Is South Carolina a Game Changer?

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 3:06 PM on January 27, 2008.

Not long after the polls closed in South Carolina, NBC's Tim Russert suggested that Barack Obama might win by 30 points. The very idea struck me as utterly ridiculous. After all, his biggest lead in a non-partisan poll was 15 points, rumor had it the race had become more competitive the campaign's waning days, and this is a state in which Hillary Clinton had led for an entire year, including as recently as December. For Russert to even suggest a huge victory was likely to make a "mere" 12-point Obama victory look unimpressive by comparison.

But it turns out the number wasn't crazy after all. With just about every precinct reporting, the final results look like this:

1. Barack Obama -- 55.4%

2. Hillary Clinton -- 26.5%

3. John Edwards -- 17.6%

I think most political observers expected an Obama victory, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who thought he'd win by 29 points. He beat Clinton and Edwards combined. His vote totals were also more than John McCain and Mike Huckabee combined. More Dems voted for Obama yesterday than voted in the entire 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary. Obama even had more votes than George W. Bush had when he beat McCain in 2000.

Whether the results have a lasting impact or not remains to be seen, but Obama's win was a good ol' fashioned thumpin'. John Dickerson put it this way: "Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton so badly in South Carolina it may spawn some new kind of Southern colloquialism. When Clemson spanks an opponent by five touchdowns it will be called an Obama. Fans will taunt the losing team as they walk off the field by making an 'O' against their foreheads."

As for all the talk about race, there were some polls in the last few days showing Obama's support dropping to just 10% of white South Carolinians. The reality proved to be far different -- Obama over-performed among white voters, winning a clear majority of younger whites and tying Clinton among white men.

As I'm usually inclined to do, let's consider the various spins we're likely to hear:

Barack Obama -- What Obama fans are saying: Clinton threw everything they had at us, and we won by nearly 30 points. We just got the big mo back. What Obama critics are saying: Enjoy it now, because on Feb. 5, no one's going to remember South Carolina.

Who's right? Well, it's too soon to tell. Obama seemed to be losing the momentum lately, and expectations were poised to make a modest South Carolina victory look unimpressive. Then he won by 29 points and, all of a sudden, David's slingshot is looking pretty effective again.

Hillary Clinton -- What Clinton fans are saying: At least we didn't slip to third. What Clinton critics are saying: It might have been closer if you guys hadn't turned voters off with all the hardball tactics.

Who's right? Probably the critics. It's interesting that the Clinton campaign was clearly worried about slipping to third, and actually launched a robocall effort yesterday morning against Edwards. Moving forward, though, Clinton will have to decide what to do about her style of campaigning: if the campaign decides that aggressiveness didn't work in South Carolina, watch for a more positive, issue-focused Clinton over the next week.

John Edwards -- What Edwards fans are saying: We still picked up delegates and we're not going anywhere. What Edwards critics are saying: A third place showing in a state he was born in and won in 2004 suggests things aren't going to get better for the former senator.

Who's right? Both are. This is the third contest in a row in which the late buzz suggested an Edwards surge, and once again, it didn't materialize. He did well enough to win convention delegates, but he needed a very strong showing to give him a boost in advance of Feb. 5. It clearly didn't happen. Edwards will now lack the resources to make a serious push moving forward.

UPDATE: Bill Clinton tries to diminish Obama's landslide victory by comparing him to Jesse Jackson.

I really, sincerely wish Bill Clinton wouldn't make comments like these.

For those of you who can't watch clips online, the video shows a reporter asking the former president earlier today, "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?"

Bill Clinton responds, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign. And Sen. Obama's run a good campaign here; he's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with a good organization."

Now, given the racial angle to the campaign, it's probably unhelpful for the former president to discount the Obama victory by citing Jesse Jackson.

It's possible the Clinton campaign could argue that BC's Jackson reference had nothing to do with race, and the former president was just mentioning Jackson to demonstrate that candidates who do well in the South Carolina primary don't always go on to win the race.

But why, then, not mention John Edwards' victory in the state four years ago? Why specifically connect Obama to Jesse Jackson after weeks of talk about misusing race in the campaign?

Tagged as: clinton, obama, edwards, jackson, russert, south carolina

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.