| Obama's Victory Much Wider than Expected:
Barack Obama got 55% of the vote in South Carolina - with Hillary Clinton at 27%, and John Edwards at 18%. But while everyone predicted an Obama victory, the polls severely underestimated his lead. In fact, they were less accurate than the infamous New Hampshire polls.
Clinton won New Hampshire by a 3-point margin, while the average polls said Obama would win by 8 (an 11-point disparity.) Obama won South Carolina by 28 points, while polls predicted he'd win by 11 (a 17-point error.) As Glenn Greenwald wrote, the media won't trumpet this because "predicting the wrong winner (New Hampshire) is a far more dramatic error than under-predicting the winner's margin of victory (South Carolina.)"
But mathematically, the polls were more wrong than they were about New Hampshire. They got it right that Obama would win a huge chunk of the African-American vote, but they were dead wrong about his level of support among whites. Obama was supposed to get 10-15% of the white vote. Instead, he got a respectable 24% (about twice as much.)
Hillary Clinton didn't even campaign in the state in the last few days, arrogantly believing that her husband could get help her minimize losses. But Bubba proved to be a liability: his attempt to link Obama with Jesse Jackson was a deeply cynical move to typecast Obama as the "black" candidate, which would hurt him among white voters across the country.
But even white voters in South Carolina didn't fall for that ruse. There was much talk after New Hampshire about the "Bradley effect" - where white voters give pollsters the politically correct answer that they'll vote for a black candidate - but then don't when they're in the privacy of the polling booth. If there's any part of the country where that theory may be true, it's the South. But South Carolina ripped it to shreds.
Obama fared poorly among white voters over 60 - he got 15%, while Clinton and John Edwards each got 42% -- but these are white Southerners who remember Jim Crow. He won white voters under 30 by a huge landslide - suggesting that the South is slowly moving beyond such attitudes. And though Clinton won white women, Obama basically tied her among white men (behind Edwards.) That hurts Clinton's electability: Southern white men were just as likely to pick an African-American as Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Women Picked Obama Over Clinton:
If women keep voting for Clinton at the rate that they did in New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama cannot win the nomination. Women are a majority of Democratic voters in every state - plain and simple. But Obama won South Carolina with women being 61% of the electorate, in part because black women voted for him by a 4:1 margin. Obama still lags among white women, but Democrats should ask if they want a nominee whose main demographic is older white women - while the other candidate has more diverse appeal?
South Carolina voters - including women - turned against Hillary Clinton because they stopped thinking of her as "Hillary" and more as "Clinton." For months, the New York Senator argued that her status as a woman would break the glass ceiling - making her an "agent of change." But that started to shift when Bill Clinton began playing a more high-profile role - and voters were uncomfortable about a Clinton dynasty.
The "crying" incident - and the media's misogynist attacks on her - rallied women to her side in New Hampshire, which explains Clinton's surprise victory there. If a woman presidential candidate can't cry in public without getting attacked, our country has not moved beyond such a double standard. Clinton likewise won the popular vote in Nevada, because of a wide gender gap.
But the focus then shifted back to "Clinton" in South Carolina - when Hillary pretty much abandoned the state and left the ex-President behind to campaign for her. Bill's frequent outbursts, along with the campaign's racist attacks, had an adverse effect. There is also anecdotal evidence that black women were less swayed by the Clinton cry than white women.
Once Again, Change Prevailed Over Experience:
Many observers - including the Clinton camp - still don't believe that Bill Clinton is a liability, because he continues to have high approval ratings. When asked about the 90's, Democrats generally have a good opinion. But nostalgia about an ex-President does not necessarily translate into the notion that he should re-occupy the White House. We all know that he will be the most influential presidential spouse ever - and the campaign has been vague about what his role would be. And he's not helping himself on the trail.
Like Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina voters overwhelmingly (54%) picked "change" as the top quality in choosing a President. "Experience" was a lousy 14%, behind "likeability" at 24%. 2008 will go down in political history as the year of change, and candidates who are credible agents of change will benefit. Clinton will win if voters view her as breaking a glass ceiling. Bubba campaigning has the opposite effect.
Can Iraq Be a Factor in California?
Despite his South Carolina victory, Obama should take note that the War in Iraq failed to be a major factor on Saturday. When asked what issue was the most important, voters picked "the economy" as the top choice (which helps Clinton) - followed by "health care." Iraq was a distant third at 19%. Clinton voted for the War, was very late in supporting withdrawal, has refused to apologize, and supported a resolution that leads to preemptive War with Iran.
Obama, on the other hand, opposed it from the start. And despite being wishy-washy on a clear exit strategy, he was far ahead of Clinton on the question of withdrawal. Californians - who will vote on February 5th - have always been more opposed to the War than the rest of the country. If the difference between the candidates becomes an issue on Super Duper Tuesday, it will help Obama.
As I mentioned last week, California had an opportunity to vote this February on a (non-binding) initiative urging President Bush to get us out of Iraq. While its passage wouldn't change George Bush's mind, it would have placed the issue on the spot of California primary voters - holding candidates accountable. But the Democratic leadership in Sacramento blew it after the Governor's veto.
But Obama does have an endorsement in California that will help him - especially if Iraq becomes an issue: Congresswoman Barbara Lee. No elected official today has more credibility with anti-war activists. If Lee vigorously campaigns for Obama and reminds voters about the War, he could win the Bay Area by a handsome margin.
An Uphill Climb for the Latino Vote:
Iraq would also help Obama in Southern California, but he has a far more challenging climb to make up his current 10-point deficit of Clinton. In Nevada, Latinos strongly supported Clinton - due to higher name-recognition, a better outreach effort in Spanish, and prominent endorsements from the community's top-down leadership. But Obama is finally picking up support from grass-roots Latino leaders - which could be effective since they know how to mobilize voters.
After L.A. labor leader Maria Durazo took time off from her job to campaign for Obama, State Senator Gil Cedillo and Congressman Xavier Becerra also endorsed him. In Arizona, Bill Richardson's entire campaign steering committee for that state have likewise endorsed. These are less impressive names than Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villariaigosa (who back Clinton), but are part of the community's progressive leadership that could organize an insurgent challenge.
These leaders have bucked their community's trend because they have focused on substantive policy differences - and have concluded that Obama would be a better choice for Latinos than Clinton. There is still much skepticism that Latinos would set aside differences with the black community and support an African-American. But Obama directly addressed this issue in his South Carolina victory speech.
Can such an effort succeed in the Latino community? In California, it's working with at least one union. The California Teachers Union's leadership attempted the other day to force an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but the rank-and-file resisted such effort. One of the state's most powerful unions will be staying out of this contentious primary.
But to prevail, Obama would need some top-down leadership as well that is respected in the Latino community. Senator Ted Kennedy and JFK's daughter (Caroline Kennedy) both endorsed Obama over the weekend - and although white, have wide appeal among Latinos. I was skeptical about the value of Ted Kennedy's endorsement, but if coupled with Caroline would be helpful in reviving the aura of Camelot. Will the Obama pay for a Spanish-language ad featuring the two Kennedys?
Hillary Clinton wasn't even in South Carolina after losing decisively - and instead gave her concession speech in Tennessee (one of the February 5th states.) She mentioned that Florida voters will be choosing its candidate tomorrow (where Clinton has an edge) - although the state won't have any delegates. All the Democratic candidates promised not to campaign in Florida - but Clinton implies that she will.
As Bill Clinton's campaigning in South Carolina proved, the Clintons will do anything to stay in power. |
STATE BLOGS
