Chris Matthews interviewing Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) who's supporting Obama just noted that her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) is supporting Hillary Clinton. I'll note that it's pretty uncontroversial that Linda is the more liberal of the two. Maybe both sisters are just mixed up, but I don't think so.
« Less Jobs, More War | Main | McCain and the Base »
Sanchez v. Sanchez
29 Jan 2008 10:44 pm
Comments (31)
On a (slightly) related note, I once again repeat my simple formula that Obama needs at least 1/3 of the non-black vote to win the primary...
Given the momentum from the SC win AND the huge Kennedy endorsement coverage, I was curious about how he'd do in giant Florida.
Looks like he got around 25%, not remotely close. His numbers have been dropping pretty steadily since his Iowa peak.
The Obamabots can scream all they want, but unless something changes really, really quickly, he's a goner.
The fact that you're supporting a guy who's loved by David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan really seems to be getting to you. Seriously, who cares? People support candidates for a number of reasons, of which a shared ideology is only one.
The truth is that they're very similar in terms of their record.
In terms of endorsements, I've noticed that Obama may get some more support from the anti-war crowd and red-staters, while Hillary gets more of the establishment.
RKU, apparently you didn't pay much attention to the Iowa results or the New Hampshire results, instead focusing on the results in a state where no candidate campaigned, which of course will default to the candidate with the most name recognition who won among the voters who had made up their minds a long time ago and absentee voters, notably losing to Obama among those who made up their minds more recently.
Trust me, as someone on the front lines of campaigning in very white Iowa, race does not determine votes and certainly not all states vote alike.
I'd say that something more notable about Florida is that the youth turnout was remarkably low. If there is a demographic spread that has affected this race more than others, it is age, not race.
Florida looks to go about 50% Clinton, 33% Obama. That isn't too bad, considering: (1) nobody campaigned there and Clinton had a huge name recognition advantage; and (2) the turnout was heavily female and old, Clinton's best demographic.
Still, the polling numbers do not look that great right now for Obama going into Feb. 5, although there are some signs of tightening. We shall see.
Also, it looks like Obama did better than the polls suggested, and he did quite well among voters making their decision within the last week (beating Clinton in that category). So there are some positives for Obama to take away.
Chris Matthews talked to two women and didn't say anything obscene enough to mention?
The problem for Obama is that he won't get to campaign that much from here on out, so he won't be able to make up the deficit like he did in the 4 early states. Unless he gets a big boost like a Gore endorsement, he's almost certain to lose.
Looks like he got around 25%, not remotely close. His numbers have been dropping pretty steadily since his Iowa peak.
25% in a state with a significantly older population than most other states--as mentioned here, more than 60% were over 50, less than 10% were under 30.
there were no yard signs for any candidate here, no campaigning at all, really, except for the subrosa shit the Hillary team managed to whip up last minute ,to drive their AFSCME numbers. robocall-erific
Initiative #1 drove a lot of natural HRC voters to the poll to vote nay, but Obama voters (younger, more liberal) and Edwards voters (even more liberal)were less motivated to make sure #1 went down, and knew their votes were relatively meaningless, so no buzz or active GOTV.
feh! but of course Hill was here to claim "Victory!"
uh huh
Meng Bomin, Jesse M:
Look, it's easy to make case-by-case arguments against the "validity" of the numbers in any particular state. But we're now starting to get a pretty sizable sample of data points: Iowa, NH, Nevada, SC, and Florida.
Just take a moment and plot Obama's share of the non-black vote across all those different states...and consider the trajectory it's been following.
Super-Tuesday is in seven days. How much campaigning can Obama or any other candidate do in all those different states before then?
According to exit polls, 40% of voters in the Dem primary were 60 or older. I'm sure that the number would be higher if you look at only white voters. So I think that it is safe to say that Florida is unrepresentative of the country in ways that tend to favor Clinton.
RKU, what do you make of the poll out today showing CT tied (very white state) or Obama ahead within the margin of error in CO (very few blacks, quite a lot of Hispanics). White voters in different states often differ a lot from each other. So your argument isn't terribly strong.
You know, I haven't heard those Loretta Sanchez running for governor in 2008 rumors in a while. And I can't say I'm sorry. She wouldn't win, and she'd be a disaster if she did. I'd rather elevate a talented politician in my state, thank you.
I'm thinking Secretary of State Debra Bowen might be the best candidate for CA Governor in 2010. If Villaraigosa and Sanchez split the Latino vote, it could happen.
RKU - are you for real, or are you some kind of paid Clinton hack? Obama's non-black vote was 25% in South Carolina because it's a state in the deep south. It wasn't great in Florida because he didn't campaign there. No valid general conclusions about his ability to draw the white vote in, say, Missouri, or California, or Connecticut, can be drawn from these states.
Talk about a non-issue Matthew. You realize that siblings are not required to support the same candidate right?
This stuff is getting fucking annoying, The Obama movement on the net seems to be a mean spirited (ironic, no?) Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I've been supporting and voting for liberal Democrats since before you were born, you little pisher, and, judging from reading your blogs for several years, I am significantly to the left of you. And while Clinton is not my first choice (I would have preferred Edwards or Dodd), I have no problem supporting Clinton over Mr. Kumbaya. I guess I'm mixed up too.
I'm loving "name recognition" excuse from the Obama supporters. Last time I checked, folks in Florida had access to things like newspapers, magazines, television and the internet.
I had no idea that the voters in Florida lived in a bubble.
Me, I'm loving the whole "Floridians knew enough about the candidates" line from the Clinton people. Because it's true--campaigning has absolutely no effect on an electorate! Why politicians shouldn't even bother to, like, get out the vote and stuff. People have magazines, and teevee shows, and blogs. That's enough information for anybody.
Hey who did Bob Dornan endorse? Is anyone paying attention to that guy anymore?
I'm loving "name recognition" excuse from the Obama supporters. Last time I checked, folks in Florida had access to things like newspapers, magazines, television and the internet.
I had no idea that the voters in Florida lived in a bubble.
Makes you wonder why these candidates even bother to campaign, right? I mean, voters can all just look at the various candidates' websites and make a very educated, detached decision, right? It makes one wonder why they all waste so much time/money/health making these innumerable trips to the various provinces around the country.
Whatever.
Question: You are telling me that the 400,000+Obama voters will not vote for Hillary, the 200000+ Edwards voters will also sit it out and let McCain win? The electability notion is shot.
Quotes:
"He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman,
and they’re COOL people. They are really COOL. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy
when you see them together. They are COOL And they’re great-looking, and they’re COOL
and they’re young, and they’re - everything seems to be great....He may not win this thing
because everybody in America is not going to be in a room with him somewhere...
But if you’re in a room with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving."
-- Tweety the Screamer, President of the Obama is God Club, Link
Darn - it's too bad Hillary isn't COOL like Obama.
Are Latinos racist?
The Clinton strategy?
Having polarized blacks and whites, the Democratic primary campaign was already becoming sleazy. And now that Latinos have been added to the mix, it's become surreal.
We're being told that Latinos won't vote for Barack Obama because he's black. The implication is that Latinos are racist.
Sergio Bendixen, a Latino who conducts polls for Hillary Clinton, suggested during an interview with Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker that "the Hispanic voter - and I want to say this very carefully - has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates."
John B. Judis, writing in the New Republic, insisted that Latino voters could be a firewall for Hillary Clinton in part because of "a legacy of an older Latin American prejudice against blacks that has been transplanted to this country."
And, in the New York Times, Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer cited "a history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics, particularly as they have jockeyed for influence in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York."
Nagourney and Steinhauer neglected to mention that each of those cities have, in the past, elected black mayors who captured the majority of the Latino vote.
It's true that in most polls, Hillary Clinton has a 2-1 advantage with Latino voters over Barack Obama.
But does the Eastern media really expect us to buy the idea that the 44 million people who make up America's largest minority have a beef with African Americans? Does that include the Latinos who backed Obama in his campaigns in Illinois, and those who now support his presidential campaign? If anything, Latinos - especially those whose families have been in this country for generations - tend to have a keen understanding of racism, which makes them more likely to identify with the plight of African Americans.
Next thing you know, pundits are going to tell us that Latinos are too macho to elect a woman president.
There are plenty of reasons why Latinos might support Hillary Clinton. Her husband won two national elections in which he earned more than 60 percent of the Latino vote. She has racked up scores of endorsements from prominent Latino officials, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Not that there isn't racism in this election. That's the surreal part. There certainly is. But none of it involves Latinos. Rather, it's the kind that has been the most prevalent in U.S. history - whites versus blacks.
Things got really nasty in South Carolina, where former President Bill Clinton dealt a whole deck of race cards before - and even after - the vote. And yet Obama cruised to victory with more than 80 percent of black support and nearly a quarter of the white vote.
This, despite the ex-president's despicable efforts to scare off Obama's white supporters by trying to define the Illinois senator solely by race. Last week, a top adviser to the Clinton campaign acknowledged to a reporter from the Associated Press that the campaign's objective is to define Obama as "the black candidate."
And so, Bill Clinton tried to portray Obama as someone who draws his support almost exclusively from African Americans and speculated that South Carolinians would vote along racial lines. After the votes were cast, he took one last shot by comparing Obama's victory to those enjoyed in South Carolina by Jesse Jackson during his 1984 and 1988 presidential bids.
Hurricane Bill couldn't have done more damage to his wife's campaign if he had tried. Wait. Maybe he did. Maybe the plan was to write off South Carolina, knowing that black voters would turn out overwhelmingly for Obama. Then Hillary comes off as a victim of identity politics, and white and Latino voters become more sympathetic to her in future primaries.
An African American friend suggested to me recently that the Clinton campaign might be willing to swap black voters for Latinos. The Clintons could be counting on Latino voters to make up the votes they're losing from African Americans. It's possible.
In 1968, Richard Nixon embraced a Southern strategy that used the race issue to carve up the electorate and scare up support from white voters. Republicans turned to the strategy time and again until the South was largely in their hands.
Well, with Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and California all holding primaries or caucuses next week, this could be the Clintons' Southwestern strategy - an elaborate racial bank shot that is just as divisive and unsavory as its predecessor.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.'s e-mail address is ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/29/EDCDUO944.DTL
Next up, RKU claims his team's spring training victories are the same as winning the World Series.
The turnout on the Dem side was 1.5 times larger than the 2004 primary, in which the only race on the ballot was for the Senate election. So you can extrapolate whatever the heck you like from the exit polling -- I'll take away the fact that young voters didn't show up -- but you're still left with a data point that's a prima facie outlier.
If you want to keep milking that boar, go right on ahead. It's your judgement, just as it's our judgement to laugh at you.
If you need to see a campaign ad on television or watch a candidate answer softball questions in a town meeting in order to properly decide whether to support a candidate, then you are an idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote.
I just wanted to make explicit the implicit double standard in RKU's "analysis".
One could have, for example, noted that McCain's share of the "white vote" increased dramatically from Iowa to NH, whereas Huckabee's share of the "white vote" decreased dramatically from Iowa to NH.
But of course no one would do that. And in fact people would recognize that white voters in Iowa are not the same as white voters in NH, which explains how Huckabee can win Iowa while McCain wins NH. Indeed, people would not bother to insert the "white" in there, and would just note that voters in Iowa are not the same as voters in NH.
And actually, Obama's share of the "white vote" has been much less variable than, say, McCain or Huckabee's share of the "white vote". Moreover, although I haven't done this, I strongly suspect that if you controlled for age and gender, it would turn out to be even less variable.
So with the slight exception of South Carolina, where "favorite son" and former winner Edwards somewhat outperformed among white voters, it appears that Obama's performance among white voters has been remarkably consistent, not inconsistent, when compared to people like Huckabee or McCain. Hence my suggestion that RKU is implicitly relying on a double standard, meaning he or she is making much more out of small variations in Obama's "white vote" share than people ordinarily would with white candidates such as Huckabee or McCain.
Obama's non-black vote was 25% in South Carolina because it's a state in the deep south.
It's interesting to note that John Kerry only pulled in around 27 percent of the white vote in South Carolina's 2004 Democratic primary. That's only 3 percent better than Obama, and he was the clear frontrunner.
Moonlight,
Indeed. Of course, that just confirms that what is unique about white voters in SC is that they like John Edwards a lot more than most voters around the country, and the resulting shares for Kerry or Obama are just side-effects of that fact. Which is really not too surprising.
Hence my suggestion that RKU is implicitly relying on a double standard, meaning he or she is making much more out of small variations in Obama's "white vote" share than people ordinarily would with white candidates such as Huckabee or McCain.
RKU is also implying that white votes are more important than black votes, something most decent people find abhorrent.
Sanchez & Sanchez...sounds like a law firm specializing in illegal immigration cases.
Comments closed February 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Obama is more liberal than Clinton, so that makes sense.
Posted by Phoebe | January 29, 2008 10:51 PM