U.S. President

Two more primaries, and two more relatively static results in the Democratic race for President.  The media meme about yesterday's results is that Obama beat expectations, so Hillary should drop out, but the racial breakdowns in IN and NC remained almost unchanged from earlier Primaries.

Obama won black voters overwhelmingly, getting 91 percent in NC and 90 percent in Indiana.  Clinton won white voters convincingly, getting 60 percent in NC and 61 percent in IN.

As race seems to have the most consistent correlation with vote preference in this primary, the actual results from state to state aren't varying that much from what can be predicted by the demographics and turnout projections.  FiveThirtyEight.com had some long predictions yesterday, using polling and some complicated statistical analysis, but they came very close to being right simply by using racial breakdowns and turnout predictions.

I'll also note the strange meme wondering whether Obama can collect enough votes from whites motivated by race, even while nobody is mentioning that black voters are consistently and overwhelmingly supporting the candidate who shares their skin color.

As I've said since Super Tuesday, the Dem race seems pretty static to me, despite the roller coaster of coverage.  The 2008 general election will likely hinge on whether the eventual Democratic nominee (still almost certainly Obama) can win over enough of Clinton's supporters, given the unprecedented length and vigor of the Democratic race.  Yesterday's exit polls indicated yet again that Democratic voters are becoming more attached to their candiate and more averse to the other candidate:

Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee -- that's (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.

In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they'd be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee -- I believe that's the highest number recorded for that question, too.

The percentage of Clinton voters who say they'd choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they'd definitely vote for Obama in a general election.

The general election will be decided based on this.  Obama supporters are convinced that Democrats will come home, because they're motivated by issues and Obama is right on their issues.  I understand the importance of issues, as you've seen from criticisms of the GOP over the years, yet I still think many voters are motivated by personalities and biographies, and while I don't doubt that many Clinton supporters will eventually support Obama, I think a significant percentage (10 percent?  20 percent) will not, due to the animosities and attachments created during this Primary.

And those are the key questions for November:  How many Clinton supporters will not support Obama, and how well can Obama do with white voters, given his inability to win them in the recent Democratic Primaries?

cnn.com; politico.com

Tim Russert reports Hillary Clinton has cancelled all morning show appearances.  MSNBC reports Clinton has cancelled all events scheduled for tomorrow.  The folks on Ben Smith's blog at Politico are cheering for a Clinton concession and pull out of the race.  Allegedly, 7% of her votes in Indiana were from folks planning on voting for McCain in November.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Russert_Clinton_cancels_morning_show_appearances.html#comments

according to CNN, Obama picked up 4 more delegates than Clinton tonight. 

Terry McAuliffe refuses to answer any questions about another loan by HRC to her campaign.  Bill Clinton's face is said to be redder than a tomato. 

A shame I don't have cable; sounds like I'm missing a lot of fun.

(And is Monroe Co., Indiana where IU is?  It went 66% Obama-33% Clinton.  Lake County was a disappointing 55% Obama-45% Clinton.)

Obama may have only won 9 counties in Indiana, but I'm almost tempted to say they were the right ones.  Same he couldn't have gotten one or two more big ones, or several of the smaller ones. 

For several weeks, though the Rev. Wright and "bitter" stories, that I doubted they would have much impact among Democratic Primary voters (who I think mostly have made their decisions weeks or months ago), and that I wanted to see exit polling from Pennsylvania to see if those stories had any impact among Democratic Primary voters:

They didn't, as most of these figures are close echoes of the exit polling for other recent Democratic Primaries in midwestern states, and are eerily similar to Ohio's exit polling:

Clinton has now won white men in 12 states and Obama has done the same in 10 states.

Obama did win more than nine in 10 black voters, continuing his unbroken support of African-Americans. And Clinton continued her trend of winning white women in all but a couple of contests.

There are other breakdowns, among education level and income, which were also roughly as expected and as we've seen before.

To me, the great determining (and unanswered) question of the 2008 general election is who wins white voters, especially white male voters.  If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee (which I still think is a near certainty), can he convince white voters who haven't supported him in Democratic primaries in key states like Ohio and Pennsylvania to support him in a general election?  Or, to put it another way, which factor will have a stronger correlation to candidate support in November - demographic factors like race, gender, income, etc. or partisan/issue factors?

UPDATE:  Here's another more explicit and detailed comparision between OH and PA exit polls.

And both Clinton and Obama can now make the case to superdelegates that they lead in the much-ballyhooed popular vote.

In the absence of anything new or interesting to say about tonight's Pennsylvania Primary, I wanted to share one of my new favorite polling/election analysis sites, fivethirtyeight.com.

About today/tonight:

Two things you should not pay attention to tomorrow without proper context:

(1) Leaked exit polls, which have been way off this cycle, and been slanted an average of 7 points in Obama's direction. A substantial Clinton lead in the exit polls might be taken modestly more seriously than, say, something that showed Obama three points ahead, but these things aren't designed for what you think they're designed for -- just ignore them.

(2) Very early returns, such as in the first hour after polls close. Because there are such profound regional differences in the way that Pennsylvania polls, the results will be almost entirely a function of where the numbers are coming in from. Odds are that rural areas will report their results before the cities, which means that the early numbers should favor Clinton (this may actually be a nontrivial advantage to her in terms of media narrative; the race could very easily be called for her when the ticker shows Clinton ahead by 14, but things could close to within 8 points once all votes were counted).

Good stuff.  If you're a junkie like me, you can just go there and keep reading.

UPDATE:  Question for discussion:  Why does Obama do better in exit polling than in actual results?  Or, to ask it another way, why does Obama do worse in actual voting than in exit polling?  And does that tell us anything about other polling for Obama?

David Brooks, in the cratering NY Times, has an Op-Ed in which he discusses Barack Obama's transformation during the Democratic Presidential primaries:

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

I know it's the New York Times, and it's heretically critical of The One, but read the whole thing.

(As a matter of fact, yes, I do seem to remember someone writing something similar some time ago...)

Interesting article from Politico.com:  McCain readies unorthodox campaign.  In essence, McCain is shying away from the traditional, top-down, centralized Presidential campaign; instead, McCain plans on designing his campaign to be much more decentralized, more regional-based style of campaign.  Some interesting quotes:

McCain strategists insist their paradigm can work. And the sour national climate for the GOP, McCain’s limited money supply and his preference for an impromptu campaign style that he can take to all parts of the country mean there is no other option but to break the mold, says one aide.

“To run a normal, typical race like a normal, typical Republican, we would win 45 percent of the popular vote and 189 electoral votes,” this aide says. “You can’t just go to Columbus.”

Also:

...perhaps most importantly — McCain will rely on free media to an unprecedented degree to get out his message in a fashion that aims to not only minimize his financial disadvantage but also drive a triangulated contrast among himself, the Democratic nominee and President Bush.

Obviously, there's a lot that could go wrong with this.  A regional manager could be ineffective and ruin the campaign for that region; the friction between the RNC, the McCain campaign, and other staffers could bog down the campaign; and so on.  Also, the campaign finance aspect is beyond my ken; I don't know what the stated "jointly funded" idea means in the real world, during the General election.  The sour grapes from unnamed Republican opratives is kinda interesting as well; my reading of that section of the article is that people don't like something new or different, or maybe they're upset about not having a job opening in a more traditional campaign.

Personally, I like this idea, initially at least.  Given how unusual and wacky this primary season has been, I have no idea what'll actually happen.  But this seems to be a good plan, designed to maximize McCain's strengths and minimize his weaknesses.

HG

Bill and Hillary Clinton have finally released their income tax returns for the years 2000-06.  In these years, they list an income of almost $109,000,000.  (Do all the blue collar voters supporting HRC feel like chumps yet, or will they quit voting for her when they learn she's been slow to pay the health ins. premiums for her campaign staff?  Remember, helath care issues are very important to her!)

It made the front page of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune.  I quickly scanned the News-Gazette and the Chicago Sun-Times,  but didn't see mention of this in either paper. 

I'm left wondering how late Friday this was released, and do they honestly hope people will have forgetten about this by Monday? 

Did either John Edwards or Mitt Romney make this much in the same time frame?  The Clintons are among the 14,500 richest people in the U.S.

Peggy Noonan has the week off at the WSJ; I can't wait to see what she writes about this next Saturday.

Sweet, delicious and entirely appropriate:  lefty bloggers file FEC complaint aginst sanctimonious Presidential candidate John McCain regarding his acceptance and then withdrawal from public financing for his Presidential race.

If there were any justice, bloggers and donors from the left, right and center would keep McCain's campaign so tied up with FEC complaints that he wouldn't have any time to be corrupted raise money. 

Unfortunately, IIRC, the FEC doesn't have enough members to have a quorum due to Senate Democrats holding up some of President Bush's appointees, which is further delicious irony.

From Gallup:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Of course, if there ever was a candidate who could botch the opportunity being created by Democratic infighting, it's John McCain.

UPDATE:  And then this:

There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.

Is there a "conventional wisdom" assumption that Hillary's supporters are more likely to support Obama than the reverse?  If so, why?

Sorry that I'm posting so much about Barack Obama lately.  There's just not very much else that has captured my attention.

About that popular vote margin which Obama's campaign is claiming as somehow nearly binding on Democratic superdelegates:

In the race for the most popular votes in the Democratic Party's presidential primary contests, Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton is about 711,000 votes -- not including Florida or Michigan -- according to Real Clear Politics.

Of Sen. Obama's 711,000 popular-vote lead, 650,000 -- or more than 90% of the total margin -- comes from Sen. Obama's home state of Illinois, with 429,000 of that lead coming from his home base of Cook County.

That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide.

Interestingly, Sen. Obama's 429,000-vote margin in Cook County alone is larger than the winning margin of either candidate in any state.

Interesting stuff.  First, congratulations to the Cook County Democrats.  They should be proud of carrying their hometown candidate to such an overwhelming margin, and their political operation may just be the best in America.

Second, some other interesting figures (Figures from Real Clear Politics as well.):  Clinton's margin in New York state was 317,000.  Her margin in California was 421,000. 

Using vote totals that include Florida and Michigan (giving Obama credit for Michigan's "uncommitted"), Obama's margin is about 87,000 out of some 27 million votes cast.

Mandate?

It's always strange to see names which are well-known only to Illinois politics (like Senate President Emil Jones) pop up in national politics.

From TalkLeft, which I assume is supporting Clinton (or at least the author of this post is):

Barack Obama frequently cites his impressive record as an Illinois state legislator as an indicator of his experience in running for President.

Turns out, according to former Chicago reporter Todd Spivak, all of his legislative accomplishments were in his final 7th year and were handed to him by his mentor, Ill. State Senate President Emil Jones.

The TalkLeft post is mostly quotes from a longer piece in the Houston Press, which is just brutal.  Our old local boogeyman, Chicago State University, also features prominently.

I said right after Sen. Obama's speech on race in America that I didn't think it would "work."  This may be one of the rare times that I actually get something right. 

According to this poll, of the 80-something percent of respondents aware of both the controversy and the speech, 52 percent are less likely to support Obama for President.

More:

Among whites, the "less likely" answer came from 51.3 percent. Among blacks, it was 56.2 percent. (!) Among Hispanics, 54.5 percent. (The sub-sample sizes for blacks and Hispanics were 85 and 46, so it's possible that maybe it's too small a sample to get a really good reading on these demographics).

Among Republicans, the "less likely" crowd was 53.7 percent, among Democrats it was 47.6 percent, among Independents it was 55.6 percent.

Obama's unfavorables have hit 51 percent (an all-time high?) as well.

Discuss.

From Politico.com:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

I completely agree with that.  I have a hard time envisioning Clinton winning the nomination.  Perhaps if she wins every remaining Primary, but even then it's unlikely.

So at this point, given that my not-quite-favorite John McCain has won the GOP nomination, I'm mostly just an interested observer of the Presidential race.  And it's actually been quite fun.  The Dem primaries have been fantastic political theater, and I've said that the national conversation we've been having about superdelegates and proportional representation and the like have been very good for America.

Which is really a long-winded disclaimer:  I don't think that I am basing my analysis of the general election based on any strong preference for the GOP nominee. 

So here goes:  At this point, I agree that Obama is the most likely Democratic nominee.  But, contrary to what seems to be the conventional wisdom, I don't see him as any kind of favorite against John McCain.  I just don't anticipate that Obama adds anything to the coalition that John Kerry assembled in 2004, other than perhaps a greater margin among voters under the age of 30 (Kerry got 54 percent). 

I actually think it's likely that Obama loses chunks of Kerry's voters.  For example, looking forward, I think Obama will do worse than Kerry among white voters (Kerry got 41 percent),  voters aged 60+ (46 percent), Catholics (47 percent), Jewish voters (74 percent), veterans (41 percent), and gun owners (36 percent).

First, do you think Obama will almost certainly win the Dem nomination?

Second, in a McCain-Obama matchup, who has the advantage and why?

I saw this yesterday, and while it's only one poll, (and it's Gallup), I thought it was worth discussing.

Interesting tidbits:

McCain came roaring back, winning the New Hampshire primary and then clinching the Republican nomination. His current favorable rating represents a gain of 26 points since last summer, including an 11-point increase since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination on March 4.

And:

Both Obama and Clinton have slightly higher favorable ratings among Democrats now than they had in February, suggesting that the negative infighting that has characterized the Democratic campaign in recent weeks is not damaging either candidate's image in the eyes of the party faithful.

And:

McCain gets an extraordinarily high 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners. Clinton, on the other hand, receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.

McCain is also helped by the fact that he receives an 87% favorable rating from Republicans, higher than the 80% and 79% that Clinton and Obama, respectively, currently receive from Democrats.

So I'm one of 13 percent of Republicans who do not have a favorable impression of McCain.  Figures.

I enjoyed this commentary.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

I enjoyed it even more knowing that it had been written by George McGovern. 

It's a marked contrast to the rhetoric coming from the Presidential candidates this year.

    I had heard rumblings of this earlier this weekend, that Clinton would start making overtures about Obama being the VP nominee with her the top name on the ticket.  I say "Dear God, No..." for a few reasons:  first, the one thing that might make me vote Democrat this year is Obama at the top of the ticket.  The one thing that will make me run, not walk, and pull that lever for McCain will be having Clinton at the top of the ticket.  I brought this same point up in another thread; I can't conceive of any possible universe in which I would vote for Hillary Clinton, and having Obama as the VP will not sway my decision.

    The second reason:  I see this as a play made from a position of weakness on the part of Clinton.  She's been consistently losing the delegate count post-New Hampshire; she knows it, Obama knows it, and I know it.  She's now got to win something like 60% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Does anyone think that's possible?  I don't.  She's in a weak position, and will likely get weaker. 

    I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid on Obama; I don't think he's the greates thing since sliced bread, but for him to even entertain this overture is a monumental waste of time and energy, and I believe he should get the word out, that this is a non-starter.  It could be like that scene in "A Bridge Too Far", when the British airborne commander, at Arnhem, is asked by a white-flag carrying German soldier if he would like to discuss surrender terms, replies "We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender! Was there anything else?" -- "I'd like to talk with you about your offer of being the Vice President, but I can't right now."

    The final reason I think this is a bad idea for Obama to even consider is that, if he were to be the VP nominee, I think he'd risk being tainted by the nearly inevitable anti-Clinton attacks during the general election.  I just think he'd be "guilty by association" if he tried to run for the Presidency again, in the future (meaning, running as an incumbent VP succeeding Clinton, or as the John Edwards of 2012).

    That being said, there's still a long time to the election.  Who knows what will happen...maybe Clinton will be decisively beaten; maybe there will be a brokered convention for the Democrats; maybe Obama does accept this move; and maybe the horse will learn to sing.

    We'll see...

HG

This is for anyone wondering about Illinois' Democratic Superdelegates, and endorsements of the same.

One would think that a candidate, running for President in the 21st Century, whose entire candidacy has had a narrative of transparent pandering and astonishing position changes, would know better than to attempt a naked pander and position change on an absolutely fundamental issue, in a very public forum, the weekend before the largest Primary Election in American history.

But not Mitt Romney, who used a podcast on one of the center-right's most widely read blogs to absolutely contradict his previous positions on gun control.  As Instapundit says, in response:  "I'm beginning to question [Romney's] sincerity."

Longtime readers will know that I'm no fan of John McCain.  But I really do think that Romney is convinced that he's so smart and that we're so stupid that he can get away will stuff like this.  He's our Bill Clinton. I really do have a hard time understanding how anyone can take anything he says seriously.

Further evidence that the best campaign ads are being produced by citizens, not campaigns:

(Hat tip: CapFax)

VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.

I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).

One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.

Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.

There is a monthly limit on the deductible so if you're there a great deal, 4 or more times a month, then you may start coming out ahead. Otherwise not so much.

This is still an improvement over the earlier rates, but the deductible still throws it off so that disabled veterans aren't fully compensated.