From Pennsylvania to Indiana

I made another graph, similar to the one comparing the Ohio and Pennsylvania votes, comparing Pennsylvania and Indiana. The line is x=y, meaning that if a point falls on the line, Obama did exactly the same among the demographic group in Pennsylvania as he did two weeks later in Indiana.
As the graph shows, Obama did considerably better in the latter primary among almost all these demographic groups. In theory, the ones most likely to be receptive to Hillary Clinton's gas tax holiday were the low info voters and the poorer voters. Yet Obama substantially improved his stance among those with just a high school education and among those making less than $15K annually. He lost a little ground among the elderly and white Protestants, but not by much.

Movie

I may have to use this one in my film and politics class next year.

Hear hear!

From Hilzoy:

First thought: it's worth taking a step back and noticing that the gas tax pander didn't work. At least, it's hard for me to believe that Obama would have come as close as he did to winning Indiana in the face of the flap over Rev. Wright, the possible involvement of Limbaugh Republicans, and so on, if the idea of a gas tax holiday had really caught on.

Senator Clinton gambled on the stupidity of the voters, and she lost. That is truly worth celebrating.

Clinton's really dumb argument

I have to admit that I'm starting to get used to CNN's panel discussions on election nights -- I'm even beginning to enjoy it. And I really, really want John King's giant computer display. But the main thing I'm enjoying about it is hearing the spin from candidates' supporters. It is quite inspiring to see Clinton's supporters attaching themselves to the most tenuous of reeds, some no thicker than a human hair.

But Lanny Davis, a stalwart Clinton backer, pushed it a bit too far last night. First, he basically said that these contests don't matter at this point, and that Hillary should get the nomination because she's currently polling better against McCain in some of the key swing states. David Gergen nicely slapped Davis down for that one:

When you have two candidates who have fought with each other the way they have, and one candidate, at the end of the day, comes out 600,000 votes ahead of the other candidate, and comes out substantially ahead in pledged delegates, are we then to sort of throw that out, and say, well, that's irrelevant; the only thing that is relevant is the latest Gallup poll? I mean, is that the -- is that the standard by which the parties play?

Or, as another panelist asked, what's the point of having primaries at all?

But then Davis came back with a more reprehensible argument: that the only reason Obama is ahead in delegates is because he's keeping Michigan and Florida from voting:

Michigan and Florida are in play because Senator Obama prevented the revote. That is a fact. There would have been a mail or a firehouse primary in Michigan or in Florida if the Obama campaign had gone arm and arm with the Clinton campaign, which invited them to do so, raised the money, and let Florida and Michigan vote again, if they had any objections to having them be seated in Florida.... The Clinton campaign was willing to have a revote in Florida and Michigan.

This is an irresponsible argument for a number of reasons. First of all, as Gergen noted, it's wrong:

I think it's been unfair to Hillary Clinton that Florida and Michigan did not vote properly. I think that she would have done well, and I think we might be sitting here tonight with her ahead in actual vote tallied. I think there's a very good argument to that effect. But it's Michigan and Florida who screwed this up, not Barack Obama. And I do not understand why he would now -- and I hope this is -- if the Clinton people now plan to run a campaign saying Barack Obama is responsible for the fact that you're not having a chance to vote in Michigan and Florida, they are going to make this a much, much rougher campaign.

Second, as Gergen suggested, Obama has all but sewn this thing up. If Clinton goes down claiming that she only lost because Obama prevented Michigan and Florida -- two key general election states -- from voting, that's a good way of saying, "If I can't win, no Democrat can." She's trying to demoralize Michigan and Florida Democrats and turn them against the very likely nominee. It's one thing to advocate for your candidate; it's quite another to try to turn the general electorate against the other candidate in your party.

Finally, by making these arguments about how Clinton would be the nominee if Michigan and Florida counted, if Democratic contests were winner-take-all, if we were basing this on popular vote or springtime matchup polls, etc., her team keeps pointing out how they completely failed to win under the current nominating system. Or, as Jamal Simmons said last night, "Well, you know what? If my aunt had a male appendage, she would be my uncle."

These arguments just evoke an image of Hillary Clinton giving a press conference on November 5th saying, "If we had the Canadian system of electing leaders, I'd be the president-elect today, instead of John McCain."

The Democratic rules for nominating presidential candidates have been public and transparent for decades. You blew it, Hillary. Face it.

Proud professor

Several of my students are running for student government positions this week. A few of them have even produced short campaign ads, which is way beyond anything we dreamed of when I ran for student government two decades ago.

Here's one that nicely parodies Hillary Clinton's "3AM" ad, and then gets weird:


And this one offers a fresh take on the "New Haircut" video:

25 Years...

Fitting the data to the story

John Sides* cites this NYT story describing Obama's "diminished aura of inevitability" in the wake of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "scandal." The media really seem desperate to find some sort of Wright effect, even when there isn't one, at least not yet. As the Times writes,

[T]he survey found that Mr. Obama, whose lead in the race for the delegates needed to secure the nomination has given him a commanding position over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton since February, is now perceived to be in a much tighter fight. Fifty-one percent of Democratic voters say they expect Mr. Obama to win their party’s nomination, down from 69 percent a month ago. Forty-eight percent of Democrats say Mr. Obama is the candidate with the best chance of beating Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, down from 56 percent a month ago.

Mr. Obama still holds an edge over Mrs. Clinton on several key measures; for example, 46 percent of the Democratic primary voters say he remains their choice for the nomination, while 38 percent preferred Mrs. Clinton, who has lost support among men in recent weeks. On that question, his margin actually grew, to eight from three points, over the past month.

Mr. Obama also has an advantage over Mrs. Clinton in ratings on honesty and integrity, in sharing the values of most Americans and in being less beholden to special interest groups. [Emphasis added.]

I would say that the percent of Democrats who support Obama versus Clinton is the key measure, and it is trending in Obama's favor in this poll. The only "damage" that has been done to Obama is that fewer Democrats think he will become the nominee, even though the same percentage still supports him. That's a pretty interesting media effect -- the plurality of Democrats still back him, but they (incorrectly) assume that others are no longer doing so.

*I recognize that I am linking to a Sides post that links to me. Please pardon the circle jerk.