Barring some bizarre turn, this race is over. The West Virginians are right. But Hillary soldiers on. On to Kentucky, where she will win. On to Puerto Rico, ditto. On to Oregon, where she won't.

Sooo... the other 23% of late deciders decided to throw in the towel and write in Edwards?

Yes, in America today it is okay to be racist, just so long as you don't make it explicit -- racism without racists, and all of that.

The fall election will be a test for uneducated working class white Americans: Which do they hate worse, tough economic times because of 8 years of Republican economic mis-management or the prospect of having a black man as president?

They should think hard before they answer; they've always blown this quiz before by allowing themselves to be distracted by "race" so that they make decisions that aren't in their economic self-interest.

"a lot more people thought Hillary attacked Obama unfairly (59 percent) than vice versa (50 percent). "

At what point will it begin to dawn on people that maybe the "attack unfairly" is, you know, a good thing? Clearly, if it didn't stop people from voting for her, you should probably stop thinking of it as a negative.

"That (50% selecting for Obama today) suggests to me that West Virginians may like Hillary quite a bit, but a lot of them think this race is over. "

Jesus. You're delusional.

jmkerr writes,

"At what point will it begin to dawn on people that maybe the "attack unfairly" is, you know, a good thing? Clearly, if it didn't stop people from voting for her, you should probably stop thinking of it as a negative."

By this logic, Gennifer Flowers should not have been thought of as a negative for Bill, since he won anyway.  Take a look at the exit polls from West Virginia, or any other state.  Clinton, and Obama for that matter, *always* do worse among voters that think they attacked unfairly compared to voters who think they did not attack unfairly.  Granted, it's difficult to determine which way the causal arrow points here (i.e. voters are more inclined to see attacks against their candidate of choice as unfair), but there is no evidence whatever to argue that it is desirable for voters to think you're attacking unfairly.

Scheiber's intellectual dishonesty, mendacity or just incoherent thinking continues:

"a lot more people thought Hillary attacked Obama unfairly (59 percent) than vice versa (50 percent). That's pretty surprising to me. Could it be the fallout from the "white Americans" comment?"

Duh, it could not be. What do you expect people to think when those who do the thinking for them (TNR and the MSM) keep telling them again and again that Hillary "the race-baiter" and her husband have been attacking Obama unfairly? In fact, it is pretty remarkable and sign of the trouble ahead that, despite that grim stat about how Hillary was viewed, she trounced Obama by a staggering 41 points in W.V....

I believe that we are headed for a McGovern-esque drubbing in the GE if Obama the nominee...unless, of course, the press, which has carried him this far, figures a way to make him more palatable in Appalachia.

Who cares? Answer: a few racists and John Judis. Have a good night, you three.

What I find vindicated is my belief that today's Virginia is the least segregated, bigoted, racist half, and that part that split off during the civil war shouldn't be a part of us anyway.  Who needs trailer trash anyway!

Deshungu: People like you always amuse me. Comparing Noam Scheiber's writing to yours is like the comparison of an NBA star to that of a mediocre high school player. And that goes double for your reapective intellects.

Yay, West Virginia.  Way to clear that Judis bar.

Why is the national media, as well as just about every commentator, missing the most obvious point about the West Virginia primary -- that Barack Obama BARELY CAMPAIGNED IN THAT STATE??  He had something like two visits to West Virginia before the March 6 primaries, and only visited the state ONCE in the entire week in which West Virginia had the primary calendar all to itself.  He clearly thought he had other fish to fry and was going to lose there anyway, but doesn't anybody think that his showing was so bad because he didn't bother to show up and that many West Virginians felt slighted by that?  

And another point, from the perspective of someone who lives in Pittsburgh and often works with patients in West Virginia -- the people are proud of their state, fiercely protective of native industries (coal, timber and steel, even when they don't employ a whole lot of people anymore) and very loyal to national politicians who notice them.  Bill Clinton always paid attention to West Virginia, and his wife did the same in this campaign.  And Obama never gave it a shot.  He will almost certainly West Virginia if he doesn't bother to campaign there in the fall (and McCain does), but the dynamics will be different if he decides to empathize with voters there in the months leading up to the contest.  And that is a storyline the national media would probably lap up.

dcshungu predicts a "McGovern-esque" drubbing in the fall.

This should be considered in the light of the complete failure of every prediction made by dcshungu up until now.  

Say, dc, is Hillary winning yet?  According to you, she had Obama on the ropes weeks ago.  What happened?  Maybe you need to turn on the lights before you look into your crystal ball.

Wow, I guess this means if Hillary had won another 25% then as many West Virginians would be voting on race as African-American (Democrats) across the nation.  

liberal reformer  said:

"Deshungu: People like you always amuse me. Comparing Noam Scheiber's writing to yours is like the comparison of an NBA star to that of a mediocre high school player. And that goes double for your reapective  [sic] intellects."

You have no clue about what you are talking about. Try informing yourself for a change, "liberal Informer", before attempting to "inform" anyone. I use my real name, D.C. Shungu. Just do a PubMed search on my writings before you spew comparative dimwits that no objective measure would support. That is specially true with respect to "intellects."

I think it's absolutely pathetic that Barack Obama didn't make a cconcession speech last night.  What does this say about his judgement and his character?  Is he a sore loser?  I really expected better from him than this.  Even CNN (who adores him) wondered why he was absent and gave up the free airtime.  He missed an important opportunity last night to show leadership, to reach out to the other half of the democratic voters, to dispel his elist label.  He dropped the ball and it doesn't bode well for him.  But I'm not suprised that no one at TNR mentioned this.  They have lost their ability to see Obama objectively.  These kinds of behaviors and perspectives will cripple us in the Fall.

I think that judis is getting a bum rap. Simply because he hypothesizes about racial disparities in the Democratic race doesn't mean that he endorses those trends, or the bigotry that animates the trend. I ses the same thing, especially in a place like West Virginia writ obvious, and at a place called the Spine, writ subtle by those disenchanted with peretz' support of Obama.

I do think Noam is engaging in some quantitative mind f-ing with these bullshit comparisons. Hey, Obama got incinerated and those people that Judis described are celebrating today.

'ROIDS:

"Say, dc, is Hillary winning yet?  According to you, she had Obama on the ropes weeks ago.  What happened?  Maybe you need to turn on the lights before you look into your crystal ball."

Nothing changed,  nor has the picture of a looming train wreck: Obama won NC as expected and Hillary won IN by a tiny margin, as should have been expected based on the demographics. Then we go to W.V., and Hillary, again on the ropes, wins by an astonishing 41 points...and this is a candidate who has already been ridden off by the press!

The press would need to help make Obama palatable in Appachia, which includes PA and IA, or it would not be pretty in the Fall. All the blue states that Obama won to help him rack up his delegate edge would never go Dem, leaving us with the potential of McGovern-esque electoral college drubbing.

roid -- I'm still not sure that by the end of this mess Hillary isn't going to "win" some metric of the popular vote (though I'll reject any argument with Michigan included) -- depends on what happens in Puerto Rico.  I think that's why yesterday they sent Michelle there to campaign -- they can't let that margin get too big.  Not that I think the nomination is in question, but who needs the GOP spending all summer saying how Clinton got more votes than Obama and maybe the Dems should change the name of their party...

To follow-up: RCP has Obama up by 400,000 votes if you count Florida (favoring HRC, of course) and estimate the total votes for the 4 caucus states who don't report total votes (these favor Obama).

I haven't looked at this closely, but I figure Oregon and Kentucky are about a wash.  South Dakota and Montana (are those the last ones?) will go to Obama but they are sparsely populated.  Can Puerto Rico deliver more than, say, a 450,000 margin for Clinton?  Not with only a 13% lead in the polls.  Bradley effect?  Movement in those numbers on the merits?  Chicago-style "voter irregularities"?  

lymon,

If PR has a 13% spread, Obama will end up with about a 250,000 vote lead even if you count both FL and Hillary's margin of 62,000 in MI.  I don't think Obama's popular vote victory is in jeopardy.  If anything, the KY-OR-MT-SO margin, which I peg at zero, is likely to move a bit in his direction.  I think he will close a bit in KY and open a bit in OR just because that has been the recent history.

DC,

Right now, Rasmussen's state by state polls show Obama flipping 32 Electoral College votes his way, and Hillary flipping 17 her way (MI by a margin of 1%) versus McCain.

You can't just make this stuff up the way you want to.  Well, actually I suppose you can which is how you have managed to come up with such an long series of wildly off the market predictions in the past.

There are a couple of Monty Python sketches (dead parrot and black knight) already out there enriching this discussion.  But something similar just occured to me:  a scene at the end of "A Fish Called Wanda," where the indestructible Kevin Kline character ends up clinging to the wing of the plane as John Cleese and Jamie Lee Curtis jet off to South America to their new life together.

Air Force One takes off on its first trip with Pres. Obama on board.  He's idly looking out the window and suddenly to his horror sees Hillary hanging on to the wing.

"The press would need to help make Obama palatable in Appachia, which includes PA and IA, or it would not be pretty in the Fall. All the blue states that Obama won to help him rack up his delegate edge would never go Dem, leaving us with the potential of McGovern-esque electoral college drubbing."

A few corrections.

1. Iowa is nowhere near Appalachia.  Look at a map. en.wikipedia.org/.../Appalachia

2. At any rate, Obama has been polling ahead of McCain in Iowa for the past several months, generally by decent margins (the reverse is true for Clinton).  Maybe that changes as the race goes on, but there is no evidence whatever that Obama is at a structural disadvantage there.  In fact, it's probably his best chance for a pickup.

3.  I believe you mean all the *red* states that Obama won to rack up his delegate edge.  Actually, Obama leads Clinton in delegates from states that went for Kerry 809-774.  As to the red states he won, there is a very good chance that he could flip CO and IA.  MO and VA are probably tossups, or lean slightly toward McCain, and he has an outside shot at ND, NC, and even AK.  This is based on polling in those states.

...Or you could just make stuff up to suit your predetermined viewpoint.  Whatever gets you through the day

AlanSP

You're right about the corrections: IA is not in Appalachia. That was supposed to be OH, and "blue states" was supposed to be " red states." It is tough to multi-task some times...

roidubouloi  said:

"You can't just make this stuff up the way you want to.  Well, actually I suppose you can which is how you have managed to come up with such an long series of wildly off the market predictions in the past."

Correction: You and TNR are the ones who've been predicting Hillary's demise since IA (I mean IA this time). The only predictions I am making is that Obama will lose big if he is the eventual nominee, although I'll support him.

I have "projected" in the past but I "predicted" nothing. You're the one in the "prediction" business. I hope you know the difference...

I still think Obama has the potential to beat McCain handily. Still, as Judis and others have pointed out, who knows how voters will really vote in November, especially if they have racial fears/bias/concerns. This is where the successful conflation of Obama and Wright has hurt tremendously. West Virginians and others can vote against Obama by citing Wright, which in their minds, absolves them of racialized voting against Obama because, you see, they're really voting against Wright, which, as we all now know, are two bigoted hearts beating as one. Just ask pccostello if you don't believe me...

dcshungu, if you recall I said if Obama lost North Carolina he should fall on his sword, the same if he was drubbed in Indiana since that would have shown the roof had fallen in on him, neither was the case, he did pretty much as expected, so if I thought he should have fallen on his sword, (and you claimed I have moved to the rational world by my observation) then why don't you think Hillary should fall on hers?

The one sentence from the article is illustrative why I hold Hillary in such contempt. "She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier." What an utter phony she is, so self-absorbed in her own image she can't even be real around everyone who knows the truth.

blackton, pretending to spot an old friend and pointing has an old and venerable tradition in politics. Virtually every politician known to (human) and beast has done this since time out of mind. Reflect a moment and tell me I'm wrong. Sorta kinda snarky to insert in the article.

Oh no, dc, you cannot rewrite your history of misbegotten prediction now.  For weeks, you have been crowing at regular intervals that Obama was finished, that Hillary was on her way to defeating him.  I have corrected you, by calling attention to the available facts and evidence, many, many times.  Your latest prediction, that Obama will suffer defeat in November, let alone the defeat of "McGonvern-esque" proportions that you foresee, is as completely unhinged as all your other predictions have been.

'ROIDS:

"Oh no, dc, you cannot rewrite your history of misbegotten prediction now.  For weeks, you have been crowing at regular intervals that Obama was finished, that Hillary was on her way to defeating him.:

You must get a grip, man. Time to get out and fill your lungs with some badly needed fresh air. You brain seems to have gotten hypoxic! This whole primary thing appears to have been a bit too long for you. Show me where I'd crowed about anything or predicted that Hillary was on her way to defeating Obama? I have made projections and described various scenarios based on the narrative of the day, like most level headed people here have done. It is you who has been spewing so much venom  in here  (even before I got here I am sure)  that I even refused to engage you at some point.

Get out and smell the coffee. You're losing it...scratch that, how can you lose something you never had?... Just get a fucking grip!

tomeg, I agree if the event if being broadcast on TV politicians will do the phony bit, but this wasn't. My take on reading the article was that there was no one actively covering it. No TV crews, no camera crews, etc. Why the charade for a non-existent audience?