Josh Patashnik did a smart article on how Virginia may not be as favorable to Obama as the press seems to think. But then there's the matter of the Virginia polling which shows a big lead for Obama. It's not been a heavily polled state, so I'm not sure how much confidence you should have in the accuracy of those surveys, but they certainly seem to show that Virginians (other than my aunt Lisa) like Obama.
« Buyer's Remorse | Main | Awakening Versus the State »
Virginia Polls
10 Feb 2008 11:22 am
Comments (31)
Did Ben Smith address Patashnik's point about Obama's strength being situated among just 4 of the 11 districts, thus allowing Hillary to tie him or lead among delegates even if she loses the popular vote?
No, Smith doesn't address that.
There's a good blog post addressing it, though.
Basically, it goes through all the congressional districts. Obama and Clinton should split districts 1,2,5, and 6 (all 4 delegate districts); Obama wins 3,4,7,8,10, and 11, and Clinton wins 9. 31-23 lead for Obama predicted in the district by district results, plus a 18-11 victory in the at large delegates. The explanations at least seem to make sense.
Obama's people need to tell the press that regardless of the polls they see a very tight race in Virginia. Manage expectations.
Speaking of managing expectations here's today's surge news:
A car bomb killed 23 people and wounded another 25 in a market in the Iraqi town of Balad on Sunday, the U.S. military said.
The central problem with Patashnik's analysis is his conflation of income and education as useful predictive tools. This under-estimates the vast demographic differences between VA and MO/TN.
In 2004, college grads comprised 54% of the VA Dem primary electorate; in MO and TN, the %s were 33 and 35 respectively on Super Tuesday. The education gap is enormous. In MO, Obama won college-educated voters by 34 pts and lost non-college voters by 3. In TN, Obama won college-educated voters by 5 pts and lost non-college voters by 22 pts. The gap among whites is probably even larger -- African Americans are about 60% as likely as whites to hold a college degree and Obama wins African Americans by 65 pts, inflating his support in the non-college group.
A better comp to VA is GA, where 53% of voters held college degrees (though GA is home to a sig higher share of college-educated African-Americans than TN or MO). There, Obama lost the white vote by only 10 pts (53 to 43). And VA white Dems are even more progressive than GA white Dems. Obama's floor among white voters in VA is mid-40s and I wouldn't be surprised to see him eke out a narrow victory among white voters there and MD.
Obama will win VA by 15+ pts overall.
FWIW, the talking heads didn't seem to be discussing the landslide victories too much this morning. Seems team Clinton did a pretty good job managing expectations there.
It's a SurveyUSA poll. Believe it.
@ JAke
That's why I am skeptical of the February victories giving him anything in terms of momentum. The press has been repeating ad nauseam for weeks the february primaries are very favorable to Obama (to the point where they missed that some states are toss-ups like Wisconsin where a poll showed Obama lagging 19 points just last week). so that his victories won't mean much since they will be deemed expected.
That is why Ohio and Texas are key. Win one or even both of those is the press will treat as a huge upset since they are supposed to be Clinton's next firewall. Unlikely as things stand now ? Yes. But remember that there will be two weeks where Obama will be able to focus only on those states and that could be a chance to introduce himself more closely to voters there.
Why does everyone assume AA turnout will be the same for BHO as it was for Kerry in 2004?
I live in Northern Virginia, the very affluent white Loudoun County and have not been able to find one Hillary supporter in my neighborhood, my work, or on my drive. This is a county where Hillary is putting resources. In Tysons Corner on Saturday, there were people at intersections holding Obama signs and people honking.
People dont give enough credit to people living in the DC area and how they have to live with national politics as local news. The sense that I am getting is they are sick of the Clintons.
I live in Northern Virginia, the very affluent white Loudoun County and have not been able to find one Hillary supporter in my neighborhood, my work, or on my drive. This is a county where Hillary is putting resources. In Tysons Corner on Saturday, there were people at intersections holding Obama signs and people honking.
People dont give enough credit to people living in the DC area and how they have to live with national politics as local news. The sense that I am getting is they are sick of the Clintons.
That is why Ohio and Texas are key. Win one or even both of those is the press will treat as a huge upset since they are supposed to be Clinton's next firewall. Unlikely as things stand now ? Yes. But remember that there will be two weeks where Obama will be able to focus only on those states and that could be a chance to introduce himself more closely to voters there.
I know the conventional wisdom in the national media is that Clinton will take Texas. But I have my doubts. Clinton is setting up her base in San Antonio and focusing on south Texas and the border region to El Paso. Many of the cities along the border are 90+% Hispanic and she should do well there. But if south Texas had enough voters to carry the state then Texas politics would look a lot different than they do. Fact is that over 1/2 of the state's population lives within the greater Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth metro areas. Obama should do well in both areas--Both in the black inner-cities and the white predominantly Republican suburban and exurban areas like Plano and Katy. And Obama should do well in the smaller cities and towns throughout north and central Texas.
Forget the polls in Texas. There hasn't been a serious poll here since the fall when the full-slate of candidates was running and Clinton was commanding massive leads everywhere based on name recognition.
Kent - Austin should be good for Obama as well, I should think?
But I'd think Obama would need to cut into Clinton's massive majorities in the Latino vote to have a real chance. Clinton isn't going to do badly enough in the big suburbs to lose it if she wins the Latino vote by as much as she did in California, is she? Apparently the head of the Latino Caucus in the Texas legislature has just endorsed Obama - that ought to help some.
I'm a Hillary voter, but I like Obama very much. I'm surprised that the Hillary camp has not made a bigger deal of the caucus/primary dynamic. I heard Hillary give a speech the other day where she talked about "three nurses who said they want to caucus for me but they're working" type of thing. If this gets down to the wire, she needs to get *much* more comprehensive and scorched-earth with this line of reasoning if she's going to ultimately eek out the nomination. The fact of the matter is that the general election will be an election, NOT A CAUCUS. Even if Hillary doesn't do as well as expected in Texas, I won't be too worried, as I think a lot of the delegates are chosen by caucus (please correct me if this isn't the care). Don't get me wrong -- the fact that Obama can draw new voters and extremely enthusiastic caucus goers means that he has earned his place right next to Hillary and could ultimately string together a majority of delegates. The flip side of this, though, is -- how come with all of his money, all of his endorsements, all of his so-called "momentum," and all of his glowing press, he can't score a single sizable victory in a big non-southern primary state?
Just to report, I was helping out at a Hillary rally in Manassas (prince william county) this morning, and there was huge turnout and enthusiasm. Basicially a middle aged crowd, lot of women and non-black minorities, but 3000 people waiting for hours outside a junior high in a biting wind for a rally that wasn't scheduled till yesterday morning. I'm sure Obama can do the same in Alexandria, and no predictions, but I'd expect a very big turnout Tuesday.
BTW, I'm a Republican who thinks McCain is crazy.
Ryan,
Hillary (and her supporters) have been arguing for a while that both open primaries are too inclusive but caucuses are too exclusive. They say that blacks are too Democratic but white male independents aren't Democratic enough.
They argue that Obama wins states that are too blue and too red and too purple. When Obama wins amongst white and black voters (like CA), they argue that he needs to win sizable majorities of Asians and Hispanics too.
It's nothing more than moving the goalposts.
Hillary started off with a massive lead in name recognition, funding, institutional support and organization of the primary season. If she can't pull out a commanding win over a black man with a funny name, with all of those inherent advantages, I don't see how she has any real chance in the general after disenfranching half of the base.
HRC as Goldilocks:
Your vote is too black. Your vote is too white. My vote is just right.
Your vote is too liberal. Your vote is too independent. My vote is just right.
You spent too much money in this state. You spent too much time in that state. Of course I didn't win votes based solely on name recognition.
You're not black enough. You're too black. As a proud woman with 35 years of experience, I would never depend on identity politics for votes.
Ben -- There's a bunch of strawmen there -- I agree that many of those arguments have been made and that they're ridiculous. My point was specifically about caucuses v. primaries. Obviously, Hillary consistently losing caucuses is not inherently unfair. She knew as well as anyone that a lot of delegates are chosen through the caucus process. But there is a broader point to be made about the fact that primaries more closely approximate actual elections (where people can go at any point over 12 hours or so and vote secretly). I think that to have any chance of winning, Hillary needs to actually de-legitimize the very notion of caucuses. I mean, sure, that's moving the goalposts, but I don't think that position (if she chooses to take it) is completely void of any merit.
I honestly think we are past the point where serious momentum effects from individual contests are possible, in part because both candidates have won plenty of contests.
Of course, if it becomes clear one or the other is going to win the nomination, then we could probably expect the usual cascade effect (although interestingly the GOP appears to be denying McCain such an effect). But until that point, I think it is really just about the candidates and their campaigns in the individual contests.
Hillary needs to actually de-legitimize the very notion of caucuses. I mean, sure, that's moving the goalposts, but I don't think that position (if she chooses to take it) is completely void of any merit.
It is true that Hillary and her surrogates can frame the debate however they want. We have seen that they have and will do whatever it takes to win.
Caucuses select for motivated and organized voters. A few people won't be able to attend, but they are scheduled so that most people can. If Hillary voters aren't motivated enough about their candidate to spend an hour (or sometimes less) on a weekend afternoon to express their support, then maybe that says something about their candidate.
You could also argue that primaries include many low-information voters and early voting in those primaries prevents candidates from completely making their case. Both of these benefit the establishmen candidate with name recognition. Should Obama try to de-legitimize primaries? I imagine he won't because he wouldn't want to disenfranchise voters.
I think a reasonable argument can be made against caucuses, although part of me actually likes them.
But in any event, this is the worst possible time to be raising this issue (since the Democrats are in the middle of the nomination process), and of course Clinton is the worst possible person to be making that argument (since she has recently discovered a personal interest in not having caucuses).
That is why Ohio and Texas are key. Win one or even both of those is the press will treat as a huge upset since they are supposed to be Clinton's next firewall. Unlikely as things stand now ? Yes. But remember that there will be two weeks where Obama will be able to focus only on those states and that could be a chance to introduce himself more closely to voters there.
I know the conventional wisdom in the national media is that Clinton will take Texas. But I have my doubts. Clinton is setting up her base in San Antonio and focusing on south Texas and the border region to El Paso. Many of the cities along the border are 90+% Hispanic and she should do well there. But if south Texas had enough voters to carry the state then Texas politics would look a lot different than they do. Fact is that over 1/2 of the state's population lives within the greater Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth metro areas. Obama should do well in both areas--Both in the black inner-cities and the white predominantly Republican suburban and exurban areas like Plano and Katy. And Obama should do well in the smaller cities and towns throughout north and central Texas.
Forget the polls in Texas. There hasn't been a serious poll here since the fall when the full-slate of candidates was running and Clinton was commanding massive leads everywhere based on name recognition.
That is why Ohio and Texas are key. Win one or even both of those is the press will treat as a huge upset since they are supposed to be Clinton's next firewall. Unlikely as things stand now ? Yes. But remember that there will be two weeks where Obama will be able to focus only on those states and that could be a chance to introduce himself more closely to voters there.
I know the conventional wisdom in the national media is that Clinton will take Texas. But I have my doubts. Clinton is setting up her base in San Antonio and focusing on south Texas and the border region to El Paso. Many of the cities along the border are 90+% Hispanic and she should do well there. But if south Texas had enough voters to carry the state then Texas politics would look a lot different than they do. Fact is that over 1/2 of the state's population lives within the greater Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth metro areas. Obama should do well in both areas--Both in the black inner-cities and the white predominantly Republican suburban and exurban areas like Plano and Katy. And Obama should do well in the smaller cities and towns throughout north and central Texas.
Forget the polls in Texas. There hasn't been a serious poll here since the fall when the full-slate of candidates was running and Clinton was commanding massive leads everywhere based on name recognition.
Kent -- I think I read somewhere that Texas delegate allocation is done in a complicated hybrid primary/caucus system. So Hillary's (perceived) demographic advantages might be outweighed by her caucus weakness. Do you have more details on this?
Ryan,
75% of the delegates are based on votes (held all day) awarded by CD based on voting patterns in 2004 and 2006. The remaining 25% of the delegates are awarded based on a caucus held immediately after the polls close.
Thank you!
tnr's article about Obama's potentially bad chances in Hawaii seem more convincing.
I just got back from an Obama event in VA Beach, and the convention center was filled to capacity (approx. 18,000 people was the number I heard). I was volunteering inside, but an hour before the event started, the line to get in was still literally wrapped around the block and then some, and I know that many people were turned away when the hall finally filled.
Hillary has very little organization here, at least in the Hampton Roads area, while the Obama camp has operations set up all over the place. My county Dem organization has struggled to find a local contact for Hillary volunteers, and there are Obama volunteers everywhere, with more are joining every day.
I think that to have any chance of winning, Hillary needs to actually de-legitimize the very notion of caucuses. I mean, sure, that's moving the goalposts, but I don't think that position (if she chooses to take it) is completely void of any merit.
For what it's worth, I tend to think that a no-holds-barred effort to delegitimize the process by which our party's nominee is chosen is an incredible self-destructive tactic. Talk about your Pyrrhic victories.
Posted by Ryan | February 10, 2008 2:50 PM
Ryan...your point about the Clintons making a big deal about caucus -v- primary would be a lot more effective if the Clintons won more primaries...they don't. Each candidate has won 9. Obama is ahead in the popular vote. Obama is ahead in the delegate vote.
You really think those 400,000 Californians out of 4 million who voted for Clinton won't vote Dem in the general?
Comments closed February 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Ben Smith had a pretty good post at his Politico blog (before all those polls came out) about why Patashnik was wrong, and Obama should win Virginia.
Basically, there are two points.
Firstly, given the usual share of the black vote in Democratic primaries in Virginia, and the share of the Black vote Obama's been getting virtually everywhere, Obama only needs to win 36% of the white vote to win the state.
Secondly, there is every reason to believe that Obama will get way more than 36% of the white vote in Virginia. 36% is worse than he did in Georgia, and Virginia features a lot more educated, high income whites of the kind that tend to like Obama.
The polls basically bear this out, showing Obama about splitting the white vote and winning the black vote by enormous margins. There's no particular reason to be suspicious of them, because they say about what one would expect them to.
Posted by John | February 10, 2008 11:39 AM