The L.A. Times reports that, according to a new poll, Californians slimly reject the idea of John McCain as their presidential candidate. By a small margin, it appears, Californians would vote for Barack Obama — but only by a bit! The poll reveals such a narrow margin of victory, it appears that Obama can’t even muster a bare majority against McCain!
Obama would beat McCain by only 7 points. This is far less than half the 19-point gap by which Californians would approve an amendment banning gay marriage — a finding that caused the paper to repeatedly trumpet how narrowly and slimly (we Californians are slim!) the anti-gay marriage argument is winning with voters.
And indeed, the margin of an Obama victory, as measured by this poll, is slimmer than the margin of victory enjoyed by any Democrat candidate since 1988. Including John Kerry and Al Gore. [UPDATE: And the margin is actually within the poll's margin of error.]
Isn’t that the news?
But despite this fact, I lied when I said the L.A. Times describes this as a narrow margin. The headline on the story, predictably, is Obama would take California in November, Times/KTLA poll finds. The main spin is that Hillary would win by a smaller margin, showing that she really isn’t the best candidate.
The fact that even Obama wins by only 7 points does not lead to a description of the margin as “narrow,” or “slim,” or “teensy-tiny, really so small as to be unnoticeable.”
But then, the paper’s editors and headline writers want Obama to be popular. Just like they want gay marriage to be popular. So a 7-point margin of victory for Obama is not narrow — but a 19-point margin of loss for gay marriage is as narrow as narrow can be.
Can they really not see how silly they look?