RCP Total vote with Florida and estimates of the caucus states if they reported total votes (they have an estimate with Florida and Michigan, but I think there's no plausibly valid argument to consider Michigan's popular vote):

Popular Vote (w/FL)   14,937,687 48.3% 14,729,170 47.6%    Obama +208,517 +0.7%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*    15,271,771 48.4% 14,953,032 47.4%

Clinton is down 325,000 votes with a number of states and Puerto Rico left -- difficult but is that really "not a shot"?    

Neither candidate is making the sale with the Dem electorate. Maybe each side in this weasel-fight could have a little humility and admit that both candidates have serious flaws and that the general election is not a cinch for us by any stretch.

Maybe, also, that each candidate needs to improve his/her game by admitting those deep flaws and addressing them, and the voters, honestly. In HRC's case, she needs to stop fibbing and rein in her slimethrowers. In BHO's case, he needs to dial down the cockiness and end the straddling, on trade and race/class esp.

Nothing would help Obama more than to distance himself from the race-soaked politics of Wright, and nothing would demonstrate that distancing better than for him to give a serious speech about how race simply isn't as important as class in today's America.

And that Obama will therefore make a huge push to end race-based aff action and replace it wherever possible with programs aimed at helping loincome and uneducated families, whatever their color.

This is a Nixon to China moment that would show Obama as more than a good script-reader, as someone with real cojones and vision. aka a LEADER

Noam writes, "The bottom line is that Hillary needs an Obama meltdown to have a real path to the nomination. "

Obama is melting down.  He can win the college snotties.  But, he can't win the heartland Democrats.  They'll easily go to McCain over him because they can easily relate to McCain.  A down to earth war hero who never condescends to anyone.  And who has real life experience, not just in the Ivy League.  Or hanging out with aging Weathermen and Weatherwomen with whom he "is on friendly terms".

So, thank goodness the Democrats can't handle the truth.  They'll march lemminglike off the Obamacliff in August and nominate him sure.

I'm going to love next fall.

Over on Slate, Melissa Hennenberger discusses exit polls that show that Stump editors telling Hillary to get out of the race should 'piss off'.  I posted similar comments below.  Okay, I'm kidding, but I do think the 'Hillary get out' meme as it's currently being done isn't working.

Scheiber:

"But, having said all that, she only marginally improved her chances of winning the nomination, and they weren't high to begin with. She barely dented Obama's pledged delegate lead (she probably made up about 15-20 of his 165-delegate margin), and there are few indications that the superdelegates are prepared to overturn it."

Do you know how you can keep this race from going all the way to Denver? Stop making statements just as the one above. The best to way to keep Hillary IN so far has been to count her OUT. You should have learned this by now. Very strange things have happened in this contest so far, and Obama clearly has lost most of his "shine", so that to keep on with your pro-Obama "analyses" while being totally oblivious to the changing dynamics sets you up for a massive coronary if.  in the end, the superdels should decide that beating McCain was the most important criterion and "overturn" [bad choice of words if you understand what a superdel is there for] Obama's "insurmountable" lead,,,

Agreed, lymon1. I have a hard time to think it is impossible to for her to overtake him in terms of popular vote, especially if she does gain significant momentum from her victory and goes on to snatch a victory in Indiana. I wonder what date that primary is scheduled for?

Per the Gallup Poll of 6,158 registered voters taken March 31-April 6, McCain is 6 points ahead of Obama among the 1,140 voters with a high school education or less.

This is absurd. Our candidate should DOMINATE this category by at least 10 points. Obama needs to start taking some risks, or maybe spending some of his capital earned with afr-amers during ten years + of being cozy with Wright and establishing his cred as an authentic black man for these voters. Those voters aren't going to vote for McCain. Obama needs to souljah Wright and make a major policy speech endorsing  class-based aff action as a replacement for race-based aff action. That would convince older, less-educated white Americans that he gets it. ie that this isn't "two nations, one white, the other black" anymore. Hasn't been for going on two decades, in fact. Class, not race, is the huge dividing line in plutocratic 21st c America.

Class defined largely in terms of education. Knowledge workers vs the rest.

A dark thought occurred to me tonight: As I watched the great generational schism divide Pennsylvania Dems, I couldn't help wondering, If HRC is relying so heavily on elderly voters, isn't her coalition getting smaller every day? And isn't Obama's growing?

Consider: CDC mortality statistics suggest that more than 2 million Americans will die during the course of this year's primary and general election. During that same time, approximately 4 million Americans will turn 18.

Yes, it's a morbid data point. Even mentioning it feels faintly parricidal. But is it a meaningful data point as well as a morbid one?

Actually, Nippers, the nation is getting OLDER, not younger. Every four years the party's yuppie candidate tries to resurrect that old dead horse of the grand youth turnout that will carry us to victory in the fall, and every four years it fails to deliver because a) kids don't vote in anywhere near the % that older voters do, and b) under-30 year-olds as a % of the electorate today are less than HALF what they were in 1972. And their share is shrinking every four years (though the mexican immigration tsunami will adjust that trend slightly in coming years).

The upshot of Pa. for me is that I can really see Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee, biting clawing and scratching her way to a victory over John McCain in the fall.  And I see Obama losing, wilting under pressure and flumoxxed by Republican attacks, while his supporters whine about white racism and ongratulate themselves on their moral superiority to the Amerikkkan mainstream.    

Tep, I dunno if affirmative action is burning as hot as it would need to in order for a speech to reach such voters (compare to illegal immigration, but I don't think he's ready to go there).  

Did anyone find Hillary Clinton's pitch for donations a little odd?  I heard Lanny Davis try to do the same thing on Larry King.  Who says the Clintons will stop at nothing to win the nomination (like self-financing the campaign!)

This would be the perfect time for Clinton to call it a campaign and throw her support to Obama:  go out at the top rather than ride it to the bitter end and down into the ground.  Her stock would soar, she'd be a hero, all would be forgiven, and the party would get a tremendous boost.

the upshot for me is I'm starting to wonder if I prefer mccain to BOTH of these candidates

Hillary had a 20 point lead a few weeks ago. Obama didn't really begin to campaign in Pennsylvania in earnest until the final week of the primary. All that time Bill and Hillary were criss-crossing the state with intensity. The more people saw of Obama, the more they liked him. I think all of this is a bad sign for Hillary and a good sign for Obama. I am also beginning to believe that the longer campaign toughens Obama and helps him to focus on his real message, about changing the political culture in Washington, rather than trying to out-military Clinton and McCain.

I don't think Obama should take teplukhin2you's advice by trying to pick a fight with blacks. It just doesn't make sense -- it only calls more attention to the issue/non-issue of "race," which is just what the Clintons want. It doesn't matter whether Obama runs against or in favor of "race," the point for his opponents is to get him bogged down in the topic of it, thereby "ghettozing" him as a candidate.

Also, I notice McCain has actively been courting African Americans in the South the past few weeks. Don't sleep. This may or may not help him against Obama (at the very least he will benefit from it among those white voters who may be reluctant to vote for Republicans because they get a whiff that they are still the party of "intolerance"), but if Hillary is the nominee then McCain's good will journey among African Americans could have added benefits. Don't sleep.

Anyway, it's a good sign if this means the Republicans are signaling that they don't intend to be the party of race-baiting this time around. Of course, it could mean that they merely preparing to do a Hillary on Obama and feel it is wise to convince white voters that they are not racist before they really get down and dirty.

Once again, don't sleep.

Nippers writes on his theory that 2 million Hillary voters will die off as the primary progresses while 4 million voters will turn 18.

"Yes, it's a morbid data point. Even mentioning it feels faintly parricidal. But is it a meaningful data point as well as a morbid one?"

How 'bout a moronic datapoint, since older people historically are in the habit of voting dutifully while people just turning 18 are in the habit of shining it on.

dsmith writes, "...This would be the perfect time for Clinton to call it a campaign and throw her support to Obama:  go out at the top rather than ride it to the bitter end and down into the ground."

Spoken like a true loser, dsmith.  

I mean, are you out of your mind.  She just whipped Obama good.  Ten points, bro.  That's a lot in an election.

Why in hell would she quit at this juncture?

Your attitude embodies why Democrats have been such lame specimens since '68.  All but the Clintons who aren't so much Democrats as they are the Clintonian Party.

i am feeling low about our (yes, i say "our", because despite the obamamania turkeys who didn't even go to vote after slapping the sticker on their bookbag and the "well i am a woman, so of course i am for clinton" losers, i still believe in party values and interests) prospects for beating mccain.

can you all please reassure me that although america is doomed to remain a crumby country, at least when this is all over you will stop participating in this forum all day and go out and get real jobs helping people and counterbalancing america's vortex of goodness?

Teplukhin is right - the nation is getting older and not younger.

And for all of the talk about race and gender it is AGE that really divides the voters here.  Baby-boomers and older strongly supported Clinton. Those younger went for Obama.  

And I wonder if part of the age factor isn't this:  

Isn't there a strong psychological hurdle against voting for  a President who is younger than YOU are?  (Especially the first time?).

ChanRobt dismisses Nipper's data point as "moronic" since    "older people historically are in the habit of voting dutifully while people just turning 18 are in the habit of shining it on."

Habits?  Habits are broken every election cycle.  In many primaries, the number of young people (18-25) who came out to vote tripled, even quadrupled,  as compared to 2000 and 2004.  

Support for Obama was probably the most significant cause.  That and the fact that an entire generation of Americans cannot remember a time when either a Bush or Clinton was not President - and they know that something is not right with that.

For once, dchungu and I agree. The simple fact is that Hillary's single greatest asset is her ability to gin up sympathy every time she's on the ropes. We've seen it happen again and again. Starting in her New York Senate race, where she played the victim card quite effectively, and then in New Hampshire, where her tears acted like a dog whistle to her core constituency, white working class women. Since then, she's become more skillful at conveying vulnerability and portraying herself as a scrappy underdog. She complains about the "big boys," whines about how the debate format works against her and begs for money. And then, of course, there's her secret weapon: Bill. He's  out on the hustings, making obnoxious, usually false comments and it reminds everyone of what she's had to endure in her marriage, prompting pity and votes. (Look at what she's had to put up with! She DESERVES the White House!)

If Democrats fall for this act, they deserve what they get. Any party that nominates a woman with enormous personal negatives, who ran a crappy, reckless, debt-inducing campaign is not a party I want running the country anyway.

Given Obama's major weaknesses as a candidate (let alone as a president), I think it is likely that we will begin to see some arguments appearing in the press that superdelegates should nominate Clinton. Given the extent to which the press is actively allied with Obama, as here at TNR, this may be slow to happen. But the argument that Clinton can win and Obama cannot is so fully visible now that it has to find strong expression in public and be publicly discussed.

The average age of the country is rising. But the population is also increasing. And, contra ChanRobt, old people actually do die. Mortality has not yet been conquered, and all voters at some point will have to re-register in the undiscovered country.

Meanwhile, the first post-Boomer generation that is numerically larger than the Baby Boom is in the midst of reaching adulthood, and unlike my sorry peers these kids are voting and participating in civic life to a degree not seen since the Boomers' parents.

For all their supposed mercuriality, Boomers have been consistent in two ways: First, Boomer Democrats prefer awful candidates. Second, Boomers in general vote Republican.

The rising generation of active young people, who will soon outnumber Boomers thanks to their own size and Boomer mortality, are also extremely Democratic-leaning. Again, more so than any cohort since the generation that fought WWII.

By 2012, the Boomer Democrats may not be numerous enough to decide the Democratic nomination anymore. Their influence may also be blunted by this suicidal, bitter last stand for Hillary, if she either gets the nomination (and loses, as she will, to McCain) or if Obama loses to McCain (in which case the conventional wisdom will blame Hillary and her dead-ender supporters for wrecking the Democratic Party). Once Boomers are no longer a decisive cohort among Democrats, we might start winning two-way presidential elections again. However, there is some demographic and primary-participation evidence that the Boomers' decisive role in general-election politics has already peaked. Given the generational dynamics at play, the 4 million new voters who mature this year probably do represent more votes than the 2 million current voters who die this year.

How utterly peculiar almost all of the above is.

A week or 10 days ago, I did a very simple thing.  I applied the poll numbers in PA, IN, and NC to the likely voter turnout and  delegates at stake.  The best guess on that basis was that after those three races, two of which Hillary was expected to win and one to  lose, Obama's margin in both delegates and popular votes would be unchanged, with perhaps a 20,000 net gain for Obama in popular votes.

Now, what was expected to happen in PA has happened.  Hillary did a little bit better than the polls at that time, picking up about 55,000 more popular votes than those polls would have predicted (about 15,000 of them due to higher turnout).  At the same time, Hillary's poll margin in IN has declined quite a bit.

So, giving Hillary the benefit of every doubt, and of her slightly better than the last polls performance in PA, the best guess now is that, after PA, IN and NC, Obama's margin in both delegates and popular votes will STILL be unchanged, with possibly a 25,000 or even 50,000 net gain for Hillary in popular votes (from Obama's margin of more than 700,000 pre-PA).

In other words, on May 7, Obama's margins over Hillary are going to look the same as the did on the eve of the PA primary, just as expected.  But Hillary will have run out of track.  Her campaign is already acknowledging, for the first time as far as I know, that she cannot overtake Obama's delegate lead and arguing that the popular vote should decide the outcome for the supers.

What will the Hillary campaign say on May 7 when there are only 217 pledged delegates left to claim, about 3 million votes left to be cast, and Hillary would need a margin nearly double that in PA (her perfect demographic) to cover?

O.K. Noam - about the  depresseion and the "extended nomination fight".  Obama can end it quickly as McCain did for the Republicans - the old fashioned way - by winning enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.  He doesn't seem able to accomplish that feat.  Yeah, he can rack up the college towns and the liberal enclaves, but can't win with the working class.  

The superdelegates see that Hillary can win the large states, the working class.  They don't want another Dukakis.  If the supers are only supposed to blindly follow the pledged delegates, then what was the purpose of the supers to begin with?  

ChanRobt, in his first post, sums up Obama's dliemma nicely.  

Pennsylvania Department of State

www.electionreturns.state.pa.us

CLINTON  -- 1,234,547  --  54.3%

OBAMA   -- 1,041,136  --  45.8%

Unofficial Returns *** 9,177 out of 9,263 Districts (99.07%) Reporting Statewide ***

John Judis DUMPING on Obama says this:

"Hillary Clinton won a decisive ten-round decision over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, but she didn't score a knockout. The struggle continues. Clinton still has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama's delegate lead or his edge in the popular vote. And the superdelegates will be loath to ignore this advantage."

That about sums about the state of play on the nomination.  

The Judis, teplukhin, jmkerr, etc, thesis that because working-class Dems prefer Hillary to Obama, Obama will have trouble beating McCain remains purely rhetorical.  No one has yet to demonstrate how this single demographic gives McCain the Electoral College.  The only thorough analysis so far, that of US News, gives Obama a clear advantage over Hillary in the Electoral College.  Repetition of this meme will not make it so.  In a close race, it is inevitable that some demographics will be for one candidate and others for the other.  That's why the race is close.  If working class Dems and boomer women preferred Obama, the race would be a huge blowout for him as virtually no group would prefer Hillary.

The unspoken assumption of all of these pseudo analyses is that Hillary, who, after all is losing in the popular vote, would retain Obama's Democratic voters in the general but Obama would not retain Hillary's Democratic voters.  I know of absolutely no objective evidence that that is so.  Assuming that each holds onto the Democratic base, despite the ill-will now being generated, Obama's greater support amongst independent gives him a clear edge over Hillary in the general election.  That's how national elections are won.  You hold your base and win amongst independents.

"Does anyone here know how to play this game?"  Casey Stengel.

If we are going to count FL/MI popular votes, we also need to count the caucus popular votes. Why should say Missouri have many times the effect of say Minnesota? So if we are going to start counting it is fair to count all. We would need to do something in MI where BO wasn't on the ballot too to balance it out. But that's not a real tally anyway, that's just a point to try to convince Supers. What seems likely, is if any fair count is concluded, pledged delegates, popular votes, and states won will likely be BO, barring an Obama meltdown. And it looks like Operation Chaos was not operative in PA (more crossovers for BO)

That being said, it has got to be disappointing that BO couldn't close this more than 10pts. The demographics were much worse tha OH (older, whiter, more blue collar, more female), and BO did perform better in those tougher demographics than in OH, but he also worked this state hard.

The more troublesome stat is the steadily increasing number of voters (more for HRC) who said they will vote for McCain instead of the other candidate. The tone of the election is taking a toll. We may just end up giving this thing to McCain, and Rush Limbaugh wins...

"Hillary unquestionably met or exceeded expectations tonight" . . . And what were those?  Wasn't she over 20% ahead of Obama a month or so ago?  Latest count has her winning by single digits - not as low as Obama's campaign wanted, but still far, far from where she was.  I think you'd better check your medication dosages and get them adjusted.  

Why hasn't anyone noticed that she keeps loosing advantages in every primary.  She alienates more voters every time she opens her mouth!  

Nippers:

I've been talking about that for a while. A small (but significant) of Hillary's supporters (bitter old white ladies) will soon be dead.

roidubouloi:

Judis, a supposed scholar of demographics/voting trends, seems to be willfully ignorant of the divide between primary coalitions and general election coalitions.

Isn't it possible that Hillary is winning working class voters in the primary because they love the Clintons and the economic boom of the 90s? What does that have to do with Barack Obama vs John McCain?

Judis needs to go back to school.

dbhuff:  How does "Rush Limbaugh win"?  Limbaugh stated that McCain's (or Huckabee's nomination would be the end of the GOP.  

If that blowhard Limbaugh had any influence, Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee, and not the Supreme Court laughingstock he is today.

"But the argument that Clinton can win and Obama cannot is so fully visible now that it has to find strong expression in public and be publicly discussed."

Hehe, I knew you couldn't stay away, pccostello.  Back on the scene with still further unsupportable assertions.  And I see you're still clinging to a shred of superdelegate hope.  Good on ya, I say.  

I know what I wish, though.  I wish that everyone on either side would stop making predictions.  Nobody, neither the pros nor us nebbishes has a fucking clue what's going to happen in November.  Remember six months ago when we were all talking about the possibility of a brokered convention?  On the REPUBLICAN side?  And remember six weeks ago when Clinton had a 24% lead in the PA polls?  How much has it narrowed since?  And people are fretting--or crowing depending on their disposition--over a 6 pt McCain lead over Obama?  Come on, people.  

And why all the angst following this PA result?  Isn't this exactly what we expected?  I know it's what I expected.  

The only bright spot in this entire dismal thread is that teplukhin has jettisoned the whingey snark and is back with some useful advice for our presumptive nominee.

On a related note, this from CNN:

"Laura and Jenna Bush are planning a wedding. And they let you in on details of the big day. Plus, hear about their new book. Tonight, 9 ET"

TNR should tune in.  I'm sure it will provide grist for more of the Jenna-gushing/Chelsea-bashing that's become de rigeur on these pages.

I don't see this as the huge victory she needed.  She won by 8.5 points which is slightly better than the polls that were guessing (around 8 points).  To be really impressed, I would have liked to see her in the 12 to 15 point range - especially in a state that matches up with her very well demographically.

I also don't put a lot of faith in the exit polls that show some percentage of voters would rather vote for McCain than the other candidate.  It was a very emotional primary.  After the nominee is determined, most people we be able to see that Clinton and Obama's policies are much closer to each other than to McCain.

Didn't Hillary's own Mark Halperin say that she had to win by _more than_ 10.5 percent to keep her candidacy viable? I mean, that itself was a fantasy, since she needed a 20-point blowout to bring either delegate or national vote totals back into play. But the last time I checked, 8.5 < 10.5. It's not "momentum" if you win Penny by a smaller margin than you won Ohio.

This victory leaves Hillary exactly where she was in March: Losing in all three possible metrics, with no plausible way to catch up, arguing that losing is really winning and winning is really losing.

Rhubarbs, yes, of course it is inevitable that the two new generations since the Boomers are going to change the political and social landscape.  But, I think they'll change the social far quicker than the political.

First of all, yes, Boomers are mortal.  But, check the actuarials, rhub.  They ain't dying that fast.  (Hell, there are still a goodly number of the WW2 generation alive and voting.)

Not only aren't they dying precipitously, but they'll keep voting 'till they drop.  The GenXers have been of voting age for a quarter of a century and I don't see that they've blunted the Boomer influence.  The first Millennials reached voting age in 2001.  Over the next four years, their numbers will start cresting.  So we'll see how dramatically that changes things.

You also have to factor in that as voters get older, get married, have children and responsibility, make more money, and pay serious taxes, they tend to get more conservative.

There was a time when all Boomers were presumed to be self-absorbed, self-righteous, pot smoking hippies and permanent flower children.

There was a little truth in that.  But, as someone pointed out above, they ultimately turned out to vote heavily Republican.

I think the more profound and worrisome question is, what kind of voters will all the illegal immigrants turn out to be?  For all any of us know, they may be conservative Hispanics and vote GOP.

Funny the difference 23k votes make (1% of the total PA vote);, or, a switch from O to C of 11.5k. Imagine the headlines if 11 thousand more votes went to Obama than Clinton. "Clinton wins Pennsylvania, but doubts linger about her campaign's fate."

Or make it 23 thousand switchers - 53-47%. But as she says, "they said it couldn't be done."

ChanRobt: Lacking demographic expertise, I'm prepared to accept that my datapoint is moronic, but I don't think the aging population and the historical caprices of youthful voters definitively make your case for reasons others have stated.

Obama's base is getting older, but Clinton's isn't just aging; it's dying. What of citizenghost's hypothesis about the reluctance to vote for someone younger than you? That makes some sense, doesn't it? Does history offer any data to back it up? What were the age demographics in JFK's victory?

If we take Obama's own age as the generational dividing line, the proportion of the electorate older than him is diminishing while the proportion younger than him continues to grow. After all, Obama's aging too.

"There was a time when all Boomers were presumed to be self-absorbed, self-righteous, pot smoking hippies and permanent flower children. There was a little truth in that.  But, as someone pointed out above, they ultimately turned out to vote heavily Republican."

Chan, Boomers didn't "turn" conservative and Republican when they grew up and had kids. Well, of course, many did. But as a cohort, Boomers have always been more conservative than liberal, more Republican than Democratic. It's just that the small number of lefty radicals and hippies got all the press.

I mean, you don't wind up being the one age cohort to vote for George W. Bush in 2000 by starting out with a liberal Democratic majority. (Which is a silly anecdote that doesn't prove anything, but in fact Boomer voting patterns have leaned conservative since they started to come of age in '67.)

hey pc, and just how can Hilary win back the black vote, how many did she win in Pa. 3? All McCain has to do is choose Rice or Powell giving blacks just the excuse they need to dump that sorry ass and vote Republican.

If you or any Clinton supporters had any integrity, you would come out for Gore as being the best compromise candidate, because if Obama can't win, how the hell can anybody say with a straight face the second place finisher can?

People don't just vote on personality and style, or even on ideological intuition, they also want stuff done.  It varies from election to election, e.g. 2000 wasn't about urgent tasks but 2008 msot definitely is.

Americans want stuff done about the war, about the economic doldrums, about healthcare, and about recovery of our leadership role across the globe.  It's not definitive (and there's a lot of ambivalence even among people who want Iraq ended) and there are major disagreements buried under the apparent consensus.  But they want someone to have ideas and take charge.  Both Obama and Clinton can do that.

McCain's big problem is going to be, no matter who he's running against, convincing voters that he has any ideas about, much less solutions to, the major issues this country is facing.  There can be a sea-change in people's attitudes that isn't noticed on the surface, and I suspect we have one of those going on as we speak.  Republican mantras on the "free market-lower taxes-support troops-stop gay marriage-round up immigrants" track are NOT going to be flavor of the month in the fall, and furthermore they will sound unconvincing coming from McCain.  However, if he instead runs for the center he's going to have to steal some Dem clothes and actually talk about e.g. a real healthcare plan -- and that's going to cause him some problems with the Rep base.

McCain is going to have his work cut out, and I don't rate his chances.

Is it over yet?

channy, I agree that as you get older you become more conservative, but that means people will trend Republican, do you honestly assert that Hillary (trillion dollar promises) Mondale is a Conservative?

Hillary is Mondale minus blacks, Obama is Hart plus blacks (which is why he is winning) and McCain is Reagan minus incumbency and charisma.

In 1984 was Hart more electable than Mondale, hard to say how he could not have been. Does that mean he should have gotten the nod based on electability? Absolutely no. Mondale earned the right to get beaten. So has Obama.

When Indiana joins PA and OH (I assume it will by at least a smidge) snubbing Obama for Clinton, the Obama folks are going to need a plausible list of states that usually lean GOP that will vote for Barack instead.

roi, VA, walto - given his solidly left-lib voting record and his dominance among afr-amers, Obama should be trouncing McCain in polls of high school or less-educated voters, who are disproportionately afr-amer and who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Instead, Obama is trailing McC by a healthy margin.

If it makes you feel better, blame whoever you like for this-- stinkin' rotten journalists, Judis/Judas, me and other unimpressed-with-BHO libs, or those "dumb" (VAcentrist's spin) voters themselves. Me, I think the buck stops with the candidate himself.

Maybe he can get up the curve by November. I certainly hope so. But the evidence is that this man is simply too green, and chose to run before he had developed a meaningful record and a solid persona with a much broader demographic than the Hyde Park overeducated white /  undereducated black urban liberal one.

In short, I think your anger and snark are better directed at the candidate rather than those objective and fair=minded critics who wish him well.

tomeg, Hillary represents the exact same constituency as did Mondale, except she doesn't even carry black votes. If anything her approach is the wrong one. Mondale won Pa. by 50% over Hart, did that translate into a victory in November? Hell no. Reagan won 49 states.

Can you are anybody convince me that Mondales approach (with a woman on the ticket) was all that successful by any metric? So why repeat that b.s. now? Hell, the even worse thing is Mondale wasn't even hated like the Clintons are.

If anybody wants to make a pitch for Gore, fine by me, but Hillary is a train wreck.

blackton, all I'm saying is that SDs will need a detailed brief which is more than rhetorically convincing, y'know like brass tacks. It better be believable and the Obama folks need to be proactive in advancing it. Remember I'm an Obama supporter - I just want Barack to win and not be humiliated if his electoral strategy falls like a souffle.

tomeg, you are looking for guarantees, sorry, I got none. If Obama loses he loses, with the economy in free fall and Iraq unwinnable McCain will be a one termer anyhow. Even though Hillary might have delusions of a comeback in 2012 Democrats don't give second chances to second place finishers (look at Edwards. Bradley, etc.) so 2012 will be some white male (or maybe woman Gov.) Dem who will clean up.

Obama won't bring the party down with him. If Hillary steals it with superdelegates, she will. (oh man, can you imagine the commercials Republicans will run in black districts: Hillary says wait your turn, even when you win, you don't have to take it anymore. etc.)

The only thing close to a guarantee is Gore, but even Hillary could whine that to a loss.

blackton, yeah - I just hope the party won't bring itself down on its own, but que sera sera, eh?

Better to risk striking out with Obama than winning dirty with Clinton.

Nippers writes, "...Obama's base is getting older, but Clinton's isn't just aging; it's dying."

In the particular case of Hillary, Nip, you may be right.  She is a peculiar person with a peculiar following.  Especially older women who identify with her specifically.

I don't think that Hillary's following tells us a lot about whether the electorate is becoming more liberal, more conservative, or staying about the same.

But, I think your top-of-your head analysis is making some of the same mistakes the boomers themselves made about their own future influence when they were still young.  i.e. that they were better educated and thus more liberal than their parents, and they were going to change the world utterly.

Ironically, they had a lot to do with changing the U.S.  Helping Reagan first and the Republican Revolution later under Gingrich in '94.

These demographic and psychographic things are never as simple as they appear.  And just as the Boomers got older, richer, and more conservative, so too will GenXers and Millennials.

Nipper asks, "...Does history offer any data to back it up? What were the age demographics in JFK's victory?"

JFK's "victory" was infintissimal.  And, in any event, it may have been stolen for him by the Daly Machine in Chicago.

But, to answer your question, the electorate in 1960 was considerably older than it is now, I am pretty certain.  The Boomers were too young to vote.  the James Dean generation was the famously disengaged and not rocking the boat.

The most important demos were probably "the Greatest Generation," guys who'd fought the war and toughed out at least a bit of the Depression before that.  But both Jack and Dick were appealing to that generation, they both having served in WW2 in the Navy, and were only a coupla years apart in age.

Meanwhile, there was the true Depression generation.  those who had come of age in the 1920s (something like the 60s) and then knocked down hard by the Depression.   And either served in the War in some cases, or had to watch their sons go off to it.  They tended to be cautious.

Meanwhile, Jack Kennedy, while being charismatic, and imaginative, and a great speaker, was nothing like obama in his politics.  He was far to the right of Obama, a Cold Warrior who faulted the Republicans for a made up "Missile Gap".  

the only think Jack Kennedy and Obama had in common is that they were both good looking and charming.  And in their youthfullness did both generate the aura of "hope".  

But, JFK was far quicker on his feet, and far wittier.  Obama is smart, but actually a bit of a stiff.  Which, if he were older, would be more noticeable.

Rhubarbs writes, "Chan, Boomers didn't "turn" conservative and Republican when they grew up and had kids. Well, of course, many did. But as a cohort, Boomers have always been more conservative than liberal, more Republican than Democratic. It's just that the small number of lefty radicals and hippies got all the press."

I don't wholly disagree, Rhub.  First of all, there were by definition, a hell of a lot of Boomers.  It's just a matter of birth years, after all.  And plenty were rural, or Southern or conservative Midwestern, etc.

But, I do believe a lot of apparent "hippies" of the era acted our the part for peer approval and to get laid.  But, again, once they grew up and dealt with real life, especially if they were prosperous and paying big income taxes, many of them lost their enthusiasm for the Democrats.

BHLnyc says:  "Better to risk striking out with Obama than winning dirty with Clinton."

Yep.  Anyway, there's no choice.  Barring something totally unlikely, he's the inevitable candidate.  That Clinton just keeps slugging away does little more than demonstrate her unfitness for leadership.  When faced with inevitable defeat, only kamikaze-crazy fighters refuse to quit and slog on to the bloody and ignominious end.  Her blind, dogged persistence isn't admirable, it's stupid and selfish and self-destructive and party-destructive.  The only people who will give her points for finally falling on her face are people who see the presidential race as essentially an entertaining brawl.  It's become a brawl, all right, thanks to her, but it's not entertaining, it's ugly.  That she doesn't understand that and refuses to put her party above her apparent need for a personal victory no matter what the cost to anyone or anything else illustrates as probably nothing else in her public career has done that whatever her virtues and talents may be, they don't include responsible leadership.

blackie writes, "...do you honestly assert that Hillary (trillion dollar promises) Mondale is a Conservative?"

Not at all,.  It is a testament to how Left Obama is now being understood to be, both politically and maybe more important, culturally, that Hillary is seen as relative "middle America".  

Middle America, at least blue collar Middle America, is having great difficulty feeling comfortable with Obama.  Not because he's black.  But because of all the "exotic" elements I've referred to in the past.  

And because he betrayed with his "bitter" comments, a social bias, elite snobism and condescension common to the Ivy League and to the upper middle classes on the coasts.  All my friends, in other words.

channy, not saying I disagree, but don't feel so comfortable with down home boys running the show, not when gas is $4 a gallon, the economy in a tailspin, and the war in Iraq unwinnable (at least according to how the Republicans define it, ie. secular, liberal Democracy in the heart of the middle east). Maybe in November people might say, hell the guy might be an elitist and exotic, but damn if we keep going this way.

blackie, you know damn well gas is $4/gal because of global forces, not because of the current administration.  We had astoundingly cheap energy for more than 20 years.  With China and India coming into the market, that was not going to last.  

Also, a lot of it has to do with temporary weakness of the dollar and speculator running up commodities, partly in reaction to same.  I will fault this admin for not jawboning the mortgage guys four years ago to prevent the meltdown we're seeing.  Doubt that Clinton would have done any different.

All that said, obviously, whoever is in the White House during a downturn get blamed for it.  And vice versa.  We'll see if this all lasts till November. a slower economy will likely bring gas prices back down, for instance.

dsmith writes, "...That Clinton just keeps slugging away does little more than demonstrate her unfitness for leadership.  When faced with inevitable defeat, only kamikaze-crazy fighters refuse to quit and slog on to the bloody and ignominious end."

This is a total fantasy, dsmith, that I see repeated over and over everywhere in Liberal rags until it's become CW.

But, name me any politician in her situation, living or dead, who would graciously and magnanimously quit right after taking PA by nearly ten points?  Who had won most of the big states and major swing states?  Whose opponent had mainly won caucuses and small rural states and large Southern state that the Dems are not going to take in the General?

And whose opponent shows signs of having serious social and political problems with a large segment of middle type voters?

If she, or any politician, quit under these circumstances, political historians would be scratching their heads for decades to come.  They would not be praising her for her good sportsmanship.

ChanRobt:

On JFK, points taken. Thanks. I always appreciate your posts, even when you call mine moronic.

What about Bill Clinton? Youth turnout in presidential elections declined between 1972 and 2000, with one exception: 1992, the last year that a young candidate was on the ballot. That year turnout spiked to 20 percent even even though those young voters--my generation--were part of a Baby Bust.

In 1996, it fell to 17 percent, then to 16 percent in 2000, only to rise again in 2004 and then again in the mid-term elections of 2006, a trend that may foreshadow record youth turnout this year.

It's not that Obama's age alone will drive up youth turnout, of course--it's that sense of generational identification. I grew up under Reagan. Clinton's election in 1992 felt to me like a generational coming of age. The rhetoric of change, empty or spurious though it may have been, was still powerful. I can't help but think that it will be more powerful this year, as the Echo Boomers come of age. All they've known are Clinton and Bush, and they have paid a greater generational price for Bush's  foreign policy than have their elders.

And here's one (admittedly weak) piece of data to support the notion that Obama's age marks the generational divide this year: in PA he lost every demographic among voters over 45.

hey Channy, I know, but does the average American know. Bush/Cheney promised cheap energy and look what we got. And China and India will cause prices to stay high forever. and pardon me if I take everything you say with a grain of salt. You want Hillary to run even as a third party candidate (hey why not? Nader did?) Hillary is either delusional to think she can steal the nomination, or she wants to ruin Obama's chances in November, or worse of all she hopes something terrible happens to Obama and she will be there to pick up the pieces.

The primaries are like one teams practice game to determine the starters, when it becomes apparent who will be the starter you end the game, you don't keep the game going while the second stringers try to cripple the starters.

Nippers, apologies, "moronic datapoint" was a impolite and over the top.  I was mainly making a counterpoint to "morbid datapoint" in using an 'm' word.  In seeking alliteration, I forgot to be civil.  

Fact is you are apparently in much better command of the data on historic youth votes than I.

Kennedy overtly appealed to his generation, the still young guys who came back from war fifteen years earlier and were still raising families.l  In his innaugural he said, "...the torch has been passed to a new generation..."  And he pretty clearly contrasted himself during the campaign to Dwight Eisenhower, a 19th Century man born in 1890.

Clinton represented the Boomers coming of age and taking the reins.  Not trusting my own generation that much, I wasn't so sure we ought to take the reins.  I voted against Clinton.  Now the Boomers are the old farts.  Just 16 years later.

Rivalry between generations, tween fathers and sons, is an old theme in drama and politics.  And real life.  I've long said that if I were a GenXer I would heartily resent the Boomers in whose wake the Xers have sailed, catching all the crap Boomers threw off their glittering Easy Times cruise ship.

You can feel the tension just watching Colbert and Stewart.  I actually agree with a lot of their critique.

What I do worry about in generations behind me is a slacker sensibility.  A Whatever Generation that is wary of making value judgements.  This being a bad habit developed by many of the Boomers and taught by Boomer professors.

It is an attitude that has many under 45 wondering why anybody cares that Obama hangs out with a 60s vintage terrorist.  Earlier generations would have found it automatically shocking and very likely disqualifying.

It, and similar associations, may yet prove so for Obama.

Nippers, just to clarify my earlier (ruder than it shoulda been) critique:  I don't believe people are dying as fast as you may presume.  Those Old Clinton Bags may easily have five or six elections left on their tires.  

Boomers are starting to look old, but the oldest is only 62.  Probably the large majority of the women at least are going to make it to 80, 84, or more.  If they don't get a stroke or Alzheimers, they'll keep voting.  If only for a hobby.

Scheiber says, "But, having said all that, she only marginally improved her chances of winning the nomination, and they weren't high to begin with."

That's actually backwards.  In PA, Hillary blew her last chance to put herself back into contention because she gained no ground against results already discounted into her final tally.  Her lack of any unexpected pickup in PA means that on May 7, after NC and IN, she will be just as far behind in delegates and popular votes as she was the day before PA, with not enough left in contention for her even possibly to gain a majority of either delegates or popular votes.  

That means that In PA Hillary finally lost the nomination.  Too little, too late.

When we get to May 7 and the world wakes up and realizes that Hillary is finished, then the general can begin.  Forget the war, forget healthcare, forget that the incumbent Republican is wildly unpopular for what he has done to the country, forget it all.  We are headed into a full-blown recession that will still be well under way on election day.  A Perfect Storm for the Republican party.  "It's the economy, stupid."  Under these circumstances, even Hillary Clinton could beat McCain, but she isn't going to get the chance which is what is driving her out of her mind.  So near, and yet so far.  All the chanrobt blah blah above is just blah blah, having virtually nothing whatsoever to do with electoral politics.

blackie, I'll bet you Euros to dollars Hillary doesn't run on a third party ticket.  And, I've never suggested she would or should.  She considers herself a loyal Democrat.  Hell, she considers the Democratic Party her joint property.  

She's hardly going to want to Naderize herself.  Even if she never runs again, she can still hang onto Old Guard status.  None of us knows yet if Obama is for the ages, or the skyrocket of '08.

If Middle America is having trouble "getting comfortable" with Obama and he is still edging McCain in the polls, McCain who should be a known quantity by now, what does that tell us about the electorate's comfort with McCain?  He should be swamping the Dems at this point while they are still beating each otehr up and he isn't.  That is just an indication of the latent black hole that the Republican party is about to fall into.  Chan is whistling past the graveyard.

Could anyone explain how McCain is going to win?  If he persists in his current performance, he's going to get creamed in the debates and a dedication to hanging on for another century in Iraq isn't going to impress many people.  In fact, that alone may damage his hold upon the national security debate in more general terms.

It's not just style and personality, people!  Nor is it just "character" -- it's also looking like you have a clue.  Without 9/11 I don't think Bush would have won in 2004 because he would have had nothing to show for it.  He got the benefit of the doubt in 2004 in real history because the jury was still out on Iraq and people were willing to go with the president on what many believed to be a war against the HQ of "terrorism."  But his big Wreck Social Security project died a death ten minutes after the Inaugural as everyone realized what was going on.

And there's a reason why his numbers are lower than any president since Franklin Pierce.  He's been identified as an unrelenting dilettante with a line of folksy cliches whenever he gets into a tight spot.

My question is then, how big a battle will there be against McCain, how will it shape up?  He has a lot of weaknesses, the biggest one being zero ideas on how to deal with the problems that the country faces.  There are things that Hillary can beat him on, and things that Obama can take him down for.  I say "can," not "will."  But McCain doesn't look like the next president to me.

channy, I expect she will be Senate Majority Leader one day.  And will do a fine job of it, too.  Nobody should ever say that the woman ain't smart as a whip (pardon the expression).

Could be, roi, but I'll be whistling out there with him.  JM has a real shot at the Chosen One, in what otherwise will be a big Dem year.  Just look at the special election in MS.  If a GOPer has trouble in MS (!), where will it be easy?

butchie, but McCain will run as a Conservative Democrat. He is going to drive Channy nuts. Expect McCain Kennedy to pass. Hola Amigos, bienvenido. Hey Channy, you better brush up on your Español.

Maybe Rush is right, a McCain victory could be the biggest disaster the Republicans will ever have.

You could hardly expect McCain's numbers to be in the stratosphere considering all the focus is on the Dem primaries.

McCain has liabilities, sure.  His age.  And the unpopularity of the current administration.

But, he has a lot of assets as well.  He is not a predictable, cliché Republican.  He has diverged and deumurred from GOP doctrine regularly.  He has intelligence, wit, a sense of irony and self-deprecating sense of humor.  

Which has translated into the media liking him and giving him generally god press.

He is also a war hero, though modest and authentic about it-- never embarrassing like Kerry with his "Reporting for duty" b.s.  

He is credible as a human being.  He is perceived as honest and trustworthy.  More so than Hillary, of course.  And more even than Obama.  

He is more credible in the CIC role than either Democrat.  He is a known quantity with no iffyness in his past.  The son and grandson of two admirals, one who served with particular distinction in the Pacific in WW2.

He has never hung with Weathermen.  He does not have a pastor who makes DVDs of his anti-American rants.  He does not have a mysterious past with black holes in Indonesia and Africa.  

I know most of you are way too sophisticated to worry in the least about an exotic past.  But, hey, this is a nation that thinks The Olive Garden is Italian food.

If this election is going to be decided by tnr geeks and college professors and West Side of Manhattan and West side of L.A. types, Obama wins hands down.

But, if it's going to be those bitter people clinging to their guns and thumping their bibles, along with the once-Reagan Democrats, along with middle of the road, not that political, Independents, well McCain has a lot to recommend him.

And he's an easy vote for a lotta people who think of themselves as Democrats but either emotionally or socially or culturally or ethically have problems with both Clinton and Obama.

I've heard many, many people right here at tnr say they might vote for McCain.  I doubt that one of them would or could or did vote for Bush or any other Republican.  With the possible exception of Reagan.  And then, only in a few cases.

blackie, I know where I disagree with McCain.  Even very seriously.

But, I trust the man.  And I trust the helm of the ship of state in his hands.  I don't trust either Obama or Hillary with that helm.

In the end, I trust my instincts about his instincts.  That's not the case with the other two.  I suspect, that among relatively straightforward Americans, I am not alone in this.

I'm not so sure, though, that this is going to be an "instinct" election.  I get the impression -- and I've been wrong before -- that there is a real hunger for intelligent and solid solutions (or at least, some smart thinking) for the varioius problems and impasses that we're confronting as a nation.  It's not just Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran.  It's not just infrastructural weakness and massive economic inequality.  It's not just health and climate.  It's not just f-p and our loss of global leadership credibiltiy.

There are reasons why the "wrong track/right track" numbers are so stark.  These reasons and numbers have traditionally impacted presidential elections, and it's difficult to believe that 2008 isn't very much one that's going to be impacted.  McCain had better start coming up with something more than witticisms about "government healthcare" in his POW camp (his joke, not mine).  West LA liberal or gun-embracing conservative, there's a desire for something substantial out there.

irony, I think we almost all of us vote our instincts on candidates, particularly president, because there is only so much we really "know" about any of them.

What changes from election to election may be where the weight of our concern lies.  Although, since I don't expect a president to delier too much to me very directly for my specific welfare, my concerns are mainly, can I trust this guy on affairs of state and beyond our shores.

And can I trust the guy not to give away the store, or be looking to take my money and give it to someone else in some wealth distribution scheme.

In this case, yep.  Or gal.  Nobody's going to dismantle the military or introduce the Soviet command economy tomorrow (although Halliburton probably has comes close!).  However, my "instinct" is to think that instincts are good but not incomparably so.  I'd like to see some thinking, and I don't mind if the president has a few smarts that go beyond "stay the course."

But Chan -- those scare quotes around "know"!  You'd bring tears of joy to the heart of any postmodern Deconstructionist academic in any English Dept in the nation.  Believe me, I know.

You'll be announcing your affection for critical theory next.

Well, chan, I'm sure those are the reasons you voted for Bush, twice no doubt.  How'd that work out for you?  Affairs of state and beyond our shores well handled?  Unless you happen to be in the upper 1/2 of 1% of income earners, did you notice Bush giving away the store and taking your money to give to the very wealthiest Americans, and your kids' money, and their kids' money too?

My guess is that either you have to re-think your criteria or re-think how you evaluate who is going to meet them.  Withal, somehow, I just don't think we can rely on you as the "typical" voter this cycle whose "instincts" we should all be concerned about.  Particularly since your instincts haven't been so good in the past.

ChanRobt says:

"But, name me any politician in her situation, living or dead, who would graciously and magnanimously quit right after taking PA by nearly ten points?  Who had won most of the big states and major swing states?  Whose opponent had mainly won caucuses and small rural states and large Southern state that the Dems are not going to take in the General?

And whose opponent shows signs of having serious social and political problems with a large segment of middle type voters?"

That's all beside the point, because according to the only rules that matter, she's finished.  Whether or not she should win, she can't win.  And with today's NYT editorial, it looks as though her establishment support is pulling away from her.  If she waits to long to concede, there'll be little credit in it for her, because it'll be clear that she's been pulled off the stage kicking and screaming.

irony, yer right, I'm not ready to go down the deconstructionist rathole.  I thought "discipline" had largely been discredited, or at least gone out of fashion with the death of its creator or biggest adherent ten or fifteen years ago.

I was being abstract.  I'm just saying that to a certain extent we're in the dark about all public figures.  

And, no, I don't want a dumbass as president.  Although if the choice were a really smart guy whose philosophy I found abhorrent, or a dimmer guy who wasn't going to stab me in the back, guess I'd have to take my chances with the dummy.  At least he wouldn't be conspiring against my interests and those of the country.

But, let's hope we don't have to make such a Hobson's choice.  I don't see evidence that we will have to this year.

roid, if Gore or Kerry had gotten in, I'd be looking through my drawers for grocery change.

And Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq funding god knows what mischief against us.  And the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan.  And we'd have a two dollar/gallon gas tax to discourage consumption.

And worst of all, I'd have to see either Al Gore or John Kerry and their smarmy mannerisms on tv all the time.

"Reporting for duty." salute  "Reporting for duty." salute  "Reporting for duty." salute

dsmith, when Obama wins the votes, she'll leave.

He ain't won 'em.  

You can hold your breath till you and Pinch Sulzburger turn blue.  But Obama hasn't won yet and it won't make it so.

Al Gore had an opportunity to gracefully withdraw when it was obvious that he wasn't going to win the recount in Florida.  But, instead, he called his attorneys.

It goes against the laws of nature and politics to quit when you haven't lost.  I've been watching the game for a long time now and I've never seen anybody do it.

Her name is Hillary Clinton, not Mother Teressa Clinton.

And dsmith, you write, "...if she waits so long to concede, there'll be little credit in it for her..."

"Credit in it"?  From whom?  Does someone give her a Gold Star for Losers?  Who? Al Gore?  

Do you think Hillary gives a rat's ass for the good opinion of any of the male dweebs who are counted as the current Party Elders.  Gore?  Kerry?  Pelosi?  And Howard Scream Dean?  These are a pitiful little circle of people.  I can't imagine anybody who would care if he had their good opinion.  Let alone the haughty Hillary.

dsmith, you still seem to think this is some sort of Boy Scout affair with merit badges and ribbons for Best Sport.

MISSING 'NT.  MEANT  "I wasn't being abstract."  Also  "I thought that 'discipline'..."

I agree that Hillary will never get off the stage willingly.  The supers have to pull the plug on her.  The sooner the better. I am still betting on shortly after May 6.