Ohio goes to Obama

Obama is walloping McCain in Ohio. It's no contest; they called it with less than 20% reporting.

McCain narrowly won the white vote in OH, but the black vote was 12% of the total and it was unanimous for Obama.

40% of the electorate were Democrats, only 30% were Republicans. In 2004 it was 35% Democrat, 40% Republican.

Obama killed on "cares about people like me" in OH, 78-19.

Bush won college grads in Ohio in 2004, Obama won them tonight.

Can Obama lose Appalachia and win the Presidency?

It's a question that's been on my mind for over a month.  Can Obama just cede all of Appalachia and still pull off a victory?  He ran so weak there in the primaries, as Jay Cost has documented with the first map above.  Appalachia was an ocean of blue--blue for Hillary Clinton.  

What if Obama loses all of Appalachia in the general election?  That is to say, every state with a portion of the region in it, within reason (i.e., excluding NY and Maryland).  This would include the swing states of Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania.  What if McCain wins all three of these, West Virginia, and the southern states he'll win anyway?

This scenario, based on the polling we have today, would give McCain 243 and Obama 219 electoral votes.  There would be 7 swing states left outstanding.  Obama could win 6 out of the 7 and still lose--if McCain won Florida.  So McCain would be pretty close to winning in this scenario; he'd only have to win Florida to clinch it.  Or he could lose Florida, but still win Indiana (Bush won in 04), Nevada (Bush won in 04), Colorado (Bush won in 04), and New Hampshire (Bush lost in 04 by a paltry 9,000 votes).  If McCain picked off Minnesota, where the race has tightened over the summer and is currently tied, and the Dems in the state might be dragged down by Al Franken's Senate candidacy, then he's in even better shape because he could then win with just Indiana and Colorado, or Indiana, New Hampshire, and Nevada.  

Hillary Clinton was a tougher candidate for electoral college reasons.  But so much can change.  I still think Obama could win in a blowout.  McCain cannot win in a blowout.  But I would not be surprised with Obama wining in a blowout.  He is a realigning candidate, which we might see in 2012 even more than now.  But now I'm getting way ahead of myself.  

The race in Ohio

I got polled last Sunday (at 3pm) by Rasmussen.  I live in the Ohio's swing-district-of-all-swing districts, so it was thrilling to think that my opinion would actually be listed to.  A few interesting things about the poll.  It was a robo-poll which moved along at a fair clip.  There were a few demographic questions in the middle of the poll.  It gave the option to vote for Barr, Nader, and McKinney.  The most interesting question was, "If you had to make the toughest decision of your life, who would you ask, Barack Obama or John McCain?"  

In the local paper here, the fact that McCain was up in a poll (not the Rasumussen one) was front page news.  Of course, McCain was not really up in the poll--he had 48, Obama 42, but the margin of error was 3.3% so it's a statistical tie.  

Obama is having difficulty in Ohio.  It's the same old story--people feel uncomfortable with him waltzing in and taking over the country.  And why shouldn't they?  Obama's inexperienced.  He's not tried and true.  There are plenty of good reasons to be skeptical of Obama without being racist.  There was a forum last week in West Virginia blaming racists there for not supporting Obama.  I heard the same opinion from a WV native at APSA in Boston.  I said recently here that there was no way that Obama could win West Virginia; however, he's been creeping up on McCain in the polls, to the point where they're basically tied in the Mountain State.  

In Ohio, there was an Obama volunteer who had a hilarious venting in the letters to the editor section of my local Sunday paper.  It was well-reasoned, even eloquent, if it wasn't so sarcastic.  The lady was choking on her own disbelief that people would support McCain/Palin.  It was an interesting snippet of the race, because this lady obviously has knocked on a lot of doors, or made a lot of phone calls, or both, and has heard the same thing over and over--that people relate to McCain (and especially Palin) in a way they don't with Obama.  

That's why money is not so much a factor in this race.  Obama might raise more, and will continue to be able to raise more while McCain's finished (he's taken his $84 million of government money and can no longer accept private donations), but both have enough money to compete, and that's all that matters.  Obama poured money into Ohio and PA in the primaries, and he got creamed by Hillary.  Money is not the answer.  It pays for legions of enthusiastic volunteers to become disillusioned and crabbed like the lady who had to vent in public about how stupid the people are who she's trying to pursuade to vote for Obama.  

The polls are meaningless (almost)

Polls at this point in time are absolutely worthless in terms of their predictive value. At this time last year, if you had believed the polling, Edwards or Hillary would have won Iowa. Or nationally, Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee! See what I'm saying?

Intrade is no better, pace Michael Brendan Dougherty. Buying Obama and McCain futures this time last year would have netted you a small fortune (more so with McCain, but also with Obama).

CBS Horserace writes:

In those blue states being talked about by Republicans as possible targets, Obama is doing more than holding his own. In Pennsylvania, the RCP average has Obama up by 7 points. In Michigan, it’s a 7.2 point lead, 11.2 points In Wisconsin and 12 points in Minnesota. When it comes to those states Obama is looking to flip into the Democratic column, the race is much closer. McCain holds an average lead of just 0.7 points in Virginia and just 3.8 points in North Carolina. Obama meanwhile leads by 3.6 points in Colorado and holds a slight 0.5 lead in Indiana. And in Nevada, it’s a dead heat. Meanwhile, some of the more traditional swing states look to be tilting slightly towards the Democrat. Obama holds the lead in poll averages in places Republicans have won in recent cycle. He’s up 4.5 points in Ohio and 2.5 in Missouri. Obama is holding strong in Iowa, with an average 7.4 point lead. McCain clings to a 2.2 point average lead in must-have Florida and New Hampshire is a toss-up. In other words, Obama is looking much stronger in the states Democrats have relied on in the past two close elections while appearing to make real inroads in traditional Republican states and competing very well in big swing states like Ohio.

Stuart Rothenberg says the bellweather states will be Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Nevada and Michigan. Obama has small leads in all of these, except in Michigan where he's up by 7+.

Obama is doing the right things right now; moving to the center during the summer when nobody's paying attention; grabbing all the headlines (for those who are) by going overseas. The trip is looking like it will be a masterstroke; Barack looks presidential, McCain is diminished by comparison.

Could Obama slip up and harm his candidacy? Of course, but that can happen with anything. He's dominating the airwaves so far and will continue to with his overseas venture. The more people just get used to the idea of Obama being their president, representing them to foreign leaders, etc., the better off he is.

He's got four months to do this, yet the drawn-out primary campaign helped immensely. Obama was not dropped on us from heaven; he had to earn it gradually over a grueling schedule of primary after primary. All these voters seeing his name on the ballot, hearing about him on the local news. And the campaigning sharpening his presidential campaigning skills. I will repeat until doomsday comes that a plethora of democracy only helps a party (and the US as a whole) and the people who only see the divisiveness have no imagination and miss the big picture entirely.

So to pose the question put by CBS Horserace (not excerpted) why isn't Obama up by more? I think the answer is that the heat has not yet been put on John McCain. McCain is benefiting from the surge's short-term success, and the fact that the economy dominates the headlines distracting people from Iraq. People are not thinking about the election. When they do the poll numbers will move around. No doubt McCain will have a lead at some point in time. But there is plenty of ways for Obama to go after McCain, and not a whole lot of ways for McCain to go after Obama, except alterization, the impact of which is/will be blunted by the fact that Obama has/has had time for people to get used to him. The media fawning all over him doesn't hurt, along with the fact that McCain has finally met his match in the media-darling category; now he's standing in the way of what the progressive media elites most desire, which is new for him.

Crist as veep if McCain needs Florida

Race 4 2008 has a good post up today pushing for Charlie Crist as McCain's running mate, on the thinking that it takes Florida out of play, limiting the possibilities for Obama to flip Republican states.

He writes: By taking Florida out of play, McCain limits possible red state defections to seven states: Missouri, Virginia, Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The geographical concentration of these states into two distinct regions would make multi-state campaigning easier on the part of a cash-strapped Team McCain, and would force Obama to make inroads into the very sorts of voters who are most suspicious of him in order to win. In this scenario, McCain could simply spend the entirely of the fall campaign jumping back and forth between Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, knowing that whoever wins the majority of those five states probably wins the election. And we all saw how far Obama’s millions went in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania during primary season.

The swing states can be seen at the bottom of this blog, with the margins from '04. If Obama wins Pennsylvania (and at this point seems like he probably will) and Michigan, he can win without Missouri, Virginia, and Ohio only by batting 75% in Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. That's difficult, but not impossible. As Chris Bowers has posted, Obama has had a lead in Iowa in every poll since January 2007, is ahead in every Colorado poll, currently leads by over 5 points in New Mexico, and is down over 2 points in Nevada.

So Obama is likely to win today. But oh how the polls can change!

The Battleground States

The video posted below shows David Plouffe (the genius for the Obama campaign who saw early on that the primary could come down to delegates, and urged aiming for delegate-rich contests) mapping out Obama's strategy in the general. That strategy is, hold on to the Kerry states, and go on offense against some Bush '04 states.

He claims that Obama is doing well in the Kerry states, so that McCain doesn't have many opportunities to go on offense. He's right. The WSJ poll above of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan show Obama with leads right now beyond the margin of error. Of course that could change. But as of right now it looks good for Obama to hold onto the Kerry states.

Kerry got 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of winning. Where can Obama get these 19 votes? I've posted my analysis of swing states at the bottom of this blog for easy reference. Of course Ohio or Florida would do it. A combination of Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado would do it as well.

I'm going to be doing a series on this blog on the political situations for the campaigns in the states, starting with the battleground states. It's a fun way to pass a lazy summer. [I am no longer planning on doing this. Jay Cost is doing a great job of this over at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/]

Obama to do to McCain what he did to Hillary

The presidential race has been going fast and furious while I've had a blogging respite over the past few weeks. It's been interesting to pay less attention as I have been; this after all is what the vast majority of voters do. Those who pay attention daily are a minority after all. The advantage of paying attention is the ability to predict the future--what will happen when something becomes widely known. (I don't pretend to have a perfect record on this blog--I didn't think there was any way that McCain could win the GOP nod, nor did I think Obama could win--but I did predict Thompson's demise and Huckabee's rise.)

The McCain ad I posted a few days ago has been playing over and over in Ohio, the swing state of all swing states. I find it effective. The McCain team knows exactly its weakness--McCain will be portrayed as a reckless warmonger by the Dems. They also know their strong point--McCain's backstory. Iraq is obviously viewed by McCain's team as vitally important, a point I was complaining has been missed by Republican commentators, including Jay Cost.

There are big problems in the McCain camp. The biggest is this: what Obama did to Hillary, a target the size of a bull's-eye, he's going to do to McCain, a target the size of a barn. "Experience? You talk about your experience? Then why did you vote for the Iraq war?" With Hillary it was just her 2002 Senate vote, with McCain it is everything, his whole worldview. This is why McCain's going down, because his argument for why he should be president is fatally flawed.

Hillary's was flawed too, but not nearly so bad. Hillary, I have said here, would be a stronger general-election candidate based on the electoral math. But Obama is perhaps the stronger candidate when it comes to message. He offers a clear contrast to McCain. Sure, he has a lot of work to do: uniting the party, appealing to Appalachia. But these things he might be able to overcome. The primary campaign made him more able to do it, not less. Hillary would not be able to offer the message of a break with the past like Obama. She'd be a throwback, neutralizing the downfall of McCain's age. She voted for the war, enabling McCain to pull what saved Bush's bacon in '04, viz. repeating over and over that Kerry voted for the war. This was, in terms of message, why Bush won last time. He always had the last word in the debate: "You voted for it, then against it. You're wishy-washy, but I stand firm." It's why Hillary lost because Obama always had the last word on Iraq, pointing to her vote.

But this time around the Democrat will always have the last word. It's an incredible advantage. And it's an advantage that cuts down McCain right at the roots--because foreign policy is his expertise. Or is it?

Philip Giraldi has a stinging indictment of McCain in this month's TAC:

Intelligence analysts who have briefed Sen. John McCain on international issues generally report that he is not very knowledgeable about most parts of the world, despite his years of experience in government and his campaign's insistence that one of his principal strengths is foreign-policy expertise. When speaking with an area specialist or expert, McCain is primarily interested in stating his own perceptions and is not generally regarded as an attentive listener. Analysts do not like briefing him because he becomes angry and sometimes personally offensive when someone contradicts his view. One analyst stated that McCain's alleged expertise on international issues is essentially bogus. He speaks no foreign language, and his international experience drives from brief postings at military bases, junkets while serving as Navy liaison to the Senate, and the misfortune of his rather more extensive state in the Hanoi Hilton.

As a congressman, McCain served on committees dealing with Department of the Interior issues, Indian affairs, and the problems of aging--all areas of particular interest to his Arizona constituents. As a senator, he has served on the three committees dealing with the armed services, Indian affairs, and commerce. He is regarded as an expert on the military, both because of his background and due to an genuine interest. But McCain's only foray into foreign affairs as a senator has been his chairmanship of the International Republican Institute, a controversial quasi-public arm of the Republican Party engaged in democracy promotion overseas. McCain's position with IRI requires him to make an occasional speech on policy, but he has no hands-on role and is not much interested in particular issues. One of the private contributors to IRI is the notorious private mercenary firm Blackwater USA, which donated $15,000 to the group's coffers in 2005 and 2006 and in return received a contract for $18 million to protect IRI workers overseas.

McCain's foreign travel in recent years has been in the security and diplomatic cocoon that has become normal for someone with a senator's status. His comments during and after visits to Iraq have been lampooned in the media for being completely disconnected from the situation on the ground. Like George W. Bush, McCain has not been inclined to vacation outside the United States, and he appears to have little curiosity about the world and its peoples. According to the analysts who have interacted with McCain, his recent misstatements about various Muslim groups and other foreign-policy issues are not slips. They reflect a real lack of interest in other countries that makes it impossible for him to empathize with their problems, leading to a monochromatic view of the world and the facile assumption that it is always better to solve issues dealing with foreigners by dropping bombs.

McCain, whose foreign-policy advisers are exclusively neocons, receives regular briefings from the distinguished scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, which are presumably more to his taste than the less colorful information provided by the $42 billion per year intelligence community.

McCain won't win a blowout

McCain is losing Mark McKinnon. He had pledged to leave McCain's campaign if Obama was the Dem nominee. I speculated in February that it might be because McKinnon saw McCain's campaign as a sinking ship that might be able to beat Hillary, but not Obama. Who knows the real reason.

But is Obama the strongest nominee? I've been arguing that Hillary would have an easier time in the general because of her strength in Appalachia. Hillary of course won Kentucky this past week 65-30. Obama won Oregon, 59-41, and passed the majority mark for pledged delegates (that was the headline). The people in Appalachia really don't like like Obama. But voters elsewhere really don't like Hillary. One is tempted to say that the Democratic contest is one between which candidate you dislike the most.

But that's actually not true. A lot of people had negative impressions of Hillary, which along with her October 2002 Iraq vote gave Barack an opening. But both candidates were very strong with very committed supporters who prefer their candidate. And prefer does not mean "hate the other guy/gal."

It might seem like that with the results in Appalachia going against Obama, but as I've emphasized before, those were primary election results, and you can't generalize from them to November. The Politico today has an article on a McCain "blowout" being contemplated by Republicans. It's based on current polling. But of course you can't generalize from polling in May to November. Plus, it's all based on the idea that McCain is stronger than the Republican party, which everyone agrees is in shambles.

In short, I think that Obama is a very strong general election candidate. There is certainly an argument to be made that Hillary is stronger, and I've made it, but that is all based on the leap from primary results to general election results, which is actually a tenuous one. Though it certainly does seem likely that Hillary would have a better chance of winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, this doesn't mean that Obama can't win them. You just can't generalize that. That is not what the primary results mean.

If the primary results in Appalachia meant, "I don't like Obama and won't vote for him in the general," then that would be one thing. But they don't mean that, they mean that between him and Hillary Democratic voters preferred Hillary. But that is meaningless for a general election against McCain with all voters. It's two completely different situations.

The exit poll results reveal otherwise: 41.7% of Democratic voters in the Kentucky primary said they would not vote for Obama in November, and 39.43% of Democratic voters in the West Virginia primary said the same. That reveals a strong level of dislike. However, it's dislike in the current context of a heated primary race. Things will be very different in November, as the sources in the Politico's story admit.

In a heated primary race I'll say that I won't vote for the other guy/gal in the general. But the general election has not be framed yet. When McCain is in the hot seat rather than the Democratic candidates, it'll be another story. That is to say, when it's a contest between a Republican and a Democrat, it's a completely different animal.

And memories are short. What we have here is precisely the situation McCain himself was in a year ago. In the summer of '07 McCain's campaign tanked, and everyone was seeing the negatives with it--trying to win over Republican voters with issue-positions they disagree with. As with Obama now--his negatives with Appalachian voters resound strongly. But he has time to deal with them, like McCain did. And he doesn't have to beat Hillary Clinton in the general, he has to beat John McCain. The comparison's the important thing. McCain has an edge on Obama that he wouldn't have on Hillary, but that's an edge now, not an edge in November.

The NYT reports of dissatisfaction of Republicans with the disorder of McCain's campaign. It certainly seems like it's falling apart at the seams, with lots of advisers leaving. But this could be a strategic housecleaning, as the Washington Times points out.

Hillary a strong general election candidate, Obama a realigning candidate

First of all, the stunning special election in Mississippi's 1st district. In the last two elections the Republican won with over 70% of the vote, and Bush won 59% in 2000 and 62% in 2004. But yesterday the Democrat won by 8 points. DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen said this: "For the first time in more than 30 years the Democratic Party has picked up three Republican seats in special elections in one cycle. The NRCC broke the bank and spent nearly 20 percent of their cash on hand on a ruby red district."

Now to the blowout in West Virginia. It's clear that Hillary is the strongest general election candidate. And here's why--she wins Appalachia. The second picture above show's Hillary's wins in dark blue (from Jay Cost who got it from Sean Oxendine). You can mentally fill in the white West Virginia cutout with a lot more dark blue.

The Democratic candidate needs to win these states. The swing states are pictured in the top map. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are in Appalachia. If Hillary wins these states and Arkansas, then all she has to win is New Hampshire or Wisconsin (both of which John Kerry won in 2004), to be elected president. The path to the presidency is pretty clear for Hillary if she wins Arkansas and Appalachia.

Without Appalachia it's difficult. Kerry came 19 electoral votes short. Adding to what he won without Appalachia (and Arkansas) would mean either winning Florida (Kerry lost by 5%) or a combination of Iowa (7 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 1%), Missouri (11 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 7%), Colorado (9 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 5%), Nevada (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost by 3%), or New Mexico (5 electoral votes, Kerry lost be 1%).

This means, hold all the states that Kerry won, and then go on and win the three states in which Kerry got close (Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada), or get the bigger but tougher states Missouri or Colorado. That's definitely more of an uphill battle if you are Obama. Hillary's path to the presidency is much, much easier.

Yet Obama's probably going to be the nominee. Which might not be such a bad thing for Democrats long-term. New voters coming into the fold is always a plus, and young people are identifying with Obama. He did the better with them than any other demographic group last night in WVA (save those with "some postgraduate study"). Obama's the candidate of the future, Clinton the candidate of the past. Obama's the candidate of inspiration, Clinton's the candidate of short-term political calculations. At least that's the image.

There's only one answer for Obama: add Jim Webb to the ticket.

Obama looks like an elitist snob

Right now, all the news stories are on Clinton's side. An AP poll out today has Hillary with a comfortable lead over McCain, while Obama ties him. SC Gov Mike Easley is endorsing Hillary. Obama has to endure all the Pastor Wright coverage.

Jay Cost has a wonderful post on Obama's problems in Appalachia. This is troubling for Obama-backers, because the Democrats need to win these states (and their electoral votes): Ohio (20), PA (21), West Virginia (5), Arkansas (6), and Missouri (11). John Kerry won only PA, and fell 19 electoral votes shy of taking the White House. Ohio would have done it for him. But so would have a combination of the other three: Missouri (where he lost by 7%), Arkansas (where he lost by 9%), and West Virginia (13%). Al Gore, who also won PA, would have won with any one of those states.

Obama has a big culture problem. He's getting hammered right now as an elitist snob. The article I cited yesterday also said this: "Obama is a Harvard-trained lawyer. Clinton went to Yale. Both pitch their economic message to middle America, but it’s often Obama who attracts college-educated, affluent voters and Clinton who pulls the working class." The same article had a picture of Obama playing hoops. This was what I suggested he do a little while back.

It's a clubby ivy-league elite that runs this country, and it's in the Appalachian culture trait, derived from their Scotch-Irish political culture, to be at odds with this Eastern establishment. To win these voters you need to get off your high horse and at least look like you are one of the people. If Hillary Clinton wins this primary election, she will have an enormous advantage in the general election, because she will automatically appeal to this group. She's their candidate; they voted her candidacy to victory.

This is a plus that was not at all obvious for Hillary going into this race. If she had sweeped to victory, she would not be as strong of a general election candidate as she might be if she eaks this thing out. She'll have a built-in appeal to just the group she needs to win in the general, which is precisely the group with which she seems like an awkward NY liberal.

Obama has not learned the Bush lesson. The Bush lesson is that you move to Texas, buy a ranch, acquire a Texas accent, and strain every nerve to appear as one of the people. Then everybody forgets your uber-privileged blue-blood background. Obama didn't have anything handed to him, so he doesn't see the issue with elitism. But as Karl Rove said in Newsweek: "It's not where you start in life, it's where you end up."

Be careful what you wish for, Republicans

Top of the Ticket's Andrew Malcolm has a story on the Limbaugh effect in Texas. It was not observable in Ohio, but in Texas Republican voters broke less heavily for Obama than elsewhere.

Malcolm concludes with this:

But under the category of "be very careful what you wish for":

Wouldn't it be a stunning historical irony if Clinton, who's worked hard to adhere closer to the all-important general election political center than Obama, won the nomination in August and the election in November, all thanks to this vast right-wing conspiracy that briefly swallowed its hate of her in March to save her bacon in Texas?

The Republican Limbaugh voters have miscalculated. I've talked about McCain's opening with lower-class voters (Hillary's electorate) if Obama is nominated. But that vanishes with Hillary as the nominee. How would McCain attack Hillary? I asked this question back in the middle of October last year, when I thought it was going to be Romney. McCain has an even bigger problem attacking Hillary if he's the nominee, it seems to me, because the narrative on him is that he's a military guy with a temper. In the midst of a failed war, I think it would be more difficult for him to attack a woman than Obama.

Obama must attack Hillary; he also can't attack her

Obama is in a pickle. He can't attack Hillary without denting his golden boy image. Obama resisted attacking for exactly this reason. But he also has problems attacking Hillary in general.

Johnathan Chait hits the nail on the head:

While [Hillary] likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage... But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

The second part of the pickle is that Obama has to attack. He has to. People have to be reminded of the Clinton negatives if he's going to win.

Here's Hillary's argument to Obama on why she's more electable, according to Noah Millman: Obama's lost Democrats overall, working-class whites, key swing states like Ohio and Florida, and he is polling losing them in the general election too.

That is a convincing argument. Obama's "respect the process, I got more votes" is uninspired if lacks all momentum coming out of OH, Texas, and PA. Hillary's is the smarter argument, because it is grounded in the turnout-the-base theory of elections rather than the woo-the-independents theory. The latter is bunk, in my view, in an election year so heavily tilted towards the Democrats. Play it safe. Go with the known quantity. Ride the dissatisfaction to victory by turning out your base and the legions of voters disaffected with the Republicans.

So Obama has to attack. It will have to be done carefully and indirectly and by surrogates. But it could get very nasty quickly.

Hillary could be president

Ohio has turned out to be Hillary's New Hampshire. The race has turned on a dime. Hillary is now up in the popular vote count that includes FL and MI, 13,606,283 for Hillary to 13,568,983 for Obama.

The Prince of Darkness reports on how the stage was set for Ohio and Texas:

Assuming that Sen. Clinton at best would eke a victory in Ohio Tuesday to end her long losing streak, prominent Democrats were organizing a major private intervention. A posse of party leaders would plead with her to end her campaign and recognize Obama as the Democratic standard-bearer. To buttress this argument, several elite unelected super-delegates (including several previous Clinton supporters) were ready to come out for Obama. Those plans went on hold Tuesday night.

To avoid carnage at Denver, Democrats have been telling me for weeks that a majority of delegates would somehow align themselves behind whichever candidate has the momentum.
But who has the momentum? Clinton will claim it, particularly if she wins in Pennsylvania to give her every major state except Obama's Illinois. But Obama will point to his advantage in the number of states and delegates. A showdown in Denver may be unavoidable.

Every big state but Obama's Illinois! Marie Cocco writes this:

Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.

In Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas and Alaska -- all states the Obama forces point to with pride as evidence of an emerging "50-state strategy" -- no Democrat has won the general election since 1964.

So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Michigan, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Florida, which will be hotly contested in the fall.

And Hillary won them both. They are the battlegrounds of battlegrounds for the past two presidential elections, elections that have been very close. The elections were close nationwide, and the battleground states were close because they mirror the composition of the whole country.

Let's take a look at the exit poll data from the last presidential election:

• In 2004, both states were at the national average of the female proportion of the vote: 54% of the electorate was female in Florida (53% in OH)
• Both electorates had an about average percentage of black voters: the FL electorate was 12% black (15% in OH), and nationally it was 11%
• The states added together had an average number of Hispanics: in FL 15% of the electorate was Latino (3% in OH), while it was 8% nationally
• Both states were about average for lower-income voters: FL 46% earned less than 50 grand a year (48% in OH), and it was 45% nationally
• Finally, in FL 57% did not graduate from college (63% in OH), and it was 58% nationally

You can see that these states are bellwethers for a reason. Winning Ohio by double-digits adds immensely to Clinton's moral argument, as winning Florida did not as much, since turnout was dampened from lack of campaigning.

One final point. Jerome Armstrong writes: "I agree ... that Obama has to win in PA, but I don't think he will. It's also true that Clinton has to win in PA, and she probably will." But PA is at a different stage of the race. I think part of the Ohio result--not all of it to be sure, but part--is the New Hampshire effect. That is to say, after Iowa voters in NH took a second look, and they thought, "We don't want to end this thing at this point." They didn't seal the nomination for Obama on forth down, but they punted. This is exactly what I thought might happen, and what I wrote back on Dec. 2 (seems like ages ago). It's the Democrats year, and we don't want to blow it on someone who's untested, so lets keep the process going. That is a different sentiment from, "I want Hillary to be president." Democrats in OH struggled with this. The man behind me in the voting line said he still was unsure who he was going to vote for when he got in the booth (which was in 90 seconds)!!! He wanted Hillary, but he thought Barack might be the best candidate, but he really liked Bill... The point is, PA is at a different spot in the calendar, and Hillary will not benefit from the "let's keep the process going and not end it right here" sentiment.

It's down to the superdelegates

First I have to brag about my prediction. I'm loathe to predict, but I'm glad I made an exception this time--I was only one point off in Ohio and Texas.

So Hillary fights on. It could have been over tonight and it's not. Hillary won Ohio by over ten points and Texas more narrowly. It's exactly what she needed to do.

From Josh Marshall:

A lot's getting said tonight. And a lot of it is baseless speculation. But the one thing that rings true to me is this: The Clinton campaign got rough and nasty over the last week-plus. And they got results. That may disgust you or it may inspire you with confidence in Hillary's abilities as a fighter. But wherever you come down on that question is secondary to the fact that that's how campaign's work. Opponents get nasty. And what we've seen over the last week is nothing compared to what Barack Obama would face this fall if he hangs on and wins the nomination. So I think the big question is, can he fight back? Can he take this back to Hillary Clinton, demonstrate his ability to take punches and punch back? At the end of the day, the winner of the pledged delegate race has the strongest claim to the nomination. Everything else is spin. But it's a strong claim, not incontestable.

Markos Moulitsas concurs: Obama may finally have to go negative. I've never seen him do that. He's never had to do that.

From the Politicker:

Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod hinted to reporters that the senator may now become more aggressive toward the Clinton team and might beginning raising questions about the ethics of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

When I asked Axelrod whether the apparent effectiveness of the Former First Lady’s more negative tone in recent days posed a problem for Obama, he responded: “If Senator Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate. We’ll do it on our own terms and we’ll do it in our own way. But if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that sort of stuff issues, I don’t know why they’d want to go there.”

The words seemed like an allusion to Whitewater, but Axelrod in fact cited the Clintons’ reluctance to release their tax returns as one example where, “for all their yammering about how unfairly they have been treated, they haven’t really been pursued at all by the media on some of these questions.”

The superdelegates are going to decide this thing. Hillary's not going to drop out anytime soon. From the Telegraph:

The 795 super-delegates – Congressmen, party officials and insiders – who have a free vote in choosing the nominee, will be decisive.

Her lead among super-delegates was whittled down to 40 from 90 as Mr Obama surged through 11 victories in February and more and more jumped on his bandwagon.

After last night, many are likely to sit on the fence until Denver.

This is it for Hillary

In the debate the other night I thought Hillary started out weak, just because I'm so underwhelmed by the "misleading fliers" charge. This is the type of thing that I feel was preaching to the choir--if you are already a Hillary supporter you might be angry by this, but who the heck else cares--it's only infuriating if you're a campaign worker. Obama had a strong response comparing his health care plan with hers. Hillary responded, first stumbling with the malapropism "both sides of our campaign" but then had a great, passionate response on universal health care. Obama had a dispassionate response, and there was another back-and-forth.

In the whole exchange, Obama came off very well, carefully explaining his plan, while Hillary came off as too passionate perhaps. Obama would bring it back to details, which he explained effectively, which blunted Hillary's passion.

Then there was the SNL comment by Hillary. "I find it curious that I always have to answer these questions first. I think if we've seen Saturday Night Live, we can say why don't they ask Barack if he's comfortable and would like another pillow." I liked this comment, but I'm biased. I saw the SNL bit, so I felt "in the know." I thought it was hilarious because it's true, the media do love him. But I had a conversation with someone who thought it came off whiny. It sure is hard to be a woman running for president--how the heck do you attack your opponent? This debate was a clear victory for Obama, in my mind. He looked presidential; he looked like a winner; he outshone Hillary.

Obama promised a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but with "ample time" to make the political settlements they need. Both candidates said they would keep residual troops in Iraq. Hillary misfired on an attack on Obama being chair of a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations committee and not holding hearings on Afghanistan. Obama said he wasn't chair of it until the campaign started. Besides, everyone knows that Afghanistan and Iraq are linked; this was not an effective attack by Hillary.

After the commercial break Obama had to respond to a video of Hillary mocking him, which was played in error. Hillary was at a rally and said: "Now I could promise that if we all come together, the skies will open, celestial choirs will sing, light will stream down, and everything will be perfect!" Barack said, "sounds good!" which was funny, but then somewhat bungled his response to Williams query, "What'd ya think of that," because he doesn't have a good sense of humor--he said "I think Sen. Clinton showed some good humor there" which was so wooden. He thankfully added, "I'd give her points for delivery" which got a few laughs. But what about, "Her impression of me was so good, it almost makes me want to vote for her," or "That is totally inaccurate; I've always been careful to only promise one celestial voice, not whole choirs." But Hillary's response was equally insipid: "I was trying to have a little fun. It's hard to find time to have fun on the campaign trail." Sheesh, just terrible.

It all comes down to Ohio. The voters there have been inundated with calls and mailers, even non-Democrats. The weather has been wintry this week, if it's like that Tuesday it'll probably favor Obama. But apparently the cold is going to lift on Monday.

Frank Rich writes:

In the view [of Clinton fans], their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3. In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

Dem delegate math

After getting schlacked in the Potomac primaries, the media take on the Clinton campaign is that it's in a freefall. The media always overdoes things, just like they overdid the McCain collapse this summer. I knew McCain's campaign would do better and the media would swing back the opposite direction, but I was dead wrong in my thinking that McCain couldn't win the nomination. So caution is necessary in assessing the state of the race on the Democratic side.

But first, I am just exuberant at how the primaries have gone so far. All these states that moved up their primaries to gain influence have now been passed by, and we now have Ohio as the state that will decide the Presidential race, twice--first in the Democratic primary, and then in the general election. This being the Democrats' year, the primary is probably the most important. Fred Barnes has opined, in direct contradiction to this blog, that McCain might be well-positioned to pull out a victory. Read the op-ed just to see how his reasoning in fact leaves the opposite impression, inasmuch as it points out all the hurdles that have to be overcome for this to happen. Of course, McCain had a lot of hurdles to get the nomination in the first place, and that happened, and anything's possible, so November's election might be very close. But to my mind it's still the Democrats' year.

O.K., Hillary. She's smarting from the Potomac primaries. New York Mag:

[N]o amount of pre-spinning could soften the blow of losing a trio of contests by 23, 29, and 51 points (in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C., respectively) — especially coming on the back of a weekend in which Obama had soundly thrashed Clinton in four states plus the U.S. Virgin Islands. Even more distressing for Clinton's side were the signs that Obama had eaten into her bedrock of support. That he’d beaten her among white voters and folks earning less than $50,000 a year in Virginia. That he’d done the same among union households and white Catholics in Maryland.

She might be down but certainly not out. She leads in OH, PA, and TX, which have 64% of the remaining delegates she needs, as Mark Penn has pointed out. Speaking of Penn, Margaret Carlson writes this:

Everyone has been waiting for a shake-up of the Clinton team, but that would mean getting rid of her security blanket, Mark Penn, a major reason the campaign has burned through most of the money raised. Against all evidence that the populace already knew Clinton had a steel-trap brain and needed to be shown she had a heart, Penn insisted on an Iron Lady strategy of numbing recitations of memorized facts. When it failed, titular campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and her deputy were sacrificed.

Furthermore, that reference-point of the election blogosphere, Jay Cost, has given a fascinating analysis over at RealClearPolitics. He writes:

In the South, there is a racial divide. Clinton wins white voters. Obama wins African American voters. When African Americans make up a strong share of the vote (e.g. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina), he wins. When they do not make up a strong share (e.g. Oklahoma and Tennesse), she wins. In the non-South, matters are more complicated. African Americans still go heavily for Obama - but whites are split. White men prefer Obama, white women prefer Clinton.

His conclusion: "[C]aucus states, states with high white median income, and 'homogeneously white' states all tend to support Obama." Regarding the Potomac primaries: "Given the voting coalitions that have formed over the last month and a half, Clinton never really stood a chance in any of them."

So it's not necessarily the case that Obama has "the Big Mo'." Cost again: "Clinton's losses in the contests are as explicable as any of her losses before or on Super Tuesday. Obama has systematically won states that play to his particular strengths since the Iowa caucus. So has Clinton. Her problem has been that she has not had any good states in the last week."

The race as it stands is Obama 1275, Clinton 1220. The magic number is 2025, and neither candidate is likely to get there, resulting in the 796 superdelegates deciding who is going to prevail. That's why it was front-page news in the NYTimes when Rep. John Lewis switched to Obama.

Michael Barone crunched the numbers, and here's his take on what's to come:

The results are as follows: a 44-30 delegate edge in Wisconsin, an 83-58 delegate edge in Ohio, and an 82-41 delegate edge in Texas. Overall this is an 80-delegate advantage, based (again I emphasize) on optimistic assumptions.

This would be enough to erase the current 58-delegate edge Obama has in total delegates according to Real Clear Politics. But not enough to overcome the 137-delegate edge he has among "pledged delegates," that is, those chosen in caucuses and primaries. And it doesn't account for the fact that Texas on March 4 will also have caucuses to select another 67 delegates. The Obama campaign has swamped the Clinton campaign in almost all the caucuses and probably has far more in the way of organization in Texas's 254 counties than the Clinton campaign does.

My bottom line take: The turf looks fairly favorable to Clinton, provided she wins Ohio and Texas March 4. Not favorable enough, perhaps, for her to overtake Obama in "pledged" delegates, but enough to keep the overall delegate count excruciatingly close, unless the superdelegates start cascading to Obama. (Maybe they have: Congressman John Lewis has evidently switched.) But if Clinton loses either Ohio or Texas, that's a sign that the ground thereafter will be less favorable to her. Losing Ohio would suggest she can't carry Pennsylvania or Indiana. Losing Texas suggests she can't carry Mississippi, North Carolina, West Virginia, or Kentucky. Losing either probably means the superdelegate cascade starts in torrents, and she falls well behind in total delegate count. In which case her candidacy is probably effectively over. And even if she wins Ohio and Texas, she's still not likely, I think (no, I haven't done the delegate arithmetic yet), to accumulate enough "pledged" delegates to win without an edge in superdelegates, and perhaps without getting the Florida and, more problematically, Michigan delegations seated. But I certainly don't see her quitting in these circumstances.

Making Sense of Super Duper Tuesday

First a word on the primary process. I've speculated here about the effect that frontloading would have on the presidential races, and was convinced that Super Duper Tuesday would be too big to matter. It turned out to be the opposite from what I thought--it didn't pick a nominee, not because the early states would have already decided it, but because they hadn't, and there wasn't enough time yet to sort things out. So the later states get to choose the nominee. Here's Marc Ambinder:

Had Michigan remained on Feb. 9 and Florida on March 4, their influence would have been considerable. Instead, their haste to go first wound up lessening their influence, rather than giving them a louder voice. Now, an array of new states and their tens of millions of voters will find their interests well represented in this campaign: Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and maybe even Pennsylvania, whose voters go to the polls on April 22.

Now, what the heck happened on Super Duper Tuesday? Well first of all, Obama won 13 states, Clinton 8. (New Mexico's still up in the air.) Obama won 845 delegates, Clinton 836. Clinton has an overall delegate lead of 79, but this is due to her 83 delegate lead in superdelegates. The political markets thought it was a win for Obama.

Adam Nagourney parses the exit polls:

[O]ne of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.

The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.

The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.

The Hillary voters mentioned, in other words, are more solidly reliable. They turn out to vote in greater numbers, except Hispanics. But the reason why I've consistently favored Hillary to win is because of her voting base, and why I was in for a huge shock with the Iowa results. I underestimated the enthusiasm on the ground for Obama with young voters generating actual caucus-goers. But I'm not surprised by the decision-timing statistic, at least in the abstract. I always thought the Clinton machine would be able to stage a comeback if needed in the states after Iowa and NH. But it was surprising given the recent press Obama was getting.

But there's other factors Nagourney doesn't mention at all: Obama does better with wealthier and better-educated voters, and they turnout in greater numbers. Clinton's voters have less income and less education, and these voters have lower turnout. Obama and Clinton split college grads in CA, but Obama beat her 2-to-1 with college-or-more voters in Missouri, and that's why he narrowly won. Similar story in New Mexico.

Nagourney continues:

Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

Ohio becomes crucial! When's the last time that happened? I'm sick and tired of the constant refrain of "the primary process is broken." A nationwide primary would be a disaster, and the current system is far preferable. As for rotating the early states, I think it's cool that Iowa and NH have a great tradition going, and that they are used to seeing presidential candidates every four years. What's wrong with having experienced voters decide? They don't decide anything, they just winnow the field of the terrible candidates. If you want your voice to be heard, then move there.

Gay issues a drag for Democrats? A new poll...

There's a debate tomorrow night between the Democratic presidential candidates on LGBT issues, raising the question of how this issue set plays in presidential politics. This article from the Politico reported on a Quinnipiac poll in the crucial battleground states of Florida, OH, and PA. As the article points out, " No one has won the White House since 1960 without carrying two of those three states."

It goes on:

The Quinnipiac poll of voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate supported by various interest groups. The margin of error in the polls was 3 percent.

In Ohio, 10 percent of voters said it would make them more likely, 34 percent said less likely -- a more than 3-1 ratio -- while 54 percent said it would not make a difference. Among independent voters, perhaps the key to the state’s 20 electoral votes, 12 percent said it would make them more likely, while 28 percent said less likely.

Florida voters were similarly disposed. Ten percent of them said they are more likely to vote for a candidate backed by gay rights groups, while 28 percent said they were less likely and 60 percent said it would not make a difference. Among independents, 9 percent said more likely, 18 percent said less likely.

Pennsylvania is the one of the big three states that Democrats carried in 2000 and 2004 but there, too, more than twice as many voters -- 28 percent -- said it would make them less likely to support a candidate as the 11 percent who said it would make them more likely. Among independents, 14 percent said more likely, 19 percent said less likely.

In all three states, sizeable majorities of voters said they believe that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong" rather than "morally acceptable" -- 55-30 percent in Ohio, 53-34 percent in Pennsylvania and 51-35 percent in Florida. Yet more than half the voters in each state say they favor some form of legal recognition for gay couples.

I'm reminded of a particularly striking comment made by a caller into C-Span two years ago. He said he'd like to be a Democrat, but that party had been "tacking against Western Civilization for so long that voters like him are forced out." And he ended by saying: "And we're not coming back."

The conventional wisdom on the gay rights issue is that young people are more tolerant than their elders, and thus the inevitable drift of policy is in favor of gay rights. There's some data here from Pew. That could well be true. A lot of things could happen to affect the drift of policy and culture on this issue set. But there is also the life-cycle effect, which makes it more difficult to extrapolate what exactly their opinions are in the future. People tend to become more conservative with age. As you settle down, get married, and start building a family one's outlook changes. I remember a graduate student telling me a number of years ago about how her whole perception of life changed when she had a child. Suddenly, you care more about good schools, about crime, about preserving certain standards in the local community where that was not the case before.

Whatever the future holds, in this presidential election the question is whether the Democratic or Republican side of the coin holds an electoral advantage. The story quoted above is somewhat underwhelming, as the percentages of people saying it would make them less likely are more than likely going to be voting Republican anyway. But then you get to the part about independent voters. The percentages of more likely to less likely were 28-12 in OH, 18-9 in FL, and 19-14. This is not a winning issue for the Democrats in the presidential election ahead. The debate this week comes early enough that the eventual nominee can perhaps deemphasize his or her positions by the time November '08 comes around, but as 2008 Central put it when they blogged the last Democratic debate and this issue came up, "The Republicans are taping this." For the people for whom the issue makes a difference, the other side can pound away at it through targeted messages.

There's also the question of turnout. An LA Times blogger has this story about turnout in the gay and lesbian community. Here's the crucial portion:

The study this spring by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc. found that an eye-popping 92.5% of gay men reported that they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% said they voted in 2004; for the midterm, the figure was 78%.

By comparison, the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate put the turnout for all Americans eligible to vote at about 61% in 2004 and roughly 40% in 2006.

Taegan Goddard got this response from a political scientist:

As a political scientist, the gay turnout story infuriates me, because it ignores everything we know about how people over-report their turnout behavior. In the American National Election Study (the highest quality election survey done in America), over 70% turnout is reported. Considering that Community Marketing is a no-name polling outfit which may have low response rates (and hence nonrandom selection), and that a survey targeting gay respondents has political undertones, it is not surprising that such a high (inflated) turnout rate was gotten. The miniscule margin of error is irrelevant—the survey is subject to much greater errors beyond sampling error including social desirability bias, non-response bias, etc. Based on these concerns, I really doubt that gays turnout at a higher lever than non-gays. I think it would be good to caveat these stories in the future