Dems’ South Carolina turnout confounds expectations

January 27, 2008

Putting aside, for a moment, who won, who lost, and What It All Means, it’s also worth noting that the Democrats’ turnout numbers in South Carolina were pretty amazing.

In a historical shift, South Carolina Democrats turned out in record numbers on Saturday, besting last week’s underwhelming Republican vote, which was hampered by bad weather. In an overwhelmingly red state, that’s no small feat.

The state Democratic party estimates that more than 530,000 Democrats turned out for Saturday’s primary, as compared with 445,000 voters who showed up to vote last weekend, a marked drop from the Republican record high in 2000.

State party chair Carol Fowler said in a statement that the vote is a “remarkable occurrence.”

“Democrats have three excellent candidates who have inspired voters all over South Carolina and our country,” she said. “This is a huge rejection of the Republican Party at both the federal and state level.”

It’s easy to forget at times, but the Republican Party happens to be in the midst of a major, competitive presidential primary, with a variety of high-profile candidates. But in every instance — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina — Dems are making Republicans look pretty bad when it comes to showing up to vote. For that matter, note that Bush carried three of those four states in each of the last two presidential election cycles. (In other words, Dems are making the GOP look bad in “red” states.)

Consider this tidbit: Hillary Clinton was trounced by Barack Obama yesterday, but her vote total was almost identical to John McCain’s vote total in the Republican primary — and he won. This, in one of the most reliably right-wing states in the Union.

In 2004, nearly 290,000 Dem voted in the party’s South Carolina primary. At the time, it broke the record. Yesterday, in upwards of 530,000 Dems went to the polls. That’s more than a little impressive in a state in which Republicans far outnumber Dems. (About 445,000 Republicans voted in last week’s GOP primary.)

Asked to respond, state Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson “emphasized that the chances of a Democrat winning South Carolina next November are likely small.”

“Tonight, I am more confident than ever our party’s nominee for president will be overwhelmingly supported in South Carolina no matter who wins over the liberal Democrat [sic] primary base,” Dawson said.

Now, now, Katon. Just because South Carolina Republicans are underwhelmed by a lackluster field of candidates, it’s no reason to sound bitter.

Just look at November 2004. Iowa and South Carolina are red states! Why should Democrats across the country heed the results of two politically-podunk red states, huh? The opinion of the “blue” New Jersey electorate would seem to represent Democrats better.

  • One of the amazing things about this election cycle is the number of young voters that are turning out for the primaries. I’d like to see more analysis of what’s motivating them, whether it’s a candidate they can relate to in Obama or if they are looking to their future and demanding a change from the way things have been done. It’s been widely noted that political leanings are shaped to a great extend by the political climate of one’s youth. George W. Bush may just be the greatest gift to progressivism that could be hoped for, though his legacy will also be one of national damage that this younger generation will be struggling against for their lifetimes.

  • Just look at November 2004. Iowa and South Carolina are red states! Why should Democrats across the country heed the results of two politically-podunk red states, huh? -sknm

    Maybe because we need to flip a few of those ‘podunk red states’ to win in November?

  • Hey CB,

    Last year I needed a booster shot for tetanus. Your Obama-bias has been appearing this primary season. You should consider “a booster shot for your impartiality.” You need to take better care of your blog’s health (read “impartiality”).

    Of course, you could just come out and claim that you need to counterbalance the musings of Jerome Armstrong (sarcastic smile).

  • doubtful,

    Meanwhile, we get a mealy mouth Democrat In Name Only.

    No @#$%^^#@@$ THANK YOU!

  • Why should Democrats across the country heed the results of two politically-podunk red states, huh?

    It almost sounds like you’re saying that if you’re a Democrat and you live in a red state, your voice doesn’t count.

    Regarding the youth vote: it’s pretty clear that while circumstances matter (e.g., an incompetent conservative administration), the under-30 voters are driven and inspired by Obama’s candidacy. I think Edwards could perhaps inspire the same kind of fervor, but he’s simply been overshadowed.

    Where does that passionate vote go under a Clinton nomination? I suspect many under-30s will follow through to November, regardless of the nominee. But if Obama wins the nomination, I’m guessing we see a record under-30 turnout with wide Democratic margins.

  • I will agree that Iowa and SC are “red” states. But at the same time, it is worth noting that Dems are taking both of these states by storm—and it’s also worth noting that the last time South Carolina’s Dems “dissed the party of Lincoln” this badly, they went so far as to secede from the Union, rather than accept a GOP president.

    I’m expecting that a lot of the right-wing blogs will explain this on the basis that “a lot of GOPers stayed home last week.” Well, DUH!—is it any wonder? They just don’t like any of their choices—and I doubt that they’ll all “fall in line” when one of those “rejected choices” is forced upon them. Don’t be surprised if we see a Purple Palmetto in November….

  • Obama won because he won the majority of black voters. I’m not sure how that shows that he is a viable nationally. It is unsurprising that black voters would vote for him and that in a state with 50% black voters that it would give him the victory there. I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Further, I see the media repeating a new meme — that Hillary is a dirty campaigner and that people rejected her for that. She does nothing that the Obama campaign doesn’t do, and is no dirtier than any previous campaign. She is just doing what politicians all do. It disturbs me that the blogs don’t seem to be able to see past these repeated attempts to torpedo her campaign on the basis of things other than her positions and accomplishments. Obama is an empty suit, in my opinion and I will not vote for someone just because he gives good speeches. The next president needs to offer a lot more than hope.

  • ***No @#$%^^#@@$ THANK YOU!***

    CB, I’d recommend a rabies shot instead—slip’s beginning to get a rather wild-eyed look, and is foaming at the mouth….

  • Well I guess we can close the election season since the “media” and the Bloggers have concluded that It’s O’bama and Hillary is kaput. However,there is always the picture in the back of my mind of the papers running the headlines Of Dewey being the winner of the “48 election. ‘Ol Harry had a good laugh at breakfast that morning.

  • iowa is as purple as it gets. went for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004 (by about 2,000 votes), and then in 2006 not only kept the Governor’s seat in D hands but flipped both chambers of the legislature from R to D, and replaced to Congressional R’s with Ds (our US Senate is 1-D, 1-R; our House delegation is now 3-D, 2-R)

    Iowa is not a Red State so much as a Blue State that made a single election mistake.

  • However, there is always the picture in the back of my mind of the papers running the headlines Of Dewey being the winner of the “48 election. ‘Ol Harry had a good laugh at breakfast that morning.

    Keep that mental image and try out the headline “McCain Defeats Clinton” for size.

    Ugggh.

  • Back to the original point of the post (and a dynamic that bears watching), the high Democratic turnout does seem to indicate a strong level of motivation for moving away from shrub’s policies. It will be very interesting to see what the turnout is on Feb. 5th, regardless of who’s winning the horse race.

  • In Iowa, caucus attendance was almost double the previous record (which David Yepsen mentioned was probably inflated a little to begin with).

    In New Hampshire, where primary attendance is crazy high in a bad year, Democrats managed to top 2004 turn-out by 30%.

    In Nevada, high side estimates for predicted caucus attendance were in the range of 45,000 – 60,000 and actual turnout was more like 120,000.

    In South Carolina, primary turnout was up 83% over 2004.

    Anyone see a pattern forming?

  • Obama had more votes for him than had ever voted in a Democratic primary before. That blows me away.

  • “Obama won because he won the majority of black voters.”

    You know, Mary makes a good point. Black people’s votes really should not count as much as white people’s votes. Maybe we could even put a system in place whereby every black person only counted for 3/5th of a white person…

    Oh wait. We’ve already done that.

    Obama crushed Hillary. Get over it.

  • Meanwhile, we get a mealy mouth Democrat In Name Only. -sknm

    As I’ve said earlier already today, level headed people tend to agree that Obama and Clinton are only slightly different on issues pretty much across the board, and one of them will be the nominee, so maybe it’s time for a different attack.

    What is it about his records that so boggles you? Where are the Democrat in Name Only issues that Obama has supported?

    What is it about him that makes people hate him so much?

  • Something here does not compute: SC’s 50% black and overwhelmingly Republican population?
    Does this mean black Republicans are crossing over to vote for a black man?
    No. The Republicans voted Edwards… and were only 4% anyway. The white males voted for Edwards.
    So this vote reflects our still biased culture. Blacks for blacks, males for males. Black females chosing race over gender.
    It’s not about issues in the primary. It’s about bias.
    And I guess the only way SC can be a red state is that the black population does not vote.
    http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

  • When white people vote against Obama because he is black, it is racism. When black people vote for Obama because he is black, it is similarly race-motivated. I see no reason to decry one and applaud the other. I never said the votes of black people don’t count. I said they are not indicative of the trend of a country in which approximately 12% of the population is African American, and the large majority are not. If African American voters want to equate their perceived interests with someone’s skin color, fine, but I see no reason why that should tell us anything about what all voters will do in the general election.

    I am more concerned that the blogs and the media have given Obama a bye on his shameless pandering to homophobia and religiosity. Clinton did not send out a flyer claiming to be called to the presidency (echoes of Bush’s claim that God made him president), as Obama did. I cannot stomach someone who would put Donnie McClurkin on stage at a campaign rally. Yes, Obama gave a pretty speech later, but he has also since added another bigot to appear at his rallies, so again these are empty words. He shows similar pandering by letting Oprah speak for him. Yes, she is black and immensely popular, especially among African Americans, but she is an uneducated idiot about many things. I have very little respect for Oprah’s critical thinking when she promotes people like Dr. Phil, “A Course of Miracles,” the author of “Law of Attraction” and similar hogwash. People who self-promote and make money off the mindlessness, greed and desperation of others are scum (used to be called “con artists” before they appeared on TV) and I have no respect for Obama when he associates himself with such people. To her credit, Clinton does not consider her audiences to be imbeciles and she talks to them with respect. If she loses for doing that, this will be a sad day for everyone, including Obama supporters.

  • Something here does not compute: SC’s 50% black and overwhelmingly Republican population?

    Neil, I think 50% of the registered Democratic voters in South Carolina are African American, not 50% of the state’s population.

    According to the US Census Bureau, the breakdown of the state as a whole is 68.5% white, 29% black:
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/45000.html

  • You don’t have to be a weatherman, but you do have to pull your head out of the ground. Obama has received the mantle of true change because(in no particular order) he is young, he is multicultural, and he is hopeful. Obama represents the future; Hillary the past. Regardless of the candidates stated positions, who do you think is more likely to work for real change as opposed to patchwork expediences, even given a real mandate by the voters? If the moderates win and pay no heed to the generational groundswell, they run the risk of creating another layer of cynicism in the American electorate or truly rupturing the democratic party.

  • Um Nell, I don’t think registered Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary or vise versa. There may be some truth that white males who were elegible to vote in the democratic primary picked Edwards, but it is also true that most polls had Obama around 10 -15% for whites in the weeks leadng up to the actual primary. I find it significant that in the last week or so Obama was able to bring that number up to 25% This seems to indicate that people were moving his way, even some whites.

    I don’t know if Obama can go all the way or not. I personally like him and I think his chances are good. In fact he is the candidate I prefer. Oh, and full disclosure, I am a white, male, decline to state voter living in one of the Super Tuesday states. My vote will be cast for Obama.

    And let’s not forget that the likely oucome of Super Tuesday is Clinton wins California and New York but by smaller than projected margins and several of the other states, including Illinois will go to Obama. I think the deligates earned on Super Tuesday will not be enough for either of them to claim the Party’s nomination.

  • Red state, blue state? We’re not talking about general elections here, we’re talking about mostly Democratic voters expressing their preferences among Democratic hopefuls. The reds have their own thing going.

  • As far as turnout, the Dem advantage in this cycle is staggering — as much or more stunning than the advantage in fundraising. The no-brainer move would be to keep that advantage going into the general, by keeping Dem voters energized and not doing anything to galvanize the Repubs.

    Both Clinton and Obama are getting voters out so I think we’re fine on that side. But who is most likely to galvanize the right enough to increase their turnout? Let’s just let that hang out there for a while…

  • I am so tired of this “people are bigots and only vote for their identity group” narrative. That certainly wasn’t the case in Iowa, and if Obama gets the nomination and buries McRomney in November, it won’t be true then either.

    BTW, I saw the roundtable section of “This Week” this morning – never good for my blood pressure. The villagers gathered there all agreed that none of the Dems were likely to be generate a landslide victory in November. Here’s hoping we surprise the bastages.

  • I am fiftysix, whitemale,veteran and I have friends in this same age bracket. Our common theme is that we will vote for Mr Obama in the primary. We wish to see a shift in the direction of this country Caroline Kenddy puut it as eloquently as any body I have seen in her NewYork Times op ed. If the the powers that be succeed in installing Mrs Clinton as the democrat nominee, then I vote for her opponet.
    I vote in every election,all of them. My voice will count the same as every one who gets off their posterior and votes. I have been against this war from the start. I have as much idea as John Mcain in how to fix this econmy. One day this dept is going to be called. If young people are coming out it is in their own self interest. Their forebears have spent the treasury,consumed the resources and fouled the environmemt in a mindless persuit of who has the most. They do it by pointing the finger at each other searching for whom to blame,when they were in collusion to begin with

  • Before JF Kennedy was nominated, he had written the very favorably reviewed “Why England Slept” plus the huge best seller “Profiles in Courage.”

    Obama: An autobiography, plus another compilation of inspirational verbiage.

  • The demographic breakdowns candidate-by-candidate in SC is pretty interesting. Extrapolating from the age-race breakdowns in the exit poll results on the CNN web site:

    – 77% of Barack Obama’s share of the vote came from black voters, 23% non-black.

    – Clinton’s share was 30% black, 70% non-black.

    – John Edwards voters were 6% black, 94% non-black.

    The Edwards numbers are particularly interesting because he did pretty well with black voters in 2004. Edwards got 37% of the total black vote in 2004, which amounted to about 41% of his share among all voters.

  • If Obama’s supporters can keep quiet, I think this week I’m an Obama supporter, as I always am after I’ve seen one of his victory speeches.

    He does allow us to turn the page in the sense that the DC elite are about as likely to let go of their old Clinton hatred as they are admit getting it wrong on Bush. Obama provides them with an out, as it does a lot of previous Bush lovers who would otherwise be unwilling to swallow and “I told you so” Clinton Presidency.

    We always underestimate likeability. It’s everything, really. If you have a figurehead with the bully pulpit, the policy sort of follows. You set the tone, present goals that the oxen have to at least pretend to be working toward. You set the direction of the country.

    I don’t mind the cultism of Obama’s followers. Cultism means belief — that’s what makes people volunteer and go door to door in the rain getting doors slammed in their faces. It means they are touched on a deep level in a way that, no matter how unfairly, the Clintons never can. Cultism for Obama may be as irrational as hatred of the Clintons, but it works in our favor.

    I think the ground may have finally shifted… if they GOP is truly defeated, then it will be time to do what we didn’t do after the Civil War and WWI — reconciliation. IF the GOP is chastened, then it is time to finally reach across and to make a broad appeal that could truly create a Democratic majority. They had their moment, they had the power, and they didn’t create the Christian/Darwinian utopia they hoped for, so it’s time to treat them like Japan and Germany.

    Symbolism: I can’t tell you how far electing a man named Hussein Obama would go in undoing the damage of the Bush years.

    ( Now Clinton-haters — shut up!!! I don’t need you talking me out of this! )

  • Meme @ #29: Regarding the cult thing, I’m not sure I would automatically assume that an army of Obama moonies going door to door is necessarily a good thing for Democrats. They tend to kind of creep a lot of people out.

  • Obama is an empty suit, in my opinion and I will not vote for someone just because he gives good speeches. The next president needs to offer a lot more than hope.

    Mary’s opinion resounds with me. I don’t want a “glimmer of hope” or someone likeable; I want Obama to give me solid reasons to vote for him. His complete denial of partisanship says that he is not willing to stand and fight for my interests. He can “play nice” all he wants, but Paul Krugman’s recent columns have hit the mark that Obama lets the Republicans control dialog.

    Please, please, please Barack–try your best to sound like Democrat avoid the too much, over-the-top, nice-nice goobley-gook.

  • I don’t have the stats to back this up, but I think African Americans, especially young ones, are turning out in far greater numbers for Obama than for any previous black candidate. Yes, partly because he’s black but he’s also a political rock star like JFK (see Caroline’s NYT editorial this morning), the first one of color, and they’re amped. Wouldn’t you be? Hell, I’m jazzed that a woman’s got a serious shot, even though she’s far from my ideal candidate. Obama’s smart, compassionate and incredibly bright. After eight years of neocons and morons, I’d be delighted to have him in the White House. Can you imagine how most African Americans feel? He’s turning out new African American voters like Hillary’s turning out working women and that can only help elect a Democratic president.

  • Mary’s opinion resounds with me. -sknm

    Of course it resounds with you; It’s as hollow and hate-filled as your baseless assumption that Obama is a Democrat in Name Only.

    His complete denial of partisanship says that he is not willing to stand and fight for my interests. -sknm

    I’ve already specifically asked you in this comment section, and you’ve ignored it, but I’ll ask again in a different way: what in Obama’s record makes you think he won’t stand for Democratic positions?

    I thought we we’re supposed to be the reality based community, yet here, still to this day people are parroting the bullshit claim that Obama has no experience and has not fought for Democratic positions.

    It’s one thing to make a case, as zeitgeist has, that Hillary would make a better President; it’s another to engage in baseless, hateful, and untrue propaganda.

  • He’s turning out new African American voters like Hillary’s turning out working women and that can only help elect a Democratic president.

    That assumes, however, that those record numbers in either group – blacks or women – having gotten amped up about the possibility of making history remains active and engaged rather than deflated and disillusioned when, inevitably, one of those groups shot at history comes to an end.

    That is one of the great unknowns, and someone sad aspects of, this election.

  • A serious question: is there polling data to suggest that Hillary is turning out “working women”? I haven’t seen it, and would be very interested. If true, it could undercut my fear that she would be down-ballot poison for Democrats in the House and at the state/local levels.

  • NECESSITY is what is bring voters out in droves. The starving man has decided he MUST go in search of food or die. His HOPE is that he will find food.
    Voters realize the urgency of stopping what is happening to our nation. Enough is enough.
    Something MUST be done as we are losing our democracy and our personal freedoms. A new direction is absolutely necessary. Voters will come out like never before because they must if they wish to save our democracy. Our hope is that we will succeed. Republicans must go…and they will.

  • […] the “media” and the Bloggers have concluded that It’s O’bama and Hillary is kaput. — wlgriffi, @10

    An Irish mulatto Muslim??? Oy! Run for the hills!

  • dajafi, without doing the serious number crunching on the exit polls, it seems to me that at least in NH and NV there is good reason to believe she did. Both states set turnout records by wide margins. If all of that new turnout was for Obama, he’d have easily won both. So some of that new turnout had to be for Clinton, and in both of those states her exit poll numbers showed very high percentages of women voting for her. It certainly is possible that all of these things could be true without her turning out any new women voters, but it sure fits Occams Razor a lot better to assume that she won NH and NV because some of the increased turnout were the women supporting her.

  • ok, that is bizarre – i posted what is now 41 well after what is dajafi’s 42 (which was 41 when i read it. . .)

  • That makes sense. Though another possible explanation for the high turnout is that Democrats are simply more motivated after seven years of Bush–also my explanation for why the campaign started so early and got so intense so quickly… it’s like a collective wish to put this abomination of a presidency in the rearview ASAP.

    • Comments are closed.