• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « A Super Duper Fat Tuesday for Obama? | Main | GNW5: Pink shirt, gay fight »

    February 06, 2008

    The morning after Super Tuesday

    Posted by: Andoni

    Barackobama Here are some thoughts the day after Super Duper Tuesday.

    My first reaction is -- what the hell happened with the exit polls? Again they were wrong. According to the exit polls on Drudge and Huffington Post, Obama should have won Massachusetts, New Jersey and been much closer in California. Remind me to never look at exit polls again to try to determine the winner.

    My second surprise and exasperation is that gays in California went to Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1.  Our community is clueless. It's been pointed out over and over that Obama has better stands on LGBT issues than Hillary. Hillary is even afraid to say the "G word." Our community is just as programmed to respond to the Clinton name when the bell rings as is the Latino community.

    Why the Hispanics stay in Clinton's camp is beyond me. Remember how quickly she folded in standing up for them over the drivers license issue? And how she subtly agreed with the scapegoating of immigrants causing job loss in the last debate, when Obama clearly said he would not scapegoat these people. All I know is that both of these communities need to wake up and pay attention.

    Finally, I'm intrigued with the California results. As I noted in a previous post, one problem for Obama was the early voting there. With one million of the votes cast early when Clinton was ahead by 20 points, it was nearly impossible for Obama to pull even in the final count. I would like to know what the mail-in results looked like compared to the ones cast yesterday. Eyeballing at the California results as they stand right now, Clinton has about 2,000,000 votes and Obama has about 1,650,000 votes. This is consistent with a scenario of Clinton winning big in the early mail-in voting, and then Obama tying her nearly one for one in the voting on the actual day of the election. This would also explain the polling in California a showing a near tie on the day before the election.

    As of this writing Obama has won 14 states on Super Duper Tuesday and Clinton seven. The coast to coast popular vote is within a few thousand, and the delegates gained yesterday are within a few dozen of each other, with the final count not known for a day or two.

    UPDATE: As of 9:45 am NBC News is projecting that Obama will end up with more delegates 840 to 849, compared to Clinton's range of 829 to 838.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e5502d92cb8834

    Comments

    1. Andoni on Feb 6, 2008 2:33:08 PM:

      UPDATE II: According to The San Francisco Chronicle,
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BA3IUT6L8.DTL

      Clinton had a narrow edge, 49 percent to 46 percent, with those who made up their minds in the last three days, but held a 17-point advantage among voters who had decided earlier.

      Therefore my theory that she won on the early voting and just about tied on the actual Feb. 5 voting holds water. I would like to see the exact break down for "mail in" versus "day of" voting.

    1. Strict Scrutiny on Feb 6, 2008 10:55:15 PM:

      I believe Hillary is winning the Hispanic demographic and the gay demographic for a couple of reasons, both very lamentable.

      First, there is an ugly issue of racism. It has been reported at least a few times that many Hispanics do not trust African-Americans; unfortunately, this is translating into votes for Hillary. There is also some vague sentiment that Bill Clinton was "good for Hispanics" so the feeling is that his wife will also be good for Hispanics. Great logic, eh? Frankly, I don't know precisely what Bill Clinton did that was so great for this community, but that's what many people are thinking. Obviously, this bodes badly for Barack Obama in the March 4th Texas primary.

      The other, perhaps bigger, problem is low-information voters. This applies to both demographic groups. Gay folks I know who are supporting Hillary do so out of a knee-jerk, Clintonista Democratic Party loyalty. When I press them for specifics, they usually give me some non-substantive answer -- they just have some idea that she is best poised to win and give them rights. I suspect the same is true with many Hispanics, especially those who do not speak English or who have lower levels of education. I fear many ignorant people in both demographics are making choices based on name recognition and "good vibes" about Hillary.

      Low-information voters are the main culprit. They will be the bane of this election and many others in the future.

    1. R on Feb 7, 2008 6:34:44 AM:

      Oh, the Obamaniac love has no end. Gag. The man is smart and attractive and about as deep as a puddle. By his own admission, he is a lousy manager and claims his greatest achievement is forcing lobbyists to feed congressmen while standing up.

      I was mesmerized by his 2004 convention speech and a few of his campaign ones have inspired. But he has no ideas. Sure his website is loaded with pages of positions, but he has shown zilch ability to accomplish anything other than defeating Alan Keyes.

      He would have had my vote if he made at least one (OK, maybe two) actual proposals of things that he is going to DO as president. He says nothing of substance. Oh, except to meet with our enemies. Not an entirely awful idea, but does anyone really think that Hillary would NOT improve international communication?

      Change. To what? And how? What are the first five things he will do in office. And no, he can't remove 100,000 troops, 100,000 contractors, and 25,000 religious/aid workers in two weeks.

      Hillary has her faults, but she is smart and managed to get nearly every Washington Republican to grudgingly LIKE her and WORK with her -- including all the ones who led the battle against her husband during impeachment. The rightwing wacko red-state senators ain't going anywhere. And even if we can reach 60 votes, Lieberman will jump ship. So nothing will get done unless you compromise.

      America does not need dreamy kum-ba-ya everyone-is-special-and-beautiful faux leadership. It needs smart, effective, inclusive, comprehensive, and thoughtful leadership.

      Sadly, the hang up for so many is "Bill". The hatred of the Clintons is so profound by some that it blinds them. I too am aggravated at the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. However, I want a president who understands the minutia of government and finds solutions.

      I don't need some two-bit life coach telling me that he knows the way.

      HIllary is the best man for the job.

    1. Craig Ranapia on Feb 7, 2008 4:15:53 PM:

      My first reaction is -- what the hell happened with the exit polls? Again they were wrong.

      And still the networks not only keep using them, but are making some really wonky calls based on data that experience shows, over and over again, should be taken with a pound of salt and all the tequila you can find.

      And, R., could you and your fellow Clint-ticklers try and be a little more pissy and condescending? You actually had a pretty decent Super Size Me Tuesday and nobody likes a sore winner. I'd really like to see someone answer this question: How much of Clinton's "thirty-five years of experience" isn't directly attributable to riding her husband's coat-tails. And is she going to tear up and play the gender card the day before every damn primary?

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad