The Los Angeles Times likes to remind us every so often that Al Gore "won" the popular vote in the 2000 Presidential election he lost. Rarely do they say that in "winning" Gore failed to get a majority of the national vote. Even rarer is a statement that Gore’s win was by a "small" margin. They also always fail to tell us that Bill Clinton never managed to win a majority of the national vote in his two winning presidential election campaigns. 

   But today’s spin from the Times is otherwise credibly led by none other than their Poll Directer, Susan Pinkus, who tells us the marriage amendment on the November ballot is "winning by a small margin." 54% to 35%. Thus stated, the Times poll director considers a 19 point lead "a small majority." And she warns this small majority "might not bode well" for the measure’s future. Such liberal wishful thinking! I just wish she could similarly explain my cholesterol levels to my doctor with the same elan. Perhaps she could waive her wand and change my high low-density lipoprotein level into something to cheer about! Perhaps I would have reason to trade in my exercycle for a hamburger. So the spin begins. 

   But the spin isn’t really about the marriage amendment. You can be sure that the Times editorial staff is wary that the marriage amendment on the California ballot in November could have broader political implications. As in hurting Barrack Obama in the Golden state. California became a "blue" state in Presidential elections after the last vestiges of Ronald Reagan’s direct political influence on the state passed with the 1988 election of George Bush, Reagan’s Vice-President, carrying our state for the last time for the Republicans. The conventional wisdom is a Republican can no longer carry California in a Presidential election, though polls in California roughly mirror the national polls on McCain/Obama, roughly 47%/40%. That seems to me within striking range under the right set of circumstances. 

   Without some other motivating issue on the ballot, the Republican is indeed likely to lose. But the Times fears that the marriage amendment might become that special issue that could upset the conventional wisdom, and that is why we are already getting the spin that the marriage amendment "is a loser" with a 19 point lead. They are trying hard to make it a loser. Recall that Obama has done poorly with the Hispanic community throughout this election. In areas where there is a large Hispanic voting block, like California and Texas, Hillary Clinton has again and again out-voted Obama. So Hispanics on the natural haven’t warmed up too much to Obama. And now there is this marriage amendment on the ballot, perfectly timed, which will be supported by the Catholic Church up and down the state. 

   Read the Los Angeles Times poll again. Read the story. They provide breakdowns on voter attitudes on the marriage amendment. They manipulate the datat to conclude there is a generation divide on it. But nowhere in the information provided is the really pertinent data from the poll: an analysis of the Hispanic vote. How do Latino voters view the marriage amendment? And of those voters, when informed that Obama supports same sex marriage, how many are more or less likely to vote for Obama? That is the data the Los Angeles Times fears most, the data they don’t want us to be alert to, and which Republicans need to be focusing on if they want to overcome "conventional wisdom" in California in 2008.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.