to be a three-way dead heat in the days before the caucuses. A good ground game definitely helps, but that alone does not enable a candidate to win by margins better than 2-1, as Obama has done in many of the caucus states since Iowa.
Another factor that helps to explain Obama's success in caucus states is the fact that he has paid them more attention. Going into Super Tuesday, Obama's campaign concentrated a lot of resources on organizing some of the caucus states, while Clinton's campaign decided the resources were better spent in the larger states holding primaries. Obama campaigned in several caucus states, while Clinton wrote most of them off. If Hillary Clinton were a relatively unknown politician, they might be sufficient on their own. But given Clinton's high level of name recognition, a superior ground organization and a visit to the state do not explain why the margins were so lopsided in states like Idaho, Kansas, Colorado, and Minnesota.
In Washington State, which Clinton did take the time to visit, Obama did not just win - he won by a margin of 2-1. And Obama won 90%-8% in the Virgin Islands, where neither candidate visited, and I don't believe either campaign expended a lot of resources on the airwaves or on the ground (if I am wrong about this, please correct me). So neither the ground game nor attention paid by the candidate can sufficiently explain Obama's success in caucuses.
Another theory that has been offered for why Obama does so well in caucuses is the demographic explanation. The argument goes that Obama tends to do better among upper-income voters, who are more likely to have the time to attend a caucus. Clinton has been doing better among white working-class voters, who may be more likely to have to work in the evening or on a Saturday. We heard her allude to this in Seattle, where she mentioned the three nurses who wanted to caucus for her but had to work. A closer look at the demographics, however, reveal that Clinton might not be at as big of a demographic disadvantage in caucus states as we have been made to believe.
Exit polls have consistently shown Clinton performing better among seniors, who tend to be the most politically active age group and have the most time on their hands. Traditionally, seniors have been among the most active in their local Democratic and civic organizations, and seem like they would be the most likely to attend a caucus, though the lack of entrance poll data from most caucus states make it difficult to prove this. Of course, there is a valid argument that seniors who are disabled and unable to get to the polls are unable to participate, though some caucus states (such as Maine) have made accommodations.
Thus, neither demographics nor organization can fully explain Obama's success in caucus states. There seems to be another factor at play: a higher degree of passion among his supporters. This theory goes that while many people take the 20 minutes to cast a ballot, only the most committed supporters of a candidate will take the time to caucus. Obviously, both candidates have plenty of passionate supporters (I anticipate many passionate Clinton supporters on here will be shouting me down within minutes), but if Obama is doing well in caucuses, perhaps his supporters are, on the whole, more enthusiastic about his candidacy than Clinton's supporters are about hers. This is not to suggest that the caucus is the ideal or most democratic format, but if one candidate is able to inspire more people to take the time to caucus, then that ought to count for something.
The passion gap is evident in other areas, such as the crowds Obama has been drawing, his success at getting young people to turn out, and the large infusions of small online donations (though Clinton seems to be catching up on that front.)
It is not unusual for one candidate to have a more passionate base of supporters who come out and scream at rallies, and an enthusiastic support base certainly is not everything. In 2004, Dean had the anti-war crowd and other core progressives (myself included) fired up about his candidacy, but he wasn't able to broaden his appeal beyond that base. Had his candidacy not been shattered after Iowa (where voters take their responsibility as first in the nation very seriously and thus are more likely to participate than other caucus states), he probably would have done well in other caucus states, given the enthusiasm of his supporters. It is worth noting that other than Vermont, where he won a symbolic victory a few weeks after dropping out, one of his strongest showings was in the Washington caucuses.
What is remarkable about Obama is his ability to both be the candidate who inspires the most passion while still appealing to a broader audience, including some of the independents who are going to be vital to our success in November. It's a pretty rare candidate who can inspire people to stand outside in the rain for several hours to caucus for him in Kansas, or inspire 18-29 year-olds who have never even voted before to go sit through a 2 hour caucus.
In 2004, we were passionate, but for most of us, the passion came from our desire to beat Bush. That wasn't quite enough in 2004, and it certainly won't be enough in 2008, running against a war hero whom most Americans respect even if they disagree with him. If we want to stand a chance in November, we need a candidate we can enthusiastically vote FOR. Obama may not be that candidate for everyone, but if caucus participation is any indication, he's certainly got a lot of passionate supporters.
Permalink | 20 comments