Maine for Obama

Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't.

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor. Obama has, of course, deployed polarization to his benefit in a number of states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana most notably) but he's also dominated the states with very few black voters.

UPDATE: I forgot about Missouri. Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.

Comments

That's the spin the Clintons are putting out publicly, but the fact that they're making drastic campaign shakeups at this point tells me they know that Obama is winning this race right now.

If Edwards and/or Gore endorse him, you will start to see superdelegates move in his direction as well. No one wants to see this drawn out forever. Obama not only has all the momentum, he's our best candidate to win the White House.

Posted by Mike | February 10, 2008 6:47 PM

Don't forget Missouri! That didn't count because it was close, or something.

Posted by Sam Rosenfeld | February 10, 2008 6:49 PM

Delaware doesn't count because it, too, has lots of black people. According to franly0 at Drum's place, Missouri doesn't count because it borders Obama's state of Illinois.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 6:51 PM

Mobilising racial polarisation has proven a successful tactic in US politics. HRC may well still win using it.

Posted by otto | February 10, 2008 6:52 PM

Only New York and California count. Oh, and states where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Those count. The other 47 states are either filled with black people or white people who want a hip black friend. Or something.

Posted by jim | February 10, 2008 6:52 PM

I live in Ohio. Men are not for Hillary. They don't like her. Hate her even. But they're not sold on Obama so they pick Hillary because they view them both as bad choices but Hillary less so. This is because they know nothing of Obama. The muslim email has made great in roads here. Any time you talk about the race, and say Obama is giving her a run, someone invariably says "but he's a muslim".

The calendar helps Obama here. He has substantial time to travel the state and get his message out to a very skeptical working class population in northern Ohio.

But Hillary is the incumbent and front runner here by default. She can only go down in the polls, which has been the case in every state to date. Her name recognition lead is eroded the more people hear and see Obama.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 10, 2008 6:53 PM

My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there.

Yeah, that sounds like most of the posts over at TalkLeft the past couple of weeks. At some point, the array of excuses do become inconsistent.

Posted by Jake | February 10, 2008 6:53 PM

LOL. Is Hillary crying again? Is Chelsea going to cry next?

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 6:54 PM

People keep leaving out the most important one because they flipped it after everyone went to bed.

Obama's win in Missouri doesn't count because its a bellwether state.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 10, 2008 6:54 PM

Virginia is big. It's a swing state. It's a primary. Obama will win more white voters. Obama will win with women. But do I expect the meme that Obama can't win those states/demographics to stop? Nah.

Clinton would do well to drop the poor-me schtick and go after some voters. Grousing about the process, the media, and whatever else is not in her favor is not helping her campaign. Only going into Virginia, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania - only getting in on the ground there and drumming up local, enthusiastic support (what Obama is and has been doing) is going to give her the chance to win. Stop reading the polls. Stop listening to Mark Penn. Stop calculating. Go in and start talking to voters.

Posted by Craig | February 10, 2008 6:56 PM

Missouri doesn't count because all the "real 'murikins" (i.e. those possessing white skin and a penis) didn't put her over there. You can use this same excuse in other states as well.

Posted by jimBOB | February 10, 2008 6:57 PM

But Michigan and Florida DO count, because wouldn't it be awful if voters think we're completely dismissive of their wishes?

Posted by Craig L | February 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Don't forget about Florida!!!! And Michigan! Florida definitely counts!!!! Definitely!

Posted by Mark Penn | February 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor.

New Hampshire?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 10, 2008 6:58 PM

None of those wins count (but Michigan and Florida should)

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 10, 2008 6:59 PM

This is good for Clinton....

It always is.

Posted by coda | February 10, 2008 7:00 PM

Obama winning CT was the great under-reported story of Super Tuesday. He was an underdog, way behind in the polls, but he eked out a victory there. It seems to have been buried underneath the ridiculous 'Clinton wins upset in MA' spin, which I can't believe anyone fell for. I still see blogs and pundits saying that Obama needs to win a "Hillary" state to prove he's worthy of the nomination, but that kind of thinking seems to ignore CT.

disclaimer: I support both Obama and Hillary and will gladly vote for either.

Posted by thefax | February 10, 2008 7:01 PM

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor.

So, Clinton's wins among working class Democrats don't count because they're racist. Got it.

This is classism masquerading as anti-racism.

All the primaries and caucuses count. And the two are about tied, Obama has a small lead, but probably less favorable states ahead. None of their wins are illegitimate.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:02 PM

I guess she didn't deploy racial polarization in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, New York, or New Jersey, and she won those. Out of those, I think we can only "not count" New York; the rest are legitimate racial polarization-free wins.

What's getting bizarre about this is that Bill Clinton is now trying out class-polarization, so I guess we will be hearing more about the mansion he lives in next to his slumlord buddy and the private planes he took to go to Google fundraisers, while Clinton is the salt-of-the-earth for having spent a year or two working for CDF and on the board of LSC... Also somehow she's more experienced and vetted, despite never having had a close election in her life either.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 10, 2008 7:03 PM

This is the same Matt who told us last week that Hillary had it wrapped up now, right?

Posted by mq | February 10, 2008 7:04 PM

Call me an optimist, but at some point soon I think people will get far enough up the learning curve to realize the delegate count is the only thing that matters, and we will be able to drop all this nonsense about which states it is more important to "win".

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 7:05 PM

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor.

I'm an Obama supporter and this is a dumb statement. It's not how Clinton is mobilizing people, it's about how Obama is mobilizing them. Every state shows a large lead for Clinton, and when people get to know Obama, they move in his direction. This is consistent in every state - the black ones, the white ones, the green ones, the poor ones, the rich ones.

Posted by Craig | February 10, 2008 7:05 PM

So, Clinton's wins among working class Democrats don't count because they're racist. Got it.

I didn't say that at all. I observed that Clinton can't win states where there are a lot of black people and she can't win states where there are very few black people.

I guess she didn't deploy racial polarization in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, New York, or New Jersey, and she won those. Out of those, I think we can only "not count" New York; the rest are legitimate racial polarization-free wins.

I say we "count" them all, but only New Hampshire breaks the pattern. She can't win in states where to win she'd need non-trivial black support, and she also can't win in states where there are so few black people that politics lacks a racial dimension. She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 10, 2008 7:07 PM

This is the same Matt who told us last week that Hillary had it wrapped up now, right?

That prediction was easily the best thing to happen to Obama in weeks, better than Maine, better than Missouri. The Yglesias counter-prediction is a powerful beast.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:07 PM

My, my, the supporters of the candidate of "hope" and "unity" sure have their knives out today. Whatever happened to being gracious in victory?

I'll repeat what everybody already knows, absent the snark. Obama does do well in caucus states where independents are allowed to vote. Fair statement? He also has remarkable drawing power with young people and affluent white liberals.

Hillary does well in popular vote states where only Democrats vote. She does well with women, the poor, older voters, and traditional Democrats. Anybody want to argue with that?

Posted by John Petty | February 10, 2008 7:08 PM

I say we "count" them all, but only New Hampshire breaks the pattern.

Arizona, 3.8%
Massachusetts, 6.9%
Nevada, 7.9%
New Hampshire, 1.1%
New Mexico, 2.5%

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:15 PM

Maine's caucus was closed... but I guess it was a caucus, so it doesn't count.

Posted by br | February 10, 2008 7:15 PM

don't forget about Poland!

Posted by nattyb | February 10, 2008 7:17 PM

I think all this talk reducing Hillary's appeal to racism and discounting her success is ludicrous.

Hillary's gone about step-for-step with Barack in popular votes and delegates still, correct? It's a little childish, purposely ignoring things, or nutso to ignore that, I think. I haven't actually noticed any Hillary supporters actually claiming that all of Barack's state's don't count. The only remark I think I heard is that Barack is from Illinois, which frankly is a totally legitimate observation, because that's where he's set down roots and basically worked out of and been known for decades. Hillary probably doesn't have any similar connection to either that state or any other state.

Posted by Swan | February 10, 2008 7:17 PM

The big loser in the Maine caucuses? David Shuster.

Hillary will beat that drum because it's the only one she has.

Posted by JayDawg | February 10, 2008 7:18 PM

I don't understand why everyone has seized upon the idea that Hillary Clinton is "the candidate of the poor."

In case anyone needs a reminder, the poorest ethnic or racial subgroup in the US -- other than Native Americans -- are African-Americans. Clearly much black support for Obama is not for economic reasons, but that doesn't somehow discount the reality that black people are disproportionately poor.

Moreover, I think Omaha, Tacoma, and heck, Des Moines, are pretty working class -- and Obama territory.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the white, northeastern working class. That's not the same as "the poor."

Posted by del | February 10, 2008 7:19 PM

Don't pay any attention to the shakeup, the money problems, the badly run ground organization, the racial division, the tears, the threats of terrorist attacks should Obama win, or the negative television ads that had to be taken off the air. Hillary has experience and her savvy management of the expectations game has everyone concluding that she is the inevitable nominee. Her low poll numbers against McCain and her inability to win independents prove that she is best equipped to take on the Republicans in November.

And we all know that any process for choosing a nominee that requires more than 5 seconds of voter participation every four years is undemocratic, anyway.

Posted by Just Karl | February 10, 2008 7:20 PM

John Petty,

Maine had a closed caucus. C-L-O-S-E-D. Only Democrats voted in it. The same was true for Louisiana.

Obama does great amongs independents and activist Dems. He does well amongst black women and white men. He gains great ground wherever he has a chance to campaign and people get to know him.

Hillary does well where people know her name but not her policies. She does well in places where she's lived (except Illinois) and where her racial polarization has worked. She has started the race with every conceivable advantage possible and is losing. She has been forced to go negative and, as a result, has alienated a large part of the activist base of the party (as well as a lot of Dem-leaning independents).

Hillary's only hope is to redefine the terms of the campaign in such a way as to require Obama to overwhelmingly defeat her in every catergory.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 7:21 PM

Hillary's gone about step-for-step with Barack in popular votes and delegates still, correct?

For this weekend, Obama tends to win the popular voter by 20%. He netted +45 delegates yesterday; stands to do pretty well today.

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 7:21 PM

According to "poblano" at Kos, it actually isn't true that income independently explains some of the Clinton/Obama relative vote share. Rather, it is education level that provides the explanation, and once you control for education, income drops out.

The whole thing is interesting, so I will post the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 7:22 PM

Hillary is the new Guiliani and Texas/Ohio is the new Florida. The other states don't matter because they aren't part of her superior strategy.
Actually, if Hillary does lose a state or is about to lose a state, there is a well established protocol - first, really really stress why your better than the other choice, sometimes the rubes, er electorate, is a little slow and they can be dazzled by oratorical elegance. Second, have Bill distort the record of your opponent and claim the opponent is distorting your's. Third, cry or claim someone from one of the networks is saying mean things or, even better, combine them both. Fourth, say the state doesn't really matter anyway and the lose was expected. Fifth, replace a campaign manager. We haven't seen six yet but I think it may involve a nationally broadcasted melt-down/temper-tantrum in which we are all scolded for not understanding how she is OWED the Presidency and we are stupid stupid-heads for not understanding. 7 is when she has to be escorted away from the inauguration ceremonies expecting to be sworn in even though she's not the President-elect

Posted by dave.reese | February 10, 2008 7:22 PM

Hah! This reminds me of George Carlin's famous "sports" monologue, in which he dismisses most of the world's major sports as mere pretenders. Running isn't a sport because anyone can do it. Hockey isn't a sport because it's played with a puck. Gymnastics isn't a sport because Romanians are good at it.

Most of the dismissals of Obama's victories are on the same level as Carlin's diatribe...only not as funny.

Posted by Jay Andrew Allen | February 10, 2008 7:24 PM

How about getting MY's getting off his prediction of a Clinton victory now? If (on the evidence of her firing her campaign manager and her declaring the super delegates should overrule the popularly selected delegates) she knows she's behind, and if the more she flails the further behind she falls--if she and her people know she's losing, why can't MY figure it out, too?

Or do I not remember correctly what MY wrote a few days ago? It suddenly seems incredible that anyone would have made such a prediction.

Posted by Changeadvocate | February 10, 2008 7:24 PM

"Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor."

Oh I get it, someone told you there's a spot open at Fox News for someone with liberal affectations who doesn't mind making overly reductive, idiotic statements.

I knew you and Sullivan had lots in common, not just looks, but this crap is uncanny.

Posted by Bob | February 10, 2008 7:25 PM

Look, here's the list of all the states that Clinton has won, and the percentage of the population that is African-American:

New Hampshire, 1.1%
New Mexico, 2.5%
Arizona, 3.8%
California, 6.7
Massachusetts, 6.9%
Oklahoma, 7.8%
Nevada, 7.9%
New Jersey, 14.5%
Arkansas, 15.7%
Tennessee, 16.9%
New York, 17.4%

The basic issue is that Hillary Clinton has won very few states.

Of the states that she has won, 6 of the 11 are, or are contiguous with, states she has represented as Senator or First Lady. (If you want an anti-Hillary talking point, that's my favorite.)

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:25 PM

How about getting MY's getting off his prediction of a Clinton victory now? If (on the evidence of her firing her campaign manager and her declaring the super delegates should overrule the popularly selected delegates) she knows she's behind, and if the more she flails the further behind she falls--if she and her people know she's losing, why can't MY figure it out, too?

Or do I not remember correctly what MY wrote only yesterday? It suddenly seems incredible that anyone would have made such a prediction.

Posted by Changeadvocate | February 10, 2008 7:27 PM

John,

Hillary does well in popular vote states where only Democrats vote. She does well with women, the poor, older voters, and traditional Democrats. Anybody want to argue with that?

But... isn't that Maine?

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 7:27 PM

This thread disturbs me.

You guys know that Obama is the candidate of The Village, right? You've noticed that the establishment media uses precisely the same tone and the same jokes to mock Clinton? Just becuase the MSM is suddenly on your side doesn't mean you should suddenly appropriate their rhetoric.

I think it's a good thing for America if Obama wins. I voted Obama. Stop bashing your fellow Democrats, it does no one any good.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:30 PM

She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top.

I guess I just think that overstates the degree to which I think that thinking in local elections affects choices for the Presidential election. For instance, Clinton racked up an insane 70-30 margin in Springfield, Massachusetts. Are you really telling me the voters there are voting for Clinton because they didn't like how school busing was handled in Boston thirty years ago? Or that she won Orange because it's full of people who didn't want to send their kids to public schools in New Haven? And of course Obama is running a Deval Patrick "post-racial" campaign, so most of these voters have probably voted for black guy with the right message before.

I am still trying to puzzle through why Clinton has so much support among working-class whites in CT/NH/MA. It's still a mystery. I can't chalk it all up to "racial polarization".

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 10, 2008 7:31 PM

DivGuy,

Do you really think that the Clinton detractors are in any measure more toxic than the Obama detractors? Or that Obama is a Broderist?

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 7:33 PM

None of their wins are illegitimate.

Well, I agree. Except for Florida and Michigan, since Hillary was the only one on the ballot in one and everyone agreed to ignore the other. Not sure how those are legitimate.

Posted by jim | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

LOL. Is Hillary crying again? Is Chelsea going to cry next?
...
I live in Ohio. Men are not for Hillary. They don't like her. Hate her even.
...
Third, cry or claim someone from one of the networks is saying mean things or, even better, combine them both

Hey, look, everybody! It's Andrew Sullivan!

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

On Super Tuesday 5 women stood together at a busy intersection in suburban Atlanta waving Obama signs. Three of us were white and two of us were black. Funny, we didn't feel polarized at all.

Posted by Janice | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

"Just becuase the MSM is suddenly on your side doesn't mean you should suddenly appropriate their rhetoric."

Why not? They're wising up in their ways and I'm happy to join them.

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

You guys know that Obama is the candidate of The Village, right?

No, the candidate of the Village is Mr. Straight Talkin' Maverick McCain.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | February 10, 2008 7:36 PM

At the risk of interrupting the internecine squabbling with an asinine question (to throw my hat in the ring on this point, I'll just say "she started it" and then hide behind my couch), can someone explain to me what the appellation "The Village" means and where it came from. I fear that I may live in/be part of it, but missed the memo when it/we were rebranded.

Many thanks.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 7:37 PM

Man, I am SO drunk on hope right now. I'm fucking WASTED!

Posted by Bill | February 10, 2008 7:37 PM

Do you really think that the Clinton detractors are in any measure more toxic than the Obama detractors? Or that Obama is a Broderist?

No, I don't think any of those things.

I don't see why this comment thread should be full of "Clinton detractors" parroting the same rhetoric - much of it misogynist - that we see in the establishment media.

The whole raison d'etre of the blogosphere has been medienkritik. We should know better than this.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:39 PM

Nicholas,

Maybe Clinton's access to machine politics in working-class northeastern neighborhoods helped her. I still wouldn't discount the issue of race, though.

DivGuy,

You think that's bad? How about calling your opponent a former drug-addict or drug-dealer? How about calling your opponent a boon for terrorists or secret terrorist himself? How about diminishing your opponent's gains and electoral chances based on his race? All of these things were said by high-ranking Clinton surrogates (WJC, Bob Kerrey, Bill Shaheen, etc).

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Maybe it's because working-class voters are more concerned about specific bread-and-butter issues and don't have the luxury of indulging vague promises of "hope" and "bipartisanship."

Plus, in a time when the economy is coming more and more to the fore, the peace and broad-based prosperity of the 90's looks pretty good to the Dunkin' Donut crowd.

Posted by John Petty | February 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Bill,

Me too. It's fucking awesome. I don't know where I'm going to go for hope rehab to kick my hope addiction when this is over. Probably professional sports, b/c, as a Philadelphia fan, they can always be counted on to detoxify me of every last shred of remaining hope in my body.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 7:41 PM

You think that's bad? How about calling your opponent a former drug-addict or drug-dealer? How about calling your opponent a boon for terrorists or secret terrorist himself? How about diminishing your opponent's gains and electoral chances based on his race? All of these things were said by high-ranking Clinton surrogates (WJC, Bob Kerrey, Bill Shaheen, etc).Those are all very bad.

Compared to the dog whistle politics that Clinton attempted around SC, Obama's campaign has been much better about not parroting the misogynist rhetoric that the mainstream media has turned on Clinton. They are to be commended for it, just as commenters at matthewyglesias are to be rightly criticized for doing the reverse.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:44 PM

On a more serious note, I want to add that this is the first time in my relatively short voting lifetime (I'm in my 30s) that the Dems are running 2 candidates that I genuinely like and respect and that I would be proud to have as my President. I know it's not easy to view things this way in the heat of the campaign (and that many people will disagree about one or the other of these candidates), but from my perspective (as an Obama supporter), the strength of both of these candidates really does give me legitimate hope.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 7:48 PM

She can't win in states where to win she'd need non-trivial black support, and she also can't win in states where there are so few black people that politics lacks a racial dimension. She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top.

I think the fist part is true: Hillary definitely can't overcome Obama's popularity with black voters in states where they're a critical part of the primary electorate (30%+ ?). But it seems to me this commonly-heard meme as an explanation for Obama's small state success falls apart in the second portion, because these small, lily white states have nearly all been caucuses, haven't they?

Utah might be the exception, but, given its extremely conservative political culture, my guess is anybody who shows up to vote in a Democratic primary is probably the raving mad town socialist (or one of the state's 119 African Americans). To believe the thesis Matt describes, we basically have to accept the proposition that white folks who occasionally encounter black folks build up all kinds of racist baggage, but lilly whites out in the Aryan Nation hinterlands are like four years olds who have never heard the N word (or picked up on the racist undertones of society).

It seems to me an awfully convenient theory if one wants to believe the worst in people. I think Obama's ability to motivate young, often upwardly mobile and well-educated, aspirational progressives (and their ability to overwhelm the narrow gauge caucus format with their numbers) is a more plausible explanation for his success in these white bread contests. Not that he wouldn't necessarily have come out ahead of Clinton in many or all of them had they been primaries, but I suspect the margins would have been a lot closer.

It's the passion gap, really. Obama inspires it. Hillary mostly doesn't. When voting for Hillary requires ten minutes at a local school to vote in a primary, she does a lot better. When voting for Hillary requires a whole afternoon, she doesn't do so well. Of course, a lot of her supporters probably can't get the whole afternoon off anyway, but that's another story.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 7:48 PM

Well, all arguments aside, it's obvious that this thing is far from over. The irony is that, when Clinton first chose to authorize her campaign, everyone assumed that it would be a cakewalk - a slam dunk. She probably thought that she would ride into these states, get showered with votes, and be treated as if she was some kind of liberator. Who would have thought that, this far in, it would have deteriorated into such a quagmire, a bitter conflict - one that threatens to turn into a Democratic civil war and shows no sign of abating. And, even if she ultimtely wins, she has quite possibly made more enemies than she had before. How could anyone have predicted this? Is there any analog in recent American history that could have possibly served as a sign post? I can't think of anything!

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 10, 2008 7:49 PM

On a more serious note, I want to add that this is the first time in my relatively short voting lifetime (I'm in my 30s) that the Dems are running 2 candidates that I genuinely like and respect and that I would be proud to have as my President. I know it's not easy to view things this way in the heat of the campaign (and that many people will disagree about one or the other of these candidates), but from my perspective (as an Obama supporter), the strength of both of these candidates really does give me legitimate hope.

Agreed, 100%.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM

I still think the real issue here is not which demographic votes for whom, but the simple fact that Obama is out-campaigning Clinton to such an extent that she looks both amateurish and inept. Even if you grant that caucuses are undemocratic, and that winning them is simply illegitimate, and that small states shouldn't vote, you're left with the fact that the DNC has declared that small states matter and caucuses count. Given that, if you're a serious candidate, you compete in them. What is the possible excuse for losing this badly in any of these states, especially if you are a candidate with as much institutional support (factual) and experience (at least alleged) as Clinton?

I don't like Clinton; I would never vote for her. But, like everybody else, I expected her to win this handily. I thought she was a force for evil, but (unlike Bush) a competent force for evil. I thought she'd win Iowa. I thought she'd win handily in New Hampshire. I thought she'd keep it close in SC. I thought she'd win more delegates on Super Tuesday. I thought she'd at least keep it close in Washington State, and maybe win Maine. I still think she could win Virginia. But every time so far, she's screwed up. I'm beginning to think that she's just not very good at this.

I understand why her supporters make excuses. What else are you going to do when you keep being disappointed? Maybe she'll still win. But even if she does, she won't be able to boast of having run a good campaign.

Posted by NoahB | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM

@Nicholas Beaudrot

That is a great idea for a comparision. Compare Duval Patrick's vote getting ability with a reference white democrat. See if he ran above or below the reference white democrat in those areas in which Clinton tromped Obama.

Posted by Adam | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM

One point about the Duval Patrick question that I'd like (but don't expect) to see data on is what percentage of voters who had previously voted for Patrick now have an unfavorable opinion of Patrick and voted for HRC.

My (totally anecdotal) conversations with friends and family in MA revealed that many people believed in and voted for Patrick, but have been very disappointed in him so far and have turned against Obama primarily because his campaign is superficially so similar to Patrick's (poetry and hope; perceived less experience; African-American candidate).

DivGuy--I'm very pleased that you agreed with my previous post (I feared I'd get lambasted as some sort of starry-eyed optimist/typical Obama supporter). As an agreeable guy, would you be able to shed some light on what is "The Village" and where the term arose from? Many thanks.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 8:00 PM

I particularly liked this diary over at The Great Orange Satan:

Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in caucus states and his home state and states that have a majority of African-American voters and states where he has time to do retail politics and states in the south and states in the northeast and states in the midwest and states in the southwest and states in the northeast and states with open primaries so Republicans and Independents can vote and states with closed primaries so Independents and Republicans can't vote and primaries held off the main-land and primaries held in sort-of kind-of foreign countries like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina, Nebraska, Georgia, Connecticut, Kansas, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, Delaware, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 10, 2008 8:00 PM

Utah might be the exception, but, given its extremely conservative political culture, my guess is anybody who shows up to vote in a Democratic primary is probably the raving mad town socialist (or one of the state's 119 African Americans).

Jasper,

You DO realize, don't you, that one of Utah's three congressional districts is held by a Democrat, right? There are Democrats out there even in these smaller, conservative states, and many of them have a vested interest in winning these things too.

If the Obama campaign is premised on going out and winning supporters and organizing in every part of the country, then good on him -- that's what's needed for people like Jim Matheson, Nancy Boyda, John Marshall, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, John Yarmuth, Larry LaRocco, and so on.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 8:01 PM

For those of you who still think the Clinton campaign's on track, here's a potentially relevant fact: Intrade now gives HRC a 30.0% chance of getting the nomination. Obama, of course, would have a 70.0% chance.

Yeah, it's meaningless. Or is it? The Giuliani parallels with Clinton's current strategy are dead-on, but she doesn't really have a choice. I think she missed her chance to beat Obama, and now she's just going to have to try to lose more slowly to him and hope that the superdelegates come through, I suppose. But a "stolen" victory, or any appearance of one, will result in Obama voters (correctly, in my opinion) sitting out the general election.

Obama can make it easy on Clinton: he proposes a pledge to drop out if he has fewer pledged delegates at the end of primary season, and she makes the same pledge. Superdelegate controversy averted.

Posted by Lev | February 10, 2008 8:03 PM

Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.

That's just silly.

Obama's win in Missouri doesn't count because Missouri is just a protectorate of Illinois.

Get the talking points straight.

Posted by Adam | February 10, 2008 8:03 PM

She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top. Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 10, 2008 7:07 PM

I noticed something in yesterday's New York Times Metro Section that might interest you to investigate more. You showed interest with the Catholic vote on Huckabee. Well, there's some evidence here that Catholics like Hillary a lot more than Obama:

ABOUT NEW YORK; Catholic Vote Is Harbinger of Success for Clinton By JIM DWYER, February 9, 2008

Be sure to click on the full graphic there, it includes the Catholic vote numbers from 10 states, it's not just about New York. They're pretty striking.

I myself would be interested to know whether the same thing happened yesterday and today. Until then, it's pretty striking that lots of Catholics like Clinton over Obama.

Posted by artappraiser | February 10, 2008 8:04 PM

artappraiser,

Catholics tend to overlap pretty well with working class whites and hispanics.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:07 PM

I understand why her supporters make excuses. What else are you going to do when you keep being disappointed?

When Obama supporters are disappointed, they largely seem to declare Hillary the presumptive nominee.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 8:11 PM

Jasper...You DO realize, don't you, that one of Utah's three congressional districts is held by a Democrat, right? There are Democrats out there even in these smaller, conservative states, and many of them have a vested interest in winning these things too.

jbryan: Sure. No doubt. And bully him for brilliantly executing a well thought-out strategy. Team Obama has out thought the Clintons, among other things. And again, I'm not claiming Clinton would have won the bulk of Obama's caucus wins had they been primaries -- just that the margins -- and therefore the delegate counts -- would likely be a lot closer. His primary wins outside of the deep south have mostly been scrape by affairs. His caucus wins haven't.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 8:11 PM

As an agreeable guy, would you be able to shed some light on what is "The Village" and where the term arose from?

It's from Atrios.

The basic concept is that the mainstream media and "expert" class behaves in such a way as to massively limit the possibilities for discourse in this country.

They do this through personality-based analysis, where it doesn't matter what a person does or believes, so long as they are agreeable to the social world of these few elites in the media and expert class.

Thus you get the long McCain encomia, the irrational hatred of the Clintons, the continued marginalization of anti-war writers and thinkers to the benefit of the mainstream pundits and "experts" who would never have done something so silly as upset the precious pro-war consensus before the fact.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 8:13 PM

FREE DAVID SHUSTER!!!

Posted by JR | February 10, 2008 8:14 PM

I'm getting tired of the unnecessary crap from the Ygleias, which is apparently filtering down to the commenters. It obviously helps only the Republicans, and the posters to vent a little.
If I want to read half assed snark, there are people better at it.

Posted by Barry | February 10, 2008 8:15 PM

When people talk about the presence or lack of support for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama among "working class Democrats," do they mean to imply that somehow "working class African American Democrats" just fold into "African Americans" and are no longer considered to be working class Democrats?

If someone means to say "working class white Democrats" or "working class white male Democrats", is that not what he or she should say?

Posted by El Cid | February 10, 2008 8:16 PM

Right, I don't disagree with that. I think of most of the caucus states had held primaries instead, he still would have won, only by smaller margins in some places (like Maine and Washington). But the Utah primary win says a lot. And the claim I was taking issue with was that these Democrats there are somehow out of the norm... when they're managing to get a Democrat elected to one of the state's three House districts. The state may not be in play on the presidential level, but there is an active base of Democrats below that and the fact that Obama won them so convincingly is important.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 8:16 PM

When people talk about the presence or lack of support for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama among "working class Democrats," do they mean to imply that somehow "working class African American Democrats" just fold into "African Americans" and are no longer considered to be working class Democrats?

No. They mean that, overall, working class Democrats vote for Hillary. There are slices of that group that like her more or less, but it's an identifiable group with definable tendencies.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 8:18 PM

Who would have thought that, this far in, it would have deteriorated into such a quagmire, a bitter conflict - one that threatens to turn into a Democratic civil war and shows no sign of abating.

Jaysus. Could we possibly have a little less hyperbole? I thought it was commonly agreed that rushing to the nomination was a bad thing, and that a somewhat more drawn-out process would likely produce a more tested nominee? It's still only early February, for chrissakes. And the rhetoric has been gentler, and more positive, over the last couple of weeks. And there's hardly a "quagmire" in evidence as Obama continues to push ahead and rack up victories. As far as I can see, the process is pretty much moving along satisfactorily, with -- gasp -- big and small states both having an important say in the nominating process.

A sense of perspective, please.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 8:20 PM

Thanks, DivGuy, that's very helpful and a nicely succinct way of describing one of the more pernicious aspects of life inside the Beltway. I've always thought of it as a fraternity for people who wish they joined a fraternity, but this is much better.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 8:24 PM

" . . . big and small states both having an important say in the nominating process."

Really? I thought Obama's recent massive victories in small- and medium-sized states only mattered if he won a few of the big states, like PA and TX, who's demographics favored Clinton.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:25 PM

The caucuses have their problems, but one thing they do is give a place where enthusiasm and organization trump familiarity. The McAuliffe master plan to hurry up the primaries does just the opposite. This year they seem to have their perfect candidates for both sides of the equation, and Obama is just better in caucuses than Clinton is in primaries.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 10, 2008 8:26 PM

Who would have thought that, this far in, it would have deteriorated into such a quagmire, a bitter conflict - one that threatens to turn into a Democratic civil war and shows no sign of abating.

This "civil war", thankfully, appears to be almost wholly confined to the blogosphere.

Among everyday Democrats, both candidates are extremely popular, and party unity is just about a foregone conclusion.

Obama and Clinton both have negatives in the 10-15% range among Democrats. Tiny numbers, in context. The party is unified. It'd be nice if the blogosphere could reflect that.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 8:26 PM

"Maine for Obama"

This is the biggest fairy tale I have ever heard. Give me a break.

Posted by Ali Karim Bey | February 10, 2008 8:27 PM

MY: "Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor."

Wow.

Wow.

I understand your pathetic need to be cool again, after predicting a HRC win, but this is blog-historic pathetic.

Do I really to need run down the states HRC won?

Or does your disgusting phrase,"racial polarization" only apply one way?

Jesus, this post is toxic.

Posted by Andruw | February 10, 2008 8:28 PM

Matt, I love your blog, but this is ridiculous. Someone somewhere remarked that Obama tends to win in states with large black populations or tiny black populations, and you promptly decide that this potentially meaningless fact explains a difference in voting patterns. There's a correlation, causation problem here, and it's not like you to fall prey to it. Now, the simple truth is that there's no use overthinking this stuff. If we absolutely must identify a broad trend, it's pretty clear that Obama does well in state when he has time to campaign there, which would explain why he did less well in large states that are harder to cover. But this doesn't need to be a hard and fast rule. Some of this, not much but some, is chance too, you know.

Sadly, the comments are not a hell of a lot more illuminating than the post.

Posted by alex | February 10, 2008 8:29 PM

I just wanted to post a clarifying comment in response to some of John Petty's statements and responses to him from others. Although the Maine primary was technically closed, you could re-register as a Democrat at the door if you were unregistered or registered as an independent voter. If you were previously registered Republican or Green Independent (which is a separate party here), you had to re-register by January 26th. So essentially if you were politically astute or paying attention to the papers you could participate in the primary without being a long-term Democrat.

Now you can argue that this isn't a "real" Democratic primary, or you can look at it as a stroke of fortunate genius by the state Democratic party to get new voters, young voters, and pissed off indy voters to register Democratic. By all accounts the primary has been attended by crowds two to three-fold larger than in years past, meaning that an already strong state party has essentially doubled the number of its members that are politically active enough to show up at a caucus. And the state party is aware of this, they've been working hard to make sure that anyone who couldn't make it to the caucus could get an absentee ballot, they're taking full advantage of the opportunity to build their grassroots support.

Posted by Sefrankel | February 10, 2008 8:31 PM

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the white, northeastern working class. That's not the same as "the poor."

That was true in Massachusetts. The blue collar machine came out in force for Hillary. Bill was cashing chips he accumulated in the WH. That made a difference. In the center of the state, which is full of college students, Barrack won the day.

Posted by Rocket guty | February 10, 2008 8:34 PM

Sefrankel,

Of around 1 million registered voters, the breakdown is as follows (from CNN):

31% D
28% R
38% I
3% G

Seeing that such a huge percentage of the electorate is registered independent (and half vote Democratic), it makes sense to allow some to be involved.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:40 PM

Just becuase the MSM is suddenly on your side doesn't mean you should suddenly appropriate their rhetoric

Dude, totally. The New York Times has nothing but nice things to say about Obama. Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman are always using flattering rhetoric to describe him. Same with the Clinton News Network. It's like a minor miracle that every cable news network insists on including the unpledged super delegates in the delegate count that crawls across the screen every 2 minutes. Hillary is getting such a raw deal and I never hear her or her supporters complain about. I'm glad somebody finally said something.

Posted by Just Karl | February 10, 2008 8:43 PM

Hillary is the new Rudy Giuliani. Sure, we'll lose Washington Louisiana Nebraska Maine Virginia Maryland Wisconsin etc.(New Hampshire Iowa etc.), but damnit, we're going to win big in Texas (Florida)! Glad to see all the underhanded race-baiting in South Carolina continue to blow up the Clintons' faces. Serves them right!!!!

Posted by Jimborama | February 10, 2008 8:44 PM

Yeah, even a state as solidly Republican as Utah isn't really the monolith it may look like from the East Coast. Salt Lake City itself is a lot less conservative than the rest of the state, and, not coincidentally, significantly less Mormon, as well. SLC's mayors have been Democrats continuously at least as far back as the 1970s. Rocky Anderson was quite an outspoken liberal, in fact. Their current mayor is an urban planning professor. It's not all Republicans there.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 10, 2008 8:46 PM

If Hillary wins Virginia it counts because it shows that the Super Hot n' Fresh Hillary can extend Virginia's transition from Red to Purple. And that she is the mighty bridge to the 20th Century.

But if Obama wins Virgina it doesn't count, because he will win with his usual, crazy and unsustainable coalition of White Men, people with Master's and PhD's, young college kids, African-Americans, 2nd generation immigrants, military families sick and tired of the war, Independents, and disaffected Republicans.

Posted by Gregor | February 10, 2008 8:51 PM

Missive from the Great Orange Satan:

The latest count of states won by popular vote, plus the margin of victory:

Clinton (10)

Arkansas +43
Oklahoma +24
New York +17
Massachusetts +15
Tennessee +13
California +10
New Jersey +10
Arizona +9
Nevada +6
New Hampshire +3

Obama (19)

Idaho +62
Alaska +50
Kansas +48
Washington +37
Georgia +36
Nebraska +36
Colorado +35
Minnesota +35
Illinois+32
South Carolina +32
North Dakota +24
Louisiana +21
Maine +18
Utah +18
Alabama +14
Delaware +10
Iowa +9
Connecticut +4
Missouri +1

Posted by ben |