Primary Post-Mortem

With Hillary's wonderfully gracious concession on Saturday, we can finally write the obits to this primary election. I have a tag called 2008 Dem Primaries, and this will be the last post I use it on. Whew. But there are some final words left to be said.

(I come to bury Hillary, not to praise her...)

Truth and Myth
It is an odd thing that the supporters of the woman who threw mud are the disgruntled ones, but so it is. What began as a political two-step (stomp John, stomp Barack, move to your left) turned into a great tragedy of mysogyny. Even in that gracious adieu, Hillary tried to move the hands of history writers by invoking the glass ceiling that, once again, kept another woman in her place.

No thanks. Throughout this election, Hillary did rhetorical flip-flops; she started out as the inevitable candidate and ended up as the underdog; she ran against Obama's change and then said she was its agent; she said whomever had the most pledged delegates deserved the win--right up until that person wasn't her; and most egregiously, she went from acknowledging the illegitimacy of Florida and Michigan to championing their cause as nothing less than a civil rights issue.

So it's no surprise that she wishes to retrospectively cast herself as Joan of Arc, now burning on the pyre of ignorance and sexism. It is true that she was the first serious female candidate for president, and it's true that this was ground-breaking. But it's also true that the reason she was the first was because her husband had already been the president. Would Hillary Rodham Clinton be running if she'd instead been, say Hillary Rodham Reich, wife of a former Secretary of Labor? Nobody believes this. That the first woman who made it this far was the wife of a former, recent president puts things in a different context, yes? The feminist note is muffled.

In any campaign, there's a lot of ugliness, and toward the end of this one, Hillary encouraged her supporters to feel slighted. She picked a fight with the media, with "Obama supporters," and others to galvanize support among her base. But no candidate for president escapes this, and for every sexist slight directed at Hillary, there were racist slights directed at Obama. (And Nancy Pelosi gets the sexism in orders of magnitude compared to Hillary, so even there she's not the first female politician to have the right-wing smear machine target her.) But in his case, he diverted attention in every case. Both faced the hurdles any first-timer does, but as with other things in the campaign, Obama was more gracious about it.

Electability
Something else is instructive about this whole primary season. Going back to December, look at how the campaigns were positioned and where they were ranked in the national polls. Hillary was running on a platform of experience, of a return to what was good about the 1990s, and trying to bolster a sense of inevitability. She was polling nationally in the mid-forties. John Edwards was running on an economic populist platform and was in the high teens. Obama ran on a platform of changing the way politics are run and looking hopefully toward the future about what kind of changes we could make. He was in the mid-20s, trailing Hillary by 20 points in most polls.

At the end of the campaign, Hillary's message had completely changed. She was now the candidate of the workin' man, a cultural conservative who played well in Appalachia. She was the fightin' underdog who never gave up, the pug-nosed scrapper you couldn't keep down. And she was polling in the low 40s. It's remarkable to look through the list of polls and see how consistent Clinton's numbers were. They almost never veered from the mid-40s, having settled there in about August of 2007. They only really dropped perceptibly in the week before North Carolina. Through the end of the campaign, she slid about three or four points. What's equally as remarkable is that she almost never topped 50% in any poll--and certainly never got near 50% in the aggregate. Forget the primary-by-primary variability; it didn't matter how Clinton ran, her ceiling was 45%.

Obama's message never changed, of course. He started out as the change candidate and hung on, through Ohio and Texas, through Jeremiah Wright, through Goolsbeegate, through West Virginia and everything else. And his numbers continued to rise, sharply after Iowa, but consistently, even when he lost nine of the last 16 contests. By the time he suffered a split decision on June 3 and the indignity of Hillary's non-concession, his Pollster aggregate was over 50%.

Hillary's last final gambit was to make the argument that she was the most electable (the final in a series of latest arguments), but her failure to take Obama out was just further evidence of a fairly obvious fact: even among Dems, she never had a majority of the vote. She couldn't get elected by Dems because she was a minority candidate; the argument that she could have won in November is especially convoluted. Dems did the right thing--the voted for the popular guy.

(Something else for the Obama campaign to consider when selecting the veep.)

Done

Time of death, 3:32 pm Pacific Time. Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will endorse Senator Barack Obama on Saturday, bringing a close to her 17-month campaign for the White House, aides said. Her decision came after Democrats urged her Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to coalesce around Mr. Obama.

Howard Wolfson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, and other aides said she would express support for Mr. Obama and party unity at an event in Washington that day. One adviser said Mrs. Clinton would concede defeat, congratulate Mr. Obama and proclaim him the party’s nominee, while pledging to do what was needed to assure his victory in November.

Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.

“We pledged to support her to the end,” Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview. “Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is....”

One of Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they were told that except for her senior advisers, there was no reason to report to work after Friday, and that they were invited to Mrs. Clinton’s house for a farewell celebration. The announcement from Mrs. Clinton was moved to Saturday to accommodate more supporters who wanted to attend, aides said.

Mrs. Clinton’s decision to suspend her campaign, which was first reported by ABC News, was a bow to the emerging political reality. No one in her campaign — including by all reports Mrs. Clinton herself — saw a viable road to the nomination. A suspension of the campaign allows her to continue raising money and pay off millions of dollars in debt.

The party’s desire for Mrs. Clinton to leave the race was signaled, politely, as four top Democratic leaders issued an early morning statement asking all uncommitted delegates to make their decisions by Friday. The statement from the Democratic chairman, Howard Dean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, stopped short of endorsing Mr. Obama, but aides said they were likely to move in that direction if Mrs. Clinton lingered in the race.

As to that other matter, Mondale addressed it, too:

At the same time, Mr. Mondale — who in his career has served as a vice president, and picked one — suggested that Mrs. Clinton and her supporters pull back from even appearance of campaigning for the No. 2 spot, suggesting it could complicate a critical decision by Mr. Obama.

“I think it’s best he just be left alone,” Mr. Mondale said.

Hope so.

Tale of Two Speeches

The thing that really leaped out from Hillary's speech was not the non-concession or the rallying of the troops, but rather how shockingly narcissistic it was. The whole thing, even when she was ostensibly about her voters or the issues, was always about her. I was surprised to go to the transcript and find it did not read:

"Me me me me me me me me me."

(Applause)

"Me me me me me me me me me me me."

However, I did do a little math, and here's some more illuminating facts.

Obama's Speech | transcript
2,436: Length in words
11%: Devoted to Clinton
19: Number of times he used the word "I"
128: Number of words for every use of the word "I"

Clinton's Speech | transcript
2,257: Length in words
5%: Devoted to Obama
48: Number of times she used the word "I"
47: Number of words for every use of the word "I"

A word to the Obama campaign; pick her as veep and it will be all about her. Same as it ever was.

Oregon Deflates the "Whites" Meme

There's something wrong with West Virginia and Kentucky. Dunno what, but here's how true and good-hearted whites (even those "downscale" whites) vote:

Obama - 20 counties.
Clinton - 13 counties
(2 with no results)

Whites - Obama 57%
White Dems - Obama 54%
White women - Obama 50%
Earn less than $50k - Obama 53%
Catholics - Obama 51%

Total: Obama 58%, Clinton 42% (76% reporting)

In Oregon, the traditional Dem wins some (but generally not all) of eight counties--Multnomah, Washington, Hood River, Columbia, Clatsop, Lincoln, Lane, and Benton. Obama won Multnomah (2004 Kerry vote: 72%) and Grant (percent white--97, 2004 Kerry vote: 19%). This guy has serious crossover potential.

Veepstakes

Last night, NPR did a story on how it was sad for Clinton that the media has now annointed Obama the candidate and ignored her win in WV. Which is to say, last night we heard the sound of taps. So the next fun parlor game is the veepstakes, one that has become increasingly common in watercooler chat. In my own thinking, it seems like Obama has a choice among several advantages. Choose the advantage, and the candidate follows pretty obviously.

Swing State Pick-up
In this scenario, you select a state where you are weak and find a candidate to shore up votes. The calculus is obvious, but this is often a mirage. The assumptive fallacy lies in the idea that voters for the local Senator/Governor will vote for the same candidate when s/he's on the bottom of the national ticket. But those crossover voters who back the candidate when s/he's running for senator or governor may not be as inclined to back Obama as president. In fact, historians argue that the only time this really panned out was in 1960, when LBJ put Texas in Kennedy's column and was the difference. So the theory is questionable. Still, it's awfully tempting, particularly given Obama's need for some juice in Ohio.

Candidates: Ted Strickland, Ohio gov, Ed Rendell, Penn gov, Claire McCaskill, Missouri Sen (bonus points, woman; see below). Longshot: Bill Nelson, FL Sen. I don't know that Strickland will bring votes over. Could be that someone like Jim Webb would actually appeal to the Ohioans Obama needs better than Strickland. Same with McCaskill and Nelson. Rendell I love because he's a great guy. But Obama's winning Pennsylvania easily in any case.

Gap-Filler
Another common gambit is the gap-filling veep, the guy or gal who helps round out the administration. In Obama's case, that means cred with Appalachian working-class whites or foreign policy/military background. The upside is that selecting such a person reassures the electorate that you have the bases covered (see Bush/Cheney). The downside is that it highlights the weakness at the top of the ticket.

Candidate: Jim Webb, Virginia Senator. His whole career has been made in the foreign policy sphere, and he seems to have little interest in anything else. He has the uber-cred among Appalachian whites, and has even written about them. With a son in Iraq, he rounds out the pro-troop, anti-war ticket. Downside is that he's a bad campaigner and a bit unvarnished.

Woman
There's a lot of talk of finding a sop to Hillary-backers (like the super-dud Evan Bayh, whom I disrespect enough to exclude him from swing-state contention), which I'll touch on. But in my mind, a woman would better meet the aspirations of Hillary-backers than some random affiliated pol. The upside is that it might more ably unify the ticket and bring women back in. The downside is that it may hurt among men.

Candidates: Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas gov, Claire McCaskill, Missouri Sen. McCaskill has been one of Obama's most outspoken supporters and is a tough and talented campaigner. I like her. Sebelius, whom everyone puts in front of McCaskill, is measured and slightly boring. And no way is Kansas in play. Dark horse: Susan Collins (see below), Republican senator of Maine.

Hillary Backer
Now that I've discredited this notion, I'll make a pitch for Ed Rendell, one of her most ardent and effective surrogates. I doubt any Hillary-voters outside of Pennsylvania will feel mollified by the selection of a surrogate, but Rendell is a character and would be an asset to Obama. He'd eat whomever McCain picks alive in debates.

Republican
This is a long-shot and for good reason. The GOP name is so badly damaged now that it's hard to see how it helps Obama. Except this: the strength of Obama's message is in his ability to come across as post-partisan. The selection of the right Republican could undermine the wayward swing voters who are sidling toward McCain.

Candidate: There's really only one I'd personally choose--Sen Susan Collins of Maine. Bloomberg's not really a Republican, and really amps up the "elite" charge; Chuck Hagel was against the war, but is a political arch-conservative; Colin Powell is too badly associated with the Bush administration and running two black men seems like a serious gamble. So Collins, the more liberal of the two Maine ladies, could be a winner. Maine politics is all about post-partisanism.

Unity/Dream Ticket
This brings us easily the worst idea of the campaign. Hillary gets Obama not a single vote he doesn't already have. All the folks who are saying they won't vote Obama in the general are either just angry now and will come back into the fold, or weren't going to vote for Hillary, either. (In WV, where Hillary made her biggest claim to the white working-class voters, the Democratic registration in '04 was 59.4%, but Bush won by 13%. In other words, these primary-voting Dems are general election Republicans.) On the other hand, she probably loses Obama millions of votes because she brings all the baggage from the Clinton years to the campaign. She undermines his post-partisan argument. She has no appreciable experience advantage, despite her claims of 35 years of experience. And she's not going to deliver him a state he wouldn't otherwise get. (Arkansas will not vote Obama even if Bill is on the undercard.) A horrible, horrible idea.

Edwards
For the erstwhile Edwardians, now mostly clustering with the Obamaniacs, giving John the nod seems like the decent thing to do. Maybe so, but it's not smart. Like Clinton, Edwards brings you no votes you don't already have. Even in the Carolinas, his home states, he's less well-liked than Obama. He has played the working-class card well, but as a rich trial lawyer, he is not culturally the mill worker his father was. If you want to appeal to those voters, go with a Webb or Rendell. It's also probably the case that he doesn't want it. Apparently the reason he was waiting so long to endorse was because he thought Hillary was going to win and he wanted a position in her administration. He'll be happy to work in Obama's too--maybe as AG.

My Picks
Who would I go with? Rendell or Webb. Both shore up the hale and hearty white guy side of the ticket. Rendell will campaign tirelessly, Webb reluctantly. Both will crush their Republican counterpart in debates. Both are likeable and serious.

The Debate Obama Won

There's a bloggingheads dialogue* between Ann Althouse and TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt that I think captures the essential debate Obama and Hillary have been having throughout the primaries. I'm not sure that's what America voted on, but it's worth passing along as a coda. It's why I've supported Obama for over a year now, and I think it will ultimately bring about a realignment of American politics.

There are two debates this year. One is the usual debate--who can lead the country better, and who has the better policy positions. The second is one Obama has introduced and championed, and one that

Unfortunately, I can't embed the video here, but if you follow this link, it will take you there. If you can't bear the three minutes, this is an abbreviated version.

Q & A With the Blogger

Two more questions from readers. As you may recall from yesterday's Q&A, this is a new feature where actual readers (that is, friends who have emailed their nutty pro-Obama friend) ask questions. I answer them in hilariously inaccurate fashion, not unlike the pundits on TV. Fun for the whole fambly. So, to the questions.

JB from Portland asks, "What about the super delegates, Jeff? Is there any significant chance the Clintons will call in their longtime political connections and get the nomination that way?"

Thanks for the question, JB. You point out a fear I had back in January, but which is no longer in play. It's true that the Clintons built up huge institutional power among national Democrats, but this power is predicated on Clinton juice.* Once she is no longer the power broker of the party, they'll line up behind he who is--in this case, Obama.

NC will probably go down in the histories as the electoral straw that broke Hillary's back, but in my mind it came two days earlier, in Louisiana. It was there that Democrat Don Cazayoux beat Woody Jenkins in a seat that had been held by Republicans for 34 years. The Republicans spent a million dollars trying to link Cazayoux to Obama, running ads with Jeremiah Wright in an effort to swing the election back to Jenkins. It followed Bill Foster's win in Denny Hastert's old seat in Illinois, a race in which Obama played an active role in promoting.

The Superdelegates are looking at a few factors--who will help them win in '08, particularly in red districts and who will build the party for the future. It doesn't hurt that Obama has also used his PAC to give far more money to superdelegates since he came to Congress in '04 than Hillary. On balance, there's nothing in it for SDs to back Hillary, and every reason for them to back Obama.

Moving on, DE from Portland asks, "Jeff, what is your take on the FL/MI mess? I see that as the biggest threat to Obama winning the nomination now...am I wrong?"

It's no longer much of a threat. There are three dimensions the race will be measured against--popular vote, states won, and delegates. Part of the struggle with FL and MI had to do with how they figured into these dimensions. Obama didn't want to grant Hillary ill-gotten delegates, and he was particularly worried about the popular vote. With the big win in NC, that's all academic. Obama can afford to be generous and settle in these states and still be assured of winning the popular vote and pledged delegate contests.

Obama currently has a pledged delegate lead of 166. Assuming Hillary wins 60% of the remaining pledged delegates, she'll trail by 123. Even if we assume the least favorable outcome for Obama with regard to Michigan and Florida (proportion of the actual vote), he'd still be ahead by 70 or so pledged delegates. The popular vote follows a similar scenario. She can get close, but there just aren't enough big states left to make up the 200,000 vote hole she's currently in (including MI and FL plus the uncounted caucus states).

So no worries, DE, Michigan and Florida are no longer a concern.
_____________
*Mind out of the gutter, please.

Over? When?

[This started as a post here, but I decided to move it over to BlueOregon. It is therefore a crosspost here.]

A bold headline from the NYT: "Pundits Declare the Race Over."

Very early this morning, after many voters had already gone to sleep, the conventional wisdom of the elite political pundit class that resides on television shifted hard, and possibly irretrievably, against SenatorHillary Clinton's continued viability as a presidential candidate....

The thought echoed throughout the world of instant political analysis, steamrolling the Clinton campaign’s attempts to promote the idea that her victory in Indiana was nonetheless an upset in the face of Mr. Obama’s heavy spending and his campaign’s predictions that he would win there, or that she could still come back if delegates in Florida and Michigan are seated.

(The NY Post, as always, was a little more obvious.)

What a big 5% that was in NC. Had Obama won by nine, he'd have garnered nearly as many delegates, would still have a commanding lead in the popular vote, and would still be roughly where he is this morning. But by getting a 14-point win, he's now all but the declared nominee. None of that, of course, has anything to do with Clinton. She woke up today not a lot worse off than she expected--which means she's still a very long shot away from the White House. Perceptions may have changed, but the math not so much.

(You could say that what really happened was the two-month vacation from reality has ended. Winning primaries somehow allowed the Clinton campaign to create a bubble of optimism that kept the math at bay. Last night the bubble popped.)

So what will she do? She has three options, but the third--the nuclear option--is merely hypothetical. The first option is to suspend her campaign before Puerto Rico. Too many of her volunteers have worked too hard for her to rob voters in WV, Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana of their chance at relevance. But she could admit to having read the writing on the wall.

The second option is to concede after Puerto Rico, in a graceful, party-uniting gesture, perhaps even with Obama on hand. (Even a closed, mournful affair would be adequate to begin uniting the party.)

What she won't do is exercise the nuclear option, despite people's worst fears. Clinton is a street fighter, a tough candidate who wasn't afraid to take hard shots to win the campaign. But there's absolutely no evidence that she's not, in the end, a team player. She has worked diligently for eight years as a senator and is one of the most reliable Democratic votes, having stuck with her party over 94% of the time since 2001. At 61, she's not at the end of her career--a cabinet position, a Supreme Court seat, a veep nod, or Senate Majority Leader are all potential futures. I'm sure the comment threads will light up with criticism for the way she ran her campaign, but by November, when Obama's the president-elect, all will be forgotten and forgiven.

For Clinton, the end of this campaign is now manifest, and what remains is a classy exit. She will play the most pivotal role in the remaining weeks of the primary, and has almost as much influence over the results in November as Obama. If she fights for Obama as hard as Dean did for Kerry, the party will enter the general with enormous enthusiasm and unity. I expect to see her do the right thing and look forward to seeing the Democrats finally turn their energy outward, at the woeful candidacy of John McCain.

Q & A With the Blogger

Reader JDL submits the following question: "Is it true that today is going to decide the election, Jeff?"

Thanks for asking, JDL. More than the interesting question, I appreciate that you actually regard my answer as something worth solicitation. (I know a couple of psychiatrists who can help you with these types of harmless delusions.)

The short answer is no, it will not. Here's the conventional wisdom:

• If Obama sweeps, Hillary is more or less a dead duck, but
• if Hillary sweeps, Obama is potentially fatally wounded, yet
• these two scenarios are academic, since they'll split the states and we'll grind on to West Virginia (current trend: Clinton by 134%).

Conventional wisdom is predicated on the notion that perception matters more than fact. And the facts will be: in any combination of wins and losses, it will still likely be about a wash. Even if Obama were to win convincingly in NC and eke out a win in Indiana, he still only gains a few delegates. Hillary only gains a few if she wins in Indiana by 10 and ekes out a win in NC. Essentially, today is meaningless except in perception.

So, what about perception? The battle here is for superdelegates, the only folks who can alter the course of events. Hillary's plan has been to so badly tarnish Obama that the SDs turn to her as the last grasp at winning. I suppose this could happen. We're in uncharted territory, so it's hard to make any reasonable predictions. But it seems like an incredible longshot, for these reasons:

• Obama is expanding the party by millions; Hillary will shrink it down. It's in no one's interest to opt for the weaker long-term prospect;
• Obama will lead in states won, delegates, and the popular vote, meaning that to steal the election from him would recall Bush v. Gore;
• Obama's a black man, and screwing him at the finish line is a far harder thing to do than if he were just a random bubba Southerner, like Hill's husband; and most importantly
  
• Hillary's strategy may cause Obama some damage, but it's clear that it's hurting her every bit as much. She can hardly argue that she's more able to withstand McCain when she drags the highest disapproval into the general and when 60% of Democrats think she's a liar. Finally, she doesn't make Dems feel good about themselves, and if they have to take a damaged candidate into the general, they'll take the black guy who isn't slimy and live with the results--which even in the case of a loss lead to a strengthened, unified party.

So sit back, it's going to be a bumpy night.

And here's a bonus, random thought as we start to hear tales from the polling booths. I am getting mighty tired of the "I know what will happen in this election because my [fill in the relative], a [fill in the party affiliation], says s/he is planning to vote for [pick one: Obama Clinton], and this is so unusual since he's an old white coot who has never voted for [a woman, a black man]." Variations on this include the "won't vote for" version, the "is excited for the first time in their life" version, and a few others. Look, in any losing campaign, lots of people go against their bloc. Blacks vote for Clinton, working-class, bigoted whites vote for Obama, and so on. Anecdotes are powerful because they give voice to a surprising counterfactual, but they should never be considered data.

Sometimes an old coot's just and old coot.

Status Update on Indiana and NC

I have to admit that my attention's wandering. What a nightmare two months--Ohio, Wright, six-week dead zone, ABC sandbagging, Pennsylvania, Wright. The only good news has been the constant dribble of superdelegates, but this hardly makes up for the constant dirge of bad news. And now it looks like it may cost Obama a shot not only in Indiana, but possibly even North Carolina. (The implications of which would be ... bad.) Well, let's see.

Indiana
There have been relatively few Hoosier polls, for reasons unclear to me. Pollster lists 14 going back to February, but let's throw out everything before Pennsylvania. That leaves seven. Hillary leads in five, Obama two, though the trend is definitely toward Clinton. The current aggregate of those polls is Clinton 48.2%, Obama 43.4%. They're all over the place in terms of undecideds, which makes me suspicious. Since SurveyUSA has done a pretty good job of estimating things, let's use their recent poll as a baseline: 9%.

(Worth noting: the aggregate of the polling done in the two days prior to Pennsylvania showed a 7.5% gap. A strong finish by Hillary? Bad polling? An undetected racist undercurrent? Pick one.)

North Carolina
More bothersome is NC. Four polls were conducted right before Pennsylvania, and they gave Obama a sizeable 15-point lead, 52.5 - 37.5%. In the polls since then, the lead has been cut in half to 49.3 - 41.7%, a lead of 7.6%. Below are some of the intra-pollster trends, with Obama leads in recent polls compared to ones 2-3 weeks ago.

InsiderAdvantage: +15, -2, 17% difference
Rasmussen: +23, +15, 8%
SurveyUSA: +10, +9, +5, 5%
ARG: +11, +10, 1%

The big question will be polling over the weekend and into Monday, because this Wright thing was smack in the middle of the plummeting poll numbers. Upshot: not great.

Fluff and Substance, God and Gas

I know the world turns on the words of Jeremiah Wright, and so the presidency, but I find it difficult to get very excited about any of this. Here's Obama on Wright, in case anyone cares:



(One comment is perhaps warranted. Though we can never speak of this issue--or at least not until Obama is president, there's a strongly racist slant to everything having to do with the Wright controversy. Many pastors say impolitic things. I have heard them. The Wright controversy isn't about a pastor's impolitic language; it's about a black pastor saying things that alarm whites. Whites say things that alarm blacks all the time--Wright has referenced them, ironically--but since blacks are in the minority, their outrage isn't mainstream. But Wright's words are fair game because they alarm whites. And the alarm whites feel is reason to roast Obama day after day, week after week. You see where it leads, don't you? To angry, embittered blacks, who say slightly unhinged things in church. And round and round we go.)

But how about substance?--McCain's gas-tax summer holiday. Hillary, now determined to Lieberman herself to power, has signed on. Obama rebuts:

This is the problem with Washington. We are facing a situation where oil prices could hit $200 a barrel. Oil companies like Shell and BP just reported record profits for the quarter. And we’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something.

Obama is right, of course. As our man Patrick Emerson details:

Let's start with the fact that refineries are essentially operating at capacity. In summer, when travel is at its peak, this is especially true. This translates to a completely inelastic supply curve. What does economics 101 teach us about taxes and completely inelastic supply curves? It teaches us that there will be virtually NO price effect at the pump. You will just be transferring the tax revenues to the oil companies. So the claim that this would stem the public's pain is absurd.

What it would do is reduce revenues (about $10b) that support infrastructure--and we know how bad our infrastructure already is.

Stop for a Minute

In about half a year, Americans could actually put a black man in the White House. This will be just short of revolutionary. In the moment-by-moment scrutiny, I sometimes forget to to stand back and consider this moment in history. Pictures like this bring it home:



Amazing.

Pennsylvania Ten Cent Recap

What I keep telling myself:

1. Penn was worse on demographics for Obama than Ohio, and six weeks ago, we figured he'd cut it to about ten points.

2. The kitchen sink strategy had no apparent effect. Obama suffered the worst six weeks of the campaign, and actually made small inroads on white working-class voters over Ohio.

3. Classy as always, Obama congratulated Hillary after her win (Clinton always ignores Obama on her losses).

4. Clinton will pick up in the neighborhood of 12 delegates, but will slide further behind in her effort to catch up. She also picked up 200,000 popular votes, but remains in the hole. Looking forward, the likelihood of her catching him in the popular vote looks remote (she'll win overwhelmingly in W VA and KY, but roughly tie in IN and lose in NC, OR, MT, and SD.)

5. Obama may have lost Pennsylvania, but by virtue of bringing so many new voters in, he's made it much more likely to be a Democratic state in November. Local politicians running for office owe him a huge debt for that and, since many are superdelegates, this will be a factor in the election.

6. Hillary has consistently won the oldsters. Almost a third were over 60 in Pennsylvania, and that was the difference. But Dems have to make a call--do they want to lure in the voters who can give them a governing coalition for the next generation, or those who will be dead in a generation? A crass consideration perhaps, but certainly one Super-D's are making.

Take a deep breath--we're right where we started.

Pennsylvania Exits

Well, they're out. A rough first look makes me think Hillary's in good shape. She won the demographics with the larger numbers, such as:

• Clinton won women (58% of the sample) 55%-44%.
  
• She won oldsters 59%-41%, and they made up 38% of the sample. (Obama won the youngers, who comprised 37% of the sample, but by a slightly smaller margin.)

Other random tidbits:

• Once again, Hillary won the donut hole of 25-29 year olds (just weird)
• Ten percent of voters felt neither candidate was trustworthy. They overwhelmingly voted Clinton (77-22%).
• Obama only barely won independents (though it's unclear what that means in a closed primary) by 50%-49%
• Twenty percent of voters said race was important to them; 59% voted Clinton.
• Obama won the protestants (55-45%, 41% of the total), but Hillary killed among Catholics (69-31%, 36% of the total). However, among the irreligious 10%, Obama won big (66-34%).
• Of the 17% who decided in the past three days whom to vote for, 60% voted Clinton. (Apparently the undecideds did break to Clinton.)
• The unions backed Obama, but union-members backed Hillary (58-42%).
  

Still no numbers...

Undecideds Reconsidered

Whoops, all that business about how the undecideds will break to Hillary? No longer operational:

On the last round of polls, however, the pattern that I highlighted has disappeared. ...On the last round of surveys, two important things changed. SurveyUSA, still finding very few "undecided" voters, showed the Clinton margin narrowing significantly, while PPP added a follow-up question asking undecided voters how they lean. PPP continues to show Obama with a slight lead, only with a much smaller undecided percentage. So the pattern of dots in the chart is now more circular, and the relationship between the size of the undecided category and the Clinton margin has all but disappeared (something Poblano also noticed yesterday).

So who knows what will happen. Weather looks nice in Pennsylvania, though.

Pennsylvania Polling (and Poll)

Finally! It feels like we've been trapped in some version of hell these past six weeks as everyone tried to manufacture news from the mutterings of candidate surrogates. It's like a breath of fresh air to actually focus on voting again. So what to expect tomorrow? Here are the recent poll numbers in PA (aggregate of seven polls taken between 4/18-20):

Obama: 43.7%
Clinton: 49.1%
Average undecideds: 6.1%

But, as you know, the aggregates fail to tell the full story. You can tell more by what the trend is. So, for recent polls, here's what the movement looks like:

PPP: Clinton +8%
Zogby: Clinton +4%
Rasmussen: Clinton +2%
Quinnipiac: Clinton +1%
Strategic Vision: Obama +2%
ARG: Obama +7%
SurveyUSA: Obama +8%

All of those include debate before and afters, so it captures an important spread. I think the thing to look at are the undecideds. Based on what the Pollster brains believe, they're likely to favor Clinton. This corresponds to what we have seen recently, particularly in Ohio and Texas. Franklin believes it's because undecideds skew older, which is good evidence.

On the other hand, the big question is: have the pollsters weighted their numbers correctly? Pennsylvania is a closed-primary state, so pollsters have been adjusting for Clinton's strength among Dems. But wait! There was a huge rush of new voters (200k+) who are likely disproportionately Obama voters. How disproportionate? How much will the Obama ground game affect turnout?

Here's my guess. Let's call Clinton's lead six points. She will pick up another two points from late-deciders. Obama will offset that with new voters and a better ground game--though since Hillary has had six weeks to prepare, his advantage will be less. Give him 2-3 points back, and I see Hillary winning a 5%-6% vote.

(That, of course, creates a morass in the primary, with neither candidate able to claim an outright win. But Hillary will pick up just a few delegates and perhaps 150,000 popular votes, both of which put her further in the hole.)

But that's just one blogger's opinion. What thinks you?

Friday Obama News Dump

I know that it's mainly just Mom reading this blog now, but she may have missed some of these stories, and anyway, I don't write often enough. Hi Mom!

Polls
Gallup's has been tightening (this week it started at 11, went to 8, 7, and three today), but this is rather shocking: a Newsweek poll has Obama absolutely hammering Clinton.

Here are the numbers, compared with the last Newsweek poll finding a statistical dead heat in March:

Obama 54% (45%)

Hillary 35% (44%)

One key finding with regard to the debate: The poll was taken on April 16th and 17th -- which is to say, on one day before the debate, and on one day after. And the Newsweek pollster says that there was no real shift in support from one day to the next.

The Thin Blue Line
Within active police officers, the "thin blue line" is the unspoken word of brotherhood that prevents one cop from ratting out another. Or anyway, that's how it works on teevee. There's a similar, but less acknowledged line in journalism. Working journalists are loth to talk smack about each other. I think the reason is because reporting is a high-wire act. Sometimes you get things wrong, and whenever you commit your words to the story, there's a certain anxiety of getting it wrong. Reporters also know that the majority of the information they collect can't and won't go into a story. So when a bad story comes out, there are a number of reasons why the rest of the press goes mum.

All of which is why this petition is so remarkable. It was written by working journalists, and something like forty have signed it.

We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate--who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves--have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

New Attack Ad

The trouble just keeps coming on the elitism front. Now Obama is under fire for the words of the Boss.



Robert Reich Endorsement
Reich, who initially met Bill Clinton when they were Rhodes scholars together in the 60s, has endorsed Obama. I mention this because Reich has always been one of the most impressive and likable people in Washington. Not surprisingly, he did it on his blog. Also not surprisingly, his seems to be more an endorsement of possibilities than policy:

[Obama] also presents the best chance of creating a new politics in which citizens become active participants rather than cynical spectators. He has energized many who had given up on politics. He has engaged young people to an extent not seen in decades. He has spoken about the most difficult problems our society faces, such as race, without spinning or simplifying. He has rightly identified the armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have commandeered our democracy, and pointed the way toward taking it back.

All right--happy friday.

Penn Debate, Continued

In no particular order...

ABC's Failure, Objectively
It is rare when you have a situation as clear as this one. Generally media bias or stupidity is one critics have to make by inference or by drawing together a series of threads--which can look a little conspiratorial. But here it's not a close call. In a debate between Democratic candidates, ABC's journalistic duty was straightforward: give viewers a sense of which candidate best serves their interests. By going so far off the reservation into the Bizarro World of GOP talking points, ABC can't begin to defend this as a service to voters. Last night, we peeked behind the curtain.

[See also: Naill Stanage, Will Bunch.]

Stephanopoulos and the Conflict of Interest
Since the first 45 minutes of the debate were essentially an Obama gang tackle by Gibson, Stephanopoulos, and Clinton, it's reasonable to bring up the point of George's conflict of interest. The debate is on. Personally, this isn't a close call, either. Since the ABC brain trust decided to spend the first 45 minutes hectoring Obama--in the dubious but journalistically defensible act of attacking the front-runner--they needed to put someone out there without a direct link to one of the candidates.

The effect was one in which the moderator and one candidate, former colleagues, were battering the other candidate. Hard to look at that and not feel a little queasy.

Yes, Yes, Yes
In every debate, two hours of talk gets reduced to a sound bite. In the flow of the two hours, it's really hard to predict what that sound bite will be--but it has the effect of characterizing the entire debate, like a boxing match where the only thing you show is the one knock-down. So it's extra-super bizarre that the "yes, yes, yes" sound bite may be the lasting memory from Pennsylvania. Clinton's entire argument comes down to this: "Yes, Obama has won more states, more votes, and more delegates, but you have to vote for me because I am more electable in the fall." So when George asked her if Obama can beat McCain in the fall, her answer was surprising and perhaps devastating. If she not only thinks Obama can win, but enthusiastically, remind me again--what is the raison d'etra of her campaign?

Pennsylvania Debate

In brief: one of the greatest travesties of political journalism I've ever witnessed. Says Republican water-carrier Jonah Goldberg:

I'm no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a "fighting Dem" who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the "real issues," I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

More from the Corner:

And the winner is... [Mark Hemingway]

...McCain by a landslide!

The Corner is interesting reading, actually. Everyone there clearly fears him ("Mr. Cool actually looks angry and flustered. "), and it reads like a Hillary blog. They know this guy is super bad news--ironic given Hillary's constant theme throughout the first 45 minutes was that he can't survive the attacks. Obviously it's she who has the biggest targets--witness the near unanimity on the right in support for her.

Liveblogging all over if you care for that kind of thing: Sullivan, Ambinder, Josh, Smith

Also:

• Greg Mitchell at HuffPo agrees that it's an MSM low point.
• Everyone thinks Gibson's a disgrace.
• Commenters at ABC's website are ... not charitable.
  
• When Stephanopoulos sandbagged Obama on Bill Ayers, it came via Hannity.
  

Mississippi Exits

Briefly: if you are a black Mississippian, you voted Obama, if white, Hillary. Obama won 91% of blacks, Hillary 74% of whites. That's unsettling.

But here's an interesting stat. Republicans made up 11% of the vote, and Hillary won 85% of them. Limbaugh? Maybe so: Independents split roughly evenly.

Another interesting stat. CNN asked voters of both candidates whether they had a positive or negative opinion of John McCain. Counter-intuitively, Obama voters were more unfavorable (71%) than Clinton voters (29%)--but maybe that's just because Obama voters are Southern blacks who strongly mistrust the GOP.

Further fraying is evidenced in this finding. 74% of Clinton voters find Obama untrustworthy, and 92% of Clinton voters find Obama untrustworthy. The kitchen sink strategy has born toxic results!

Weirdly, only 58% of Clinton voters would be "satisfied" if she won the nomination. (Danger!) 84% of Obama's voters would be satisfied if he won.

No results in, everyone's calling it for Obama.


Full exits here and here.