Jim drew my attention to a facinating exchange between Republican strategist Patrick Ruffini and leftroots leader Jerome Armstrong. Their dialogue, as it relates to the online aspect of the Presidential campaign, is thoughtful and interesting, but in Patrick’s post, I saw a larger point that I think gets at the heart of the Democratic nomination contest.

Patrick points out, “Barack Obama has mobilized people, even if he hasn’t mobilized the netroots. He’s brought in students, African Americans, and apparently, young females. These are groups that are relatively apolitical. That’s why when you loosen the likely voter screen just a little, Obama does a lot better.”

Patrick gets at the question central to the Obama candidacy. It’s the same question that’s dogged every candidate for all time. Who is going to vote?

There’s this simplistic notion, perpetuated by the media, that the electorate is a massive monolith. Through polls, the media’s pundits describe how the views of that monolith evolve over time. You can hear Bill Schneider now… “In this election, 42% of voters described themselves as conservatives. That’s up four points from 2004, Bob. And it just shows how the country has grown more conservative over the last few years.”

Horse hockey.

The monolith hasn’t mystically altered itself. It’s very composition has changed. Consider the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. A reliable exit poll — a dubious assumption to be sure — would have shown that the Ohio electorate was more conservative than it was in 2000. Why? It’s not because the state grew more conservative in the preceding four years. It’s because the Bush campaign did an anstonishly good job of getting conservatives to go to the polls, so the percentage of the electorate comprised by conservatives increased.

In American politics today, there are, broadly speaking, three kinds of voters:

• Habitual voters — They turn up to vote in every election and most primaries. Period. Candidates don’t have to do a lot to get them to turn out. They tend to be the most partisan or ideological. These are the people who are electing the town council, planning commission and dogcatcher. Habitual voters comprise around a quarter to a third of all voters.
• Occasional voters — They turn up to vote when they feel like or think it’s important. They vote in most Presidential elections and will show up for other significant elections in off years if they are engaged. They might vote in a party primary if they feel a strong pull to a particular candidate. Sometimes, they get engaged because of the news. Sometimes, because a campaign engaged them. Occasional voters make up an additional third or so of the total.
• Never voters — They registered when the renewed their drivers’ license because they were extra diligent about filling out all of the forms before they went to the window AGAIN. Or maybe when someone knocked on their door and handed them a clipboard. They don’t vote. Period. Nothing will get them to vote except Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura. They make up the final third or so of the total.

Senator Obama’s presidential campaign is based on his personality. It’s based on the idea that he will be a different kind of President; that he has a vision; that he will make a difference; that he’s not a cynic; and that he’s not all wrapped up in Washington politics.

Which is all well and good for the media and his campaign message team. If they let him be who he is, he should have significant appeal. (Note: this does not include clumsily circulating oppo memos to reporters.)

But for the folks working on the ground — the folks who will ultimately win or lose the campaign — the question is much more challenging. Does the Senator has enough appeal to attract those Occasional voters to the polls? Could he even get a few Nevers?

In the history of American politics, the list of candidates who really accomplished this feat is fairly short. Robert F. Kennedy would certainly qualify. (His brother, on the other hand, does not.) Andrew Jackson certainly does, as well. FDR, in his 1932 campaign, might. Jesse Ventura, in his campaign for Minnesota Governor, definitely makes the list. So does Huey Long in his first campaign for U.S. Senate. And we shouldn’t forget California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger.

On the other hand, the list of candidates who tried and failed is long. Indeed, there have been so many who tried and lost, that a comprehensive list is impossible. Some highlights: Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose campaign for the Presidency. Ross Perot, who succeeded in expanding the electorate, but not enough to win. And Jesse Jackson whose ability to bring black voters out to the polls in 1984 made him a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.

So, can Obama do it? I think he can.

Cam: I confess, I must have some sort of blinders on because I can’t see what it is that makes Obama an attractive candidate, much less someone that can draw historical comparisons to candidates like FDR and RFK (and when Marshall’s the one making those comparisons, it’s not the typical hype and bluster you’d find from many pundits).

So in your opinion Marshall, what’s the one characteristic that Obama has or at least is demonstrating that is selling himself to those “now and then voters”? Is it his “outsider” mentality? Is it his optimism? Is it his audacity of hope?