Obama had his first clean win, racking in an impressive 55% of the vote. Of course, much of that comes from the huge percentage of the black vote, 80%. O'bama also captured about 1/4 of the white vote, with Clinton and Edwards splitting the rest (27% and 18% respectively).
Of coruse, we all know this election was STOLEN from the true American hero who was prevented from being on the ballot -- Stephen Colbert. But, given that America was denied a real choice for the furture, we need to see what comes next.
The margin is the largest one yet for a single candidate. But, of course, the whiff of racial politics and the efforts by the Clintons to lower expectations for S.C. has worked extremely well. O'Bama's win in Iowa had eliminated the idea that he was "unelectable" because Americans were apparently more "ready" to vote for a white woman than for a black man. Clinton's wins in NH and NV helped re-inject this into the campaign, expecially as polls were so off in projecting an Obama win in NH.
Which is why the story became so much about the "black vote" and the racial split in NV (Latino and Anglo going to Clinton, African American to O'Bama). This ignores how well O'Bama did in whitebread NH (which was an oddball state because of the compressed time frame between it an Iowa). But the question serves to play down the importance of O'Bama's S.C. win. Had O'Bama lost S.C., it would have been devestating. But a win is now "expected" because of "racial politics."
The Clintons figured out after the MLK debate that SC was a lost cause, which is why Hillary abandioned the state to her husband and began campaigning with an eye to Super Duper Tuesday. What is more interesting, however, is Hillary suddenly emerging as the champion of Florida. Despite the decision by the DNC to bar Florida delegates from the Committee, Clinton has suddenly announced her solidarity with the people of Florida. What's behind this?
1) Florida hits just before Super Duper Tuesday. Clinton can hope that a win in FL, even one not counted, will produce some favorable momentum.
2) The Democratic Party in Florida is heavily Latino and Jewish, two groups in which Clinton has huge support. By championing Florida, Clinton can hope to solidify her support among these groups in states such as California, NY, and the southwest states (which also lean heavily to old Jewish people and Latinos).
3) If the delegate count is close, there may well be an effort to revoke the sanctions against FL and MI. O'Bama would be seriously disadvanatged, but Clinton (or, more accurately, her proxies) would argue that O'Bama is trying to "disenfranchise" voters just like the Republicans did in 2000 and 2004.
A personal aside. I see damn little difference between the way the Bushies run an election and the way the Clintons do, except the Bushies were better at it. The Clintons have the same MO of using proxies and finding a wayward soundbite to misrepresnt ad naseum.
Which brings us to the question of what these very high registration numbers for the Ds mean and do they translate to a D blow out in November? I think the answer very much depends on how the newly registered Ds feel. If the idealistic folks that registered to "make history" feel after the primaries that the Ds are no better than the Rs, then we will see a lot of Ds staying home. By contrast, if the Rs pick the right candidate (and if they face off against Clinton), we will see a much greater surge in R turnout for the general election than predicted based on the primary turn outs.
In other words, the Ds could still very easily blow the general election in '08, despite the enthusiasm for the primaries.