Patterico's Pontifications

5/23/2008

L.A. Times: Obama Would Win California by a Teeny, Tiny, Inconsequential Margin

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 4:54 pm

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?

16 Responses to “L.A. Times: Obama Would Win California by a Teeny, Tiny, Inconsequential Margin”

  1. Obama garners 47% of the vote. Not even a majority — much less a slim majority.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  2. Ah, but the Times is also undergoing a very narrow decline in circulation as well.

    JVW (78155f)

  3. The answer is no, they can’t see how silly they look. Anymore than Thomas Franks understands why profits are necessary and why libertarians are correct as they try to arrest the rush to a bankrupt welfare state. Even if they don’t win many battles in DC these days. Franks wrote Whats the Matter with Kansas, a wistful plea for middle class people to vote for Obama, even as he holds them in contempt. Neither Franks, nor the LA Times understands human nature or common sense.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  4. 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.]

    that’s just funny.

    Topsecretk9 (5537e5)

  5. Bush won in 2004 by 2%.

    He called it a “mandate” and boasted about his “political capital”.

    So yeah, 7% is a decent lead. Why don’t you try a little intellectual honesty? Thought experiment: If McCain were leading Obama by 7 points, or even one point, you’d be orgasmic.

    This is one of the weakest “Bad News For Obama!” posts I’ve read in weeks. Seriously.

    Next.

    Oh really? (b98438)

  6. Um, this is not a “Bad news for Obama!” post. This is a “The LA Times is a bunch of disingenuous nitwits” post. The lack of intellectual or any other sort of honesty is the point of the post. Way to miss it. Reading might help, as would clicking the links.

    Pablo (99243e)

  7. Nice try, Skippy.

    Obama lost CA to Hillary and now he’s leading both her and McCain. A 7% lead is a solid lead. Any pol would kill for a 7 point lead in CA.

    To dismiss it as a “slim, small, narrow, bare majority” is an exercise in wishful thinking.

    Obama is trending up, McCain is trending down.

    And we haven’t even begun to discuss how McCain would try to compete in the CA media market when his campaign is flat broke and he had to cancel a fundraiser in Phoenix…

    Oh really? (b98438)

  8. Oh really?,

    What Pablo is saying is the post tends to agree with you, although that’s not the point. It’s satire. The LAT called a 19-point gap slim when it was a conservative issue leading, but a 7 point lead is massive and overwhelming when the liberal they want to win has it.

    Why is a 7 point lead so big for Obama when a 19 point lead against gay marriage is slim? That’s the point. Read the article and the links before posting. It’s about the hypocrisy of the LA Times, not Obama or McCain.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  9. Just reading that first link ought to do it. Then again, the explanation surrounding it ought to do it. But apparently we’re dealing with a denizen of the Community Based Reality. Of course it’s about Obama! Everything is about O!

    Pablo (99243e)

  10. Oh, come on guys. Let’s have some fun with the guy.

    A 7% lead is a solid lead.

    a 7% lead is within the poll’s plus or minus 4 points margin of error.

    Pablo and Stashiu are right: the post is mainly about the LAT.

    But a margin of victory within the margin of error — not even as strong a showing as John Kerry made?

    Patterico (cb443b)

  11. Oh, come on guys. Let’s have some fun with the guy.

    Religious wars are never fun… he’s a Believer (in Hopiness and Changiness!!) and will smite any unbelievers with his mighty keyboard.

    He even called Pablo “Skippy”. How can anybody defeat such a keen mind? ;)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  12. But a margin of victory within the margin of error — not even as strong a showing as John Kerry made?

    The polling is inherently misleading at the moment, let’s give Obama a chance to consolidate Hillary’s Democrats before we start comparing him to John Kerry. McCain needed a few months (still needs a few more?) to consolidate, Obama hasn’t had that advantage.

    Levi (76ef55)

  13. Ignoring the troll. Don’t wanna play with trolls today. You guys have fun though.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  14. Thou shalt not poll Obama, unless he’s running away.

    Pablo (99243e)

  15. I LOL @ libtards every day. What saddens me, though, is that these idiots control the media, the academy, and the Congress.

    Anyone else see the vid of long-time Congresswoman Maxine Waters struggling to find the word “nationalize” and instead say “socialize” and “take control of” ???

    Face it: These people are just plain stupid.

    Dummy (eb2e52)

  16. A few years ago the CRONKITE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM TOOK A POLL WHICH SAID THAT 67% OF THOSE SERVIED DO NOT TRUST THE MAIN-STREAM MEDIA FOR ACCURATLY TELLING THE NEWS

    krazy kagu (a47a9f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3639 secs.