The word hybrid, perhaps known best to us these days in the context of automobile engines, is coming into vogue in democratic politics as well. In the context of campaigns and elections, hybridization refers to voter appeals that combine old and new channels of communication. For a textbook example, consider last weekend’s mega-star tour, when Oprah Winfrey campaigned with Barack Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina before 66,500 people, with tens of millions more made aware through the mass media.

Celebrity endorsements are old hat to campaigns and campaign coverage. The Oprah-Obama pairing stands out because Oprah is celebrated for her powers of influence, in particular her capacity to make her indicated preferences seem as though they will enrich the spiritual lives of those who opt for them. But celebrity endorsements have generally produced little by way of political capital; people pay attention when glamour lights up the news, but that doesn’t mean they commit to the campaign throwing the spotlight. Even in this special case, a Washington Post poll result confirms what most research tells us about the pulling power of bold-face names: 8 percent of Democrats said Oprah’s appearances made them more likely to support Obama, 10 percent said less likely—and 80 percent said they were not affected.

But there was a third O in the production of these events. The Obama campaign subordinated the star turn to the tasks of grassroots organization, relying on classic incentives and new media technology to build up its network of supporters. (The priority on organization probably explains why they played this song over the sound system as the events concluded.) The campaign gave blocks of tickets to precinct captains to dole out as rewards for hard volunteer work. The 4,250 individuals who pledged four hours of volunteer time to the campaign also received priority tickets. During the events, members of the audience were asked to provide the campaign with their cell phone and texting numbers. At the largest rally, in South Carolina, the Obama organization handed out flyers, each one listing with the phone numbers and first names of four registered Democrats: 30,000 flyers with four names each equals 120,000 contacts. Those in attendance were then urged to make canvassing calls through their mobiles, following a script printed on the flyers. Then someone from the Guinness Book of World Records took the stage to certify “the largest phone bank” in history.

Note the motivational chain: work, reward, work, reward. It’s standard grassroots fare. If I had an iota of graphic talent I would have created a hybrid flow chart, the political equivalent of the readout on the Prius dashboard, to depict the harnessing of the Internet’s tremendous capacity to facilitate the greasing and deploying of the motivational chain—but alas, you’re going to have to see it in your mind’s eye.

The big question, of course, is whether this operation will bring voters to the polls. The Obama campaign will report numbers if they attest to the candidate’s ability to attract new and swing voters, in as much as that will make a case for his electability in November (and constitute another reward for those who participated). Academics and other independent observers may verify the numbers and gauge the validity of the hybrid methodology. Absent such confirmations, we still have reason to believe the approach is not only smart—because it relies on stars to reward, not persuade, and the rewarded to persuade, not to shine—but valuable to democracy. Signing up and delivering first-time voters to the polls is one horse-race we should encourage.

Michael Cornfield is an Adjunct Professor in Political Management, The George Washington University and Vice-President of Research and Media Strategy at 720 Strategies.