Super Tuesday (2/5): California
What’s the ground look like in California right now for the primary candidates? For one thing, it’s a pretty blue state, even if we’re talking about Michael Bloomberg. From the California Progress Report:
In a dizzying week of polls on all subjects near and dear to our state’s voters, today’s offering from the California Field Poll showing that only one in four California registered voters would even consider voting for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg if he were to run for President sends a clear message.
62% of the voters in the largest state in the nation, according to Field, say they “would definitely not support him.” [Emphasis added] This includes 68% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans and even a slight plurality of “non-partisan/others) would not countenance the thought.
…
When asked if a Bloomberg independent candidacy would be a good thing or bad thing, California’s registered voters are perhaps a bit more charitable, but they are all over the lot. 29% thin it is a good thing, 33% a bad thing, and 38% don’t know. Democrats and Republicans agree it’s a bad thing or don’t know, and the non-partisan/others seem to like the idea 47% to 17% with 36% of this most favorable group towards his candidacy saying they don’t know.
Regarding the Democrats, most of the information available pre-dates last night’s big win by Barack Obama in South Carolina. However, the indecision that pundits and analysts believe to be the rule rather than the exception seems overwhelming.
California Progress Report covered poll numbers that were released on Friday. Specifically, they wrote:
The Public Policy Institute of California has released a poll today that shows Hillary Clinton has a lead of 43% to 28% in the Democratic primary in California amongst expected voters. The poll is generally in alignment with the California Field Poll released earlier in the week that had Clinton at a 39% to 27% advantage. Nevertheless, when asked about the volatility of the electorate in races in other states and the possible effect of the South Carolina primary, PPIC President Mark Baldassare told me, “It just isn’t settled on the Democratic or Republican said.” He indicted other primary state results have a big impact on California voters and “We’re getting our news from other states.”
Note the caveat given for “the possible effect of the South Carolina primary.” I would say, “Oh yeah,” to that. You can read the Public Policy Institute of California‘s poll here.
The New Politics Institute fingers new millenials and independents as holding the most power when February 5th’s primary arrives. Why? Because:
California has huge numbers of independents who can ONLY vote in the Democratic primary. The Republican primary is closed to only registered Republicans. So even Independents who might want to vote for McCain only have the option to vote Democrat, and the candidate who clearly does best among independents is Obama.
and
Large numbers of young people are now registered to vote in California and because they are new to the game, they are less clearly understood. Our New Politics Institute has done much work on this generation and it seems clear that they are more energized by an Obama candidacy at this point. So a critical issue going into he Feb. 5th contest will be the youth turnout, and the margin that goes for Obama.
Simon Rosenberg of the New Policy Institute (and former member of Bill Clinton’s 1992 “War Room”) explores these factors in more depth here. When it comes to California, he believes that:
Hillary goes into California with an advantage, but not a big one. The last poll in the state had it 39-27, leaving a great deal of California voters undecided, which means that this thing is still wide open. Obama has a powerful support base in the state, and, as has been noted, independents can only vote on the Democratic side in this primary, creating an electorate more in Barack’s favor. Hillary however has what may be the ultimate trump card – Hispanics – who are now 20 percent of the statewide vote. I don’t really know who wins here, but again assume a great deal of candidate time, what’s left of the respective media budgets, and Obama making a much bigger play for Hispanics to keep HRC from running up her numbers there as she did in Nevada. If she replicates her 68-24 NV spread with Hispanics in CA it may give her the state and end up being another critical moment in her march towards the nomination.
Some pundits today (Sunday, the day after South Carolina), have already noted how often Obama referenced Latinos in his SC speech last night. Juxtapose that with Rosenberg’s note on Hispanics.
Them there’s a lot of states on that there one day. My Ouija board predicts a blogging explosion around the political ‘sphere as we try to figure it all out, for all of us.
UPDATE: The Daily Dish picks up something from Mark Halperin on the Kennedy endorsement, its importance for California and Hispanics.
UPDATE x2: More analysis from “ground zero” California.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Super Tuesday (2/5): California”
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… added an interesting post today on Super Tuesday (2/5): CaliforniaHere’s a small reading [...]
It seems to me the change they are crying for is peace, full employment, a healthy economy, federal surpluses and paying down of the enormous national debt. Curiously that is exactly the situation that prevailed when the Clintons were in the white house.
It appears to me, as an outsider, that Americans are so hypnotized by news anchors, political commentators and celebrity opinion leaders, that they have lost their legendary ability to pick the pepper out of the bull shit.
If Oprahbanna becomes president I would suggest that you do away with elections altogether. Why spend the billion or so dollars? Just put all the anchors and commentators from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX in a room, with Oprah as chair, and let them decide who is the one. You will get the same result they will lead you to anyway and you’ll save a billion $. The US will then be lead in perpetuity by the best snake oil salesman. Great idea, right???
Cliff MacPherson
Canada
Thanks for the comment and for reading Cliff.
I agree with some but not all of what you've shared.
I agree with the first paragraph and the fact that the 1990s were characterized by many of the elements folks want now, and those were years when Bill Clinton was president.
I also agree that many Americans are hypnotized by the news anchors etc.
HOWEVER, there's a huge groundswell of folks saying that the talking heads are just that. There have been a number of surveys and polls and reports that indicate how little Americans trust the press right now. And the blossoming of the blogs and other interactive features of news consumption on the Internet reflects the frustration many Americans have with the traditional media.
It's interesting that you seem to be interpreting the American media as leading us to Obama – I don't see that, but then I'm a political junkie/wonkabee. For those of us like me with their ears to the ground, for at least two years now waiting for 11/08, we know how many of us are being led and how many aren't.
I'd like to suggest to you that the fact that the polls haven't been able to predict winners every time and the fact that so many percentage points are spread around so many candidates between both parties indicates the opposite of what you are suggesting: that is – if the media is trying to get us to go one way, we're certainly defying them.
Jill- thanks for the great posting!
One thing I'd like to add to 1cliff2's and your comments about the media: The media understand America's skepticism towards their coverage of candidates. I think much of that has come out of the Bush years and how the media gave him a virtually free pass. But more to my point, the media these days have “fact checkers” who keep track of the veracity of a candidate's statements. I don't remember this happening during the 2000 or 2004 election cycles. All this means is that candidates have to be careful with what they say. I wonder if 1cliff2's beliefs that the press is leading us to Obama is a result of this. Billary threw the first nasty punches at Obama and continue to distort the facts. So perhaps what 1cliff2 is actually seeing is the media giving a more positive impression of Obama- not because they are more favorably disposed to Obama and want to support him. Rather Obama receives a more favorable impression in the media because he is running a cleaner campaign (except when he hits back at Billary in response). I don't see the media leading us to Obama.
That's a great observation, StockBoy. I don't know that I would have seen that if you didn't point it out. The only mitigating factor might be that Hillary Clinton has so many more years to keep track of than Obama which, as we've seen, is a plus and a minus for both of them, depending on how the number of years one's been in elected office or public service is being thrown around.
The handlers – strategists etc. – are going to hit a wall, if they haven't hit it already. But the influence of many campaign tactics is diminishing. And using the media, as a tactic, is getting trickier and trickier, don't you think?
Jill, I agree with you- using the media, as a tactic, is getting trickier. I don't believe any campaign has used the changing media to their benefit. The campaign which identifies changes (even subtle and small changes) in media and moves fastest will benefit the most- both as a way of inoculating oneself (from future attacks on one's character) and as a potential tool to use against opponents when they go on the attack.
These changes in the media may not be the tectonic-sized changes of the invention of the internet (and then again upon the appearance of bloggers), but to the extent that the media portrays candidates in a good (or bad) light, for whatever reason, there is an advantage to be had.
With regards to the fact-checking aspect, I think all the candidates (including my man Obama) have been caught stretching the truth. Being the idealist I am, I hope that all candidates (and especially Obama) would respond to independent fact-checkers. I believe all told that Obama has run the most honest campaign out there, but he isn't an angel.
Well, it is comforting to think that all the new media and its speed might be influencing the candidates to be truthier.
If you're interested in following how changes in the media affect the candidates, there's a blog called Network Weaving which looked at how Huckabee used social networking to win Iowa, while his opponents stuck with regular political machinery. The point made was that social networking spans out through more people more quickly.
Now, if you recall, Obama started his “mybarack.com” just about a year ago – and the fruits of that are the youth voters coming out for him. That's my theory anyway.
Jill- I agree with you and if we're going to talk about the internet, it certainly fits into society's paradigm with regards to sharing ideas on candidates.
After the 2004 election I remember reading that one of the reasons Bush won was that his campaign was able to get neighbors (and fellow churchgoers) talking to each other about Bush. Whereas Kerry had a solid campaign, but lost because he was “trucking in” people from (say) California to places like Kansas and having them go door to door to talk. Apparently people didn't like outsiders telling them what to do or how to vote. On exactly the same lines, I remember there was a lot of backlash against the foreigners who would send e-mails to Americans imploring them to vote for Kerry. There was some debate about whether or not foreigners were right to try to influence American politics.
But the bottom line is that people will listen to neighbors (and other locals) more than they will listen to folks from another state. At least in door-to-door canvassing.
The power of the internet fits into this the same way. The online community is national (well, international) and when we participate we're open to listening to others (hence the “community” part). I view my online discussions as an important part of my “education” where I can share my thoughts with people who have similar interests- even if we differ. If people did not consider the internet to be important to them then they wouldn't be online making new friends and listening to new ideas.
So I am part of an online community but I'm also part of a community here in San Francisco. Even though I'm more than happy to share ideas with people from all over the place, if someone from (say) Kansas knocked on my door and wanted me to vote for Huckabee or if I got unsolicitated e-mail from the GOP Bloggers I'd tell them both to go to ” H E double toothpicks” (as my Grandmother used to say) since neither are part of my community. I guess a good comparison is a fundraiser. If some stranger called me on the phone asking for money for some charity (worthwhile or not) I'd very politely them no and then hang up. But when a friend asks for money for a good cause that they support, then I will give. So when one's community suggests something one is more receptive than if some outsider suggested it.
So your comment about social networking makes perfect sense, and given the size and speed of these networks it's a very effective way of 1.) getting people to support a candidate and 2.) of getting out the vote. Even though these social networks may not be face to face social groups, the people in them are connected and feel the same obligations (i.e. the same pressure to go to the polls) as those in face to face situations.
I agree 1,000% with your comments.
I'll have to take a gander at Network Weaving- thanks for the tip!
BTW: as I recall Obama had a lot of support in Iowa from college students so I wonder what happened in Iowa that didn't happen in NH (or vice versa). It seems that Hillary won NH because of support from women. But I'd be interested in knowing if college students in NH just stayed in, or if women really did turn out in significant enough numbers to mitigate NH's college population. I haven't done much research on this, but it's about time.
I think NH had different rules, partly because it was a primary and not a caucus, but now I'm getting out of my comfort zone.
So the ground rules were different, but so were the demographics.
Again, too – think about how small and NOT typical Iowa, NH and SC are. It's so odd to me, still, that they are the states setting the tone and pace. What would things be like if Ohio, Texas, Florida, NY and Calif. went first?