There's been a lot made of Obama's appeal to black voters and lack of appeal to white voters, based primarily on South Carolina. What this ignores is the vast differences state by state that appear within demographic groups. Take these three recent state polls, California, Georgia, and Tennessee. California: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...08_california_democratic_presidential_primary Obama leads with white voters by 3 pts; he trails with latino voters by 20+. Georgia: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvantage_MajorityOpinionGADEMpoll.html Here, you have the black/white split. But oddly, Clinton leads substantially amongst the youngest demographic - one that Obama normally dominates. On the flipside, there's basically no gender gap at all. Tennessee: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/InsiderAdvantage_MajorityOpinionTNDEMpoll.html Here, Clinton absolutely dominates the all the younger age groups and her support drops with older voters. Again, no gender gap, but here the black vote is basically evenly split. As we saw in Iowa vs. South Carolina, these demographic breakdowns just don't seem to hold. Where there may be a race gap in the south, there may not be in the west. And the age gap and gender gap varies by location as well.
These numbers will change when active campaigning starts in those states. While Hillary is very widely known and people already have formed opinions about her, a some folks don't have much of an impression of Obama and are waiting to see him. It's on Obama and his surrogates to make a good impression and close the sale. In particular if he wants to win, he can't allow Clinton & Co. to define him first.
If they hadn't started campaigning in those states, they'd better hurry. There are only 4 more campaigning days until those states vote as part of Super Tuesday.
I didn't say that right. The campaigning for Super Tuesday started the day after the South Carolina primary. In Hillary's case, it started a few days sooner.
