"One could just as easily spin these results into a decisive problem for Clinton"

Yes, that is why it is called 'spin.'

How Clinton could 'put away Obama' is exactly the same way that Obama could 'put away Clinton.' Convince enough Super Delegates to vote for you that you can get a majority of the delegates. Crazy, I know, but that is how the process works.

I think the interesting question for the super delegates is with Clinton victories in the major battle ground states, does Obama have enough support in those states to beat McCain in November? Clinton is obviously stronger in the states that will matter, and that makes choosing Obama a somewhat risky proposition.

Isn't "scandal" rather too strong a term for stuff like Jeremiah Wright and "bittergate"? PR bumps is what they are, at most.

Moreover, the implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama. But that seems odd.

How so? This has been a persistent press narrative this year: People only vote for Clinton because they're racist.

One thing that isn't ever discussed (but should be because it's relevant) is the breakdown of the numbers that go into calculating the lead. When people say "[Clinton's] lead cut by more than half", it really should be pointed out that this didn't come from people defecting from Clinton to Obama, it comes from Obama winning over the undecides.

It's a fairly consistent pattern from state to state: Clinton starts out high, Obama starts out low, Obama gains a lot, Clinton remains relatively steady. Sometimes the gain is enough to overtake Clinton, sometimes it isn't. The key thing to note is that Obama isn't really getting many people to change their minds, he's gaining the people who haven't made up their minds. That's an important point.

I think you're being a little naive, Ezra, to assume all the lunch-bucket Dems in industrial swing states will fall in line behind Obama rather than McCain in November. The Reagan Democrats are about to become the McCain Democrats, thanks to the Clintons and the most Obsequious Press Corps Evah. Obama is now Stevenson Redux, as much as it pains me to say so -- unless Al Gore endorses and forces the rest of the Superdelegates toend this thing.

The gender and race component of this race is disturbing. An example my wife could hardly disagree more with Hillary Clinton but she supports her because she is a woman. Do 80% of blacks prefer Obama policy wise to Clinton? I think not. Good thing neither is really and bad and good thing that the presidency is not very powerful here.

"I think you're being a little naive, Ezra, to assume all the lunch-bucket Dems in industrial swing states will fall in line behind Obama rather than McCain in November."

Ezra's not being naive. He simply doesn't care.

Supporting Obama is more helpful to Ezra's career than worrying about winning in November or actually achieving universal healthcare.

Petey:
Do you really think that McCain is going to win any states in the Northeast come November? Remember one other thing. Rememeber Michael Dukakis? He once had an 18 point lead over the Boy King's dad in the polls. We all know the end result of that fiasco. So polls can, and will, change.

The thing that struck me about the figure was that despite everything that was thrown at him, Obama's numbers never actually dropped in any significant way- they only increased. Really all Clinton did was slow his momentum in the state- not stop it. Another week or two and it looks like Obama would've caught her.

"I think the interesting question for the super delegates is with Clinton victories in the major battle ground states, does Obama have enough support in those states to beat McCain in November?"

and

"Ezra's not being naive. He simply doesn't care."

There is a reason parent's stop feeding their kids Koolaide by their teen years.

First, only the dumb, uninformed SD will only look at Hillaspin and jump on that bandwagon. That chart above is a huge problem for her.

Second, Ezra is not as is being implied here being naive not is it that he is so deep in Obama's Koolaide as to not care. His calculation is the same as many others--When Clinton throws-in the towel she will throw her support to Obama. In the months that follow, most democrats that were in Hillary's camp will move to Obama. A small percentage may move to McSame.

What the basis for the thought that Hillary's supporters would not support Obama is escapes me. I've heard some very weak arguements for doing so but the only real reason to do so would seem to be that they love the way Bush is running the country.

This is the most interesting chart I've seen on Pennsylvania.

Without dates along the x-axis it's hard to read, but is that initial dip in Obama's line just after New Hampshire's primary? When did Clinton start to come back down? After Super Tuesday?

They're extremely faint, but I can see vertical lines that I assume denote the months. So that first dip was right around the time of Iowa and New Hampshire, while Clinton's started to dip around mid-March and only started recovering a couple weeks ago.

Really all Clinton did was slow his momentum in the state- not stop it.

"All available evidence suggests that she'd have won PA by about twice the margin if both candidates had simply stayed home."

And all available evidence suggests that he'd have lost PA by about twice the margin if he hadn't out spent her 3 to 1.

Wow, another great argument! We should nominate the candidate who's much worse at raising money.

Geez, I'm tired of having my intelligence insulted by Clinton supporters.

I've yet to understand how HRC making the "and he OUTSPENT ME!!!" argument is a great idea.

Yes, he outspent you, but that's because he can afford to. A few times over in fact. Meanwhile, she's running her campaign into debt.

I love how InTrade huckster Petey has decided it's all a matter of careerism, when he was viciously anti-Clinton before he was pro-Edwards before he was pro-Clinton.

The Reagan Democrats are about to become the McCain Democrats

In which case, after 28 years, it's just dumb to call them 'Democrats'. They're Republicans, just as most of the Southern Democrats of the 1950s are now Republicans.

Another week or two and it looks like Obama would've caught her.

Sweet Jesus, the delusions.

Obama caught up somewhat because of new voters who came in expressly to vote for him. He changed no minds at all. Had the election been held the day after the Texas primaries, Clinton would have won by 2-3 more percentage points because of the influx of new voters. Nothing else would have changed a bit.

But go ahead and tell yourself that his bowling won hearts and minds.

Moreover, the implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama. But that seems odd.

It's not odd. It's likely that a very high percentage of them will vote for McCain. The problem lies in concluding that they are racist, rather than merely people who can't stand Obama or his liberal worldview.

Do 80% of blacks prefer Obama policy wise to Clinton? I think not.

Of course not. There's really not a dime's worth of difference between their policies other than implementation details.
Nope, the racism is showing its ugly face in the party that always whines and complains about it and accuses everyone else of it.
The irony is beyond sweet...

What Judis is concerned about, and he should be, is the race factor. There's a lot of people (more than are willing to admit it to a pollster), including some Dems, who just won't vote for a black man for president. I suspect this is HRC's rationalization for staying in the campaign; she's telling herself that she's trying to "save" the Dems from certain defeat by trying to prevent them from nominating a black man. In reality, of course, she can't win, and her conduct is only making Obama's defeat more likely.

I know Clinton voters who originally supported Obama but, as a consequence of how the campaign progressed, changed their support to Clinton. And I know Clinton supporters who have always been positively supportive of her. I haven't yet met any who are hostile to Obama (as opposed to some of his campaign tactics) in the way the many Obama supporters routinely hostile to Clinton. (In my Washington State caucus precinct every Obama supporter -- all white men -- who spoke made angry, impassioned arguments against Clinton, none spoke positively for their candidate. Clinton supporters were just the opposite -- none criticized Obama, all gave positive arguments for their support for Clinton.)

Yes, the above is just anecdote. But what else are Ezra's assertions about Clinton's supporters based on? Anecdote and mostly baseless speculation.

Among my African American friends and co-workers I don't know any who are hostile to Clinton -- many, not all, are supporting Obama -- but for understandable and legitimate aspirational reasons, not out of hatred of Clinton. Most, like me, are over 40. (And most would really like to see both on the ticket in some combination.)

I think the real hostility expressed in this race is by Obama's younger supporters -- especially younger men -- age is much more of a factor in the bitterness in this campaign than race.

And while I do believe Clinton supporters are getting angry at the unrelenting hostility -- and ugly charges of racism, stupidity, etc. -- aimed at them as well as the candidate, I think the original over-the-top hostililty started with Obama's youthful supporters.

The problem lies in concluding that they are racist, rather than merely people who can't stand Obama or his liberal worldview.

'Merely', indeed.

The problem, of course, exists in reverse, with the forced conclusion that there are no Democrats in Pennsylvania who, like Chris Matthews, think of 'blacks', 'liberals' and 'regular people' as separate groups. Such people patently exist.

But yoking such a large, heterogenous sample to one motivation and trying to discount others is just silly.

Floccina,

In fact, African Americans were the most antiwar group. Obama's antiwar stance appeals to this group deeply. Would black voters support C. Thomas if he ran? NOPE. Blacks also consistently vote for white people, voting in the high 80s/90s for democrats all of the time. Don't say blacks are biased because they have proven, more than any other group, that they are not.

Floccina,

I mean not biased in terms of voting. Again, blacks have proven again & again that they will support white candidates & female candidates.

Simply put, Obama couldn't close the gap in PA for a few reasons:

1. He hasn't been on message. Hope and change took a backseat to playing "defense" over the Reverend Wright controversy and "Bittergate". That needs to come back if he's going to finish Hillary off before Denver.

2. The economy is the #1 issue in working class states right now, and HRC owns it. The anti-war constituency is fine and dandy, but most folks care about the recession. Obama needs to speak to them.

"What the basis for the thought that Hillary's supporters would not support Obama is escapes me."

Just off the top:
1) We don't like the way Obama has tried to lump the Clinton years in with those of Bush because it's pure BS
2) We NEVER liked Obama's praising of repubs and Reagan because, again, it's pure BS
3)We think Obama hasn't performed well outside of his scripted arenas - which reminds, in fact, too much of Reagan. He talks about transparency and then wouldn't answer any questions after the most recent debate
4) He's too young and inexperienced; he ran too soon
5) He wins elections by gaming the system - google how he got his Ill state seat
6)He wants to put repubs in his cabinet
7) He triangulates on the pro-choice issue
8) He outwardly denounces homophobia while thinking all gays are recruiting and giving stage to a straight-again McLurkin
9) He should have or at least should be NOW making a strong case for MI and FL revotes if he wants what's best for the democratic party in the fall
10) He uses sexist language whenever trying to shore up male vote

Now, this doesn't mean we'll all be voting for McCain; just that we'll be exploring all other options to voting for Obama.

See, it's not just that we think Clinton would make a better candidate than McCain; it's that we think she'd be a better president than either Obama or McCain. If she loses the nomination, we hope she makes an independent run. Or we write her name in where we can. Or we vote green. Or we vote in all other contests but that one. Or yes, some of us, vote for McCain.

it was a ten point loss

Turnout.

Let's not forget the impact of turnout, which has been consistently off the charts on the Democratic side. Look at PA:

McCain: 586,000
Obama: 1,043,000
Clinton: 1,259,000

Sure, the GOP race wasn't competitive. But let's do a thought experiment about November.

1. Assume GOP turnout doubles. That puts McCain with about 1.1 million votes.

2. Next, assume Obama's support stays the same. That gives him 1.0 million votes.

3. McCain only beats Obama if he picks up a full HALF of Hillary's primary voters. Half! Is that really going to happen? If Obama can pick up 60% of Hillary supporters, he wins. This is not a very high threshold.

In the general, Dem turnout will be high and GOP turnout will be average to poor. Therefore, Obama doesn't need to pick up every single working-class white voter. Judis and others don't seem to be taking this likely turnout disparity into account.

Via the CNN exit polls...

People who thought race was “important” voted for Clinton 59-40; people who thought gender was “important” went 71-29, also in favor of Clinton.

People who thought race was important voted against the black man... people who thought gender was important voted for the woman.

Gee Ezra, if Obama comes with 10 points of beating McCain in November, will you try to spin that as a win too?

Obama can't win the states we need in November. His lead is based on wins in solid red states.

Ever heard of Michael Dukakis?

Ever heard of Michael Dukakis?

The two names you won't ever hear mytroll2x mention: Al Gore and John Kerry.

Hillary '08: We'll Get The Ten State Strategy Right This Time! Trust Us!

Women are smarter and the old are wiser....So Obama got the gun clinging men and the antipathic minorities.....

When a clearly frontrunning candidate in a state critical for Democrats spends $11.2 million in ad buys alone, outspends his opponent by over 4-to-1, enjoys the support of his party's resident D.C. establishment and D.C.'s resident media establishment, and despite that running start can muster but 45% of the primary vote against a weakened opponent, his overall viability as the Democratic standard-bearer deserves to be vigorously questioned.

To add fuel to the fireand thus compound Sen. Obama's problem, the Boston Herald reported today that polls show him tied with Sen. McCain in, of all places, Massachusetts.

"One could just as easily spin these results into a decisive problem for Clinton: In a state where Obama faced brutally inhospitable demographics and weathered two major scandals in the course of six weeks, she saw her lead cut by more than half, rather than expanded by a third."

Or, you could say "In a state where Obama outspent his opponent by nearly three times, he still lost the actual contest." But of course we know you would never spin it that way.

I haven't yet met any who are hostile to Obama

Well, there's a lot of polling support for it. Besides, if they genuinely liked Obama and didn't care who was president, Obama would have wrapped this up by now.

Besides, trading anecdote for anecdote, I know a lot of moderate Dems who will vote for McCain over Obama. I would probably have leaned Hillary, but if Obama is the nominee I will actively work to turn my state red this year.

When a clearly frontrunning candidate in a state critical for Democrats spends $11.2 million in ad buys alone, outspends his opponent by over 4-to-1, enjoys the support of his party's resident D.C. establishment and D.C.'s resident media establishment, and despite that running start can muster but 45% of the primary vote against a weakened opponent, his overall viability as the Democratic standard-bearer deserves to be vigorously questioned.

When the formerly frontrunning candidate enters into a contest with a 20% lead, enjoys the support of the hard-campaigning state governor, as well as the support of the party insider establishment and a horse-race crazy media, throws everything and the kitchen sink into the race, and narrowly misses beating her opponent by double-digits, her overall viability as the Democratic standard-bearer deserves to be vigorously questioned.

Questions for which I'd love to have answers:

a) How many of Hillary's votes came from women registered as Republican in the last election?

b) Why is the mainstream media pimping HRC's "populist" stance on the economy when she's nominated Greenspan, Volcker, and Rubin (oh my!) to clean up the mess THEY created?

c) When will the media develop a meaningful criticism of Obama (i.e. no t lapel pins, guilt by association, or gaffes about bible-thumpers)?

Wow, another great argument! We should nominate the candidate who's much worse at raising money.

And the candidate who also:

- Does not bring in the youth vote
- Dismisses independent/crossover voters
- Expresses loathing for 'activists'
- Marginalizes AA voters
- Lies about her own history in the public eye
- Puffs her resume, including taking credit for others' achievements
- Blows almost unprecedented primary-campaign funds, and still stiffs vendors
- Refused to use her high profile to lead her party in a time of severe crisis, and in fact enabled the perpetrators
- Has recently suggested nuking Iran

Yeah, that's the sort of Democrat that could eventually make me a Canadian. It's beyond embarrassing at this point; now it's actually deeply disturbing.

"When the formerly frontrunning candidate enters into a contest with a 20% lead, enjoys the support of the hard-campaigning state governor, as well as the support of the party insider establishment and a horse-race crazy media, throws everything and the kitchen sink into the race, and narrowly misses beating her opponent by double-digits, her overall viability as the Democratic standard-bearer deserves to be vigorously questioned."

So you don't refute the original comment, but rather counter that Hillary is similarly unelectable?

If that's the best you got, I guess we should get ready for President McCain.

When it ends, those groups will probably vote as their even more predictive characteristic -- partisan affiliation -- implies.

Partisan affiliation? The young Obama supporters I know identify themselves as Liberals -- not Democrats. Like me, the ones who have voted before switch their party affiliation depending on where they live.

The question is not whether Obama voters will vote for McCain if Clinton wins the nomination; the question is whether the Obama supporters will vote at all.

"""formerly frontrunning candidate enters into a contest with a 20% lead""

This is pure baloney. Anyone who actually follows this stuff knows that Hillary never had a real 20 point lead. Its all done with poll weighting and name recognition.

The polsters were just more likley to poll Hillarys' demographic groups, nothing more.

I'd like to know the following:

1. What percentage of the vote was cast by people who switched their registration from Republican to Democrat?

2. Who did the registration-switchers support?

The answers to these questions would shed light on whether or not Republicans were following Limbaugh's appeals to cross over and sabotage the Democratic Party.

"I'd like to know the following: 1. What percentage of the vote was cast by people who switched their registration from Republican to Democrat? 2. Who did the registration-switchers support?"

Clinton won the Democratic vote in PA by 56 to 44. Obama won the non-Democratic vote in PA by 54 to 46.

This mirrors the composite result in the previous states to vote. Clinton has an overwhelming vote margin among Democrats in 2008, even if you disenfranchise MI and FL.

Ezra Klein doesn't give a shit about the will of the Democratic electorate because he sees career advantages to supporting Obama, the candidate who bashes universal healthcare to get free publicity from General Electric.

"The question is not whether Obama voters will vote for McCain if Clinton wins the nomination; the question is whether the Obama supporters will vote at all."

No, that's just A question, along with the similar one about Clinton supporters should Obama get it.

Clinton won the Democratic vote in PA by 56 to 44. Obama won the non-Democratic vote in PA by 54 to 46.

Please give links to the data, and define what you mean by "non-Democrat vote." Thanks much.

And the candidate who also:

- Does not bring in the old vote
- Relies on Republicans and independents to thwart the will of Democrats
- Expresses loathing for the Democratic base
- Marginalizes women voters
- Lies about his own history in the public eye
- Puffs his resume, including taking credit for others' achievements
- Blows almost unprecedented primary-campaign funds,
- Refused to use his high profile to lead the party in a time of severe crisis, and in fact enabled the perpetrators
- Has recently suggested invading Pakistan

Obama supporters sure give up easily. Good luck in Toronto.

FWIW Obama won the newly registered (since Jan.) 62-38.

What happened in PA?

democracy