Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African American Democrat, unexpectedly lost his 1982 campaign for governor. His defeat came as voters told pollsters that
they preferred the black candidate and then voted the other way. In
California's primary last Tuesday, Obama lost by a landslide 10 percentage
points despite one late survey showing him ahead by 13 points and two others
giving him a one-point lead.
It sure sounds convincing doesn't it? But ofcourse a quick look at the real data shows his whole premise is crap. Real Clear Politics has it this way:
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby
02/03
- 02/04
895 LV
49
36
Obama +13.0
SurveyUSA
02/03
- 02/04
872 LV
42
52
Clinton +10.0
SurveyUSA
02/02
- 02/03
853 LV
41
53
Clinton +12.0
Suffolk
02/01
- 02/03
700 LV
40
39
Obama +1.0
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby
02/01
- 02/03
967 LV
46
40
Obama +6.0
Rasmussen
02/02
- 02/02
798 LV
45
44
Obama +1.0
Reuters/CSpan/Zogby
01/31
- 02/02
1141 LV
45
41
Obama +4.0
Mason-Dixon
01/30
- 02/01
400 LV
36
45
Clinton +9
The reality is prior to the California primary the polls were all over the place. Mason-Dixon and Survery USA nailed the results. Zogby and Rasmussen were way off base. The question isn't what happened to Obama's votes. The question is what happened to Zogby (as usual) and Rasmussen?
So what exactly is Right Wing tool Novak trying to accomplish? I think it is a reverse Southern Strategy. Hispanics are becoming more and more important in Democratic politics, and there are competing interests and possibly even some anomosity between hispanics and african
americans. So the right is trying to convince blacks that their place in the Democratic party
is getting pushed aside by racist Hispanics in hopes that they will turn to the Republican party.
Still playing the racist game after all these years.
No comments:
Post a Comment