Election Night: Unity 2008

Share:

For one night at least, Davis Democrats were just Davis Democrats. Friend and foe. Adversary and ally alike shed their labels and lined up under the big tent. Democrats got together last night at Lamppost Pizza for the Yolo County Young Democrats Election Night Party.

For local Democrats, races are officially on. Proposition 93 was defeated at last count 53-46. That means that Lois Wolk, although she faces no primary challenge, will face the fight of her life when she takes on fellow Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. Supervisor Mariko Yamada and West Sacramento Mayor Christopher both were at the party last night and will square off for the Democratic nomination for the 8th Assembly District. The winner will almost certainly be the next Assembly representative in the heavily Democratic District. Jim Provenza and John Ferrera will square off for the open 4th Supervisorial District currently held by Ms. Yamada.

The shocker is the national results however. Senator Hillary Clinton won the biggest prize of California, currently 52-42. But Barack Obama won more states, as of last count 13 with New Mexico still too close to call although Senator Obama leads narrowly. The popular vote is nearly evenly split. The delegate count far from decided, but most likely also evenly split. Most pundits had felt the best Senator Obama would do would be 7 to 9 states. So he outperformed expectations there. On the other hand, it seemed many felt that he could take California, but that was never a context.

That leaves amazingly enough the Democratic nomination completely up for grabs. Pundits argued that Senator Obama did not have to win the election outright last night, if he stayed close he would have the momentum and resources to win a prolonged battle. That will be put to a test now as the races move on past Super Tuesday no closer it seems to a winner.

The same cannot be said for the Republicans. Though hardcore conservatives railed against him, Senator John McCain won every single big prize last night, most of them winner-takes-all states. The biggest loser was former Governor Mitt Romney. And Governor Mike Huckabee won some Southern contests playing a spoiler roll for Gov. Romney. That nomination is all but sewn up for McCain, and we shall see if the party can unite behind him.

Meanwhile for Davis and Yolo County, it is game on. Just under four months until the election for the Democratic nominees for Senate and Assembly, and the non-partisan but heated battles for Supervisor and City Council.

For one night though, it seemed like everyone was on the same side.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

36 thoughts on “Election Night: Unity 2008”

  1. Rich Rifkin

    Pundits argued that Senator Obama did not have to win the election outright last night, if he stayed close he would have the momentum and resources to win a prolonged battle.

    By making it a tie last night, Senator Obama was the winner.

    Consider the next set of votes, all on February 9: a primary in Louisiana, where the large black vote should favor Obama; caucuses in Nebraska and Washington also favor Obama, as that format brings out the passionate Democrats, most of whom favor Obama; and a primary in the Virgin Islands, where Obama is the heavy favorite.

    On Feb 10, there is a caucus in Maine. And then on the 12th, there are primaries in DC, Maryland and Virginia. All 3 primaries favor Obama.

    February finishes on the 19th with a caucus in Obama’s original home state, Hawaii, and a primary in Wisconsin. Obama should win both of those.

    Obama will not have enough delegates to claim the nomination at the end of February. However, he will have enough of a lead (in regular delegates*), that all he will need to do is finish a close second in the remaining states to obtain a majority.

    “That nomination is all but sewn up for McCain, and we shall see if the party can unite behind him.”

    I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today? Clearly, the hard right hates McCain. Even in the states McCain has won, such as California and Florida and his home state of Arizona, he has not won a majority of the Republican vote, just a plurality. In a heads up race, I think Mike Huckabee could be a formidible challenger to McCain. Unlike with the Democratic Party, most Republican contests are winner take all. That allows a challenger to catch up much faster. McCain at this point only has about half of the delegates he needs. If he goes one-on-one with Huckabee, and the majority of anti-McCain Republicans coalesce around his opponent, McCain could lose.

    I realize the Romney-drops-out scenario is unlikely. But if it happens, I think Huckabee would be a favorite in most of the remaining states and might just have enough delegates to either win the nomination or prevent McCain from winning it.

    * The Democrats have a lot of superdelegates, who are largely elected officials with a vote at their national convention. Currently, about two-thirds of them are pledged to Hillary. If Obama only wins by a small margin of the regular delegates, the superdelegates could put Senator Clinton over the top and give her the nomination. And if that happens, John McCain will be the next president, as the Obama supporters in large numbers will feel they were ripped off and won’t work for her election in November.

  2. Rich Rifkin

    Pundits argued that Senator Obama did not have to win the election outright last night, if he stayed close he would have the momentum and resources to win a prolonged battle.

    By making it a tie last night, Senator Obama was the winner.

    Consider the next set of votes, all on February 9: a primary in Louisiana, where the large black vote should favor Obama; caucuses in Nebraska and Washington also favor Obama, as that format brings out the passionate Democrats, most of whom favor Obama; and a primary in the Virgin Islands, where Obama is the heavy favorite.

    On Feb 10, there is a caucus in Maine. And then on the 12th, there are primaries in DC, Maryland and Virginia. All 3 primaries favor Obama.

    February finishes on the 19th with a caucus in Obama’s original home state, Hawaii, and a primary in Wisconsin. Obama should win both of those.

    Obama will not have enough delegates to claim the nomination at the end of February. However, he will have enough of a lead (in regular delegates*), that all he will need to do is finish a close second in the remaining states to obtain a majority.

    “That nomination is all but sewn up for McCain, and we shall see if the party can unite behind him.”

    I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today? Clearly, the hard right hates McCain. Even in the states McCain has won, such as California and Florida and his home state of Arizona, he has not won a majority of the Republican vote, just a plurality. In a heads up race, I think Mike Huckabee could be a formidible challenger to McCain. Unlike with the Democratic Party, most Republican contests are winner take all. That allows a challenger to catch up much faster. McCain at this point only has about half of the delegates he needs. If he goes one-on-one with Huckabee, and the majority of anti-McCain Republicans coalesce around his opponent, McCain could lose.

    I realize the Romney-drops-out scenario is unlikely. But if it happens, I think Huckabee would be a favorite in most of the remaining states and might just have enough delegates to either win the nomination or prevent McCain from winning it.

    * The Democrats have a lot of superdelegates, who are largely elected officials with a vote at their national convention. Currently, about two-thirds of them are pledged to Hillary. If Obama only wins by a small margin of the regular delegates, the superdelegates could put Senator Clinton over the top and give her the nomination. And if that happens, John McCain will be the next president, as the Obama supporters in large numbers will feel they were ripped off and won’t work for her election in November.

  3. Rich Rifkin

    Pundits argued that Senator Obama did not have to win the election outright last night, if he stayed close he would have the momentum and resources to win a prolonged battle.

    By making it a tie last night, Senator Obama was the winner.

    Consider the next set of votes, all on February 9: a primary in Louisiana, where the large black vote should favor Obama; caucuses in Nebraska and Washington also favor Obama, as that format brings out the passionate Democrats, most of whom favor Obama; and a primary in the Virgin Islands, where Obama is the heavy favorite.

    On Feb 10, there is a caucus in Maine. And then on the 12th, there are primaries in DC, Maryland and Virginia. All 3 primaries favor Obama.

    February finishes on the 19th with a caucus in Obama’s original home state, Hawaii, and a primary in Wisconsin. Obama should win both of those.

    Obama will not have enough delegates to claim the nomination at the end of February. However, he will have enough of a lead (in regular delegates*), that all he will need to do is finish a close second in the remaining states to obtain a majority.

    “That nomination is all but sewn up for McCain, and we shall see if the party can unite behind him.”

    I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today? Clearly, the hard right hates McCain. Even in the states McCain has won, such as California and Florida and his home state of Arizona, he has not won a majority of the Republican vote, just a plurality. In a heads up race, I think Mike Huckabee could be a formidible challenger to McCain. Unlike with the Democratic Party, most Republican contests are winner take all. That allows a challenger to catch up much faster. McCain at this point only has about half of the delegates he needs. If he goes one-on-one with Huckabee, and the majority of anti-McCain Republicans coalesce around his opponent, McCain could lose.

    I realize the Romney-drops-out scenario is unlikely. But if it happens, I think Huckabee would be a favorite in most of the remaining states and might just have enough delegates to either win the nomination or prevent McCain from winning it.

    * The Democrats have a lot of superdelegates, who are largely elected officials with a vote at their national convention. Currently, about two-thirds of them are pledged to Hillary. If Obama only wins by a small margin of the regular delegates, the superdelegates could put Senator Clinton over the top and give her the nomination. And if that happens, John McCain will be the next president, as the Obama supporters in large numbers will feel they were ripped off and won’t work for her election in November.

  4. Rich Rifkin

    Pundits argued that Senator Obama did not have to win the election outright last night, if he stayed close he would have the momentum and resources to win a prolonged battle.

    By making it a tie last night, Senator Obama was the winner.

    Consider the next set of votes, all on February 9: a primary in Louisiana, where the large black vote should favor Obama; caucuses in Nebraska and Washington also favor Obama, as that format brings out the passionate Democrats, most of whom favor Obama; and a primary in the Virgin Islands, where Obama is the heavy favorite.

    On Feb 10, there is a caucus in Maine. And then on the 12th, there are primaries in DC, Maryland and Virginia. All 3 primaries favor Obama.

    February finishes on the 19th with a caucus in Obama’s original home state, Hawaii, and a primary in Wisconsin. Obama should win both of those.

    Obama will not have enough delegates to claim the nomination at the end of February. However, he will have enough of a lead (in regular delegates*), that all he will need to do is finish a close second in the remaining states to obtain a majority.

    “That nomination is all but sewn up for McCain, and we shall see if the party can unite behind him.”

    I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today? Clearly, the hard right hates McCain. Even in the states McCain has won, such as California and Florida and his home state of Arizona, he has not won a majority of the Republican vote, just a plurality. In a heads up race, I think Mike Huckabee could be a formidible challenger to McCain. Unlike with the Democratic Party, most Republican contests are winner take all. That allows a challenger to catch up much faster. McCain at this point only has about half of the delegates he needs. If he goes one-on-one with Huckabee, and the majority of anti-McCain Republicans coalesce around his opponent, McCain could lose.

    I realize the Romney-drops-out scenario is unlikely. But if it happens, I think Huckabee would be a favorite in most of the remaining states and might just have enough delegates to either win the nomination or prevent McCain from winning it.

    * The Democrats have a lot of superdelegates, who are largely elected officials with a vote at their national convention. Currently, about two-thirds of them are pledged to Hillary. If Obama only wins by a small margin of the regular delegates, the superdelegates could put Senator Clinton over the top and give her the nomination. And if that happens, John McCain will be the next president, as the Obama supporters in large numbers will feel they were ripped off and won’t work for her election in November.

  5. Anonymous

    Oh, please. All Hillary has to do, if she is the nominee, is just plaster the media with that photo of McCain hugging Bush. Then the whole thing is over. Bush’s numbers are terrible, and Democrats will do anything to keep another Republican from winning.

  6. Anonymous

    Oh, please. All Hillary has to do, if she is the nominee, is just plaster the media with that photo of McCain hugging Bush. Then the whole thing is over. Bush’s numbers are terrible, and Democrats will do anything to keep another Republican from winning.

  7. Anonymous

    Oh, please. All Hillary has to do, if she is the nominee, is just plaster the media with that photo of McCain hugging Bush. Then the whole thing is over. Bush’s numbers are terrible, and Democrats will do anything to keep another Republican from winning.

  8. Anonymous

    Oh, please. All Hillary has to do, if she is the nominee, is just plaster the media with that photo of McCain hugging Bush. Then the whole thing is over. Bush’s numbers are terrible, and Democrats will do anything to keep another Republican from winning.

  9. Sue Greenwald

    Speaking as a Democrat, I just hope that the super delegates put aside their insider routines, and really analyze who can win against McCain in November.

    Remember, McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.

    I believe that Obama is more electable in November, for many reasons.

    It is important to remember that McCain is a formidable candidate. He comes across as personable, candid and genuine. And nationally, almost one third of voters are independents.

  10. Sue Greenwald

    Speaking as a Democrat, I just hope that the super delegates put aside their insider routines, and really analyze who can win against McCain in November.

    Remember, McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.

    I believe that Obama is more electable in November, for many reasons.

    It is important to remember that McCain is a formidable candidate. He comes across as personable, candid and genuine. And nationally, almost one third of voters are independents.

  11. Sue Greenwald

    Speaking as a Democrat, I just hope that the super delegates put aside their insider routines, and really analyze who can win against McCain in November.

    Remember, McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.

    I believe that Obama is more electable in November, for many reasons.

    It is important to remember that McCain is a formidable candidate. He comes across as personable, candid and genuine. And nationally, almost one third of voters are independents.

  12. Sue Greenwald

    Speaking as a Democrat, I just hope that the super delegates put aside their insider routines, and really analyze who can win against McCain in November.

    Remember, McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.

    I believe that Obama is more electable in November, for many reasons.

    It is important to remember that McCain is a formidable candidate. He comes across as personable, candid and genuine. And nationally, almost one third of voters are independents.

  13. Rich Rifkin

    “McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.”

    First, McCain believes everything he says about Iraq. He won’t change his tune to win an election. I also think that, while most Americans don’t agree with him on that issue, a majority trusts that McCain is sincere and competent in foreign policy.

    Second, I think running mates generally don’t count — hell, we elected Dan Quayle as VP. As for McCain’s choice, I think he is going to try to assuage the far-right of the Republican Party and pick someone accpetable to them. That might be someone like Mike Huckabee or Sonny Perdue or someone no one has heard of. I can’t think of a woman he’d run with who would fit the right-wing bill: Condi Rice?

    If he wants a moderate female, there’s Linda Lingle, the Jewish, pro-choice governor of Hawaii. That would certainly piss off Rush Limbaugh.

  14. Rich Rifkin

    “McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.”

    First, McCain believes everything he says about Iraq. He won’t change his tune to win an election. I also think that, while most Americans don’t agree with him on that issue, a majority trusts that McCain is sincere and competent in foreign policy.

    Second, I think running mates generally don’t count — hell, we elected Dan Quayle as VP. As for McCain’s choice, I think he is going to try to assuage the far-right of the Republican Party and pick someone accpetable to them. That might be someone like Mike Huckabee or Sonny Perdue or someone no one has heard of. I can’t think of a woman he’d run with who would fit the right-wing bill: Condi Rice?

    If he wants a moderate female, there’s Linda Lingle, the Jewish, pro-choice governor of Hawaii. That would certainly piss off Rush Limbaugh.

  15. Rich Rifkin

    “McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.”

    First, McCain believes everything he says about Iraq. He won’t change his tune to win an election. I also think that, while most Americans don’t agree with him on that issue, a majority trusts that McCain is sincere and competent in foreign policy.

    Second, I think running mates generally don’t count — hell, we elected Dan Quayle as VP. As for McCain’s choice, I think he is going to try to assuage the far-right of the Republican Party and pick someone accpetable to them. That might be someone like Mike Huckabee or Sonny Perdue or someone no one has heard of. I can’t think of a woman he’d run with who would fit the right-wing bill: Condi Rice?

    If he wants a moderate female, there’s Linda Lingle, the Jewish, pro-choice governor of Hawaii. That would certainly piss off Rush Limbaugh.

  16. Rich Rifkin

    “McCain might decide that he actually wants to be president, and moderate his statements on Iraq and pick a woman for Vice President.”

    First, McCain believes everything he says about Iraq. He won’t change his tune to win an election. I also think that, while most Americans don’t agree with him on that issue, a majority trusts that McCain is sincere and competent in foreign policy.

    Second, I think running mates generally don’t count — hell, we elected Dan Quayle as VP. As for McCain’s choice, I think he is going to try to assuage the far-right of the Republican Party and pick someone accpetable to them. That might be someone like Mike Huckabee or Sonny Perdue or someone no one has heard of. I can’t think of a woman he’d run with who would fit the right-wing bill: Condi Rice?

    If he wants a moderate female, there’s Linda Lingle, the Jewish, pro-choice governor of Hawaii. That would certainly piss off Rush Limbaugh.

  17. Richard

    Like Rich says, Hillary has got a difficult road ahead, intensified by a fundamentally flawed camapaign operation. With a focus upon expensive campaign consultants and advertising, she had to burn through a lot of money yesterday to just win places where she was overwhelmingly favored to win: Massachusetts, New Jersey, and, yes, California, among others. With a few exceptions, primarily states near Arkansas, her campaign was nearly invisible between the coasts.

    Obama, by contrast, built a nationwide field operation, an operation that he expanded after successes in Iowa and South Carolina. Yesterday, he harvested the fruit of this effort, winning states in every region of the country, and running up huge victories in caucus states, where he repudiated the conventional wisdom (relied upon by the Hillary campaign) that you can’t motivate people outside party diehards to attend them.

    Going forward, Obama has three major advantages: a combination of primaries and caucuses through the rest of the month that are very favorable to him, enormous amounts of money pouring into the campaign, much of it from small donors, and an ever expanding field operation that will effectively turn out the vote.

    To an extent, you could say that the campaign organizations are consistent with the attitudes of the candidates. Obama, the old community organizer, was willing to built his campaign from the bottom up, so, that, with each success, he is able to motivate people to contribute more money and more volunteer time. Conversely, Hillary is more elitist, top down in her style, so even victories now do little to energize her campaign going forward.

    Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise. Furthermore, Obama had difficulty yesterday overcoming large deficits in states with little familiarity with him. By the time that Ohio and Texas vote, he will no longer be an unknown.

    –Richard Estes

  18. Richard

    Like Rich says, Hillary has got a difficult road ahead, intensified by a fundamentally flawed camapaign operation. With a focus upon expensive campaign consultants and advertising, she had to burn through a lot of money yesterday to just win places where she was overwhelmingly favored to win: Massachusetts, New Jersey, and, yes, California, among others. With a few exceptions, primarily states near Arkansas, her campaign was nearly invisible between the coasts.

    Obama, by contrast, built a nationwide field operation, an operation that he expanded after successes in Iowa and South Carolina. Yesterday, he harvested the fruit of this effort, winning states in every region of the country, and running up huge victories in caucus states, where he repudiated the conventional wisdom (relied upon by the Hillary campaign) that you can’t motivate people outside party diehards to attend them.

    Going forward, Obama has three major advantages: a combination of primaries and caucuses through the rest of the month that are very favorable to him, enormous amounts of money pouring into the campaign, much of it from small donors, and an ever expanding field operation that will effectively turn out the vote.

    To an extent, you could say that the campaign organizations are consistent with the attitudes of the candidates. Obama, the old community organizer, was willing to built his campaign from the bottom up, so, that, with each success, he is able to motivate people to contribute more money and more volunteer time. Conversely, Hillary is more elitist, top down in her style, so even victories now do little to energize her campaign going forward.

    Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise. Furthermore, Obama had difficulty yesterday overcoming large deficits in states with little familiarity with him. By the time that Ohio and Texas vote, he will no longer be an unknown.

    –Richard Estes

  19. Richard

    Like Rich says, Hillary has got a difficult road ahead, intensified by a fundamentally flawed camapaign operation. With a focus upon expensive campaign consultants and advertising, she had to burn through a lot of money yesterday to just win places where she was overwhelmingly favored to win: Massachusetts, New Jersey, and, yes, California, among others. With a few exceptions, primarily states near Arkansas, her campaign was nearly invisible between the coasts.

    Obama, by contrast, built a nationwide field operation, an operation that he expanded after successes in Iowa and South Carolina. Yesterday, he harvested the fruit of this effort, winning states in every region of the country, and running up huge victories in caucus states, where he repudiated the conventional wisdom (relied upon by the Hillary campaign) that you can’t motivate people outside party diehards to attend them.

    Going forward, Obama has three major advantages: a combination of primaries and caucuses through the rest of the month that are very favorable to him, enormous amounts of money pouring into the campaign, much of it from small donors, and an ever expanding field operation that will effectively turn out the vote.

    To an extent, you could say that the campaign organizations are consistent with the attitudes of the candidates. Obama, the old community organizer, was willing to built his campaign from the bottom up, so, that, with each success, he is able to motivate people to contribute more money and more volunteer time. Conversely, Hillary is more elitist, top down in her style, so even victories now do little to energize her campaign going forward.

    Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise. Furthermore, Obama had difficulty yesterday overcoming large deficits in states with little familiarity with him. By the time that Ohio and Texas vote, he will no longer be an unknown.

    –Richard Estes

  20. Richard

    Like Rich says, Hillary has got a difficult road ahead, intensified by a fundamentally flawed camapaign operation. With a focus upon expensive campaign consultants and advertising, she had to burn through a lot of money yesterday to just win places where she was overwhelmingly favored to win: Massachusetts, New Jersey, and, yes, California, among others. With a few exceptions, primarily states near Arkansas, her campaign was nearly invisible between the coasts.

    Obama, by contrast, built a nationwide field operation, an operation that he expanded after successes in Iowa and South Carolina. Yesterday, he harvested the fruit of this effort, winning states in every region of the country, and running up huge victories in caucus states, where he repudiated the conventional wisdom (relied upon by the Hillary campaign) that you can’t motivate people outside party diehards to attend them.

    Going forward, Obama has three major advantages: a combination of primaries and caucuses through the rest of the month that are very favorable to him, enormous amounts of money pouring into the campaign, much of it from small donors, and an ever expanding field operation that will effectively turn out the vote.

    To an extent, you could say that the campaign organizations are consistent with the attitudes of the candidates. Obama, the old community organizer, was willing to built his campaign from the bottom up, so, that, with each success, he is able to motivate people to contribute more money and more volunteer time. Conversely, Hillary is more elitist, top down in her style, so even victories now do little to energize her campaign going forward.

    Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise. Furthermore, Obama had difficulty yesterday overcoming large deficits in states with little familiarity with him. By the time that Ohio and Texas vote, he will no longer be an unknown.

    –Richard Estes

  21. Rich Rifkin

    “Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise.”

    I think your questioning whether those states which today look promising for Hillary might still be at play is insightful, especially so if the voters in those states are affected by the Obama tidal wave from February 9 on.

    I would guess, just based on demographics, that Ohio is more favorable for Obama than Texas.

    However, my reasoning on Texas (mimicking what others have said about California) may be off base. The reasoning is this: low to moderate income Mexican-Americans are reticent to support an African-American candidate, due to inter-ethnic tensions. I wonder if that “fact” is really a fact, or if it is just a localized reality in a few areas, but not a wider trend.

    In Southern California in particular, this seemed to be the case. Hispanics were Hillary’s strongest group of voters. But that may be due to the leadership of people like Antonio Villaraigosa and others, who worked hard for Hillary Clinton. It’s possible that the elected Latinos in So Cal had a lot of influence on their communities, often filled with new citizens who naturally look to experienced leaders for advice on what to do in elections.

    I haven’t seen any breakdowns by ethnicity in different parts of California. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if Hispanics in our area didn’t vote about the same as whites, once you control for things like age, gender, income and profession.

    So with that in mind, it’s not entirely unthinkable that Obama might do much better with Latino voters in Texas, if the leadership in their communities is less tied to Senator Clinton.

  22. Rich Rifkin

    “Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise.”

    I think your questioning whether those states which today look promising for Hillary might still be at play is insightful, especially so if the voters in those states are affected by the Obama tidal wave from February 9 on.

    I would guess, just based on demographics, that Ohio is more favorable for Obama than Texas.

    However, my reasoning on Texas (mimicking what others have said about California) may be off base. The reasoning is this: low to moderate income Mexican-Americans are reticent to support an African-American candidate, due to inter-ethnic tensions. I wonder if that “fact” is really a fact, or if it is just a localized reality in a few areas, but not a wider trend.

    In Southern California in particular, this seemed to be the case. Hispanics were Hillary’s strongest group of voters. But that may be due to the leadership of people like Antonio Villaraigosa and others, who worked hard for Hillary Clinton. It’s possible that the elected Latinos in So Cal had a lot of influence on their communities, often filled with new citizens who naturally look to experienced leaders for advice on what to do in elections.

    I haven’t seen any breakdowns by ethnicity in different parts of California. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if Hispanics in our area didn’t vote about the same as whites, once you control for things like age, gender, income and profession.

    So with that in mind, it’s not entirely unthinkable that Obama might do much better with Latino voters in Texas, if the leadership in their communities is less tied to Senator Clinton.

  23. Rich Rifkin

    “Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise.”

    I think your questioning whether those states which today look promising for Hillary might still be at play is insightful, especially so if the voters in those states are affected by the Obama tidal wave from February 9 on.

    I would guess, just based on demographics, that Ohio is more favorable for Obama than Texas.

    However, my reasoning on Texas (mimicking what others have said about California) may be off base. The reasoning is this: low to moderate income Mexican-Americans are reticent to support an African-American candidate, due to inter-ethnic tensions. I wonder if that “fact” is really a fact, or if it is just a localized reality in a few areas, but not a wider trend.

    In Southern California in particular, this seemed to be the case. Hispanics were Hillary’s strongest group of voters. But that may be due to the leadership of people like Antonio Villaraigosa and others, who worked hard for Hillary Clinton. It’s possible that the elected Latinos in So Cal had a lot of influence on their communities, often filled with new citizens who naturally look to experienced leaders for advice on what to do in elections.

    I haven’t seen any breakdowns by ethnicity in different parts of California. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if Hispanics in our area didn’t vote about the same as whites, once you control for things like age, gender, income and profession.

    So with that in mind, it’s not entirely unthinkable that Obama might do much better with Latino voters in Texas, if the leadership in their communities is less tied to Senator Clinton.

  24. Rich Rifkin

    “Ohio and Texas on March 4th are now considered favorable to her, but one wonders if this is immutable in light of the challenges of funding advertising and ground operations in these states in face of the ever expanding Obama franchise.”

    I think your questioning whether those states which today look promising for Hillary might still be at play is insightful, especially so if the voters in those states are affected by the Obama tidal wave from February 9 on.

    I would guess, just based on demographics, that Ohio is more favorable for Obama than Texas.

    However, my reasoning on Texas (mimicking what others have said about California) may be off base. The reasoning is this: low to moderate income Mexican-Americans are reticent to support an African-American candidate, due to inter-ethnic tensions. I wonder if that “fact” is really a fact, or if it is just a localized reality in a few areas, but not a wider trend.

    In Southern California in particular, this seemed to be the case. Hispanics were Hillary’s strongest group of voters. But that may be due to the leadership of people like Antonio Villaraigosa and others, who worked hard for Hillary Clinton. It’s possible that the elected Latinos in So Cal had a lot of influence on their communities, often filled with new citizens who naturally look to experienced leaders for advice on what to do in elections.

    I haven’t seen any breakdowns by ethnicity in different parts of California. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if Hispanics in our area didn’t vote about the same as whites, once you control for things like age, gender, income and profession.

    So with that in mind, it’s not entirely unthinkable that Obama might do much better with Latino voters in Texas, if the leadership in their communities is less tied to Senator Clinton.

  25. Michael B.

    “I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today?”

    Good call, Rich. Romney dropped out less than 12 hours after you posted your message.

  26. Michael B.

    “I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today?”

    Good call, Rich. Romney dropped out less than 12 hours after you posted your message.

  27. Michael B.

    “I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today?”

    Good call, Rich. Romney dropped out less than 12 hours after you posted your message.

  28. Michael B.

    “I have heard no one mention this possibility, but what if Mitt Romney decides to drop out, today?”

    Good call, Rich. Romney dropped out less than 12 hours after you posted your message.

  29. Richard

    Rich: Obama has been slowly cutting into Clinton’s support among Latinos. He did better in California, for example, than he did in Nevada. In any event the notion that Latinos will not vote for African American candidates is vigorously disputed, I haven’t read up on the subject, but tend to believe that it isn’t really true, that there are a lot of other compelling explanations in this instance, such as lack of familiarity, the historic relationship of the Clintons with Latinos, and endorsements from prominent Latino leaders, some, like Villaraigosa with a get out the vote apparatus.

    Imagine, for example, the opposite situation: the hypothetical, dynamic Senator Cedillo emerges as the primary challenger to Clinton. Would Cedillo experience similar difficulties obtaining African American support? Undoubtedly, and for the same reasons I mentioned above.

    –Richard Estes

  30. Richard

    Rich: Obama has been slowly cutting into Clinton’s support among Latinos. He did better in California, for example, than he did in Nevada. In any event the notion that Latinos will not vote for African American candidates is vigorously disputed, I haven’t read up on the subject, but tend to believe that it isn’t really true, that there are a lot of other compelling explanations in this instance, such as lack of familiarity, the historic relationship of the Clintons with Latinos, and endorsements from prominent Latino leaders, some, like Villaraigosa with a get out the vote apparatus.

    Imagine, for example, the opposite situation: the hypothetical, dynamic Senator Cedillo emerges as the primary challenger to Clinton. Would Cedillo experience similar difficulties obtaining African American support? Undoubtedly, and for the same reasons I mentioned above.

    –Richard Estes

  31. Richard

    Rich: Obama has been slowly cutting into Clinton’s support among Latinos. He did better in California, for example, than he did in Nevada. In any event the notion that Latinos will not vote for African American candidates is vigorously disputed, I haven’t read up on the subject, but tend to believe that it isn’t really true, that there are a lot of other compelling explanations in this instance, such as lack of familiarity, the historic relationship of the Clintons with Latinos, and endorsements from prominent Latino leaders, some, like Villaraigosa with a get out the vote apparatus.

    Imagine, for example, the opposite situation: the hypothetical, dynamic Senator Cedillo emerges as the primary challenger to Clinton. Would Cedillo experience similar difficulties obtaining African American support? Undoubtedly, and for the same reasons I mentioned above.

    –Richard Estes

  32. Richard

    Rich: Obama has been slowly cutting into Clinton’s support among Latinos. He did better in California, for example, than he did in Nevada. In any event the notion that Latinos will not vote for African American candidates is vigorously disputed, I haven’t read up on the subject, but tend to believe that it isn’t really true, that there are a lot of other compelling explanations in this instance, such as lack of familiarity, the historic relationship of the Clintons with Latinos, and endorsements from prominent Latino leaders, some, like Villaraigosa with a get out the vote apparatus.

    Imagine, for example, the opposite situation: the hypothetical, dynamic Senator Cedillo emerges as the primary challenger to Clinton. Would Cedillo experience similar difficulties obtaining African American support? Undoubtedly, and for the same reasons I mentioned above.

    –Richard Estes

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for