1 day to go

Mark Halperin calls today "The Last Monday Before the First Tuesday of the Rest of Our Lives." He is referring, of course, to tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary. The latest polls show Clinton with a lead in the high single digits to low double digits. I maintain that a double-digit win is necessary for Clinton to really claim an unalloyed "victory"; Obama "wins" if he can hold her margin under 5 points; and a Clinton margin of between 5 and 10 points is a murky gray area. Though, the state of the race at around 10:00 or 11:00 PM Eastern time probably matters at least as much as the actual final numbers, since the media usually decides its transitory "winners" and "losers" before bedtime on the East Coast.

Oh yeah, and, um, delegates. Those matter too.

One cautionary note to those who, like me, are hoping for a strong Obama showing. Don't put any stock in the leaked exit poll numbers. I'll publish the details tomorrow, but bottom line, when you look at New Hampshire, Super Tuesday and March 4, Obama does, on average, roughly 7 to 8 points worse in the actual, final results than in the leaked, unweighted exit polls. (And sometimes the discrepancy is 15 points or more!) So when Drudge announces the inevitable "SHOCK EXIT POLL" numbers late tomorrow afternoon that show a "DEAD HEAT" in Pennsylvania, you shouldn't get all excited -- and neither should the media. When Hillary ultimately trudges to an 8-point win, nobody should be surprised, nor should it be considered some sort of Clinton "comeback," for heaven's sake. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 21 times, shame on me.

UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers!

Here are the exit-poll details that I promised above.

P.S. Noam Scheiber writes:

Ben Smith makes a great point here. He says Obama's had such a rough stretch lately that it'll be almost impossible for Hillary to spin a single-digit win...into a victory. Expectations for Obama have fallen through the floor.

I certainly hope that's right, and from what I've read, the MSM seems to be sticking to its "Hillary must win big" guns for once (see, e.g., this AP article), rather than allowing the yea scenario to repeat itself.

Anyway, Scheiber goes on:

[O]ne thing to keep in mind is that the psychology of the moment almost certainly favors Obama. I've argued that it's really hard for him to land a knockout blow because, while a lot of voters don't want Hillary to win, they don't want her to lose either. Every near-death encounter--New Hampshire and March 4 in particular--seems to net her a bounce.

But it obviously doesn't look like she faces elimination in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. On top of which, she's looking as unsympathetic as she's looked in weeks. So in some respects, the conditions may be ripe for a better-than-expected Obama showing: People can vote for Obama without worrying about killing Hillary, and those who do think they're killing Hillary may actually want to by now.

As long as "better than expected" doesn't become "expected," then yes. :)

Comments

[yea]

i hope im wrong but i think hillary is going to win this state by 10-12 points.

i think obama should win nc comfortably, and indiana might be his next shot to really put this away. i have a feeling that a lot of supers are waiting for a nc/ind sweep to endorse obama. these supers dont want to endorse him now and look stupid after he loses pa.

[Angrier and Angrier]

It's a valid point to consider that Hillary has taken the gloves off, thrown in the kitchen sink and still wasn't able to gain significant ground over Obama. If anything, should Obama come in a close second, Hillary has inadvertently made the argument for him that he will be able to run in a mud-slinging general election.

[yea]

i think the fact that mccain's momentum against obama has stalled is more important. we know hillary isn't going to be the nominee. so im paying attention to all of this with an eye toward how this will all affect the general election.

mccain's momentum against obama has stalled the past few weeks and i think this is bad news for him. he faces a huge and growing fund raising disadvantage and has been under little fire for a long time. obama will have better grass roots orgs in pretty much every state and mccain has just as much dirty laundry as obama. obama can also expect a bump, similar to the one mccain got, once hes officially the democratic nominee.

[copndor]

Drudge is running: CLINTON INTERNALS SHOW 11-POINT LEAD IN PA

I was hoping for the headline:
CLINTON INTERNALS SHOW BOLOGNA SANDWICH AND TRACES OF CROWN ROYAL

[Angrier and Angrier]

According to Drudge, Clinton's internal numbers have her with an 11 percent lead. Best case scenario (hers) she still has a pretty good chance of ending up in single digits.

[Brendan Loy]

Didn't we hear enough about Clinton's internals in the 1990s? Jeez.

[copndor]

Tehehe. Intern internals.

[Marty West]

Brendan,

Have you seen Hillary's latest fear mongering ad?

Sickening.

As soon as I saw that I decided I will be voting for Obama tomorrow.

[Ed]

Dick Morris said that if HRC wins in the high single digits, she comes away with a net of about 10 delegates in PA.

We are well past any rational discussion of actual results. The MSM, with the complicity of the DNC, is creating false premises or strawmen to pressure HRC to quit. HRC has fought back with the same with her version of "expectations."

If the lady wishes to go to Denver and demand a vote, she has earned the privilege. Given the bi-weekly gaffes and/or revelations as regards BHO (I didn't know until today that he WENT TO AYERS' home for a fundraiser until today) she would be nuts to not give him enough time to screw up further.

[Joe Mama]

C'mon Ed, Obama's association with unrepentant terrorists is irrelevant . . . policy questions only, please.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Joe Mama-

Where were you when the footage of Rummy hanging out with Saddam was flying around? Or Bush Sr. addressing the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s? Or Dick Cheney setting up Halliburton operations in Iran in the late 1990s (circumventing U.S. law in the process)?

Joe Mama, you are SOOOO funny!

[Joe Mama]

I'm not nearly as funny as you are with your ridiculous and inapt comparisons, Max. To wit, there were perfectly legitimate reasons for the U.S. to be allied with Iraq against Iran, or with the Mujahadeen against the USSR. What's Obama's excuse with befriending Ayers? By your absurd logic, the U.S. shouldn't have opposed the U.S. USSR during the Cold War simply because we were allies against Hitler in WWII.

[Hugh]

Did you know that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is less than 50% black? More than half of his ancestry is white.

[Evil Pundit]

The more we learn about Obama, the less electable he is.

I find myself hoping he gets the nomination, as he will be easier to defeat than Hillary.

[Jim]

Joe Mama: Uh, you are making Max's point. Politics (be they international or domestic) make strange bed fellows.

I'm sorry, but a single party at a guy's house vs military aid?

[david]

It will be fascinating. Will America actually elect a racist traitor like Obama? Sadly, it just might happen. Obama has the media at his back, and, so far, has been a very skilled liar. Will his lies and deception work? We'll find out.

[Mark Poling]

"Where were you when the footage of Rummy hanging out with Saddam was flying around?"

I believe Rumsfield was quite eloquent and verbose (in both the literal and figurative senses) in his later denunciation of Saddam Hussein.

Obama towards Ayers, not so much.

[Roy Mustang]

Ayers would be a great Sec. of Homeland Security. Who better to get into the terrorist mind than a terrorist? Of course, this is assuming he doesn't turn against us and starts setting bombs again....

[Tom W.]

C'mon Ed, Obama's association with unrepentant terrorists is irrelevant... policy questions only, please.

Posted by: Joe Mama | Apr 21, 2008 4:31:58 PM

Joe Mama-

Where were you when the footage of Rummy hanging out with Saddam was flying around?

Posted by: Mad Max, Esquire | Apr 21, 2008 7:20:33 PM
_____________________________________
Why are you bringing up Saddam? He had nothing to do with terrorism, remember? He was just an avuncular, harmless eccentric who we attacked for no reason at all.

Bush lied, people died. Really.

[Tom W.]

C'mon Ed, Obama's association with unrepentant terrorists is irrelevant... policy questions only, please.

Posted by: Joe Mama | Apr 21, 2008 4:31:58 PM

Joe Mama-

Where were you when the footage of Rummy hanging out with Saddam was flying around?

Posted by: Mad Max, Esquire | Apr 21, 2008 7:20:33 PM
_____________________________________
Why are you bringing up Saddam? He had nothing to do with terrorism, remember? He was just an avuncular, harmless eccentric who we attacked for no reason at all.

Bush lied, people died. Really.

[Denny, Alaska]

It will be easy to defeat Her Hillaryness in November, should she somehow manage to pull out the nomination.

It will be *very* easy to defeat The Barry. The man is a walking punch line. He'll be 527'ed to death before August.

[M. Simon]

I think Hillary's nuke Iran comment is setting up the next stage of the fight.

Obama is a punk.

His come back of course would be to repeat an earlier campaign theme. Bomb Pakistan.

Hillary will then come back with - I have gone to Iraq.

Obama can then mention Indonesia or maybe amnesia or something.

What would McCain say? I've flown bombing missions.

Obama will then be totally punked.

[M. Simon]

David,

In '04 withe the media covering Kerry's six he lost convincingly.

In '08 the media is smaller and the 'net is larger.

The Democrats have two choices. A defeat or a rout. It looks like they are choosing a rout.

Why? Because they CAN.

[M. Simon]

Remember Democrats we have nothing to fear from Islam's 1400 year war against the West.

[Joe Mama]

Uh, you are making Max's point. Politics (be they international or domestic) make strange bed fellows.

I'm sorry, but a single party at a guy's house vs military aid?

Jim is actually making my point. There is a huge difference between "a single party at a guy's house" (which is not the only basis for Obama's relationship with Ayers, by the way) and military aid to another group or country. There were perfectly valid foreign policy reasons to aid Iraq against Iran and the Mujahadeen against the USSR (and the USSR again Nazi Germany, for that matter), the most obvious one being that the side we supported in each instance was the lesser of two evils. The lesser evil then became the greater evil -- foreseeable in some instances (the USSR after WWII), less so in others (the Mujahadeen after the USSR was expelled from Afghanistan). To forego opposing the greater evil out of some absurd sense of loyalty based on prior common cause would be a dangerously asinine foreign policy.

How any of those examples Max offered is a justification for Obama befriending an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers is beyond me. What was the greater evil that Obama was confronting that required him to make common cause with a terrorist like Ayers? Oh wait, let me guess . . . BOOSH (he wasn't even president then, but why should that matter . . .)