Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Super Tuesday Media Coverage: It's All About California, Part 1 (The Democrats)

Bookmark and Share

The overwhelming positive media coverage that Hillary Clinton received during Tuesday night's primary coverage was a bit peculiar—especially considering what each candidate was expected to do prior to Super Tuesday's elections. In light of the full spectrum of election results from February 5th, the only possible explanation for this curiously positive tone of the media coverage for Clinton, and the inconsistencies of pundit analysis before and after the elections that day, is what happened in California. By all other measures, the night was a disappointment for Clinton.

First, what were the expectations going into Super Tuesday? Polls and pundits had expected Hillary Clinton to sweep the northeast, win the bellwether state of Missouri, be competitive or win every other southern state with the exception of Georgia, and win most of the Western primary states with the backing of the large Hispanic communities—with the possible exception of California. (Note: polls in California taken a day or two before the primary were split, some had Obama (Zogby) and some had Clinton (SurveyUSA) up by double digits).

So, how did Clinton perform? First, in the Northeast, Obama won 2 of the 5 states—Delaware and Connecticut, performing above expectations. Although Obama had received endorsements from John Kerry (several weeks ago) and Ted Kennedy, no serious pundit could have thought Obama would overcome the large lead Clinton had amassed in Massachusetts (note: Smart Politics named Massacusetts one of the states not to be in play in its February 4th Super Tuesday preview, putting it directly into Clinton's column).

Similarly, Clinton was leading Obama by double digits in every poll coming out of New York and by 5 points or more in 5 out of 6 polls coming out of New Jersey released one or two days before that primary. In sum, Clinton's performance in the Northeast was disappointing, with Obama outperforming expectations by winning 2 states in the region.

Secondly, consider the Southern and border states: the fact that Obama won 3 of them, Georgia, Alabama, and Missouri would again have to be viewed as a success for his campaign.

Georgia was expected to go in Obama's column, though no one expected he would trounce Clinton by 36 points (polls had Obama with a 15 to 22 point lead the week of the election).

Alabama was viewed by all polls and pundits as a toss-up (identified as one of 3 toss-up states here at Smart Politics, along with Missouri), with Clinton up in half the polls and trailing by no more than 2 points in any poll released the week of the primary. Obama won the state easily by 14 points.

Missouri, perhaps Obama's biggest victory of the evening, was also viewed as a toss-up although Clinton was leading in 3 of the 5 polls released the week of the race, and by 11 points in one of them (SurveyUSA). Smart Politics identified Missouri as the key race of the evening in its February 4th preview, stating it may be the ultimate bellwether state, "In determining who has the ultimate advantage as the campaigns move forward past Super Tuesday, as it is the neighboring state to both Clinton (Arkansas) and Obama (Illinois)." Obama won the border battle—although he did not receive much positive coverage from the media during its programming that night, as Clinton led (at times by double digits) until the 11th hour when results from the state's most populous regions came in.

Clinton, of course, easily won her home state of Arkansas (as did Obama in Illinois), and Obama performed as expected in the remaining Southern states of Tennessee and Oklahoma. In Tennessee Clinton had a 13-point advantage in the polls and won by 13 points; in Oklahoma Clinton had a 24 to 27 points advantage in the polls and won by 24 points.

Moving westward, with only a few exceptions, Obama trounced Clinton, especially in the caucus states. As predicted here at Smart Politics on February 4th, Obama won Minnesota, despite the only poll giving Clinton a 7-point advantage among Democrats statewide (the poll did not have a likely voter screen). Still, no one, not even Smart Politics, was predicting Obama's victory would be as strong as it was (35 points). Obama also won by extraordinarily large margins in North Dakota (24 points), Kansas (48 points), Colorado (35 points), Alaska (50 points), and the Utah primary (18 points).

So, with all of that positive news for the Obama campaign, what could have turned the evening into such a great night for Clinton, in the eyes of anchors and commentators both from the right (Fox News' Britt Hume) as well as the left (NPR's Juan Williams)?

In the Southwest, Clinton won Arizona (where she led in every poll released during the past year) and, most importantly, the big prize of California. Admittedly, California was the one state Smart Politics got wrong on the Democratic side in its Super Tuesday preview, although polling was split equally giving both Obama and Clinton the advantage the week of the election. In the end, Clinton won by 10 points, but, because of the Democratic rules for allocating delegates, both will end up with a substantial number from the state—with the majority obviously going to Clinton. Due to the consensus on the ground and in the media that Obama would win California, Clinton's decisive victory came as a shock to the media Tuesday night—so much so that it seemed to color most of its post-election coverage with a pro-Clinton hue.

So, the question the political news consumer has to ask is this: did Clinton meet expectations on Super Tuesday? Clinton won just 8 of 21 states (with New Mexico pending). Clinton lost two states in the Northeast. Clinton lost the bellwether state of Missouri. And Clinton's losses in the caucus states and the Deep South were much larger than anticipated.

Pundits had been saying all week that the nation was trending towards Obama and that if Super Tuesday would be held one week later he would score big victories. While the delegate count on Super Tuesday was about even, the Obama campaign has to be buoyed by the victories it scored—stealing several states from Clinton with its surge. Smart Politics does not expect this trend to change in the coming weeks.

Thus, the only way this analysis falls apart is if Clinton's somewhat unexpected victory in the state of California trumps all of the other bad news she received on Super Tuesday. In the eyes of Smart Politics, it doesn't.

Advantage: Obama.

Previous post: Super Tuesday Live Blog Postgame
Next post: ARG Poll: Clinton Leads Obama in Wisconsin

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Which States Have the Longest and Shortest Election Day Voting Hours?

Residents in some North Dakota towns have less than half as many hours to cast their ballots as those in New York State.

Political Crumbs

Mary Burke: English First?

While multiculturalism and bilingualism are increasingly en vogue in some quarters as the world seemingly becomes a smaller place, one very high profile 2014 Democratic candidate does not shy away from the fact that she only speaks one language: English. In an attempt to highlight her private sector credentials working for Trek Bicycle, Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mary Burke boasts on her campaign bio page how she made great strides in international business dealings...while only speaking English: "Despite not speaking a single foreign language, she established sales and distribution operations in seven countries over just three years." Note: According to 2010 Census data, nearly half a million Wisconsinites over five years old speak a language other than English at home, or 8.7 percent, while 4.6 percent of Badger State residents do not speak English at all.


Does My Key Still Work?

Much has been made about Charlie Crist's political transformation from Republican to independent to Democrat en route to winning the Florida GOP and Democratic gubernatorial nominations over a span of eight years. Party-switching aside, Crist is also vying to become just the second Florida governor to serve two interrupted terms. Democrat William Bloxham was the first - serving four year terms from 1881 to 1885 and then 1897 to 1901. Florida did not permit governors serving consecutive terms for most of its 123 years prior to changes made in its 1968 constitution. Since then four have done so: Democrats Reubin Askew, Bob Graham, and Lawton Chiles and Republican Jeb Bush.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting