Wednesday polls: The battle for independents, and Kentucky is Clinton country

After 2 days filled with polls from Indiana and North Carolina, only one primary poll was released today. SUSA polled Kentucky for the third time, and confirms that this could be one of the biggest Clinton states:

• Clinton now leads Obama 63% to 27%. Two weeks ago, the margin was identical: 62% to 26%.
• Confirming that Obama's toughest region in the country is the Appalachians, he loses Eastern Kentucky 84% to 10%, implying there is a risk Obama might not be viable in at least one district.

If Hillary Clinton is still in the race after May 6th, it could mean two very rough weeks for Obama as results in West Virginia on the 13th and Kentucky on the 20th aren't likely to look very good for him. The demographics of these states will allow Clinton, if she lives up to the potential of this SUSA poll, to further her argument that Obama is too weak among white blue-collar voters to win the general election. Whether or not that hurts Obama among superdelegates, such conversation would continue to put him on the defensive.

National polls confirm that Clinton has found a second life since her Pennsylvania primary. Today's Gallup poll has Clinton edging out Obama 47% to 46% for the second day in a row; it had been quite a while Clinton had been on top two consecutive days. And Fox News's latest poll released today has Clinton leading 44% to 41%. These polls are obviously useless measures, since most states have already voted by now; but they still hint at the mood of the electorate and the two candidates' momentum.

Meanwhile, a series of general election surveys confirms how difficult it is to establish electability comparisons:

• Fox News finds Clinton edging out McCain nationally, 45% to 44%; Obama trails 46% to 43%. Among independents, a group Obama typically does better in, Clinton now performs better but McCain beats them both (by 4% against Clinton, by 10% against Obama).
• Interestingly, an Obama-Clinton ticket would beat a McCain-Romney ticket 47% to 41%, suggesting that Democrats would have an edge if they can present a united front.

• Update: A new New York Times poll was just released. It shows Obama leading Clinton 46% to 38% in the primary but it also shows Clinton running better in the general, leading McCain 48% to 43% while Obama and McCain are tied at 45%.
  

• A poll taken in AZ by Arizona State, meanwhile, finds McCain in single-digits against Obama, leading 47% to 38%. He leads against Clinton by a wider 53% to 37%.

• Finally, a somewhat surprising poll by Monmouth University from New Jersey finds McCain trounced by both candidates. He trails Obama 56% to 32% and Clinton 52% to 38%. The main difference between the two candidates is their strength among independents, as Clinton leads by 1% and Obama by 17%.

Most polls taken in New Jersey suggest a close race; the latest poll prior to this one has both Democrats ahead by 5% and McCain has been able to remain very competitive in Northeastern states. This poll thus looks to overstate the Democrats' advantage, but it still stands as a reminder of how tough the Garden State still is for Republicans; they seem to waste a lot of money only two years for very little rewards.

Meanwhile, the results in Arizona confirm that McCain starts clearly ahead and it would probably make little sense for Democrats to spend resources here; but I would not be surprised if the race ends up being more competitive here than the conventional wisdom suggests. You might remember that McCain did not even break 50% on February 5th, besting Romney by 12%; McCain seems to have some problems in his home state.

Superdelegates endorsements coming in quicker than ever

What a day in superdelegate endorsements. Yesterday, I reported that Obama had snatched 3 superdelegates to 1 for Clinton. Since then, the pace has only accelerated with 6 superdelegates coming forward (and 5 just this morning).

At this point, the conventional wisdom regarding superdelegates is that many who are currently uncommitted are privately supporting Obama and are looking for a more opportune time to come forward, perhaps hoping that the next few weeks of contests will force Clinton out of the race without their having to do anything. Politico is thus reporting that Obama backers are confident that many of the undecided supers in Congress have already decided in Obama's favor, with Claire McCaskill leading the chorus of optimists.

Yet, how much of this is spin? Over and over again over the past few months there have been rumors that Obama was about to announce a wave of superdelegate endorsements. Those rumors have never come to pass, and that suggests that these superdelegates remain undecideds no matter who they might be supporting; after all, the Obama campaign could close the deal if they obtained a big wave of superdelegate endorsements. And this is probably the best the Clinton campaign is hoping for right now; they know their case for why Obama is unelectable is not yet convincing and that they need a more evidence (that they hope will be supplied on May 6th, in KY and WV and in the consequences of the Wright controversy) to get superdelegate to reconsider. For now, all the Clinton campaign wants is to keep superdelegates patient.

Yesterday night, speculation started building again that Obama was about to unveil a number of superdelegates today to try and change the subject away from Wright and the rough week he has been having. And this time he is actually delivering, with 3 congressional endorsements for Obama this morning alone:

• Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana, who gives Obama credibility among the blue-collar constituency he needs in the Hoosier state.
• Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa, who was an Edwards supporter during the caucuses.
• Rep. Lois Capps of California.
  

In a sign of how close this primary contest has really become, Hillary Clinton has unveiled the same number of superdelegates since my last post about this yesterday:

• Bill George, the president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.
• Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
• Luisette Cabanas, a superdelegate from Puerto Rico who was convinced during a trip by Chelsea Clinton.
  

It goes without saying that Clinton needs much more than split superdelegates equally; the exact proportion depends on how the upcoming contests play out exactly and whether any of the FL and MI delegations are seated, but it is certain that she needs a very large majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to move to her side. Considering her poor track record in superdelegate endorsements since Super Tuesday, keeping the score equal is an accomplishment for her, but it is far from enough.

As the number of uncommitted superdelegate decreases without Clinton picking up a significant number, the proportion of uncommitted supers she will need to get increases; thus, keeping the number of endorsements equal is a clear victory for Obama. And the fact that 10 superdelegates have endorsed in 48 hours suggests that Clinton is running out of time, and that many are no longer willing to be patient. Howard Dean's pleas that voters make up their mind might be convincing some to step forward, and Republican efforts to attack Obama down-the-ballot might be backfiring on Clinton if Democratic superdelegates get concerned that the prolonged primary is actually starting to hurt Obama's chances in the general.

Southern special elections now feature Obama

Two of the major storylines that I had been following closely are now coinciding -- the special elections in MS-01 and LA-06 and the debate over Barack Obama's electability. Republicans have been very pessimistic about their chances in both districts (polls have shown Cazayoux leading in LA-06, and Childers came within 400 votes of picking up MS-01 in the first round). And, as we know, desperate times call for desperate ads...

Predictably, the GOP is using the old strategy of tying the local Democratic candidate to national leaders identified as ultra-liberal. For many years, the bogeyman used to be Ted Kennedy; he was soon joined by Hillary Clinton and, last year, by Nancy Pelosi. But in a development that is surprising many by how soon it came about, Kennedy and Clinton appear to have been replaced by... Obama.

Republicans are now running a series of ad "accusing" Cazayoux and Childers of ties to national Democrats, among which "liberal Barack Obama" figures prominently. It all started earlier this week, when Greg Davis released a controversial ad tying his opponent Childers to Obama and to Jeremiah Wright. Since then, the NRCC has released ads of its own; the NRCC's ads are much less controversial than Davis' and they stay away from Wright, concentrating instead on taxes and campaign donations. Here is one that is running in LA-06:


And here is the ad in MS-01 (this is now the second one that seeks to connect Childers to Obama, after Davis's ad using Wright):


Both of these ads include the name of other Democrats, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. As such, they are part of an effort to nationalize both of these special elections, take them away from local issues to show voters the big picture of a national fight between two national parties. Given the heavily Republican lean of both MS-01 and LA-06, Cazayoux and Childers have been doing their best to distnace themselves from their leadership in DC and portray themselves as conservative, and this is the predictable response. Note that Democrats do exactly the same thing when they link local Republicans from blue states to George Bush and they blame moderate GOP representatives for voting for a Republican speaker.

What is surprising, however, is the confidence with which Republicans are now using Obama's name. A few months ago, the GOP was concerned that Obama might durably shift party allegiances and lift the entire slate of local Democrats; there is apparently no such fear left in the NRCC's ranks. In fact, Politico details the GOP's plan to tie conservative Democrats with Obama; their article reveals that polling has been conducting in LA-06 showing Obama suffers from a very low approval rating.

Cazayoux and Childers are both expected to win at this point based on polls and on the results of the first round of voting in MS. Were they to lose, it would create a lot of chatter about Obama's down-the-ballot drag; if they win convincingly, however, Obama would likely benefit tremendously in the superdelegate chatter and Clinton's argument that Obama is too risky a proposition in the general election would be undermined. Most of it, of course, would be quite unfair; these districts are very Republican and any attempt at nationalizing the stakes is bound to help the Democratic candidates, not to mention that the GOP is pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into saving them. Inversely, the RNCC's failure to use Obama's name successfully would not mean that the Senator has no electability problem; in 2006, the GOP failed at nationalizing any election no matter how hard they tried. The electorate was determined to vote for their local Democratic candidates no matter what.

For now, the GOP is succeeding in creating confusion, and early returns are worrisome for Obama's hope that superdelegates pay no attention to the GOP's confidence to run against him. Travis Childers is now distancing himself from Barack Obama, going as far as denying that Obama has endorsed him.

Changing gears, Obama denounces Wright

About 6 weeks after Reverend Wright made his first appearance in the presidential election and more than a month after his sweeping speech on race and class in which he refused to disown Wright, Obama changed gears today in a major press conference. Wright's return to the national stage over the week-end gave Obama the opening his campaign was apparently looking for to revisit the issue and take a much harder stance. Speaking to the white electorate of IN and NC, to white general-election voters and to Democratic superdelegates, Obama blasted Wright today. Reviewing Wright's most controversial remarks, Obama concluded: "They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

Obama's tone today was deeply personal; he wanted to sound personally wounded, as if to convey a sense of deep betrayal. "The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," said Obama, explaining that he realized he needed to say something when he saw Wright's televised remarks yesterday. Since Wright did not say anything new this week-end that had not surfaced in videos in March, and since none of the items Obama listed today were novel revelations, what has changed? The implication in Obama's remarks is that he believed that the media was distorting Wright's remarks in March, taking soundbites out of context. Now that Wright repeated the same things in nationally televised appearances, Obama could no longer believe the remarks were taken out of context and he thus joined the chorus of those who profess themselves deeply offended by Wright. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive," Obama said, "but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

There is a very clear reason to believe that Obama is being sincere and that he actually does not agree with Wright: Obama has built his political career on the call for postpolitics and the need to transcend divisive issues like race. I myself do not agree with this message, so this is certainly not meant to be praise of Obama. But the point remains that the so-called "new generation" of black candidates have constructed their political identities in opposition to the "old generation" of leaders like Wright, whom many today believe are throwing the new generation under the bus.

As I explained yesterday, I myself remain fully unconvinced that Wright owes anything to Obama, nor that he has any duty to monitor what he is saying to suit the efforts of a Democratic candidate to get his party's nomination. But this fundamental gap between Obama and Wright was obvious in the Senator's comments today: "I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about."

Obama's condemnation of Wright will likely be the topic of discussion for the next few days and will shape the conversation going forward. The issue of Obama's electability is a major consideration superdelegates are weighing right now and that the Clinton campaign is questioning. How today's press conference is received, how it is covered could determine how much Obama has to keep talking about Wright in the coming months. Note that Obama is likely to go further in denouncing Wright now that he has opened the door to "disowning" him; if Wright remains on the national stage, it would give Obama further opportunities to address the issue and increasingly distance himself.

More polls: Clinton continues to gain ground in North Carolina, mixed numbers from Indiana

I reported this morning that the latest polling news brought some good news for everybody -- with the biggest question mark the North Carolina primary which is showing some major movement without endangering Obama just yet. And indeed, the latest Survey USA suggests that Clinton's NC investments are starting to really pay off:

• SUSA finds Obama's lead down to five percent, 49% to 44%. Last week, Obama was up by 9%.
• The movement is primarily among white voters, among which Clinton has opened a 31% lead; she tightened the race particularly in the Research Triangle area.

This week's other two NC poll had bigger Clinton improvements (+12% for PPP, +9% for Rasmussen) but also had Obama staying put with a bigger lead (+12% for PPP and +14% for Rasmussen). Considering the importance of looking at trendlines, however, there is little doubt that there is considerable movement in Clinton's direction. And the narrative that could be taking shape is exactly what Clinton is hoping for -- white voters moving away from Obama in the context of renewed controversy over Reverend Wright.

Whether this is due to a post-Pennsylvania bounce that will subside by May 6th or whether it indicates a more meaningful change of momentum is still unclear. It is worth pointing out that the Gallup tracking poll shows no sign of Obama picking up the ground he lost following the PA primary; the two candidates are in a statistical tie for the fifth day and Clinton even edged Obama out today, 47% to 46%. In the general election, Clinton now runs 4% better than her rival, with Obama losing 2% to McCain in one day. However, Rasmussen's tracking shows little progress by Clinton, though today is the first day in quite some time that both Democrats have a narrow lead against McCain.

Naturally, keeping NC close would do Clinton little good if she cannot carry Indiana comfortably. And two new surveys from Indiana show two different leaders in the all-important May 6th primary:

• After showing a Clinton comeback in NC, PPP now finds Clinton to be leading comfortably in Indiana, 50% to 42%; as always, Obama is benefiting from the open primary as he has a 15% lead among independents. The result and internals are similar to yesterday's SUSA poll, suggesting (just like yesterday) that PPP changed its turnout model.

• A Howey-Gauge poll, meanwhile, shows Obama very narrowly ahead, 47% to 45%.

It has been obvious for quite some time now that Indiana is the first state in quite some time that could truly go either way; polls with Clinton leading tend to show a slightly bigger margin than polls with Obama ahead, but the Illinois Senator's ability to massively outspend (and thus outorganize) Clinton gives him an added bonus.

Update, in response to Mark: While I fully agree that it is virtually certain that Obama will pick up much much more than 73% of the black vote in Indiana, I disagree with the rest of your analysis of the internals of these polls: (1) A gender breakdown of 55% women to 45% men does not over-represent the female vote; in fact it is a 3% underrepresentation of the female vote, which should be good for Hillary. If this was a general election, you would be right; but the female vote constitutes 57% to 59% of the electorate in most Democratic primaries (58% in PA, 59% in OH and IL).

(2) The partisan breakdown is also in line with what we have seen in previous open primaries. About 70% of registered Democrats participating sounds about right, even accounting for the fact that Republicans don't have a competitive primary. (3) The "already voted" numbers you refer to in the NC poll by SUSA represents 2% of the sample. That's about 10 to 12 people... These numbers have no statistical significance whatsoever, the margin of error in that small a sample is humongous and it was irresponsible of SUSA to include numbers from such small subsamples.

Polls and superdelegates: Some good news for everybody

Perhaps this is a sign that superdelegates are looking to make their decisions known soon: Three high-profile superdelegates (and four total) have rallied to a candidate since Monday morning. I already mentioned that New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman had endorsed Obama yesterday. Today, Obama got another superdelegate, Rep. Chandler of Kentucky; that means both of Kentucky's Democratic representatives have endorsed Obama which is somewhat surprising considering KY might be one of Obama's worst states. The latest poll from SUSA shows Clinton crushing her opponent 62% to 26%! And Obama obtained a third endorsement by Richard Machacek, a DNC member and a superdelegate from Iowa. Considering that Clinton needs to win a large majority of remaining uncommitted superdelegates, this is certainly not good news for her.

Between Bingaman and Chandler, however, Clinton snatched a superdelegate of her own -- and a very important one at that: North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. The North Carolina Democratic establishment is almost entirely backing Obama, so this is a good get for Clinton. Easley is leaving office in a few months and he no longer has the kind of machine that would make this that meaningful an endorsement; but he remains popular and high-profile, ensuring that his decision will be covered by the local media. Clinton is looking for any positive movement in the state to force the race in single-digits, and this is as good news as any.

The latest polls from the state confirm that Clinton has been able to tighten the state -- though not yet enough. Yesterday, PPP found that Obama's lead in North Carolina had been cut by more than half in one week, though the Illinois Senator was still ahead by double-digits. Today, Rasmussen confirms that there is some movement in Clinton's favor:

• Obama leads Clinton 51% to 37% -- a margin that is more than enough for him to have a good night on May 6th. In the previous survey by Rasmussen, however, Obama led 56% to 33% -- a 9% tightening. The poll's internals hold no surprises.

North Carolina looks to be a rare state in which Clinton is picking up ground as the campaign progresses; the most common trend, of course, has been for Obama to rise though often not enough to overtake Clinton's initial lead. How much can Clinton move upward in this state? Even a low double-digit loss would be disastrous symbolically, not to mention that Obama would get a big pledged delegate boost.

Finally, two general election polls bring some good news with everybody, with Clinton more competitive in an AP national poll, Obama in Wisconsin, while McCain can be content that WI will be competitive in the fall no matter what happens until then:

• The Univ. of Wisconsin's Badger Poll finds Obama narrowly leading McCain 47% to 43%. McCain, meanwhile, leads Clinton 47% to 41%.

• Meanwhile, the AP/Ipsos national poll shows Clinton opening up a meaningful lead against McCain, 50% to 41%; Obama is up within the margin of error, 46% to 44%.
  

I already made note of this poll yesterday afternoon, but it was in a long post about Wright, electability and MS-01 so I wanted to also include it in a poll rundown. The AP/Ipsos poll, after all, is a respected survey that often features prominently in discussions among pundits; and we know why intra-establishment chatter is very important in the coming months.

Down-the-ballot: As we wait for the specials, movement in Nevada

Four days from the special election in LA-06 and as the heat is rising in the MS-01 runoff, the congressional committees are continuing to closely monitor developments. The DCCC reported small expenditures over the week-end, including some for field organizing. Turnout is even more important in special elections than in regular contests, and Democrats have had a clear edge in that metric for months now. The nationalization of the MS-01 race could increase Republican energy, but it could also motivate the districts' Democrats; which of these looks to be more true on May 13th will serve as an early clue as to whether Republicans can energize their base with the threat of an Obama presidency.

For now, we can only be amazed at the size of the DCCC's expenses in these upcoming contests. In a pair of very heavily Republican Southern seats, the DCCC has spent more than $1,1 million. This is quite a significant amount, only possible because of the committee's financial dominance, which allows them to take risks they might otherwise not have taken. The DCCC would have been extremely unlikely to devote this level of attention and resources in previous cycle when resources were scarce. Not to mention that the DCCC forced the NRCC to respond despite the fact that the GOP barely has enough money to defend seats that on paper should be even more endangered than LA-06 and MS-01.

Meanwhile, there is movement in NV-03, which is one of the most vulnerable non-open seats this year. Rep. Porter barely survived his 2006 re-election race against a political newcomer and his district has gotten much more Democratic since then, with January's contested caucuses leading to many new Dem registrants (Politico profiles this battleground district here). Boosted by their new-found edge in the district, Democrats believe they had recruited a strong candidate, local prosecutor Robert Daskas. But the highly-touted Daskas withdrew today, citing familial reasons... and leaving Democrats without a candidate.

But the DCCC might already have a candidate to replace Daskas with: Senate Minority Leader and 2006 gubernatorial nominee Dina Titus. As far as I remember from the 2006 campaign, Titus is a progressive Democrat; but her campaign did not live up to its potential then, as she failed to capitalize on scandals involving eventual winner Gibbons. But there is no question that Titus jumping in the race would keep a bright spotlight on the race and keep Porter very much endangered. An added reason Democrats want to defeat Porter this fall is that the representative looks to be one of the most threatening potential challengers to Harry Reid in 2010.

Finally, some news from Indiana's race for governor. The fact that all pollsters are now working in Indiana to survey the presidential primary means that a number of polls of the gubernatorial contest are also being released. The Democratic primary is also being held on May 6th, and underfunded Jill Long Thompson appears to have an edge against architect Jim Schellinger, despite the latter's heavy establishment supporter. In the general election, three surveys show very tight results:

• Research 2000 finds incumbent Republican Mitch Daniels to be tied with Thompson at 45% and edging out Schellinger 45% to 44%.
• The Mark Downs Center for Indiana Politics shows Daniels up 1% against both Democrats.
• The Indianapolis Star has Thompson edging out Daniels 44% to 43%, but the incumbent prevails over Schellinger 45% to 41%.

There are very few competitive gubernatorial races this year so Indiana's is sure to be watched very closely. Among other reasons to follow this race: With Indiana's state House and Senate split between Democrats and Republicans, the governor's mansion could be essential in determining who benefits most in the next round of redistricting.

Wright is back on the national stage, as MS-01 becomes a test of Obama's electability

Reverend Jeremiah Wright returned to the national stage last week as the North Carolina Republican Party produced an ad hitting Barack Obama for his relationship with Wright. Also, Wright has been delivering a number of speeches and interviews in the past few days. Yesterday, for instance, he spoke at the Michigan NAACP convention and his speech was carried live by CNN; today, he spoke at the National Press Club.

Wright first wants to explain himself and use the media tribune to reach new audiences. He also wants to address his relationship to Obama; the Illinois Senator's distancing himself from Wright made the pastor look like an extremist whose ideas should not be included in of our discourse. At the National Press Club today, Wright described Obama's reaction: “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites based on polls…. Preachers say what they say because they are pastors."

The Obama campaign was hoping that its March speech on race would ease Wright-related pressure -- at least until Republicans came to use the issue in the general. But they were surely not expecting that Wright himself would make their job more difficult by voluntarily coming forward and prolonging the conversation surrounding him. Not to mention how difficult it is for Obama to convince voters that he disagrees with Wright if Wright himself answers Obama is only doing that because he is a politician and is saying that to be elected.

Of course, Wright has no obligation to put Obama's interest above his own; dragged through the mud for news, the pastor has an opening to make people listen to him and hear the full context of his theology. Those who today profess themselves appalled that Wright would throw Obama under the bus miss the point that Wright does not think of himself as having any allegiance to Obama or to his election, just as Ralph Nader had no any allegiance to the Democratic Party making it hard to understand why 2004 was "a betrayal." On the other hand, Wright and Obama had a long and friendly relationship that led us to believe that Wright would let Obama do his thing for the next few months. This is what makes this such a difficult question to follow.

Republicans are now rushing in to hurt Obama further. The North Carolina Republican party is indicating that its ad will start running tomorrow; and Wright has now worked his way to Mississippi. Last week, Democratic Childers came within 400 votes of picking-up heavily Republican MS-01 in a special election; now, Greg Davis, the trailing Republican candidate, has released an ad blasting Childers for his connection to "liberal Barack Obama." The ad uses footage of a sermon by Wright and accuses Childers of having said nothing when Obama's preacher "was cursing" America. The ad concludes by accusing Childers of choosing Obama over MS-01's "conservative values." (Watch this attack ad here.) After insisting that NC Republicans don't air their ads, McCain is not stepping in this time; Wright has become fair game for Republicans to an extent that was not expected to come about for many more weeks.

The GOP's willingness to use Obama in down-the-ballot ads to hurt Democrats might hurt Obama's chances at the Democratic nomination more than anything Hillary Clinton might do or say in the coming weeks. Clinton needs to convince superdelegates that Obama is too huge a risk in the general election and that she would be a more reliable candidate. Clinton will now be able to tout a high-profile national poll, as the AP/Ipsos survey today shows Clinton leading John McCain 50% to 41% while Obama is ahead 46% to 44%.

That Republican candidates (who were supposedly so afraid that Obama would have coattails for other Democrats; see IL-14) believe Obama is now a drag on down-the-ballot Democrats is a brutal strike to Obama's electability claims. Is this enough for superdelegates to take the bait?

They have resisted similar dire warnings of an Obama meltdown on multiple occasions over the past few weeks, in particular during the first Wright turmoil and during bittergate. In fact, Obama picked up a major superdelegate today, New Mexico Senator Bingaman. Of course, there is no evidence that Obama will be hurt by Wright's return on the national stage or by these Republican ads; in fact, there is no evidence at all that Obama will indeed be a drag on down-the-ballot Democrats. It is entirely possible that Davis's ad backfires on the Republican. If MS-01 voters generally keep a positive image of Obama, they might not be so upset that Childers has gotten his endorsement; the ad might even energize the district's Democrats and African-American voters.

This only means that the runoff of MS-01 will likely be interpreted as a test of Obama's electability. With Childers on the verge of winning in the first round, would a defeat signify that Obama is indeed a drag on local Democrats? This question is in many way unfair: Davis and Childers came in within 3% on April 22nd and the NRCC is mobilizing in the district; there are many other factors that could explain a Davis victory. Furthermore, MS-01 is a very Republican district that voted for Bush with 62%. Any nationalization of this election is likely to hurt Childers insofar as the Democrat's hopes of winning here are predicated on his convincing voters that he is very conservative. But with Davis's decision to drag Obama and Wright to the stage of a Mississippi congressional election, it is almost inevitable that the results will be read through a national lens.

May 6th polls suggest split decision, with Clinton gaining some ground in NC

May 6th now appears to be Barack Obama's last hope to force Hillary Clinton out of the race before the end of primary season. The latest polls from Indiana and North Carolina suggest a split decision, a result that would be most damaging to Clinton's campaign though not enough to force her out of the race:

• Survey USA released a poll from Indiana showing Clinton in the lead, 52% to 43%. This is the same winning margin Clinton enjoyed at the beginning of April; two weeks ago, she led by 16%.
• The partisan gap is less dramatic than in some other Indiana polls we have seen, but Clinton polls much better among registered Democrats (+12%) while Obama narrowly leads among registered Republicans and independents. As expected, Obama's strongest regions are Indianapolis (where he leads by 9%) and Northern Indiana (bordering Illinois), but he only has a statistically insignificant 1% edge in the latter.

• In North Carolina, meanwhile, ARG finds Obama leading by 52% to 42%. This is essentially the same margin as last week, when Obama lead by 11%.
• Clinton keeps the race within single-digits among registered Democrats, 51% to 43%, while Obama trounces her 58% to 35% among independents.

• Update: Well, well, well: PPP just released its latest poll from North Carolina and, while Obama is still way ahead, there is some major movement in Clinton's direction. Obama leads 51% to 39%; last week, he was ahead by 25% so his lead has been cut by half since the Pennsylvania primary.
  
• PPP had been showing 20%+ Obama leads in North Carolina for a few weeks now, so last week's survey wasn't isolated. Note that PPP's turnout model appears to be favorable to Obama; PPP predicted a 4% victory for Barack in PA. Did they change their turnout model accordingly, or did Clinton pick up 13% within the original model?
  

In order to score a credible enough victory to be taken seriously in the final stretch (not the type of victory that would change the fundamentals of the race), Clinton does not need to win both states on May 6th but she cannot afford a significant loss in North Carolina; she probably has to keep the margin well within single-digits but polls confirm that will be a tall order for her. In Indiana, Clinton needs a comfortable victory of the size she enjoyed in Ohio and Pennsylvania, especially considering that the latter two were demographically better suited for her.

ARG, PPP and SUSA suggest that Clinton can meet such expectations; a mid-single digit North Carolina loss and a double-digit Indiana victory are within her grasp and a small shift in her favor in the next week would easily push her above the threshold in both states. Note, however, that Clinton's numbers in Indiana are among the most favorable to Clinton that are being recorded; some Indiana surveys have Obama leading (LA Times/Bloomberg, for instance).

Furthermore, Clinton benefited from a post-Pennsylvania bounce this week that is likely reflected in these numbers. Whether she can keep her momentum going, of course, is the question. For now, Gallup's latest tracking poll suggests that Clinton has managed to close the gap with Obama and challenged his claim to inevitability but she has not wrestled away an advantage. The two candidates have been in a statistical tie for three days now, with Obama regaining the smallest of edges today (47% to 46%; in the general election, Clinton is still leading McCain by 3% while Obama is tied with the Republican).

Prepare for the general: DNC blasts McCain while Obama clings to his postpolitics

The talk of this Sunday was undoubtedly Barack Obama's appearance on Fox News for an interview with Chris Wallace, the host of "Fox News Sunday." Obama had been boycotting Fox ever since the conservative network ran the "madrassa" story. Murdoch's channel had since been trumpeting this interview, with a triumphant Wallace celebrating the fact that his network is back in the Democrats' good grace. Indeed, the conversation was very civil -- which has provoked controversy due to TPM's criticism of Obama's friendliness. TPM explains that the Obama campaign had responded to criticism that it was going on the program in the first place by pledging to "take Fox on," which Obama certainly did not do today.

There is little doubt that Fox News' coverage of Obama's interview was biased against the Democrat. On Saturday, the day on which the interview was actually tapped, Chris Wallace described his conversation with the Illinois Senator by noting that, "He very much clearly wants to reach out to the kind of moderate conservative Democrats and Republicans who watch Fox and I think, as I say, very much wants to get away from any sense that he's a creature or a captive of the left." Naturally, only a conservative outlet like Fox could phrase things like Wallace does at the end of that quote. Asking Obama to prove that he is no "creature of the left" is an inherently rightist exercise.

Yet, what was stunning in the actual interview was that Chris Wallace was not exaggerating; Obama was indeed doing his best to prove that he was no "creature of the left" by using his traditional antipolitical discourse but also going much further than usual to display his moderate credentials. Reviewing a list of issues on which Obama supposedly espouses too liberal a positioning, Wallace asked him the following question: "I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, let’s be post-partisan, let’s all come together... Do you really want a partnership with Republicans or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?" Obama offered a truly remarkable answer in response:

I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left. During the Roberts (...) nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

In fact, there are a lot of liberal commentators who think I’m too accommodating. So here is my philosophy. I want to do what works for the American people. And both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground (...)

It is true that when you look at some of the votes that I’ve taken in the Senate that I’m on the Democratic side of these votes, but part of the reason is because the way these issues are designed are to polarize. They are intentionally designed to polarize. (...)

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them. And I don’t think there is any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we are always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

It is one thing to distance yourself so dramatically from "the Daily Kos" and prove you are not beholden to the left; it is quite another, of course, to go on Fox News to make such statements. But the most remarkable of Obama's comments is the paragraph that I have bolded, for I confess to be confused as to what Obama means by trying to justify himself for being on the "Democratic side of these votes." The point he is making is fairly typical of Third Way rhetoric; Obama is arguing that ideally issues should not be polarized so that we would be able to approach them from a rational perspective rather than from a partisan one. But this particular phrasing of the argument is particularly blunt. Is Obama taking postpolitical discourse as far as rejecting a party system entirely, and would he reject the Democratic label altogether?

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee, apparently unaware that such partisan battles are a hindrance to the democratic process, is getting ready to take on John McCain. They had released an ad attacking McCain's optimistic statements on the economy; today, they unveiled an ad that makes use of McCain's "100 years" comment to discredit the Republican on the issue of Iraq and portray him as "more of the same."

Democrats have long long been looking to transform these remarks into the 2008 version of Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it." The GOP is concerned enough about this risk that McCain has been addressing it on the campaign trail and trying to get Obama to admit that those comments are being taken out of context. For Democrats to succeed in using "100 years" and "Bomb Iran" as evidence that McCain is just another war-mongerer, Democrats need to hit him on the head with advertisements and force him on the defensive. The DNC's ad is one of the first attempts to do that despite the fact that more than two months have passed since McCain became the presumptive nominee; it still remains to be seen how much the DNC is willing to spend to air this ad. The previous spot focused on the economy is running on cable TV.

State of the race: What are Clinton's chances with superdelegates?

With Hillary Clinton getting no closer to Barack Obama in terms of pledged delegates, her only path to the nomination is to convince a large majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates that Obama is too big a risk for the fall campaign. If the pledged delegate margin stays where it is now, Clinton needs more than 70% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates (using NBC's superdelegate count). Of course, that is a big if as the margin of pledged delegate will evolve depending on how well Clinton fares in the last batch of contests; not to mention that we are waiting for the outcome of various FL and MI challenges (it looks, for instance, like the rogue states' superdelegates could be seated even if the pledged delegates are not). But the point remains that Clinton needs to benefit from a massive movement that would likely necessitate some major event to hurt Obama.

The first problem the Clinton campaign needs to address is find a measure behind which superdelegates that want to vote for her can hide to not fall victim to accusations that they are disregarding the will of voters. Virtually assured of trailing widely among pledged delegate, the Clinton campaign is working to find a way to count the popular vote that puts them ahead in a credible manner; the only method in which Clinton is leading right now consists in counting the votes she obtained in Florida and Michigan without giving any of Michigan's "uncommitted" votes to Obama and without fully counting the caucus states; needless to say that this count cannot be very credible even if it is only meant to protect Clinton's superdelegates.

Clinton got some unexpected help from Howard Dean earlier this week. Her supporters have been angry at the DNC chairman for not resoling the Michigan and Florida mess but Dean unexpectedly endorsed Clinton's argument to superdelegates in an interview to the Financial Times. Superdelegates, he said, "have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election." He added, "If it's very very close, they will do what they want anyway... I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be."

Another problem Clinton faces in her quest for a super-majority of remaining superdelegates is that a significant portion of this group are add-ons that have not even been named yet. There is a total of 79 add-on superdelegates that are selected by the state parties according to various mechanisms, and many of the add-ons that are selected already back a candidate. Just yesterday, for instance, Clinton added an add-on in New Hampshire and Obama added one in Arizona. This means that not all of the 290 superdelegates who have yet to make up their mind are genuinely uncommitted.

Furthermore, there is good reason to question the genuineness of some of the superdelegates whose identity is known but who refuse to endorse. There is little doubt, for instance, that Speaker Pelosi would cast her ballot for Obama were the fight to actually get to the convention floor. Earlier this week, the comments of House Democratic whip James Clyburn launched new speculation that many uncommitted superdelegates have long since settled for Obama: Calling Clinton's campaign "scurrilous" and "disingenuous," Clyburn added:

I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win.

Is it really plausible that Clyburn is considering to endorse Clinton after such comments? Many of the superdelegates who are still on the fence (like Sen. Harkin and Rep. Emanuel) seem to be hoping to weather the storm, clinging to the hope that one of the candidates drops out before they have to make a choice. And if we trust the insistent speculation that there is a whole batch of superdelegates just waiting for the opportunity to jump on Obama's bandwagon, the pool of truly undecided superdelegates Clinton can appeal to is dangerously small.

Yet, the Clinton campaign has been remarkably effective at keeping superdelegates in the past few weeks; considering how close Obama is to the nomination, we could have expected superdelegates to rush to his side, especially if he has a group just dying for the opportunity to rally behind him. The point is that they have not. Until they do, there is no reason to believe that stories of privately-committed superdelegates are anything but spin.

After all, there have been now been a lot of instances of stories reporting that Obama is about to get a large number of endorsement... with nothing happening: Obama was supposed to get a bloc of 50 superdelegates after March 4th, the collective endorsement of the North Carolina congressional delegation never materialized and neither did the wave of endorsements that were supposed to follow the Pennsylvania primary. Echoing the 1992 campaign in which superdelegates were reluctant to endorse Bill, a sufficient number today seem worried enough about an Obama candidacy that Clinton's path to the nomination is still alive.

Pledged delegate breakdown, April 27th edition

It had been quite a while since I last updated the pledged delegate breakdown on March 31st. After weeks of constant elections and states refining their allocation, the six-week lull struck and froze things on the delegate front for a while.

Three changes in our delegate count today. The first, obviously, comes form Pennsylvania's primary -- the only contest that took place in the entire month of April. Second, the numbers out of the Texas caucuses have been refined and Obama picked up a delegate since my last update, now leading 38-29 instead of 37-30.

Third, Iowa held its district conventions this week; you might remember that, at the county convention, Obama had picked up a stunning number number of delegates thanks to the desertion of Edwards delegates, transforming his 16-15 edge against Clinton the night of the caucuses to a 25-14 advantage. The district conventions, however, saw a small but surprising Edwards comeback, as the former candidate managed to get one more delegate elected out of the first district; it looks like Clinton delegates helped Edwards cross the viability threshold in order to cost Obama a delegate -- and they succeeded, a very rare instance of the Clinton campaign out-maneuvering Obama at caucuses. A detailed explanation of how these district conventions function is available here.

Iowa, delegate breakdown after the district conventions:

• Obama: 24 delegates (Previous total based on the county convention vote: 25)
  
• Clinton: 14 (Previous total: 14)
  
• Edwards: 7 (Previous total: 6)

Pennsylvania primary: Clinton 54,55%-Obama 44.45%

• Clinton: 83 delegates
  
• Obama: 73
• Outstanding: 2
  

This brings us to the following total:

• Obama: 1488.5 delegates
  
• Clinton: 1335.5

That's a differential of 153 pledged delegates -- only a small improvement for Hillary since March 31st, when she was trailing by 162 delegates. The Pennsylvania results in particular were a disappointment for the Clinton campaign who had surely been hoping to dent into Obama's margin in a more meaningful manner; the delegate allocation rules and the division between even and odd delegate districts ended up favoring Obama in this state.

It has become impossible for a while for Clinton to catch up Obama among pledged delegates, but that certainly does not mean that this count is not meaningful. Even if Obama suffers a meltdown of the sort Clinton has been waiting for, she still has to be close enough in the pledged delegate count to be in a position of clinching the nomination even if superdelegates move massively towards her -- right now, she needs too massive a proportion of uncommitted superdelegates to endorse her (though the Clinton campaign would respond that, were Obama to suffer a meltdown, a number of superdelegates who have endorsed him might migrate away from him).

To get herself meaningfully closer, Clinton needs to get huge margins in West Virginia and Kentucky, win big in Puerto Rico, score a convincing victory in Indiana and -- very importantly -- keep the race close in North Carolina, the upcoming state that will allocate the most delegates. Naturally, there is also the question of the Florida and Michigan delegates and whether they should be seated; compromises to seat half of the delegations, and at least Florida's, have long been in the works and the DNC is getting ready to hear such appeals.

In replay of late February arguments, campaigns spar on need for more debates

Since the end of February, Barack Obama has been trying to portray his nomination as a done deal while Hillary Clinton is doing what she can to convince voters and pundits that the race is still wide open. She told Newsweek last week that, "Neither of us can win without superdelegates. Neither of us can possibly get to the nomination unless something totally unforeseen happens." Of course, his argument is much closer to the truth than hers is, but as long as Clinton is staying in the race, winning major primaries by convincing margins and forcing Obama to respond to her criticisms, it is difficult to argue that the race isn't in some sense competitive and it makes it impossible for him to move on beyond the primaries.

In a predictable dynamic, the Obama campaign is increasingly trying to act like this is not a competitive race while Hillary's is coming up with new tactics to transform this race into the suspenseful contest of the century -- and these dueling spins are coming head-to-head on the issue of whether there will be more debates. The Obama campaign today announced that there would be no debates before May 6th; they had already declined one in North Carolina to be broadcast in CBS and they have now also rejected one in Indiana. With 21 debates already held, Obama insists, it is more important for him to talk to voters.

The Clinton campaign is now complaining Obama is ducking debate -- but you might remember that they tried to make this into an issue in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary, and we all know how that contest ended. The Clinton campaign is thus upping the stakes this time, calling for the organization of debates in the style of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates, in honor of their 150th anniversary! In a letter she wrote to David Plouffe, Maggie Williams proposes that the two candidates respond to each other with no set agenda and no set rules, with each Senator answering the other for 2 minutes; they could thus stay on an issue as long as they want, and just see where their conversation takes them.

In her quest to still be taken as a legitimate candidate that has been dealt with seriously, Clinton obviously would love as many debates as possible -- and the more momentous the better. In a debates, the front-runner is forced to acknowledged that his nomination has not reached inevitability status; also, debate coverage in the media necessarily emphasizes horse race story lines -- did candidates help themselves, hurt themselves, who won -- thus treating both candidates as having a chance at clinching the nomination, which is exactly the impression Hillary wants to portray. Finally, Clinton needs as many events in the coming weeks as possible for her (and superdelegates) to have something to wait for. As soon as everything but the convention is taken care of, what can Clinton say she is staying in for and how can she make superdelegates hold on?

Meanwhile, the latest Gallup tracking poll (the first taken entirely since the Pennsylvania primary) has Clinton closing the gap with Obama entirely, with the two candidates tied at 47%. On Monday, Obama led by 10%. In the general election, Clinton has opened up a 3% lead with McCain, while Obama is tied with the Republican at 45%. A Newsweek poll released today and also conducted after the primary has better news for the Illinois Senator -- tough he suffers from a big drop here as well. In primary numbers, he is ahead of Clinton 48% to 41%, but that's a 12% tightening since the 19% lead Obama had last week (worth noting that the previous poll looked like an outlier, so the trendline might stronger than it should be because of that). In the general election, both Democrats lead McCain by 3%, 48% to 45% for Clinton and 47% for 44% for Obama.

Obama's financial edge deployed on the upcoming states

With every single one of the upcoming primaries crucial for Hillary Clinton's chances to score an upset, Obama has a major weapon at his disposal that is likely to prevent her from getting the type of victory she needs to truly change the game: nearly unlimited funds.

Obama massively outspent his opponent in Ohio and Pennsylvania but fell short in both contests, prompting speculation that his financial edge was not being put to good use. But it looks undeniable that Obama could have suffered much more damaging losses without the spending; in both states, he somewhat closed the gap and avoided the worst margins some polls suggested he might have to settle for. Also, his PA outreach efforts among white blue-collar voters no doubt played a major role in holding Clinton's numbers to where they were in OH, despite Wright and bittergate coming in between.

In other words, massive overspending might not be enough to win Obama elections, but they are certainly enough to make it impossible for Clinton to score the victories she needs. Now, Clinton is confronted with the same problem in the upcoming contests: In Indiana, the polls suggest a very tight race and it will be hard for Clinton to pull ahead and score a double-digit victory given the financial condition of the campaigns. In places like Kentucky and West Virginia, Clinton has the potential of scoring gigantic victories of the kind she has rarely enjoyed, but it will be hard for her to meet that potential without financial parity.

Fully enjoying his edge, Obama will be on air in every single upcoming contest including Puerto Rico starting next week, offsetting some of the early advantage Clinton has in some of these primaries like Puerto Rico's. Obama supporters might worry that this constitutes a waste of money considering that the cash would be better spent against McCain -- but there are at least a few states that will be general election hotspots (Oregon, West Virginia, North Carolina, the Obama campaign might even add Montana), giving Obama a head-start in introducing himself relative to McCain.

This is the same question we faced in Pennsylvania: Will the candidates' prolonged exposure in front of Democratic voters help their numbers contra McCain or will they emerge bruised and damaged? A few polls (Strategic Vision, Rasmussen) show that McCain has picked up ground in recent weeks in the Keystone state. But the campaign ended on a very sour note in Pennsylvania -- one that will not truly have time to take hold in any of the upcoming states. There is much more potential for negativity in a 6-week campaign than 2 weeks divided between 2 states. Thus, I still don't see the fact that Obama is being forced to run ads in NC, WV and OR now as a problem -- quite the contrary.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's choices of spending also reveal plenty about her campaign strategy: Now that her fundraising has picked up since her win in Pennsylvania, Clinton had some money to use again, enabling her to contest the May 6th primaries (something that she was not sure she could financially just a few days ago). And the campaign has chosen to spend heavily on advertisements in North Carolina. This seems to be surprising some who are commenting that Obama is the clear favorite in NC but, as I argued on Thursday, NC could be even more dangerous than IN for Clinton. A large loss or Obama making inroads among white and blue-collar voters would deal as powerful a blow to her comeback narrative as anything could. Clinton's choice to heavily invest here at least points to the fact that (1) she now has enough money to go beyond Indiana, and (2) her confidence that she can at least keep this race in single-digits.

Friday polls: Will Clinton get a post-PA boost?

Three days after the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton might have gotten a boost from her Tuesday victory if we believe Gallup's tracking poll. Clinton has recovered from a 10% deficit on April 22nd and has forced a statistical tie, with Obama ahead 48% to 47% in today's results which include interviews conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Gallup adds, "Support for Clinton is significantly higher in these post-primary interviews than it was just prior to her Pennsylvania victory." Gallup also finds Clinton jumping to a lead against McCain, 47% to 45%, while Obama narrowly trails, 46% to 45% -- the first time in a while Clinton's trendline is better than Obama's in Gallup.

Clinton benefited from a similar boost of support in the days immediately following the ABC debate but the race quickly fell back to its pre-debate form. Also, Rasmussen's tracking finds no tightening of the race -- though it is on a four-day average rather than a three-day one like Gallup, so momentum swings take a longer time to register. In the general, Rasmussen finds a similar improvement for Democrats; while McCain is typically strong in Rasmussen, he is today tied with Obama and leads Clinton by 2, 47% to 45%.

The two questions in the coming days will thus be: Will Clinton confirm and maintain a boost? And will that momentum affect numbers in Indiana and North Carolina? For now, the trendline seems to be negative for her in Indiana, though she is certainly in a position to win as a new poll indicates:

• ARG, who came closer in PA than in previous contests, finds Clinton ahead 50% to 45%. At the beginning of April, Clinton was ahead 53% to 44%.
• The partisanship gap is fascinating: Clinton leads by 20% among registered Democrats, Obama is ahead by 31% among independents and Republicans.
  

What Clinton wouldn't give to have Indiana be a closed primary like Indiana... This poll breaks a string of surveys showing a small lead for Obama, and it confirms that Indiana is one of the only states since February 5th in which there is actual uncertainty as to who will win, making the job of setting expectations a bit easier. With both candidates now going all-out in May 6th states, these numbers will certainly evolve in the coming 10 days.

Meanwhile, Rasmussen released two important general election polls:

• First, a poll from Pennsylvania finds that both Democrats have lost ground against McCain in the past two weeks -- suggesting that the increased negativity of the final days might have undermined their appeal. Clinton is now leading McCain 47% to 42% (she led by 9% two weeks ago); Obama trails 44% to 43% (he led by 8% two weeks ago).
• Clinton gets 78% of registered Democrats, Obama only 65%; unfortunately for the Illinois Senator, that's certainly not an outlier. Dozens of polls confirm that he has trouble breaking even the 70% mark among registered Democrats.

• In Massachusetts, both Democrats are ahead by double-digits, with Clinton trouncing McCain 55% to 36% and Obama ahead by a narrower 51% to 39%.

Both sets of numbers are significant. In Massachusetts, first, where a consistent wave of polls has shown that Obama could (stunningly) be in trouble against McCain; the most recent poll has him only ahead by 2%. The Rasmussen poll does show Obama trailing McCain by 5% among independents, suggesting that McCain's appeal among Northeast indies remains strong. Naturally, it is difficult to imagine a Democrat winning the White House without the 12 EVs of MA (even McGovern got them in 72!).

As for Pennsylvania, as troubling as those numbers are for Dems, this is probably as bad as it is going to get for the two Democrats to appeal to each other's supporters. The exit polls on Tuesday suggested that a higher number of voters than usual would be dissatisfied if the candidate they weren't supporting got the nomination. At least some of those will end up joining the Democratic side; the exact proportion that will stay away will determine the nominee's fate come November.

On a last polling note, Rasmussen also released a survey of the Massachusetts Senate race and finds John Kerry trouncing his Republican opponents and staying above 50%; he leads Jeff Beaty 55% to 30% and Jim Ogonowski (who came close to picking up a blue district in a special election in 2007) 53% to 31%. Kerry is likely to coast to re-election but it is worth pointing out that an entrenched incumbent like him could have hoped to come even further ahead against mostly unknown Republicans.

DCCC going for the kill in Southern special elections

The first round of the special election in MS-01, held Tuesday, was obscured by the higher-profile Pennsylvania primary. But the result was truly stunning: In this heavily Republican district that gave 62% of its vote to George Bush, the Democratic candidate came about 400 votes from the 50% mark that would have gotten him elected in the first round and 3% ahead of the GOP candidate. No one was expecting Childers to get this close to an outright majority; there were 6 names on the non-partisan ballot and, even if the race was looking competitive, most of the attention was focused on neighboring LA-06 which holds its special election on May 3rd.

But Childers fell just short and thus the race has to go to a runoff on May 13th. A probably very frustrated DCCC can harbor some regrets: It did not meet the NRCC's final spending in the district and ended up spending half as much, in a clear calculation that the race would go beyond April 22nd. Had they invested a bit more in the final week, those 400 votes could perhaps have been found. But this is a a case in which hindsight is really 20-20.

Tuesday's numbers by no means ensure a Democratic victory in the runoff, and Republicans are likely to fight back to try and close the 3% gap. But consider how concerned the NRCC must be this week. An outspent Democrat came close to a stunning upset against a Republican with no particular baggage in a district we only started paying attention two weeks ago. This paints a truly terrifying picture of what awaits the GOP in November. There are other seats that don't feature on people's competitive list because of their Republican lean, and they are plenty of endangered incumbents who seat on districts that are more vulnerable than MS-01. Trailing the DCCC's cash-on-hand by $37 million, the NRCC does not have the money to compete in most of these districts. If the Democratic candidates have such potential in other supposedly uncompetitive districts, there is little the NRCC will be able to do about it.

For now, the congressional committees are raising the stakes in the two Southern special elections. The DCCC just bought a large media buy against Greg Davis in MS-01; the $220K bring their total to $360K; there is no word for now of the GOP rushing to Davis' rescue after the run-off and the Republican strategists are probably now calculating how much is it worth for them to spend considering how little money they have and how close to a victory Childers is.

In a sign that Democratic strength in MS-01 might make the GOP concentrate more on LA-06, the latest Republican spending is coming from the latter: the NRCC bought a $130K ad against Cazayoux, bringing its total to $250K. But the DCCC more than responded with a $257K media buy against Jenkins as well as much smaller organizing expenditures. The DCCC has now spent a total of $670K in LA-06 -- outspending their counterparts nearly 3:1!

The Republicans are staying afloat here thanks to the spending of other groups such as Club for Growth and Freedom's Watch, which has spent half-a-million in the district. All together, expenditures meant to help Jenkins are superior to those on Cazayoux's side but not by enough to outweigh the fact that the Democrat has been favored to win the seat ever since the two parties selected their nominees.

Thursday polls: Indiana is a rare toss-up

We have seen remarkably few polls from Indiana so far but Research 2000 sought to correct that anomaly today by releasing a survey from the Hoosier state:

• Obama edges out Clinton 48% to 47%, a slight improvement from the previous R2000 poll that had Clinton leading by 3%.
• In the general election, McCain beats both Democrats but by margins that are narrower than those Bush enjoyed in 2000 and 2004. He leads Obama 51% to 43% and Clinton 52% to 41%.

• Update: Selzer & Co (which is I believe the same pollster that conducts the Des Moines Register poll) released another Indiana survey tonight, also showing Obama up within the margin of error, 41% to 38%.
• And in truly stunning general election numbers, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41% while Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%.
  

There have been few states in which there has been genuine uncertainty as to who would win rather than suspense about the margin. Texas was certainly the last state in which we went into Election Day with no favorite, but even there Clinton had gone into it the campaign as a favorite. This is why the next two week promise to be so much fun: There will be an actual measure by which to judge candidates' performances rather than the always subjective metric of what losing margin constitutes a moral victory! That said, Clinton will need more than just a narrow victory, but this initial indecisiveness suggests she might have trouble getting there.

As for the general election, it would certainly be very impressive for the Democratic nominee to even put Indiana in play, as the state has not voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964. That said, the Selzer poll does look like an outlier; there have been other general election polls from Indiana and none suggests that McCain is in that much danger here. Not to mention that if McCain is in danger of losing Indiana come November he probably will be in even worse shape in neighboring Midwestern states such as Iowa and Ohio -- not that the Obama campaign necessarily thinks it has a good chance of winning the latter. In a memo it distributed today to superdelegates and that the Washington Post obtained, the campaign lists what states Obama will concentrate on, classifying them as "big states," "traditional battlegrounds" and "new states" (CO and VA, but also TX, ND and MT). This was meant to be a memo about electability, which explains the inclusion of TX, ND and MT as there have been some polls lately in which Obama has been strong but not Clinton. But much more shocking is that Florida and Ohio have just been left out of the memo!

Two other general election surveys were released over the past two days by Rasmussen:

• In Minnesota, Obama crushes McCain 52% to 37%. Clinton is ahead by a much narrower 47% to 42%. This is a significant improvement for both Democrats; a month ago, Obama lead McCain by 4 and Clinton trailed by 1.

• In Nevada, however, another crucial swing state that is near the top of the Democrats' pick-up list, McCain is leading both Democrats, 48% to 43% against Obama and 48% to 38% against Clinton -- a rare case in which there the proportion of undecided voters is much higher in Hillary's match-up.
• Last month, both Democrats led McCain -- Obama by 4%, which was already a decline from the month before when Obama led by 12%.

Both of these states will be very disputed all the way to November. Minnesota is one of the blue states the GOP is assured of contesting; not only did it only narrowly reject Bush in 2004, but the GOP convention will be held in St. Paul this year and MN Governor Pawlenty is at the top of McCain's vice-presidential list. As for Nevada, Democrats know they must make inroads in the West if they want to survive the census reallocation that will have kicked in by the next presidential election. They have room to grow in the region and the Obama campaign clearly believes that the West (starting with Colorado) is fertile ground for the Illinois Senator.

Finally, Rasmussen also released a Senate poll from Minnesota:

• It shows Senator Norm Coleman leading Al Franken 50% to 43%. This is a second month in a row the Republican is improving his position since trailing 49-46 in February. Last month, Coleman was leading by 2%, 48-46.

This is the first time Coleman is reaching 50% in a Rasmussen poll, the vulnerability threshold no incumbent wants to fall under. Note that Franken's trajectory is going downward just as he looks to be securing the DFL's nomination. This race is probably the purest Senate toss-up along with Alaska's Senate race, as all other races more or less clearly lean towards the incumbent or challenging party. With Democrats unable to make much of a move right now in Maine and Oregon, Franken could benefit from more DSCC attention.

Wright makes his first ad appearance, as everyone has something to say about Obama's electability

The North Carolina Republican Party has decided to produce and air (supposedly over the objections of the RNC) an ad blasting the state's two Democratic gubernatorial candidates for supporting Obama in the wake of Wright (you can watch the ad here). This ad starts one of the most discussed clips from a Wright sermon in which the pastor says "God damn America;" the bottom half of the screen describes Wright as "Obama's 'spiritual mentor' for 20 years." The ad goes on to announce that gubernatorial candidates Moore and Perdue are both supporting Obama and concludes them to be too extreme for North Carolina.

This ad is bound to be controversial, if only because it is I believe Wright's first appearance in a television ad that will get air time; it thus serves as the prelude to a crucial Republican strategy in the coming months. No matter how much the RNC and the McCain campaign profess to not want this ad to air, there is no question that many third-party groups will blast Obama with similar images. Another reason the ad is sparking a lot of controversy is its quite awful race-baiting, pointed out by Politico's Jonathan Martin. The ad places the focus on a picture of Obama with Perdue, a white woman, while the picture of Moore shows him alone; towards the end of the ad, the Perdue picture grows and Moore's recedes. You might remember that Republicans had already been accused of playing on the fear of interraciality in 2006 in Tennessee's Senate campaign featuring Harold Ford.

The ad is introduced in a context of heavy discussion of Obama's electability. Now that Clinton's main hope to clinch the nomination is to convince superdelegates that Obama is unelectable, his standing among white men, blue-collar voters and Catholics and his prospect of boosting African-American turnout are being closely examined; his verbal gaffes are fueling discussions about his prospects in November;and articles being penned about how Obama has become the "next McGovern." Odds are that this discussion is coming too late for it to meaningfully weaken Obama's hold on the nomination, but the discussion should certainly proceed. The answer to these questions will determine Obama's fate in November.

The Republican Party is clearly hoping that it can make Obama unelectable among white voters by using Wright's sermons as a rally point; these also allow them to race-bait while hiding behind a facade of patriotism. There will surely be a lot more where this came from, and Obama is going to have to weather those attacks convincingly.

But one thing has to be pointed out: There is for now no evidence anyone can give that Obama is suffering from an insurmountable electability problem; nor, for that matter, that Clinton is. Polls show both Democrats have weaknesses, and both have strengths; Hillary Clinton and Obama looking like the stronger candidate at differing times and in different states (just take a look at SUSA's latest wave of general election polls). In other words, these questions have not yet been answered conclusively.

This is why I ultimately find the North Carolina ad so surprising: Republicans might wish that running ads associating gubernatorial candidates to the Obama campaign would hurt down-the-ballot Democrats, but where are they getting the information that it will actually hurt them? If anything, Moore and Perdue probably want voters to see pictures of them associated with the Obama campaign; perhaps the GOP will succeed in making Obama radioactive by November, but it is absurd to treat the Illinois Senator as if he were George W. Bush. You might remember that, in the March special election in IL-14, the Democratic candidate ran ads featuring Obama; sure, this was his home-state, but IL-14 was a very red district. Foster won, and he clearly had no qualms about running on Obama's coattails.

The same argument applies to those who are certain that Clinton will drag down-the-ballot Democrats down. There is no evidence that Clinton runs worse than Obama in red states; if anything, most polls agree she motivates the Democratic base more even in deeply Republican areas. Such a disingenuous discussion of electability comes to us (as often) from Kos, who has become one of the most virulent anti-Clinton bloggers; yesterday, he wrote a post listing a very selective set of polls all showing that Obama is more electable than Clinton and concludes, "she runs behind Obama in the general." Any one who has read this site regularly knows that is not a conclusion that can be drawn that easily. Kos lists last week's SUSA polls from IA and MN, for instance but conveniently forgets too mention that the same day SUSA released surveys from OH and MO showing Clinton running 16 and 9 points ahead of Obama, respectively; not to mention all the polls suggesting that Obama would struggle tremendously in Massachusetts. Once again, this is not too say that Clinton is more electable than Obama but that it is partisan spin to herald as evidence of Obama's superior appeal a few carefully selected surveys.

But it is one thing for both sides to spin their own candidate's electability and their opponent's unelectability. It is quite another for the North Carolina Republican Party to try to hurt Moore and Perdue by stupidly highlighting their association with Obama when such an association probably helps them.

Clinton's hope must be that superdelegates take the bait and, afraid that these types of ads multiply across the country in the coming months, jump on the Clinton electability bandwagon. This was the same hope after bittergate when the NRCC was taunting Democratic representatives. It did not happen then, but this is obviously the type of events Clinton needs if she wants to change the tide.

May 6th: Two crucial contests, but for different reasons

Clinton having survived to fight another day, all eyes turn to May 6th contexts, Indiana and North Carolina. Both candidates are now scheduled to criss-cross the states, and Indiana is likely to be portrayed as more crucial; but both states are very important to this nomination battle, but for very different reasons. Just like on March 4th and on April 22nd, Clinton needs to have solid results to survive; but those will be defined differently.

In Indiana, there are no expectations. This is perhaps the first state since Maine in which there is no favorite going in the contest. This is due first to the absence of polls. There have only been five surveys of Indiana in the past 2 months, three of which have been conducted by SUSA. To make matters more confusing, the three SUSA polls have been very inconclusive, with one showing a single-digit Clinton lead, the second a double-digit Clinton lead, and the third a single-digit Obama lead; among other pollsters, ARG shows Clinton ahead and Bloomberg Obama. None of this is particularly helpful to define the conventional wisdom.

More importantly, Indiana's demographics make it difficult to predict the result. With Obama and Clinton holding very firmly to their electoral coalitions, almost every contest has been determined by a demographic logic and the state's racial and class breakdown. Going into Pennsylvania, Clinton was a heavy favorite for just this reason and, by performing exactly as she had in Ohio among all the same groups, she held strong. Indiana, on the other hand, is a more complex picture (perhaps not seen since Wisconsin).

Large parts of the state are likely to go for Clinton by huge margins, holding to patterns we have been seeing in places like rural Ohio and rural Pennsylvania. But don't forget Indiana is a heavily red state; a very large portion of Democratic votes is concentrated in urban Indianapolis where Obama should come in strong, and that alone should outweigh Clinton's strengths in heavily Republican areas. Also, the Northwest of the state is close to Illinois and receives Chicago television, so Obama will be fighting on his home turf in that region. Read the Politico's piece on Indiana demography for a more complete picture.

That Indiana is likely to be tight does not mean that Clinton can get away with a small victory, however. Just as in Pennsylvania, a win will allow her to stay in the race and fight on until April 22nd; but she also has to win convincingly to offset the likely Obama triumph in North Carolina. For Clinton to be described as having had a good night on May 6th, her Indiana victory needs to be impressive enough to overshadow the margin Obama gets in North Carolina. That is certainly a tall order given that the Illinois Senator is favored in the Southern state while Clinton is not in Indiana; but those are the tough playing field in which Clinton must play.

The stakes of North Carolina, then, are as crucial as those of Indiana. If Clinton does not manage to remain at a decent level, she is unlikely to receive any traction at all out of May 6th no matter what happens in Indiana. North Carolina is the biggest state that is left to vote, and its demographics are not as damaging to Clinton as those of other Southern states. If Obama scores a blowout of South Carolina's proportions or even just a convincing double-digit victory, Clinton will fall very far behind in the popular vote and she will have trouble explaining why she is staying in the race. Remember, her campaign is now premised on the argument that Democratic voters are having second thoughts and that they are denying Obama the nomination.

As important will be the breakdown of the vote in North Carolina; Obama has posted better numbers in some primaries than in Pennsylvania among the voting groups he is weakest in; in neighboring Virginia, for instance. Just as in Pennsylvania, the exit polls will be scrutinized for the vote of blue-collar voters and whites; Obama and Clinton would be well-advised to spend a lot of time courting those voters in North Carolina. If he can show that those groups meaningfully moved towards him, it could offset Clinton's argument that he is unelectable as much as any result in Indiana.

Most people are now saying that Clinton would only have to withdraw if she were to lose Indiana; but her position would become as untenable if Obama got great results in North Carolina. That said, the odds right now still favor a Clinton survival. She is in a position to win the Hoosier state and she has not collapsed in North Carolina. Some polls show her trailing by more than 20%, but SUSA's latest poll released on Tuesday shows Obama up single-digits, 50% to 41%. And in a familiar pattern, Obama's lead is pulled upward by independent voters, who support him by 22%.

Looking ahead: Will superdelegates continue waiting?

The Democratic race continues, and very little has changed. Superdelegates and donors are now Hillary Clinton's primary audience, more so even than the voters of the upcoming state. She will not be able to meaningfully dent Obama's lead among pledged delegates and there are only a few important contests remaining; Clinton has to score credible victories in most of them, certainly, but she first has to convince superdelegates to wait until June to make up their mind and persuade donors that her campaign is still worth contributing to.

Yesterday's results have been a great success in tremendously boosting Clinton's fundraising. Hillary's campaign is reporting that they have now raised $10 million since the polls closed last night and from now 50,000 donors. That's a very impressive display of strength and, considering how close to being broke Clinton was 24 hours ago, this money will allow her to press on; even if she remains far behind Obama's fundraising haul, it looks like Clinton is more willing to spend her entire fortune while Obama understandably would want to save some for the summer fight against McCain.

[Update: The Clinton campaign via Terry McAuliffe later corrected itself saying it was on track to raise $10 million in 24 hours, still an impressive sum but certainly not what I wrote here. Note that some are doubting these claims. Update 2, Thursday morning: Well, the $10 million happened after all, as of 11pm last night.]

Meanwhile, the superdelegate question is up in the air. There appears to be a consensus that a large number of uncommitted superdelegates are looking to endorse Obama but are unsure of when to do so, with many planning on waiting until the end of the voting process on June 3rd. For now, indeed, there has been no massive movement towards one candidate of the kind that could end the race.

Will it be different this time? Some Obama supporters are hoping that, instead of triggering panic about their candidate's strength, the Pennsylvania results push superdelegates who are leaning Obama to worry about the harm this long primary is inflicting to the party and openly declare themselves. Just this morning, Obama already got a high-profile endorsement from Brad Henry, the Governor of Oklahoma, a state Clinton won handily. And there have been rumors swirling that the Obama campaign has been holding on to a large number of supers who will endorse him in the coming days;

But how much of this is just spin, an elaborate story that the Obama campaign has successfully transformed into conventional wisdom? What is the proof that such large pockets of superdelegates exist since they have not been coming forward for weeks now. Rumors such as these have circulated again and again since Super Tuesday, hinting at massive movements to come and a resulting implosion of the Clinton campaign. They have never come true. Credible media sources reported, for instance, that Obama would get 50 superdelegate endorsements en masse after March 4th, days passed with no such news; neither did reports that Obama was about to get the collective endorsement of the entire North Carolina congressional delegation come to pass.

Prolonging cruel game, Pennsylvania voters satisfy neither candidate

Once again, neither candidate blinked. In this trench warfare, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held their ground, producing a result that satisfies no one and only strengthens the status-quo. Given a third opportunity to send Clinton packing after New Hampshire and the March 4th contests, Pennsylvania Democrats chose to prolong the race and they did so decisively, leaving no room for Clinton to drop out even if she wanted to. Yet, just as had happened the two previous times, enough voters rallied around Clinton to make her victory credible but not enough to improve her chances of seizing the nomination.

The Democratic electorate seems to be thinking of these primaries as a cruel game through which it can torture its candidates -- making sure neither gets a result that could meaningfully help them. As a result, the race is showing no sign of slowing down and the candidates are already on to May 6th, the next mini-Super Tuesday featuring North Carolina and Indiana.

In my preview of the race yesterday afternoon, I differentiated between three issues: first, what Clinton needs to remain in the race; second, the threshold of a credible victory; third, what would allow her to change the fundamentals of the race. There were plenty of possible results that could have left room for spin, but last night's results contained very little ambiguity:

1 - By posting a comfortable victory, Clinton undoubtedly gained the right to stay in the race and considerably eased the pressure to drop out. After all, how can a candidate who just won such a large victory in a crucial and hard-fought state even think of dropping out? Note that one major problem for the Clinton campaign is money; they are not paying bills and they have almost no money left in the bank. If the financial situation does not improve quickly, Clinton could be forced out of the race because of lack of funds. She was counting on tonight's results to energize her base and get money flowing back in and for now she seems to be succeeding: She raised a stunning $2.5 million in the four hours after the polls closed last night.

2 - Despite falling just short of the double-digit mark, she passed the threshold of a credible victory, one whose legitimacy even the Obama campaign will not attempt to question; she barely reached this level, to be sure, but the tone of the media coverage and of this morning's headlines leave no doubt that Clinton met the expectations that had been set for her. "With Clear Victory, She Has Rationale to Fight on," writes the New York Times today. Keep in mind that the Obama camp was fully prepared to spin a narrower contest as a moral victory.

3- Just as evident, however, is that Clinton's chances to seize the nomination did not improve; if anything, her prospects are even more somber this morning than they were yesterday. Pennsylvania was one of Clinton's last shot at turning the race on its head, at cutting into Obama's delegate total or at showing that Democratic voters are increasingly turning back to her after a flirtation period with Obama. She did none of these things: While the exact delegate breakdown is still unclear, she needed twice as big a victory only to leave it possible that Obama not emerge out of the primaries with a large pledged delegate lead; after yesterday's vote, Obama is virtually assured that he will get to June with a significant advantage among pledged delegates.

On a more symbolic level, Clinton could have demonstrated that something has truly changed in the Democratic primary had she won by 15-20%. At the beginning of the Pennsylvania campaign, such a margin seemed to be very much possible, with some polls showing Clinton expanding to the 20% range during the Wright controversy. Just imagine how damaged Obama would have looked tonight had Clinton pulled such margin off.

Backed into the corner, Clinton undoubtedly survived to fight another day; but she did not move the numbers. In fact, the extent to which the numbers have held remarkably static since Ohio is truly remarkable: Not only is Clinton's lead the same, but the voting pattern of most groups is similar, with Hillary's winning margin slightly decreasing among white men and slightly increasing among Catholics. In other words, Clinton did not demonstrate that those weaknesses have increased over the past few weeks as she was hoping to do; after all, the Wright controversy and bittergate were supposed to have hurt Obama among these voters.

Naturally, none of this is to deny that the inability to move number is as much if not more Obama's failure than Clinton's. Pennsylvania once again served as evidence that Obama had fundamental problems relating to blue-collar voters: The Illinois Senator got trounced in most of the state's working-class or rural counties, and was stuck in the 20s in a number of them -- a stunningly poor showing. Even worse, Obama did not bring about strong turnout among young voters and his own position among white-collar voters was much weaker than usual yesterday; he for example barely held on to voters with a college degree. And all of this despite the fact that he massively outspend her and has been campaigning as the inevitable nominee for quite some time now. If he wins the nomination, Obama will have to urgently address his significant weakness among blue-collar voters if he does not want the Reagan Democrats to desert the party once again.

But this is no longer New Hampshire, nor is it even Ohio or Texas. Pennsylvania was not a zero-sum game but one of the last primaries in a long series of contests that started in early January. Since then, both candidates have held together very solid electoral coalitions but Clinton blinked a few times too many, leaving her trailing in most important counts. Her most important audience now is superdelegates, and she has been somewhat successfully making her case that Obama would go in the general election with glaring weaknesses but that has not proven enough to move many superdelegates her way. A 10% lead in Pennsylvania coupled with the exit polls we saw yesterday help her make her case, but it is only enough to stall for more time not to generate movement towards her.

Now, the campaign moves on to further contests. As always, the question will be whether either candidate can transcend the demographic logic that has determined almost every one of these Democratic primaries. Until he finds a way to do so and however inevitable his nomination looks, Obama will not be able to put Clinton away and both candidates will be forced to go through the motions of a competitive race. Given how much Obama prides himself for his ability to bridge the country's stubborn divides, it is ironic that it is his failure to make inroads in his opponent's demographic base that is dragging this primary longer than anyone thought possible.