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 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!

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 the nominee

The pundits are all saying that Hillary is finished, and the pundits are right. Obama's close loss in Indiana means that he'll be the nominee.

What's interesting is the power of the pundits, the gang of 500. They all assume that Hillary's finished, and that is an insuperable obstacle to her remaining in the race. A die-hard Hillary supporter could well complain--why do the elite chattering few control what happens? The voters should decide! It's an excellent point. Obama is not going to get to 2025 with pledged delegates. But this is old news, and of course what happens is that it goes to the superdelegates, and this is why it's really the arguments of the chattering class which matters.

And of course the pundits are right. After weeks of taking a pounding, Obama still comes out strong. The bad headlines he's had, the bad debate, the bad Meet the Press (the first half-hour was painful), voters stuck with their candidate.

What does this tell us?

The first thing might be the importance of election rules. Indiana was an open primary, unlike PA which is closed, and OH which is semi-open.

The second thing is Gary county, which is basically a suburb of Chicago. They saw all the Obama news stories throughout his political career.

The third factor is Marion county (Indianapolis), which has a high black population (24%).

And the final factor is erosion in Clinton's support among key demographics (notably white women and Catholics).

One might say that Hillary's team did a poor job of managing expectations. But this the fourth quarter, and you can't spin a point deficit when there's seconds left on the clock. They needed a big win, not better spin.

Perhaps we'll save the Clinton retrospective for a later date, but what a lousy campaign they ran. What was the message? It morphed from one thing to the next, ending up with this populist candidate for the working-stiff image. Basically, Hillary was willing to tell anybody what they wanted to hear in order to be president. Obama is similarly a power-hungry political actor, but he had a message: Unity, Hope, a Candidate Above It All.

Obama should have debated, though. Now there will be enormous pressure when Obama debates McCain, and memories of the PA debate will be dredged up. Obama could have put that behind him by debating in Indiana. Smart short term that he didn't, perhaps, but not long-term.

But Obama's been through so many grueling debates that he's ready for McCain. This is another advantage for the Democrats of having a drawn-out primary season. They end up with a candidate who's vetted, who throws out the garbage in April rather than October, and who's battle-tested. You don't get that with a coronation. I don't think you can say the same for McCain. Everyone's talking about the disunity of the Democrats. But that's because it's excited, spirited disunity. The disunity of the Republicans is just as strong, and it's a dispirited, disappointed disunity. McCain got barely half Obama's vote in Indiana. Over 20% of Indiana republican primary voters voted against him.

So the people who accuse Hillary of dragging the Democratic party down to the mud are way off base. It's stupid to say a candidate who is so close to a nomination should drop out. Things can change so radically overnight, and as a candidate it's all about hanging around, hanging around, until everyone else drops away. To say "you can't win, drop out" when the contest is going on is like telling the KU basketball squad that they should have sent in the subs with thirty seconds left in the final game.

Plus Democrats should want Hillary to stay in, as Mara Liasson said on NPR yesterday, Hillary is going to win West Virginia and Kentucky, even if she drops out, which would be embarrassing for Obama.

Karl Rove made an interesting point in his parsing of Obama's speech. He warned about Obama using the phrase, "We're going to tell the truth." Rove is right. Don't promise what you can't deliver. Truth-telling is the last refuge of failed candidacies. Obama shouldn't be claiming to be the straight-talker delivering uncomfortable truths.

Obama should debate

Carl Leubsdorf writes that by refusing to debate, Obama is intent on "running out the clock":

Outwardly similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania – where she scored recent notable wins – Indiana's electorate is younger and less Catholic and includes Republicans and independents. A Clinton win there would be a further warning sign about Mr. Obama's appeal beyond his base of liberals and minorities.

In this circumstance, Mrs. Clinton's requests for debates in Indiana and North Carolina may find a receptive audience. While most pundits suggest that the public is sick of debates and believes the issues have been discussed thoroughly, that makes the mistake of viewing this more as a six-month national campaign than a series of one- or two-week races.

Now is when Indianans and North Carolinians are paying attention. What happened before may be less relevant to them.

Mr. Obama might be right politically in trying to run out the clock. But that strategy could leave him vulnerable if the unexpected occurs and he lacks a high-level forum in which to respond.

Clinton challenged Obama to a one-on-one debate a week ago:

“What I think the people in Indiana deserve is a real one-on-one debate, where Sen. Obama and I discuss [the] issues.... Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet, and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered. So here I have a proposition my campaign sent his campaign today. You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions (awwwwwww heard in the audience). You know tough questions in a debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get when you are president.”

Clinton challenged Obama, saying, “And they complained about the moderators asking tough questions. So here is my proposal: I’m offering Sen. Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair. I think it would give the people of Indiana -- and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that’s what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates. Now we have had like four debates between Sen. Obama and myself.”

We've never had this in American presidential politics before. The candidates have always insist on moderators. This means that they have not really been debates. In a real debate, you can ask your opponent a question. But in presidential politics we have had only sham debates, with moderators who can be blamed for lousy questions.

Think about it. The moderators could, from Obama's perspective, engage in scummy dirty gotcha questions for the first 40 minutes of the Constitution Center debate because they are moderators. They're just journalists, totally unaccountable when compared to politicians for whom every vote matters.

But if Hillary had taken the low road for a full 40 minutes, well, there would be consequences. There would be backlash. So she wouldn't do it.

Instead we would have a debate on "issues." What would this look like, a debate without moderators? It would certainly be on a higher level. The two would have a vested interest in looking like they get along, and are in a common quest for a better America. This would be unlike the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which were between politicians of two different parties.

The format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates would be interesting--a long speech by one candidate, followed by a long speech by the other, followed by a response from the first candidate. But in today's television age there would have to be give and take. Who's quickest on their feet? Clinton's behind, so she has everything to gain from debating, which is why Obama doesn't want to.

It would be good for the Democratic party to have such a debate. And it would be a great precedent to set for American politics.

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."

The electability argument

The Democratic race is basically a tie. Obama has won more delegates, Hillary has won more votes (if you factor in Florida and Michigan).

So what it comes down to is the argument each candidate makes. Everyone assumes that Obama has the stronger argument, as Robert Novak is reporting today. That argument is, I've won more delegates, so I get it. And you're not really going to deny a black man who's won more votes--because if you do the anger of black voters will ruin your chances to win in November.

Hillary's argument is that she's more electable. The problem is that there is a gigantic jump from primary results to general election results that you just can't make. Uber-blogger Jay Cost makes this point even as he meticulously breaks down Obama's weakness with lower-class white voters. Analyze all you want, but it's not meaningful to draw conclusions for the general election.

As Carolyn Lochhead reports:

"I've been there," [John Edwards campaign manager Joe] Trippi said. "Walter Mondale won all kinds of states against Gary Hart in 1984. Ronald Reagan beat him in every state but one, his own. I've never seen any argument that something you win in a primary means you're the lock on winning it in the general."

In Virginia at least, Obama is probably right, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, who said the state harbors a distaste for the Clintons.

In Pennsylvania and Ohio, "McCain has a chance to do against Obama what no other Republican could probably do against any other Democrat, which is win," Sabato said. "She's right about those two key states. She's wrong about most of the others."

What matters is the 13 states listed as battlegrounds this fall, said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a centrist Democratic think tank once closely allied with former President Bill Clinton.

Throwing out Florida and Michigan, which had flawed primaries, Obama has won six swing states (Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado and Iowa) to Clinton's five (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico and New Hampshire), leaving Obama with more potential electoral votes.

Clinton's strength among working-class whites, Rosenberg said, is based largely on women, not necessarily men.

Pinkerton notes that Republicans would hammer Clinton just as hard as Obama, exploiting her own rich history and high negative ratings in polls.

Pinkerton argued that Clinton's apparent strength among working-class whites is a mirage based on a small subset who vote in Democratic primaries.

"She's not going to carry blue-collar workers against John McCain," Pinkerton said. "No way. She'll get creamed."

So Clinton's strength among lower-class whites is more with women, not men, and white women were a whopping 46% of the PA primary electorate (to 33% of men). Hillary got 68% of white women and 57% of white men. But these are a subset of the population--Democratic primary voters. Voters in a general election will not be as favorably inclined to Hillary. Lower-class voters without built-in sympathies with Hillary, based on being a committed Democrat, will be susceptible to Republican persuasion. So while she might do well with this subset, including winning white men, there might be a big drop-off for her, particularly with white men, in the general.

But we just don't know. It's impossible to tell. That's the fundamental flaw of any electability argument based on primary results.

A co-presidency?

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama last night in PA by 8.6%. The way this was reported makes a big difference--it was reported as ten points last night and this morning. Psychologically that's a lot bigger than 8.6%. If it had been 7 points all night and then crept up to 8.6, it would be a different story. Eight points is in the gray range, vulnerable to calls to step down, while ten puts Hillary above her critics.

Hillary's victory speech was exhilarating. She is the comeback kid for a third time. She's a fighter, and had this amazing line about "The American people deserve a president who doesn't quit." It's hard not to sympathize. When Barack attacks Hillary, he runs into a double trap--Hillary can gain sympathy as a woman, plus it tarnishes Obama's golden-boy image. That image has lost some of its luster. He outspent her 3-1, at least according to Hillary last night, and started attacking her a little bit (about half of the polled voters said he attacked her unfairly, with two-thirds saying the same of Clinton).

At this point Hillary desperately needs cash. If she doesn't get the money, she has to close up shop. Candidates bow out when they run out of funds, as Brownback said bluntly to the first question at his news conference dropping out of the race. Hillary was on Good Morning America this morning begging for money, sounding really excited about all the donations "flowing in," and giving the web address, etc. etc. etc. It was almost verging on pathetic.

So it's entirely possible that Hillary will run out of dough and be forced out of the race. But at this point the candidates seem tied. And I have to mention an idea that's on my mind.

Why can't the two of them agree to be co-presidents? Hillary would be president (since Obama's young enough to have his own eight years in office after Hillary's two terms). Obama would be vice-president. But Hillary would handle domestic policy, and Obama would handle foreign policy.

The response that comes back is, "What experience does Obama have with foreign policy?" Well, that's true. A veep choice of Jim Webb would be better for either of these candidates, to shore them up on it. Yet no one is really prepared to be president when they get in, and Obama could "focus like a laser" on international issues, where he is seen abroad as being a big change in America's relation to the world.

The international situation is so important right now that a VP slot and a foreign policy portfolio would mean major power, and set him up for future presidential runs of course. Could the two of them work together? Perhaps things would get really strained, and Hillary as pres would always have the upper hand. Obama thinks he can win this thing outright, so he's unlikely to accept it.

I'm intrigued by the idea, and interested in what others think.

What will happen in PA

I blogged about the debate last week before I read or heard any reactions to it. I was surprised by the high level of negative response from the punditry. Dick Polman had a scathing post on Obama's performance that was very convincing. His point was that Obama failed to win over the conservative Democrats that he needs to win in higher percentages to cut into Hillary's lead. Very convincing. Almost.

I know that perceptions are shaped by media reactions to things, but this vote is so big that I don't see Pennsylvanians being swayed so much by Obama's supposedly dismal performance. It was bad in a number of respects, of course, but for reasons that are more relevant to superdelegates worried about McCain picking off lower-class white voters in November.

And here's the reason why: this is an extraordinary moment in American history. People are desperate for something different, and Clinton represents the politics of the past, while Obama clearly represents the future.

By a coldly realist standard, everything in the preceding paragraph is bunk, but nevertheless it is the aura the Obama campaign has successfully wrapped itself in. And it is going to triumph in the end. If this were a normal election year, it would not (which does not spell good news for McCain). But the perceptions are that things have gotten so bad that normal is out the window. Obama has been able to rally young voters, who normally are complacent. I didn't think he could pull it off, but he has.

It's been basically a 6-point gap for the last three weeks. I predict Clinton by six. That's enough for her to continue in the race. But it's not enough. She needs another 9-10 point victory as she did in Ohio. If she doesn't get it, with Obama seeming like the underdog going in, the story will be on his inroads with white voters.

Bill Clinton event in western PA

I just came back from an event with Bill Clinton in Western PA. It was interesting; I got to sit up front in the third row to the left of the stage, and got to shake his hand afterwards. The county executive gave the introduction, with a speech "he came up with today in the bathroom" according to my friend who was next to me. The crowd was maybe 600 people, students and union members; it seemed kind of small in the big arena. I thought the response was surprising tepid. Clinton didn't have the crowd eating out of his hand or anything. He looked tired. There were big bags under his eyes.

He was an amazing speaker though. He only made one mistake the whole speech though, which he quickly corrected, and didn't say "um" or "uh" once. A dollar for every "um" and "uh" between Hillary and Barack and you could balance the federal budget. Everyone came away convinced that this guy would blow away Barack in a debate. "I would vote for him in a second" was one response. The event was at a university, a demographic more enthusiastic for Obama. Clinton had the pulse of the place he was at, getting the name of the University's president right, and understanding the nature of the institution and referring to it several times.

The introduction focused on economic issues, and that's how Bill began his speech, quickly abandoning the podium for a wireless microphone in his right hand, pointing his finger with his left hand for emphasis. After a short time on the economy he talked for an extended time on Iraq. It was powerful stuff, on how bad the situation is. The audience was very responsive. He said she promised "if conditions don't change" to bring home the troops in the first 16 months.

He was able to articulate very well why leaving Iraq will be better for the Iraqis. He had a homespun metaphor about going to the dentist. "What will it take to get the Iraqis to make the hard decisions?" he asked. "They have to decide how to divide up the oil wealth." It's tough, and we always want to put off tough decisions. "People don't make tough decisions until they have to--why do you think the dentist's office always makes you schedule the next appointment right away?" he said to laughs. "I'm 61 and I still don't like it when they put that needle into my gums!" Only a timeline for withdrawal will force the Iraqis to get their act together.

He talked about leaving a contingent in the north "to fight al-qaeda." That surprised me, since "al-queda in Iraq" is not exactly the same as al-qaeda that did 9/11. He was basically going along with Bush's position about the importance of fighting al-qaeda in Iraq. Why is that? Leave a contingent in the north--is that to protect the Kurds when we leave? Ended up talking about the harm to the troops, bolstered by the recent RAND study. This resonated with the audience.

He spent a long time talking about energy independence. He was really pushing this idea of a cheap hybrid car. Technology will solve all our problems. The same way with health care--just eliminate the paperwork and use the savings to pay for care for poor people. It sounded nice. It resonated. Yet the remarks were not a totally a frank assessment of what a european-style health-care system would mean exactly. But of course that would be too frank, and politicians are constrained by the receptivity of the American people, and have to work in increments.

The response on energy independence surprised me. A lot of enthusiasm when he was talking about this. "A hybrid car would mean that we could tell the oil sellers: 'Charge $100 a barrel. Heck, charge $200, or three.'" The audience was also surprisingly responsive when he mentioned finding an answer to the Israeli-Palestinian question--it got a big cheer.

Clinton praised his wife for "biting the bullet and talking straight" on the issue of trade. Said there was problems with NAFTA, and that we cannot enforce trade agreements with countries that are our bankers. "Would you go to your banker and slug him in the face?" "Would you buy a car from a dealership that violated the warranty on your last car?" Homey analogies for a complex international issue. Not as huge responses from the crowd on this stuff.

Not a syllable said about fighting terrorists. This is still in the air, of course; Obama just had a soundbite on the air this morning about fighting the important war in Afghanistan. But there is a shift in the public's mood. I think the Republicans will find it harder to play the national security card in the general.

They will also find it hard to play the typical managing-the-economy card. Bill played heavily to the need for a balanced budget "and investment in our future." Tax cuts for the wealthy were decried. Super-rich tax evasion was decried. "Never in our history has so much money rained down on so few people in such a short period of time."

The end fo the speech was him warmly praising Hillary. How much she cares, how experienced she is (that was a theme throughout). "If I wasn't married to her, I'd still be supporting her as the most qualified candidate for the presidency we've had in a long time." At the beginning of the speech he said she was "more qualified that I was when I took office." It was a little bit strange. Like Obama not just coming out and saying-like-he-means it, "I love this country," Bill didn't just say "I love Hillary so much." Of course, this would lead people's minds to the wrong chain of connections perhaps.

PA Debate Reflections: Hillary Has Become the Anti-Obama

The Philly Constitution Center was a good venue for this debate, perhaps the candidates' last. Everyone kept quiet and the timing was relaxed--a breath of fresh air. With people sitting around in darkness it looked like the Galactic Senate from Star Wars.

Obama spun his "bitter" remarks as "not being properly phrased." He talked about reaching out to people of faith, which he says he does more than other campaigns, and of the support of sportsman in his state, "because he listens to them." Interesting turn of phrase--not because he supports the gun-control policies that they do.

Obama brought up the "baking cookies" remark of Hillary on the '92 campaign trail. A perfect example of how a long track-record bogs you down (as if Hillary's Iraq vote wasn't enough proof). Then he ripped into Hillary for not learning the lessons of Republican attacks and doing the same thing. Pretty good stuff. "What the American people want are not distractions," he said. The old way of doing things, he is against all that. He constantly brings everything back to his message of old vs. new. What discipline. You have to think this is why he's probably going to be the nominee. What's Hillary's message? She's become the anti-Obama! The opposite of what everyone thought would happen, which is that she would be the front-runner and there would be an anti-Hillary candidate challenging her. Obama's done a great job of not falling into that. "Vote for me, I'm not her" is not a winning mantra--you have to be for something to win. Obama is for something, Hillary is flailing around seemingly for only herself. This is the campaign's fault, Mark Penn's fault. She defined herself as a "fighter" going against the special interests. This is a loser-ball tactic (though I'd be singing a different tune if 269 people had changed their minds in Florida in 2000), at least as opposed to Obama's appeal to unity.

Hillary was on the defensive and halting in her response to Obama, and she sounded like an echo to his plea to "get things done" rather than playing politics. She did a little better perhaps on the next question on Rev. Wright, but again Obama looked like the front-runner.

On the Bosnia question, Hillary took another hit. She had no good answer to Tom Rooney, the everyman who asked the question via prior interview. She basically said "I lied, sorry!" Seemed like a pretty big admission. She turned it back to her experience as an advantage. At the end her emotion seemed like "Whew!" She was glad that was over.

Barack then hit it out of the park again, managing to seem like he was nice to her ("She has a wonderful record") when he really wasn't ("She wouldn't be here if she didn't") and again turning it back to "this moment of our history." He looks like the visionary, the leader, while she's stuck in the past with the old Clinton ways. Obama has really mastered the art of running against a woman. He seems courteous, gentlemanly, all the while his flaks are ruthlessly destroying her credibility. Except for the one bad "you're likable enough" he's done a A+ job. McCain is getting pointers all over the place. You can just see him staring at the TV jotting things down.

On the other hand, Obama flopped on the "do you love the flag" question. "I can't help but love this country." Not a good response. Where's the passion? This isn't academic--say you love the country, don't give an argument why people should infer that you must love it.

Hillary got a laugh-line with her suggestion that Republicans not run anybody at all, and just apologize for the Bush years. She was very direct in saying that Obama will have trouble running against McCain. Her baggage "has already been rummaged through." Obama: "I've showed that I can take a punch. I've taken several from Sen. Clinton." They weren't debating here to a PA audience, but to the superdelegates. Jay Cost has a great post on this, the real race.

Both were strong on the Iraq question. They were a lot more comfortable talking policy than personal stuff, when they each are halting and too deliberate. Same thing on taxes. Two Democrats preaching fiscal responsibility--Bush has made things so easy on them.

Also on taxes, they played a clip from McCain bashing Obama. Hillary laughed, and that brought the viewer's attention to her, and blurred the fact that McCain was speaking about Obama--without her laughing, everyone would have looked at Obama's reaction on the screen, and it would look like he would be the likely nominee, at least in McCain's mind.

The gymnastics on gun control were fun to watch. PA is a big hunting state, the NRA lobby has a lot of influence, and you had two candidates trying to appear to hold the direct opposite of what they have always held.

Meanwhile McCain's campaign has the freedom to portray an honest, open, tell-you-how-it-is candidate through town-hall meetings. The virtue to this is that McCain doesn't have to worry about running against someone yet, and can focus on building up his own image, running a positive Huckabee-esque campaign. And fundraising for an McCain smear-job has fizzled.

McCain is going to run on his personality. The Democratic nominee is going to run on policy. And the election will be heavily influenced by the environment--how Iraq is doing and how the economy is doing. If both are fine McCain will have a chance.

Obama's Comments Redux

According to a Quinnipiac poll today, Hillary has a 6-point edge on Obama. That's a lot closer than the 20-margin I mentioned yesterday; this one shows that she's slowing his ascent in PA.

A reader commented on yesterday's post about Obama's statement being completely true, and not condescending. All this could be perfectly true, but this blog has been devoted to Henry Adams' quip, "practical politics is the art of ignoring facts." If candidates came out and said what they thought was true, they'd be toast.

Take Huckabee, for instance. His base would rally around him every time he would say something that was aimed at them, but by doing this too much he boxed himself in as a factional candidate lacking broader appeal. So while his base thinks what he says is totally true, it is still a mistake for him to say it.

Obama's statements were very harmful to his candidacy and will haunt him for some time now. The reason is the context.

Obama exudes the air of a smart Harvard-trained thinker. Now that's certainly a liability with a whole lot of voters. It is not a liability at all for the voters Obama has so far attracted, namely well-educated higher-income voters. But for lower-class voters a different style is attractive--President Bush's style. Bush beat Kerry because of voters without college degrees voting for him, and because he did well enough with low-income voters to pull out a narrow victory. Bush's style was mocked, but it was electorally effective.

Taking Obama's demographic appeal and style into account, we can see that he needs to win voters who are naturally more skeptical of him, by appealing to them through his campaign. A friend mentioned to me: "Obama smokes Marlboro Reds, for crying out loud! He should take that back up!" He also said, "Obama's a great basketball player--he should be out there playing basketball with people." I'd endorse both these ideas. Smoking is frowned upon in modern-day America not primarily because it is a health issue, but because it is a class issue. The upper classes frown on the dirty habits of the lower classes. What better way to show you're a regular guy than start smoking again? Obama should do it, the anguished cries of "What an example for our children! Humph!" being an opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment, and perhaps a chance to portray Hillary for the schoolmarm she is. Basketball too--at least, it's better than windsurfing, which nobody can really identify with.

Given that Obama needs to broaden his base to just the type of voter he was speaking about in him comments, his description of them is completely condescending. He's portraying their voting decisions as riddled with bitterness, their issue concerns a result of frustrations of being on the losing end of the market. If you are going to appeal to people by talking about their problems, you'd better make sure they identify with you as one of them. Otherwise it's just somebody coming in from the outside telling you you're all screwed up, and they've got the fix. Not very appealing.

Barack's gift to Hillary (and the Republicans)

The bloom is off the rose. Barack Obama's seemingly effortless protean political skill to make people read into him their hopes and desires has hit a major roadblock. Obama made this remark at a fundraiser in San Francisco, which was captured on tape by a blogger:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The carnage followed instantly. Then came Obama's response while campaigning in Indiana:

"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how’re you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What’s going on there? We hear that it's hard for some working class people to get behind you’re campaign. I said, 'Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare. And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said 'We’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right' and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement -- so, here’s what's rich Sen. Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.' Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain -- it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch? No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania. I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America."

Then to Steelworkers in Pittsburgh:

"Senator Clinton and Senator McCain seem to be singing from the same hymn book, saying I am out of touch and I am an elitist because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances," said Barack Obama. "Now, it may be that I chose my words badly, it is not the first time and will not be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom spent decades in Washington, saying I am out of touch, it is time to cut through the rhetoric and look at the reality."

Yikes. The cure is worse than the disease. When making a major blunder, don't make it worse by accusing other people. Just apologize and be done with it. That's hard to do. It's hard to accept that you're not really a golden boy who never makes mistakes. But this thing would go away a lot more quickly if Obama had issued a short apology, rather than a lengthy, rambling diatribe about how he's in touch. It sounded very condescending, proving Hillary's point rather than rebutting it. The whole "it may be that I chose my words badly" baloney compounds the problem.

When you are misquoted as a politician, you have the right to complain. But when you make a mistake, you should not play it off as someone else's fault. At least, not in the blinding glare of the presidential spotlight.

This is why it is so silly for people to say that Hillary should drop out because she's only got a 5% chance of winning. No one can calculate that. No one can know what can happen tomorrow. One day Obama's tied things up in PA, the next he makes this comment and falls 20 points. And that's exactly what happened. Hillary has been waiting what probably seems like a lifetime for her for this slip. Obama simply hadn't made one to this point. The bloom was still on the rose. Hillary could raise question after question, and insinuate that Obama is a gamble of a candidate (or come right out and say it's a roll of the dice, as Bill did), but nothing seemed to stick. This will stick. It will haunt Obama for the rest of the campaign. It plays right into the hands of Hillary and McCain.

In short, Obama has pulled a Huckabee. Huckabee was never able to break out of his base of voters in states where he didn't have a lot of time to campaign--that is, everywhere but Iowa. It was a vicious cycle--he had to appeal to his base for votes and cash, yet that only boxed him in more as a candidate who lacked broad appeal. He really made no effort to break out of this box, as I comment in this post from mid-January.

Obama has put himself in a box now. It was the box others were trying to put him in, and it's the box he fits into but wants (and needs) to transcend. That's why this is such a huge story. It fits a narrative for Obama, as well as portrays him as a certain kind of person (aloof, arrogant, cerebral).

It is the perfect disaster, really, in that it turns all his positives into negatives. In politics your strong qualities can also be liabilities, and your liabilities can be turned into positives.

• Obama is the unity candidate, rising above the petty partisan squabbles. Now he's up there and looking down at us and we realize how disconnected to us he is, uncaring, condescending.
• Obama's a candidate who can inspire people. Well, he can't inspire just the type of voter the Democrats need to win.
• Obama has a broad appeal. Yet now this appeal seems based on the fact that he doesn't believe in anything, and is able to say anything to attract support. If he said what he really believed he would lose support.
• Obama is super-smart. But now he's an elitist who distrusts common folk.
• Obama speaks his mind and doesn't lie and fudge like the Clintons. Not now; he says something way different in private than in public.

In every respect it's a disaster. Hillary's got a greater than 5% chance now. If she wins by over 20 points in PA next week, how could she be denied the nomination?--that'll be her argument.

Obama's statement was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.

Bosnia story is Hillary's watershed

Hillary's predicting a close race in PA. I think PA is going to be another Ohio. That is, if Hillary wins, but it is actually close. Then Obama fans are going to stage an intervention and press her very hard to drop out. She won't, but they'll continue the pressure.

Hillary has to be so furious at Obama. Her $20 million month gets overshadowed by Obama's $40 million. But under normal circumstances $20M would be an incredible haul, and everyone would be lauding Hillary for doing such amazing fundraising. (McCain hasn't released his figures yet, but he raised $11M the month before.) Instead the story is how exhausted her fund raisers are as she falls behind Obama.

A new poll in PA shows a race too close to call, and everyone's going crazy over it. One poll does not a trend make. However, there is a definite trend of Hillary slipping in the last week. Why is that?

The reason is the Bosnia story sinking in. That was just a killer for the Clinton campaign. That is the kind of thing that reminds everyone of what they don't like about the Clinton's--the petty lies. This is what killed Gore in 2000: he tried to distance himself from the Clinton's, but then got caught up in a bunch of petty lies, at which point the Bush campaign started gaining traction in the polls.

I talked with a non-political person last weekend who was utterly dismissive of Hillary because of her Bosnia story. It is the most damaging thing, practically, she could have done. It not only rekindles the bad Clinton memories, but also highlights the main flaw of her argument against Obama--that he's not experienced--by pointing out that even though she was in the building when the big decisions were being made, she wasn't necessarily involved in making them, and desperately wants to make it seem like she was.

The Bosnia story might turn out to be the point in which Hillary lost the nomination.

The crucial stat

No, that's not a typo. PA is the crucial state right now, but the crucial stat is below:

From ABC News:

In a recent Gallup poll, almost 30 percent of Clinton supporters say they'd go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., over Obama if Clinton loses the nomination; 19 percent of Obama supporters say the same.

Yikes. This is a rock and a hard place. Blacks are a crucial Dem constituency, voting for Kerry 9-1 in '04, and making up 20% of his voters. If they jump ship for a Hillary candidacy, this would be disastrous for the Dems in the general. I have been listening to these callers to C-Span bashing the Clintons and making just this threat. Not that the Clintons don't deserve it, after the ghettoization strategy in SC (though this was Bill off the reservation, not a calculated campaign tactic, if we believe the NYTimes).

Yet there could be even more white voters who would jump ship with an Obama candidacy.

Things change daily, but Clinton is suffering right now from her enhancement of her Bosnia trip. This is literally what killed Gore's candidacy in 2000. If Gore hadn't been caught in those petty lies which I don't even remember anymore, he would have been president. Hillary's fumble is in the same category. This kind of thing just reminds people why Obama is so attractive--change from Bush without having to go back to all the Clinton rehash.

I think the superdelegates are going to close their eyes and go with Obama, hoping that he'll bring the party together better than Hillary could.

Clinton will win in PA

I'm in a Panera's in Western PA right now and there's an Obama group meeting. 22 people, a 20-ish leader presiding.

The Politico has a story about how Hillary can't win more delegates than Obama, a fact that is widely ignored because the media like a good story and a close race is a good story.

However, Hillary will win big in PA. She's gained five points since OH, and is up by double-digits in every single poll. She got Ed Rendell's endorsement, from whom PA democrats get their marching orders. PA is a closed primary, so it hurts Obama's chances of getting votes from independents.

Hillary doing better in the polls

I'm watching Amy Walter of Hotline on C-Span, and she's reporting favorable poll results for Hillary.

Clinton leads McCain, 51-46.

Clinton leads Obama in primary voters 49-42.

Both of these are big turnarounds from the polls of recent history.

Clinton has also doubled her lead in PA since the OH primary, from 6 points to 12 points.

But she's ceding North Carolina, which has a high percentage of black voters.

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.