Novak: Clinton CA lead is mirage

[MarkWarner08]

"...Clinton's double-digit lead in California polls over Sen. Barack Obama is misleading. Subtract a Latino voting bloc whose dependability to show up Election Day always has been shaky, and Clinton is no better than even in the state, with Obama gaining. To encourage this brown firewall, the Clinton campaign may be drifting into encouragement of brown vs. black racial conflict by condoning Latino racial hostility to the first African-American with a chance to become president.

Experienced California Democratic politicians doubt the validity of Clinton's double-digit polling lead in the state. At the heart of Obama's support are upper-income Democrats (in exceptional supply here) and young voters whose intentions are difficult to predict. Will the state's huge, currently passive college campuses erupt in an outpouring of Obama voters?

The demographics are most important. Clinton has dramatically lost support among blacks, trailing Obama 58 percent to 24 percent. It is a virtual dead heat among white non-Hispanics, 32 percent to 30 percent. Therefore, the 12-point overall lead derives from a 59 percent to 19 percent Clinton edge among Latinos.

In California, the Latino vote is notoriously undependable in actually voting, especially when compared with African-Americans. How the Clinton campaign deals with Hispanic voters is a sensitive matter, but sensitivity never has been a hallmark of the Clinton style.

snip...

Asked whether Latinos will refuse to vote for him, Obama got a laugh when he replied: "Not in Illinois. They all voted for me."

Read it all here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/hillarys_latino_firewall.html

If Obama wins in CA, he becomes the new frontrunner. A tie is, in the long run, a loss. He must defeat Hillary in the most populous and diverse state in the union. If NV voter patterns continue (Blacks turnout disproportionately high; Hispanic turnout disproportionately low), Obama may spring a monumental upset in California, a state that is politically golden.

[Sam Spade]

There aren't very many blacks in CA anymore... 

[© tweed]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

[Sam Spade]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

[© tweed]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

[MarkWarner08]

There aren't very many blacks in CA anymore... 

Excellent point. Those missing 200,000 blacks could cost Obama the primary.

[Eraserhead]

I'm still waiting to see the effect of South Carolina and the Kennedys.

[MarkWarner08]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

He needs an outright victory to become the clear frontrunner. If he wins 47%, he'll pick up delegates, and that might be a sign that he has enough support nationwide to eventually beat  Hillary.

For Obama to win the nomination, he must emerge from Feb. 5th with the most delegates and a very strong showing in CA.

[exopolitician]

Kennedy is suppost to campaign with him in California and some other states, this should only help him greatly im sure. Im indifferent about California...it could easily either way go both ways at this point.

[Sam Spade]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

Of course, the rest of the month looks better for him, but a win in California would keep momentum going from Super Tuesday, where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

He wants something good to come out of Tuesday, not the headline of Clinton wins in the big states (except for the one he's already expected to win).  That's what it will be otherwise.

[MarkWarner08]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

Huh? Ambinder and other pundits have predicted a close outcome in this category... Why are you assuming Obama will be crushed among delegates?

[Sam Spade]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

Huh? Ambinder and other pundits have predicted a close outcome in this category... Why are you assuming Obama will be crushed among delegates?

Maybe I'm doing my math wrong (and I might be).  Let's wait until after tomorrow, when polls start arriving. 

The point that I think we would agree on is that Obama needs to, at minimum, be closer to Clinton after Super Tuesday, than before.  And he needs to win CA, IMHO.

[MarkWarner08]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

Huh? Ambinder and other pundits have predicted a close outcome in this category... Why are you assuming Obama will be crushed among delegates?

The point that I think we would agree on is that Obama needs to, at minimum, be closer to Clinton after Super Tuesday, than before.  And he needs to win CA, IMHO.

If Obama  accomplishes the former, the race will remain frozen, with Hillary holding a slight, but steady lead. If he achieves the latter....

[TomC]

Is there a delegate advantage to smaller states; that is, like the electoral college, are a few goven to each state and then the rest added based on population, or is it totally based on population?

Obama needs to win California but doesn't absolutely have to. If he could really give Clinton a money in the NE- NY, NJ, Mass- and wins a few of those, which would be better than expected- and the delegate count is close, it could make up for a narrow Calif. loss.

But the media will definitely be looking at Calif as the big prize.

[Sam Spade]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

Huh? Ambinder and other pundits have predicted a close outcome in this category... Why are you assuming Obama will be crushed among delegates?

The point that I think we would agree on is that Obama needs to, at minimum, be closer to Clinton after Super Tuesday, than before.  And he needs to win CA, IMHO.

If Obama  accomplishes the former, the race will remain frozen, with Hillary holding a slight, but steady lead. If he achieves the latter....

Slight and steady means she wins the nomination...  Just FYI.  

[Lief 🗽]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

Huh? Ambinder and other pundits have predicted a close outcome in this category... Why are you assuming Obama will be crushed among delegates?

The point that I think we would agree on is that Obama needs to, at minimum, be closer to Clinton after Super Tuesday, than before.  And he needs to win CA, IMHO.

If Obama  accomplishes the former, the race will remain frozen, with Hillary holding a slight, but steady lead. If he achieves the latter....

Slight and steady means she wins the nomination...  Just FYI. 

Why? If the race is a tie, or a slight Clinton edge after February 5th, Obama has a month of favorable contests in front of him.

[Aizen]

Obama needs to win CA becuase he's going to get hammered in NY and NJ. Illinois isn't enough to negate that. The big states coming after Feb. 5th (PA, OH and TX) all seem like Hillary strongholds to me...

[Ogre Mage]

The only mirage is any Novak analysis of the Democratic Primary.  I would take anything he says about the Dem race with a huge grain of salt.  However, I think it is within reason that Obama might be able to finish within 5% with a strong campaign in California.  As for beating Clinton there, color me skeptical.

[MarkWarner08]

what's the best Obama can realistically do in CA?  within 5-10%?

Obama needs to win.  Don't think it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.

isn't it P15?  if he loses by five I don't think it's a disaster...  the rest of the month is slightly favorable to him IMO if he can stay viable...

where I suspect Clinton easily bests him in an actual count of delegates.

Huh? Ambinder and other pundits have predicted a close outcome in this category... Why are you assuming Obama will be crushed among delegates?

The point that I think we would agree on is that Obama needs to, at minimum, be closer to Clinton after Super Tuesday, than before.  And he needs to win CA, IMHO.

If Obama  accomplishes the former, the race will remain frozen, with Hillary holding a slight, but steady lead. If he achieves the latter....

Slight and steady means she wins the nomination...  Just FYI. 

I completely agree. BTW, I think Hillary has a 78.97342% shot of victory right now...

[Sam Spade]

Obama can perform well in Texas because Indys can vote there, but he must get them to show.  Otherwise, the Hispanics will do to him what they've been doing in CA.

OH and PA, I agree.

[Democratic Hawk]

There aren't very many blacks in CA anymore... 

There aren't many blacks in NV relative to Hispanics yet each comprised 15% of the Democratic vote in the caucuses. Incidentally, Obama performed somewhat better among Hispanics (26%) than Hillary did among blacks (14%)

That said, I do expect Hispanics to be much more sizeable constituency in CA's Democratic primary

Dave

[MarkWarner08]

Obama can perform well in Texas because Indys can vote there, but he must get them to show.  Otherwise, the Hispanics will do to him what they've been doing in CA.

OH and PA, I agree.

But will Hispanics show up?  Jay Cost: "The Nevada entrance poll found that African Americans and Hispanics each comprised 15% of the total electorate. But Nevada as a whole is 6.6% African American, and 19.7% Hispanic."

If that pattern repeats itself in TX, Obama has a strong shot. Would you agree that Obama will win in Austin and Houston?

[Sam Spade]

There aren't very many blacks in CA anymore... 

There aren't many blacks in NV relative to Hispanics yet each comprised 15% of the Democratic vote in the caucuses. Incidentally, Obama performed somewhat better among Hispanics (26%) than Hillary did among blacks (14%)

That said, I do expect Hispanics to be much more sizeable constituency in CA's Democratic primary

Dave

Problem, Dave:

Nevada:  Blacks 6.6%, Hispanics 19.7%
California:  Blacks 6.4%, Hispanics 32.4%, Asians 10.8%

Same amount of blacks, nearly twice as many Hispanics, and the Asian vote to throw in.

Also, those numbers are probably more for Hispanics and Asians and less for blacks than when they were conducted in 2000/2004.

[Sam Spade]

Obama can perform well in Texas because Indys can vote there, but he must get them to show.  Otherwise, the Hispanics will do to him what they've been doing in CA.

OH and PA, I agree.

But will Hispanics show up?  Jay Cost: "The Nevada entrance poll found that African Americans and Hispanics each comprised 15% of the total electorate. But Nevada as a whole is 6.6% African American, and 19.7% Hispanic."

If that pattern repeats itself in TX, Obama has a strong shot. Would you agree that Obama will win in Austin and Houston?

Obama would definitely win Austin.  Houston and Dallas - possibly, but I'm less sure.  Of course, he'll get killed in San Antonio, El Paso and along the border.  Not to mention east Texas (except for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area).  The rest of Texas doesn't do much Dem voting.

The other difference between Texas and Nevada is that Texas will be a primary, and second, all of the primary elections will be held that day.

But, to summarize, he can win Texas.  But he would need massive Indy turnout.

FYI, Texas black population is 11.3%.  Hispanic population is 32.0%.  They probably would cancel each other out, I suspect.

[Democratic Hawk]

There aren't very many blacks in CA anymore... 

There aren't many blacks in NV relative to Hispanics yet each comprised 15% of the Democratic vote in the caucuses. Incidentally, Obama performed somewhat better among Hispanics (26%) than Hillary did among blacks (14%)

That said, I do expect Hispanics to be much more sizeable constituency in CA's Democratic primary

Dave

Problem, Dave:

Nevada:  Blacks 6.6%, Hispanics 19.7%
California:  Blacks 6.4%, Hispanics 32.4%, Asians 10.8%

Same amount of blacks, nearly twice as many Hispanics, and the Asian vote to throw in.

Also, those numbers are probably more for Hispanics and Asians and less for blacks than when they were conducted in 2000/2004.

sh**t, more Hispanics than I thought

Dave