CA Field Poll: Clinton By 12

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:19:33 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Hillary Clinton maintains her double digit lead in California in the highly respected Field Poll (think the DMR poll in Iowa). The problem Obama has remains the same, women, Latinos and working class Democrats:

Hillary Clinton’s lead over Barack Obama in California now stands at 12 percentage points – 39% to 27%, with 14% preferring other candidates and a relatively large proportion (20%) of likely voters undecided. Clinton’s lead is largest among women, Latinos, lower income voters, non-college graduates, and seniors. Conversely, Obama is preferred among blacks, college graduates and Democratic primary voters with household incomes of $80,000 or more. Clinton and Obama run about even among men, liberals, and white non-Hispanics.

He needs to find a way to crack this problem, or he has virtually no chance of winning the nomination. His expected win in South Carolina is not likely to come from the type of winning demographic that will work in California or other 2/5 states.

< Supreme Court Bars Inmate Suit for Destruction or Disappearance of Quran | United Farmworkers Union to Endorse Hillary Today >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CA Field Poll: Clinton By 12 | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I am really (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST

anxious to see a new national poll after all this has happened....I do think that the MSM's erroneous critique will backfire for them and Hillary will pick up alot of women that are sick of that kind of attitude toward women....What struck me last night as the candidates entered the hall, was a thunderous applause for Obama and then when Hillary entered applause and lots and lots of older black women in the audience stood up...It was quite inspiring to me as I am an older woman as well...

This morning in Washington D.C. (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:50:18 AM EST

Hillary Clinton bascially sd. Barack Obama arrived at this debate itching for a fight.


: Looks that way.... (none / 0) (#14)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:57:20 AM EST

Well, as they say be careful of what you wish for ......

Spiegel Article (none / 0) (#1)
by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:27:42 AM EST

My husband read to me yesterday a German magazine article about the Nevada primary. The guy made a great point, that the young are ignited by Obama. But that he does not resonate among three groups: women, older people and latinos. Frankly, I think our only hope to beat the republicans will be a joint ticket, hope they don't beat each other to a pulp on the way.

: It does not necessarily follow (none / 0) (#59)
by felizarte on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:21:04 AM EST

that supporters of Obama will refuse to vote for Hillary if she were the nominee, and vice versa; or if Edwards becomes the nominee. I think that democrats are united in the idea of changing the direction in which the country is going.

"Looking quite racist" (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM EST

what do you base that opinion on?

Hillary (none / 0) (#4)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:32:38 AM EST

coming back really hard today on you tube

: You are amazing; now linking to (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST

You Tube!

Latinos Racist? (none / 0) (#5)
by xjt on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:36:04 AM EST

DA in LA says the Latino vote is "looking quite racist." That's a very nasty accusation. Please back it up with some facts.

It's very disturbing to think that anyone who doesn't support Obama is going to be called a racist by his supporters. I think that kind of talk will backfire.

: DA in LA says he is not an (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST

Obama supporter. But I also asked him for the basis of that opinion.

: Everone needs to know (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:38:32 AM EST

that type of comment is not allowed here.
I deleted Da in LA's comment.

Disagree (none / 0) (#7)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:37:14 AM EST

about your remark about Latinos as I think they just dont vote as a block as much as blacks do...They seem to be more prone to vote either party depending on the issues....In Miami they have been republican in recent years.....but have been slowly turning democratic lately I think

DA in LA (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:37:24 AM EST

I have deleted your comment.

It is not acceptable here.

Thanks Oculus!! (none / 0) (#11)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:38:48 AM EST

thanks Oculus, you were a great teacher on links...lol....

Sorry (none / 0) (#15)
by DA in LA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST

Just going by what Clinton's people say:

"The Hispanic voter--and I want to say this very carefully--has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."

--Clinton pollster Sergio Bendixen

He did NOT say they were racist (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST

ad he is also wrong.


He is wrong (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM EST

And if you read about the 15 year history of racial redistricting, you'd know he's wrong. Except for Florida, if you have a 45/35/20 (Black, Hispanic, White) district, there's a very good chance that you'll end up with a black congressman.


I don't follow your argument. (none / 0) (#19)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST

Using the numbers you cited, it sounds like both white and hispanic voters tend to vote anti-black. Your numbers show that you need to have a near-majority black district in order to get an African American elected. If 35% of voters are hispanic and they even split evenly between a white and black candidate, you'd only need 39% of the population to be black to elect a black candidate.

Am I missing something?


You read me incorrectly (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST

It's the essence of majority-minority: you could even have a 30/15/55 district and easily end up with a black representative. Hispanics will vote for blacks.

Now, it happens to be much more difficult to guarantee a hispanic representative, but that likely has more to do with registration and citizenship than race.


Again. . . (none / 0) (#22)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST

your numbers indicate that you'd need a reasonable number of white voters and few if any hispanics to attain the goal.

I think much recent history indicates that the comment made by the pollster is, in fact, correct. As BTD pointed out, he made no allegations of racism but I think it is true at the very least that there's no particular affinity between black candidates and hispanic voters (and vice versa) notwithstanding the continuing belief in a "rainbow coalition".


I prefer (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:42:15 PM EST

Gorgeous Mosaic.

You remember that one?


Yes, I remember. . . (none / 0) (#28)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:47:09 PM EST

the gorgeous mosaic. I believe it lasted one term.


Thanks to Cuomo (none / 0) (#29)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:00:33 PM EST

Well, I wasn't factoring. . . (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM EST

this particular case into my analysis one way or the other, but I have been told by someone reasonably close to the situation that it is at least perceived that hispanic voters deserted the Democratic incumbent in that case in sufficient numbers to ensure his loss.

I trust I've kept this sufficiently obscure to prevent anyone else reading it from knowing what we're talking about.


: No (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:51:15 PM EST

Increased turnout in Staten Island was what did us in.

Except that, in districts like that (none / 0) (#32)
by andgarden on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST

at the end of the day the black candidate wins with 70-90% of the vote, attracting support from just about everyone.


well (none / 0) (#16)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:09:24 PM EST

No they don't vote just for skin color they are thinking people and vote the issues....big difference....

I think (none / 0) (#20)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:41:34 PM EST

that anyone that votes for skin color is a dummy....for example....suppose McCain picked a black running mate....then you would have to become a republican in order to follow that stupid way of thinking....Doesnt make sense....It is the issues!!!!

: Dummies? (none / 0) (#24)
by squeaky on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM EST

Anyone that voted for Dubya is a dummy in my book. There are lots out there. And just like people may imagine skin color predicts what kind of leader they will be, policy rhetoric is not the greatest indicator either.
Remember the:
"I'm a uniter not a divider", line before the election.

May 6, 1999 | I like George Bush. He has a strong set of core convictions, including a significant religious faith, but he is also genuinely tolerant, open and warm-hearted toward people with whom he disagrees.
David Horowitz Salon
Two years later it morphed into his true sentiment about all things " You're either with us or against us".

On My Local NPR Station (none / 0) (#23)
by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:03:04 PM EST

The Field Poll guy said voters agreed that Obama was the "change" candidate. Clinton, however, was strong in other areas, such as "who best represents Democratic values."

i for one hope we all vote for (none / 0) (#25)
by hellothere on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:10:45 PM EST

whom we think is the best candidate regardless of gender or skin color. having said that, i suspect that instead of racism being a motivator, economic concerns might just be a more probable indicator. and there seems to have been competition in the past for larger pieces of the pie.

I didnt say that was the only dummy out there (none / 0) (#26)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST

there are tons of dummies but the subject at hand was voting for skin color....

He doesn't need to win Cali--just make it (none / 0) (#31)
by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:08:54 PM EST

close and respectable.

If the delegate count is close, that's all he needs.

Super Tuesday will not decide the nomination.

He needs to do better in the demos (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:50:22 PM EST

I am discussing.


Eh. I can do numbers and war gaming. (none / 0) (#38)
by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:34:34 PM EST

What makes women and Hispanic voters tick, as opposed to black men, is beyond my comprehension.


Do have a good read on any of these (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST

three "groups"?


No, not a clue. (none / 0) (#40)
by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:52:36 PM EST

What I meant was that I don't know what makes any demographic tick. I can look at polling, but that's about it.


: Thanks. Me neither, which is why (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:13:59 PM EST

I think South Carolina's results will be quite interesting.

I'm Not So Sure About That (none / 0) (#35)
by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:52:07 PM EST

I think if Obama can stay close in Florida and in the 2/5 states generally, but especially California, then he's still in it.

If Clinton starts racking up wins by a decent margin, say 10%, in populous states like Florida, California, New Jersey (I'm discounting New York and Illinois, which are their home states), then I think regardless of how the delegates break, Obama is going to start feeling pressure to drop out after February 5th. Just as, even though Clinton was close in Iowa in terms of delegates, she still had to say that she was only in it for sure until 2/5.

I don't think the Democratic party wants to see the kind of bitter primary that's started to develop over the past couple of weeks continue any longer than it has to. If the trend on February 5th has Clinton winning more of the popular vote and puts her ahead by a decent margin, I think the pressure will come very fast on Obama. I think that will be true even if he could technically still win the nomination.

Obama has to win all the states he's expected to win and be incredibly close in Florida and California to survive Super Tuesday, IMO. I think it's unlikely he can put her away on February 5, although anything is possible. If he could somehow beat her in California, then I think he re-emerges as the frontrunner.


Are you predicting he'll yield to pressure (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST

to drop out if Clinton is 10% or more ahead of Obama after the Feb. 5 primaries?


Florida doesn't count. (none / 0) (#37)
by Geekesque on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:32:08 PM EST

No one's campaigning there, delegates don't count.

The key will be the smaller states. There are 22 of 'em on Super Tuesday. If he wins a majority of those and keeps the delegate total close, he's in pretty good shape.


I disagree (none / 0) (#43)
by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST

I think it was easy to discount Michigan because his name wasn't on the ballot. His name will be on the ballot in Florida and while candidates haven't done specific campaigning, I believe Florida has access to national coverage, which has been significant, including a gazillion debates.

If he loses Florida that means he will only have won the popular vote in Iowa and South Carolina compared to Clinton winning in NH, Michigan, Nevada, and Florida. Add in a big Super Tuesday for her and I think he's in real trouble. It starts to look like Clinton is winning across the country and in large states. Delegates will matter less than the perception that he's Democratic voters second choice.

Also I think, as a practical matter, Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated at the convention and that's going to give her a delegate edge above and beyond whatever the official tally is.

Finally, I don't think Obama is helping himself by saying things like

I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is can she get the people who voted for me? And I think that describes sort of one of the choices that people have, just a practical choice, as they move forward.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't some sort of blackmail. Having said that, I don't think it's at all clear that Obama can even turn out his voters. The young vote has been on the slide since Iowa. If Clinton can win the hispanic vote in Florida and California the same way that she did in Nevada, I think she starts to put together an argument that her coalition is broader and more reliable - women, hispanics, working class and low income voters, and the elderly. And that she's turning these folks out in greater numbers than Obama is and that many of her voters are also first time voters.


Smacks a tad of encouraging (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:19:25 PM EST

Hillary hate.


Maybe (none / 0) (#46)
by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:31:16 PM EST

I fully expect him to make this argument, but I think the Obama people are overly confident in their ability to draw in Clinton's supporters. After I posted that I read Ezra Klein and he says it better than I could. Basically, there's no reason to think Obama would inherently be able to hang on to some of Clinton's demos (lower income white, hispanics) than Clinton will be able to appeal to independents. We don't know, although I understand why his campaign would try to make that argument, but I think it's unclear at best.

To the extent that the primaries and caucuses are being driven by turnout, which appears to be the case, so far Clinton has been able to turn out more voters than Obama in two of the three contested states. And I think it is true that the Democrats who are voting for her now are more likely to show up and support her in November than independents or Republicans who might be crossing over to vote for Obama in a primary or caucus. Even if you assume that Clinton couldn't win those folks over in as large a number as Obama, I'm not sure you can assume that all of those folks will still support Obama in November. Those folks might or might not stick with Obama in November, depending on the Republican nominee and what happens in the GE.


: OF course, I still suspect (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:03:15 PM EST

bad motives on the art of those Republicans who vote for any Dem. in the primary.

New Poll (none / 0) (#42)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM EST

big states poll, very interesting.....

How could I have missed that (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:18:48 PM EST

Edwards is a native son of Alabama?


native son (none / 0) (#48)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:50:09 PM EST

he is a native son of South Carolina....Pretty sure at least...


Hye, its your link, not mine. (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:55:38 PM EST

: From John Edwards website: (none / 0) (#50)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:00:43 PM EST

John is a self-made man who was born in Seneca, South Carolina and raised in Robbins, North Carolina, a small town in the Piedmont.

Democratic Death Wish (none / 0) (#47)
by diogenes on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:47:27 PM EST

Obama runs even among nonHispanic whites, is much preferred by independents, and the Democrats seem to be rushing to nominate Hillary?

It feels so very familiar (none / 0) (#53)
by DA in LA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:03:28 PM EST

: How So (none / 0) (#57)
by BDB on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:50:27 PM EST

Wasn't Kerry supposed to be the candidate who would win over independents with his war record? Dean was the angry guy nobody would vote for. Of course, for all I know, Dean would've done worse than Kerry.
That's the thing about electability arguments, nobody knows anything about what the country will look like ten months from now. And even if the nominee loses, it doesn't mean that a different candidate would have necessarily done better.
You think Obama can reach independents. Maybe you're right. But maybe after ten months in the GOP smear machine, Obama has lost some of that luster ala Kerry and he loses because he can't win the percentage of indys he needed to make up for his inability to turn out parts of the Democratic base in large numbers, like blue collar and older voters.
Maybe Hillary gets killed in November because she can't bring in independents. Or maybe ten months from now, indys still vote for her because they like her better than the GOP nominee. Or maybe she doesn't need as many indys because she can turnout large number of women and hispanic voters.
Who knows? This is why I think the electability argument is largely useless. A lot can happen to any of the candidates - Dem and GOP - in ten months. Who would've guessed Kerry would get smeared for his Vietnam war record?

Even with who? (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:24:41 PM EST

He trails Hillary among Dems and Republicans in a GE.

You simply so not know what you are talking about.


mistake? (none / 0) (#51)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:01:51 PM EST

lol I dont know what you mean Oculus...Did I make a mistake with the link?

The link is fine; but the text in the link (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:05:53 PM EST

says Edwards is a native of Alabama.


: ohhhhhhhhhhhh didnt notice that lol...... (none / 0) (#55)
by athyrio on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:08:00 PM EST

Mea culpa. "son of the south." (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:08:50 PM EST