MSNBC: Obama made inroads but fell short, Clinton's reliable coalition stands firm

[Thorgrim]

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois made some headway in building a coalition of support among Democrats in Tuesday’s cross-country sprint of primaries.

He won the support of many white men, a group that had voted for John Edwards of North Carolina before Mr. Edwards dropped out of the race last week. Mr. Obama seems to have cut the long-established ties between black voters and the Clintons. He made slight inroads among Hispanic voters, a solid part of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s base.

But one of the most intriguing finding in the surveys of voters leaving the polls across the nation on Tuesday was when they arrived at their final decision. Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.

Mr. Obama more than held his own against Mrs. Clinton: he won more states and may well have won more delegates, once all of them, including those from caucus states, are officially allocated.

But once again — as in New Hampshire — the result on Tuesday did not match the fervor that had been signaled by Mr. Obama’s dramatic march of rallies across the nation leading up to the vote. In that dynamic rests one of the central questions about the Obama candidacy, which may well go the heart of whether he can win the presidency. Is this campaign a series of surges of enthusiasm, often powered by the younger voters who form long lines waiting to hear Mr. Obama speak, that set expectations that are not met at the voting booth?

Or is it rather a slow-building force, one that despite faltering in New Hampshire and falling short on Tuesday in big states like California has allowed Mr. Obama to battle one of the most formidable political dynasties to a draw and will eventually propel him to victory?

The differing views of the Obama campaign’s trajectory are only one way in which this race has cleaved the party neatly in two: the Clinton Democrats and the Obama Democrats. Age, race and gender have become the dividing lines; nothing comes close to mattering as much.

The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.

The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.

If there is a difference between these two parties, it is that Clinton Democratic voters tend to have a history of being more likely to vote, particularly compared with younger voters and, as was the case this week, black voters. That in part might account for the enthusiasm fall-off between the campaign trail and the voting booth that Mr. Obama has to deal with.

“There’s no question that he has tapped into something,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat whose endorsement and appearances with Mr. Obama added to the Obama frenzy. “I don’t think there’s any question that it’s a phenomenon and it is broadening. But I’m mindful that crowds don’t always turn into votes.”

“These campaigns go through different transitions,” Mr. Kennedy said. “He has a very engaging kind of charm, and that is going to become stronger and stronger as he gets known.”

For all the passion Mr. Obama may be generating on the trail, Mrs. Clinton still has a bulwark in women at the polls. Mr. Obama tried to chip away at it — dispatching Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy to campaign for him, broadcasting television advertisements with women backing him — but to little if any avail.

“He had a really fantastic week last week. It’s hard to think of a candidate having a better news media week than he had,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who is not working for any candidate. “And her support among white women was really quite durable in the face of all that.”

“Unless one of them figure out how to transcend their demographic niches, we are going to be locked into this for a long time,” Mr. Garin said. “The thing is, if you have to pick a niche in the Democratic Party, women is a pretty good niche to have.”

There are other considerations having to do with the reach of Mr. Obama’s appeal that are going to come increasingly into play in a contest in which Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton seem to be arm-wrestling for each delegate.

Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama showed signs of doing slightly better with Hispanic voters in some states than he did in Nevada earlier this month, and Mr. Kennedy suggested this augured well for the Texas primary next month, with its heavy population of Latino voters. Still, if Mr. Obama is making progress with these voters, Mrs. Clinton still has the upper hand.

But at the end of the day, the task for Mr. Obama may well transcend the demographics or voting blocs that are the brick and mortar of the traditional American campaign. As even Mrs. Clinton’s aides will acknowledge, Mr. Obama has brought a level of excitement and involvement to the campaign trail that few people involved in this contest have seen before. The question is whether he can move them one more step on the electoral process — into voting — in the dwindling number of contests that make up this campaign.

Obama made inroads, but fervor fell short - The New York Times - MSNBC.com

An objective news report of what every objective person watching the race knows:

Obama had polling leads in many states he did not win, and was closer in states he he lost
RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls

The media was swept up in the huge crowds, and looked at polls showing for quite some time that Obama had made California a tie or taknen the lead...same in other state...he would win not only all the swing states, with California as the most important, but dig into huge chunks of New York and New Jersey

Reality was, Hillary stood her ground in her strong spots, and won important battle ground primaries (AZ, CA, MA, etc)...she was not expected by the media at large to do so well, however they didn't think she would win these important primaries, yet lose similiar states that had a caucus...had every state been a primary the trends seems to be Obama would have been knocked out f the race

However, the caucuses saved him, but did they do some damage to Clinton as some here would believe...Hillary's camp thought Feb 5th would effectively end the nomination, that did not happen, therefor they are hurting, but they are not bleeding because Obama's camp had played up their huge crowds and support and it fell flat into significant losses

So the battle has ended

1) What are the results?
2) How are the campaigns holding up?

1) There are facts and questionable facts

The fact as I've seen from every news outlet (NBC News last night, go to their website and watch the netcast, CNN et al) is that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and as the above article notes, she won people much more likely to turn out, and much much less likely to consider McCain...just because someone choose Obama to run for the democratic nomination does mean they have ruled out Obama...but the Hillary voter (i think we know from a poll on this board) is 100% voting democratic, So Clinton won more and reliable voters on Super Tuesday

The other method to measure success is delegates, however because of the extremely complicated rules, you may see some places giving Obama a 2/5 lead, however I see many professionals looking at the results and having Clinton ahead by 95-180+ delegates
ABC News: Politics Index
Election Guide 2008 - Presidential Election - Politics

Because of the nature of the rules, much like we won't know who won the delegate count in NV until the convention, similiarly we won't know who won EXACTLY what delegates until the convention, the consensus is that Hillary, at least with superdelegates has the lead (some say she has a good lead even without them, but that's not the consensus as MSNBC and others disagree)

So in the face of huge Obama momentum that was sweeping the country, including states I mentioned before, she outperformed the polls, which were expected to be lowballing Obama in the first place, she she outperformed at two levels

She has the delegate lead and won the popular vote

2)

Many are taking glee in news stories about Clinton staffers going without pay, and Obama crushing her in money...the story is all over, downhill downhill, she'll never have the money to compete, this is going to be a slow painful death, even if by some chance I cared that she has a delegate lead and won the popular vote

Well, unfortunately for the gloaters, Hillary Clinton raised $3 million just yesterday, and looks on her way to raise $6 million or more by this weekend
Democrat Taylor Marsh Broadcasts Live Talk Radio and Blogs Politics

I don't know what you think people need to compete, but that kind of fundraising is certainly more than enough

Also, with Obama facing easy ground soon, you can no longer honestly talk about "Hillary losing her lead" or anything related to some sort of firm front-runner status, despite anything you or I may say, Super Tuesday was declared a tie, and with Obama winning the early states, in the media's eyes, he's the won who "has the election to lose" and it is true that if he uses his larger warchest wisely and sweeps all these upcoming primaries/caucuses, builds huge momenutm, he should be able to beat her in the March 4th states, and get a lead of 120+ delegates...and if he can show polls that he will maintain such a lead, than it's all up to the superdelegates...and with 120+ lead, that means even if FL and MI were seated, he'd still have more pledged delegates, which means the superdelegates should side with him and give him the nominations.

The path is clear for Obama, and his way seems relatively easy...while Clinton has huge natural obstacles, such as primaries that favor Obama, and then a long wait inbetween those expected Obama-victories and states she can make a comeback with...

Obama has a clear path to the nomination and more money, Hillary does not, you can not in any sense call Obama an underdog, although his campaign will spin that to make his victories seem more sensational

Hillary has a good reason to stay on, and it's not pride...still her campaign has the concrete issues needed to win big general elcetion matchups, and more importantly, Obama's voters are unreliable, those huge crowds that dwarfed everyone, even beating out Hillary, many times by significant margins, simply did not turn out to the polls...Democrats (in general) do not want this to be a roll of the dice on whether Obama's crowds will fail to showup, again, in November

[thewise1]

lol @ spin

[Stylerod]

This part of the story is BIG and ignored and/or by Hitlery fanatics.

Mr. Obama more than held his own against Mrs. Clinton: he won more states and may well have won more delegates, once all of them, including those from caucus states, are officially allocated.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This part of the story is BIG and ignored and/or by Hitlery fanatics.

I actually pointed out places that had Obama winning the delegate count...

So you:
1) Didn't read the post
2) Made assumptions
3) Also managed tie HRC supporters in with Nazis

Anything else you'd like to do in this thread?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

lol @ spin

Yes, the damn anti-Obama media...and anti-Obama facts!

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I actually pointed out places that had Obama winning the delegate count...

So you:
1) Didn't read the post
2) Made assumptions
3) Also managed tie HRC supporters in with Nazis

Anything else you'd like to do in this thread?

Do you think I was talking about you? Not everything is about you buddy!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Do you think I was talking about you? Not everything is about you buddy!

Okay so you have some links to Hillary supporters who don't acknowledge that any news site has Obama with a delegate lead?

And no, people saying "Hillary in delegate lead" does not count because they are correct, the overwhelming majority of, if not all, news organizations have her with the delegate lead, some with superdelegates, some without

Some calculations give her something of a 300+ delegate lead, this is not anything that will be determined quickly, if ever

[The Weekly Rader]

For those who think Senator Obama fell short, I wonder how much is Obama and how much is the American electorate. I ask in part because I wonder how much race could have affected his performance in certain states. I'm particularly interested in the incredibly sharp distinction between Kansas and Oklahoma--two very similar states in almost every way, except in terms of racial histories. My question, then, which I write about in Tuesday's post on The Weekly Rader is, to what degree is our racial past the political present?

[garbagemanlb]

In other news Hillary pulled a Romney and loaned 5 million dollars to her own campaign. Buying votes ftw.