The Day After

Some updates on yesterday's events...People are still trying to nail down the Clinton figures but it appears her campaign took in $22 million in April and by the end of the month was more than $19 million in debt. Obama raised $31 million in April and ended the month with $37.3 million in the bank.

Delegates: according to the Field projection:Oregon: Obama 31, Clinton 21. Kentucky: Obama 14, Clinton 37.

On the race: Billary on Wednesday were bloviating about Florida and Michigan in extreme terms, and the convention fight card got shown. This may emphasize Rachel Madow's contention that Hillary is not going to get out of the race until she is forced out.

Ambinder noted the racist vote in Kentucky, while this bothered CNN commentator David Gergen enough that he called for Clinton to reject racist votes. But Chuck Todd sees Kentucky differently: One other thing to keep in mind regarding Clinton's success in Kentucky and West Virginia, and it has to do with the Clinton brand and the economy. These folks in Appalachia have been hit harder by this economy than folks in other parts of the country. And the last time things were looking up was when a Clinton was in the White House. So while there are a lot of folks wanting to think the worst of some of these voters, let's keep in mind: Appalachia and the Rust Belt, more than any other region of the country, are more likely to vote their pocket book when the economy is in the toilet. And this is where the Clinton brand comes into play.

But Todd also sees Obama's so-called working class white problem as specific: Obama doesn’t have a problem with white working-class voters; he has a problem with white-working class voters in Appalachian states. In Kentucky, just one in five of these folks backed him, but in Oregon nearly half of them did.

Todd goes on to muse on the influence of the calendar on these races, and on the perceptions of what they mean that drive the media political monologue: Like above, a lot has been made of the rather simplistic way to figure out who wins a state primary by examining the demographics. But let's not forget the influence the calendar has had. Imagine if states like California, New Jersey and Alabama stayed in their traditional slot of first Tuesday in June? Imagine if Kentucky and West Virginia hadn't been held on days with so few other primaries -- and so much attention placed on them. The order of these primaries has been as influential as the demographics. Would Clinton have won California, Florida and Michigan by the margins she did had those primaries been held after February 5? Would South Carolina been as influential on the national media's psyche if it had been held on February 5 or afterwards? Obama's being over-examined right now on his so-called white working-class problems. But would we even be focused on this issue if Kentucky and West Virginia weren't so prominent on the calendar?

Something else I've noticed about perception is that the numbers they are based on get locked in at a certain point, even though they may change. The media has not caught up with the tightened numbers in Ohio, Indiana and Nevada, for example. They use exit poll information that may have been revised long before. Right now Obama's margin in Oregon is fixed in the media narrative at 58% to 42%, which it was for a long time. But right now, with 96% of precincts reporting, it's 59% to 41%.