Change? We don't need no stinkin' change

So, Hillary won by about 10 points. Yawn.

Josh Marshall:

Lots of spin coming from both campaigns tonight. I'd say the real story is that this leaves us basically where we were. It was a decisive win for Hillary but that was the expectation. ... There's a lot of crowing from Hillary's campaign tonight about a shift in momentum and doubts about Obama. Tomorrow there will be a lot of chatter from Obama's campaign that none of that really matters because of the reality of the delegate numbers which won't change much.

Like I said, I think that means we're basically right where we were.

I'm not sure how following up a 10-point win in Ohio with a 10-point win in Pennsylvania demonstrates "momentum" for Hillary. If Wrightgate, Bittergate, Debategate, etc., had damaged Obama among Democratic voters, you'd think Hillary would have been able to build on her Ohio margin. But she didn't. On the other hand, if there was going to be a significant backlash against Hillary's kitchen-sink strategy, you'd think Obama would have been able to cut her lead to single digits. But he didn't. He did "rally" from his initial 20-point deficit in PA opinion polls, but I'm not sure that means anything. So we're basically stuck on the status quo, like Marshall says. Nothing has changed. And that includes the fact that the Obama Effect struck again with the exit polls.

In fact, it's not clear that much of anything has changed since Super Tuesday, or even earlier. For all the talk of shifting momentum, I think this contest will ultimately be viewed by historians almost purely through the prism of regional and demographic trends. You don't need to look at the calendar to understand how things have unfolded. Geography and demography alone (and caucuses vs. primaries) explain the results. Obama's February "winning streak" was a coincidence of friendly states stacked up one after another on the calendar; same with Clinton's recent trifecta of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She hasn't really "halted" his "momentum," so much as the calendar has simply shifted in her favor, geographically and demographically speaking. And likewise, when he wins North Carolina, he won't be "halting" her "momentum." He'll just be winning another Obama-friendly state, just like she's winning the Clinton-friendly states. For all its moving parts, this race is really quite static. It's more helpfully viewed on a map rather than on a timeline.

Apropos of which, now we move on to a pair of election days that seem quite likely, based on these rather rigid geographic/demographic trends, to be split decisions: May 6 (Indiana for Clinton, North Carolina for Obama) and May 20 (Kentucky for Clinton, Oregon for Obama). Watch out, though, for the primary that's in between those two, West Virginia on May 13. It's all by itself on the calendar, and it's certain to be a Clinton blowout, given her consistent success in Appalachia, which came through for her again yesterday. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.) It'll be an accomplishment for Obama if he can hold his margin of defeat under 20% there. West Virginia could be her South Carolina. That could really get the talking heads' tongues wagging about Hillary's "momentum." Expect a full-throttle "expectations game" effort by Team Obama to try and convince the media they're writing off the Mountaineer State.

Anyway... on to Indiana and North Carolina! YAAAARRH!!!

P.S. Here's Hillary's speech, and here's Obama's speech.

P.P.S. On the geographic/demographic point: name one state that's been a true "upset" in retrospect, a contest that one candidate won where you'd have expected the other to prevail. Obama's win in Missouri? Maybe, but it borders Illinois, so maybe not. Obama's win in Connecticut? Superficially, perhaps, but I think if you know a little more about the Nutmeg State electorate -- and its maverick streak in primaries -- that was pretty predictable. Hillary's win in New Hampshire? Yes. And that, IMHO, is actually still the only true upset of this entire campaign. (And it only happened because the contest was still a three-way race at that point. if Edwards isn't in the race, Obama beats Hillary there, too, just as you'd expect.)

Comments

[Maggie]

Ex ante, Maine was thought to favor Clinton, though the fact that it was a caucus was thought to provide an opening for Obama. (And Clinton did contest the state). Wisconsin was also considered to be a bit dicey for him. And in WI, VA and MD Obama was making a dent in "her" demographics. I wouldn't call any of them upsets. But it's a mistake to think that only demographics has been in play here. As for tonight, if we take Ohio as a benchmark, this was some backsliding for Clinton. PA was a closed primary, so the margin should have been larger than it was in OH. And in her demographics, her margins in PA were smaller than they were in OH. I think the NYT is not wrong to suggest that she experienced some slippage. Whether it's due to her negativity or the increasing perception that the race is over is an open question.

[yea]

for upsets... how about obama's win in wisconsin... i was suprised he won there as the demographics are similar to ohio but even less african americans.

also lets remember that obama did win texas since the purpose of this primary is to win delagates...

[Father Time]

Are we still talking about "change" in this election. Sheesh, that got old about 2 minutes after both Republicans and Democrats started harping about it. Albeit, change (or the threat of change) is always needed in politics to keep the will accountable and the heart uncorrupt, but let's stop talking about CHANGE as if it's the Eighth Sacrament and Rev. Obama is going to be the consecrating priest.

The only change Obama is interested is the coin he's going to steal from the earned classes and give to the needy. That's not change you can believe in, it's coercion of benevolence, and Americans have proven themselves little in need of such use of the law.

But who am I to criticize played-out overused shibboleths.

[Brendan Loy]

yea, I think Obama's win in Wisconsin makes sense when you consider the voting tendencies of the people of Wisconsin, much like his win in Connecticut makes sense when you consider how Nutmeggers tend to vote in primaries. (Gerry Freakin' Brown won Connecticut in '92.) Maybe "demographics" is too narrow a word to describe this, but I don't think either of those wins are stunning. And anyway, Obama was favored in Wisconsin for weeks in advance. The only question was whether Hillary would "contest" it (which she ultimately did), but he was always favored, notwithstanding my bloggy protestations about a "Wisconsin firewall." :)

Obama's appeal isn't limited to states with lots of black people. States with lots of progressive activist types (e.g., Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, the Pacific Northwest) are also very favorable to him, as are states where Democratic voters have a general maverick streak. This is why I think New Hampshire is the race's one true upset. NH ought to be Obama country.

Father Time, did you read anything in this post beyond the headline? :) Although the headline is admittedly something of a double entendre because of Obama's message of "change," what I'm actually talking about in this post is the fact that the contest between Clinton and Obama has barely changed since Super Tuesday.

[Father Time]

Sorry, I went back to sleep ! Wake me up when they've chosen a candidate :P

[Brendan Loy]

Heh.

[George]

Obama is going to win the nomination by collecting democratic delegates in red states...kids and rich whites in the West and blacks in the South.

This is not a recipe for success in the general election.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Sam's Club is starting the ration rice. But who needs change?

[M. Simon]

George,

Kerry got SwiftBoated.

For Obama there will be flight ops from the deck of a carrier.

[Guy who earned his income legally and honestly]

I don't need no stinkin' change. If by change you mean raising taxes. But hey, I've always wanted to fund 3 other families. Do I get a picture of the child in the mail ?

[Marty West]

Iowa?

[swimsaturn]

Actually, the next primary is in Guam, with 3 delegates up for grabs. I'd love to see some campaign visits there...