A Good Answer

From the AP:

Democratic front-runner Obama rallied college students at the University of Texas Pan American in Edinburg on Friday, touting his plans to make education more affordable.

Texas allows voters to cast their ballots early, and the Illinois senator prodded them to do so.

"Right after this rally you need to go find your polling place and you need to go vote," he said.

"I won't tell you who to vote for," the candidate added.

"Obama!" the crowd shouted.

"That's a good answer," he replied.

Be Careful...

"In order to take the village, she will have to destroy it."
Conservative publicist Craig Shirley, on what Hillary has to do to win.

In order to win, Clinton has to take Obama down with something big, something vicious, and keep at it until she destroys him. Where have we heard this advice before? It sounds familiar, but it is what consultants (especially Republicans, but not all) and reportedly some in her own campaign are telling Hillary.

Their logic hardly justifies seven figure fees--it's in a way obvious and stupid. Hillary's chance of winning the nomination is so remote that only something major will provide her the opportunity. And of course, once she does that, the nomination is no longer worth having, because she will have destroyed her chances at election. So if she doesn't do it, she doesn't become President. And if she does it, she doesn't become President, and we get McCain.

Her campaign and its "unaffiliated" 527s are going to throw everything into Texas and Ohio, but in fact there's a limit to how negative they can go--at least for the next 4 days. That's because there's another debate on Tuesday. If they go viciously negative before then, Hillary will get questions about it, and Obama will call her on it. And we saw Thursday how welcoming debate audiences are to negative attacks. So as a practical matter, the debate that she insisted on having will protect her campaign from itself. Allow me to coin a phrase, totally original because my words should be my own: be careful what you wish for--you might get it.

By then the next round of polls will be out--polls taken since Obama's big victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii. The ones we have now, which show Obama at parity in Texas, and cutting most of Hillary's lead in Ohio, were taken mostly before then. There's already one poll (though it's probably an outlyer) that shows Obama with a huge lead in Texas already. If the polls that come out by next Tuesday show Obama with a lead in one or both big states, then anything strongly negative Hillary does will look like the desperation of a defeated candidate.

The choice will be (as one of those pundits put it--Jonathan Alter I believe) does she go out fighting, or does she go out classy? If Obama has a lead in the polls and she even starts to go after him, will party leaders restrain her lest she lose all those new voters Obama is bringing in, or let the Clintons destroy themselves? We'll see. But if the Clintons get truly ugly, it will start Wednesday--six days before voting day (though Texans have already started early voting.)

Management Skills

Though Hillary tried to turn Obama's confession at one of the debates of trouble keeping track of paper into an admission of poor management skills, her own management of her own campaign is becoming yet another reason that super-delegates in the Democratic party are abandoning her candidacy.

Though the impression of strategic and tactical blunders has been growing, fed by embarrassing admissions from her campaign managers this week, the questionable spending that led to money problems that reputedly resulted in the campaign shakeup a few weeks ago is becoming public with the January financial report.

Some of the financial data indicates lavish spending on small stuff, but the major story--yet to be fully detailed--involves the incredible amounts going to the consultants the campaign employed, either sporadically or (as in the case of Mark Penn) permanently. These apparently include fees in the millions per month.

And to add to the embarrassment of Hillary lending her campaign five million dollars from her joint account with Bill, was the revelation last week that she's charging interest.

One political analyst on Keith today voiced what others seem to be saying: that the Clinton campaign is the worst in recent memory, in terms of strategy, tactics and management. While someone like Joe Trippi expresses great admiration for the Obama campaign--for its strategy and innovation, and management.

During the debates, Obama has pointed to the management of his campaign as an indication of his qualification for heading the executive branch of government as President. Democratic party regulars are beginning to listen.

Will It Be Over Soon?

The debate did suggest the possibility that all this will be over soon. First there was Obama telling a reporter that after March 4, the party ought to get together and work this out. Then there was the graceless comment yesterday by Bill Clinton:"If she wins Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you." Which is graceless because it places the burden--or the blame--on her supporters in these states. He's repeated the sentiment today, though without the sour grapes sound.

Then came the conciliatory statements Hillary made in the debate, seeming to say her campaign won't fight to the end, specifically over super-delegates. I take that with a grain of salt, but it could be Hillary putting something on the record to control her own campaign staff. But it's only a recognition of reality at this point. The idea of counting Florida and Michigan as if they were real primaries has gone nowhere, except to elicit powerful opposition. The idea that super-delegates would determine the winner against the outcome of the contests, ditto. And even as a practical matter, ever since this strategy was floated, Hillary has been losing super-delegates while Obama has been gaining them.

The super-delegate situation is muted especially by Obama's lead in elected delegates being more than 150, and his popular vote margin of more than one million. Obama also just won his 11th contest in a row, when the Democrats Abroad results finally came in. Obama won in every country, and ended up with a 2-1 margin.

Moreover, Hillary's chances of winning Ohio and Texas by a substantial enough margin to cut into Obama's delegate lead significantly are waning with each passing day. While the possibility that Obama will win one or both states is growing every day. The polls show all the momentum in these states is towards him. His campaign is promoting participation in the early voting system in Texas, and sure enough, people are voting early in record numbers. He's got the most powerful unions on his side now, and the mayor of Cleveland has just endorsed him. The mayor of Columbus endorsed him months ago, and those are the two biggest cities in the state. The governor is for Clinton, but it is mayors who get out the vote--as Obama learned in Los Angeles, where the mayor backed Clinton.

The last ditch effort to support a financially drained Hillary operation with a 527 organization seeking to raise $10 million in $100,000 donations has met with a storm of controversy, as it is evidently designed to circumvent--that is, violate--campaign law. Moreover, the Obama campaign is raising more than $30 million a month, and will soon celebrate its one millionth donor.

The Obama campaign has the money, and it looks like they are willing to use it to end this in Texas and Ohio. But Obama is closing the gap in Pennsylvania, too.

If on March 4, Obama wins all that day's contests by convincing margins, then the march of the party elders to Clinton's door on March 5 begins, assuming she hasn't dropped out by then. This is no longer a "delusional" possibility. It's too early to say that this is likely. But its likelihood grows every day.

Austin, We Have Lift-Off

Those who watched only the first few minutes of the Austin debate heard Hillary Clinton begin by invoking two powerful names for Democrats in Texas, who both not coincidentally were women: Barbara Jordan (whose birthday it was) and Ann Richards. She made a nice, long and fairly abstract pitch for her candidacy.

Then Barack Obama talked not about symbols of the party, but about the problems of voters today, in direct and not abstract terms. And on the symbology front, he quoted Barbara Jordan, after saying she was a hero to him (thus reminding us that she was black as well as female.) Advantage Obama.

Those who sat through the detailed answers on health care learned that both candidates could give detailed answers on health care. They also heard Obama say again that the difference is not so much in their ideas but in how they propose to make them real--in his case, by inviting the American public into the debate (something that Hillary did not do in her attempt to enact universal health care in 1993) and by being a Washington outsider not beholden to the past or to lobbyists.

Texans looking for keys to let them know one candidate or another knew the Texas issues that concerned them got something from both. A question invited Hillary to say why Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, an implication she is making on the campaign trail. She backed off, and talked a lot about how she would make a good one. Hillary seemed to talk a lot about everything. I'd be interested in seeing figures on how much time she got to talk versus Obama's time. Obama's answer to the commander in chief question was short and to the point: if I didn't think I was ready, I wouldn't run. My first job is to keep America safe. (to paraphrase.) Nothing he hasn't said before, but direct and to the point.

For whoever was watching just short of an hour into this, Obama deftly destroyed Hillary's last gasp tactic in her speeches as recently as today: her repeated line "Let's get real." Obama said that it implied that "the people who've been voting for me or are involved in my campaign are somehow delusional. The twenty million people who have paid attention to 19 debates, and the editorial boards all across the country, at the newspapers who have given me endorsements, including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas, the thinking is they're somehow being duped, that eventually they're going to see the reality of things. Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. And what they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions, and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, that we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand it is not just a matter of people putting forth policy positions--Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions--but if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government, and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions, and the religious divisions and the regional divisons that have plagued our politics for too long, then we will see the kind of gridlock and non-performance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways--I'm running for President to start doing something about that suffering, and so are the people who are behind my campaign."

Now let's just look at this statement. He used Hillary's two latest buzzwords against her "let's get real" and "solutions." He reaffirmed his strength: "inspiration." And he succinctly made his case for why he should be President. It was a complete moment, and as Howard Fineman said on MSNBC, at that point the debate was over. Obama had won it completely.

His strategy throughout seemed to be to hone in on his rationale, as he did there, and to confront Hillary's attacks on him--that was the subtext of what he said about health care, taking time to show that her attack--as through direct mail in Wisconsin--saying that he's arbitrarily leaving people out of his plan, is false. He also used a question to directly confront the charge that he's all talk and no action, with specific instances of action. Hillary gave him an opening for one, by mentioning the scandal of medical care at Walter Reed for returning soldiers--Obama had taken the lead on the congressional response.

A question on the plagarism charge gave Obama the opportunity to make it sound as ridiculous as it is. Hillary, perhaps a bit sandbagged into affirming the charge her campaign made, repeated that a candidate's words should be his own, and then gave the obviously pre-prepared zinger, "It's not hope you can believe in, it's hope you can xerox." The crowd booed. Instead of quoting instances where Hillary had used the words of others, Obama let the boos handle it for him, and said this is the kind of politics we want to leave behind.

Then came the closing responses to the question of what crisis in their lives each had overcome had meant the most, or something like that. Obama said he looked at the arc of his life and he'd learned in his youth to take responsibility for his actions. (It may take awhile, but think of the implications for the Clinton White House.) Hillary gave what was for her a passionate reply. She said everybody knew about her crises. Then the rest of her answer was variously interpreted as a kind of admission that she's not going to win. (She also seemed to indicate earlier that there won't be a superdelegate fight to the bitter end--although I wouldn't over-interpret what she said.) Then she said that her travails pale in comparison to some wounded soldiers she met, one with his face blown off.

I had a different response to this than the commentators on TV and on the Internet. To me it was smarmy, a bit of noblesse oblige, and the sentimental cliche of there but for the grace of God go I. Obama referred to things he actually went through, and how they relate to his actions and beliefs now. If I'm a Texas voter, I think I'm moved more by somebody who was raised by a single mom, made some mistakes and then devoted his life to true public service, than I am by a wealthy lady who pities wounded soldiers, especially as they suffered those wounds in a war she voted to authorize.

But it seems everybody else thought it was so sincere and emotional. At least until, in a really cruel irony, it turns out she stole both the ideas and the wording of what she said. Some of it from her husband, which puts it on the same level as what she called Obama's candidacy into question over--the use of a few sentences suggested by a friend and co-chair of his campaign. But some of it--and this is why I thought when I heard it that I'd heard it before--from John Edwards. In a debate (more than one really.) The most recent of which was last month.

This actually comes closer to the definition of plagarism--using someone elses' words without acknowlegement and without their permission. Unless John Edwards is collaborating with her in secret.

(And now, there's a charge that she wasn't even there to witness the moment she described.)

C.W. commentators gave the debate to Hillary on points but because she didn't do damage, Obama wins. Nah. It was worse than that for her. He made a case for his candidacy, and destroyed her negative charges against him. She talked a lot.

Hey Nineteen

One of the notable pleasures of this campaign season is the almost complete absense on TV and in the media of the current President. He's had to go to Africa to get some air time. Now the latest poll shows that President Bush's approval is down to 19%--that's less than a fifth, with 77%--that's more than three fourths--disapproving.

Hawaii 10-0

Hawaii is giving their favorite son a 50 point margin of victory, 75% of the votes going to Barack Obama, 24% to Hillary. Word so far is that the number of voters who participated in caucuses could reach 30,000. Some 4,000 participated last time.

This is the tenth contest in a row that Obama has won. Most of them have been won by large margins.

An Interesting Number

I took a peek at the full exit polls from Wisconsin again, and here's one that says something about the Obama appeal. In the category of church-going, there was a continuum of those who "attend church more than once a week" to those who never attend" choice. Obama won both of those extremes with the same percentage: 56%. For a couple of choices in between, it was up to 60%.

Also, as I noted below, CNN has the women's vote split 50-50. I don't know if that's actually an update, but it would seem to be. I believe there were a lot of people who voted in the evening.

Turning the Page

With over 90% of the vote counted in Wisconsin, Obama is leading by 17 points: 58% to 41%. It is a victory that validates the trends of the Virginia and Maryland results last week, but in a state where minorities--black, Latino and a significant number of Native Americans--comprise perhaps 10% of the population.

It is a victory across demographic groups. For example, this summary: The exit polls show that Obama cut deeply into Hillary's core constituencies in racking up his sizable victory in Wisconsin tonight. Obama made it very close among females, losing to Hillary by the slimmest of margins, 51%-49%. [Update: revised figures have it exactly 50-50.] He won by a sizable margin among middle-aged voters, 53%-46%. He won by decent margins among voters with an income less than $50,000. He won by big margins among self described moderates and conservatives. He won overwhelmingly among people who decided in the last week or the last three days, though Hillary won narrowly among those who decided in the last day.
He won narrowly among members of union households.

Further, exit polls showed the top three issues were the economy, the war and health care--and Obama won all three. There was a virtual tie on capability to be commander-in-chief, and Obama won the "cares about me" category.

Hillary's negative campaigning didn't work, and by something like 2-1 voters thought she was unfair. Obama had a large majority on the most electable in the fall, and over 80% of the voters said they would be satisfied with him as the party's nominee, while Clinton was in the low sixties.

In political campaign terms, Hillary again this week did not take voters from any categories she hadn't won before, and Obama did, big time. Obama increased his share of young and first time voters. Add in the delegates and popular votes won, the 9 victories in a row (with the 10th possibly coming within hours) and the momentum favoring Obama in Texas and Ohio, and the state of the campaign is this: barring something highly unusual, the question is not whether Barack Obama will be the 2008 Democratic nominee for President, but when.

To that point, Obama spoke with a reporter before his speech in Houston tonight and said, immediately after the contests of March 4 is an appropriate time for the party to decide that the nomination campaign should end.

As for how Obama energizes the electorate, Hillary alone got more votes than the entire Republican field.

By the way, Barack was kind enough to email me (and about a half million of his other close friends) with his take on the results:

Today, the people of Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly in favor of a new kind of politics. They rejected an onslaught of negative attacks and attempts to distract them from the common concerns we all have about the direction of our country. No doubt we'll hear much more of these attacks and distractions in the days to come. But the noise of these tired, old political games will not drown out the voices of millions calling for change.

So he's bracing for the full Clinton press. Now here are my forecasts: Her last chance: the debate Thursday. If she can't change the dynamic then, it will be too late by Friday. I expect Bill Richardson to endorse Obama tomorrow, and show up to campaign in Texas. Nobody else is predicting this that I know of. If John Edwards was thinking about endorsing Hillary, he must know that it's now too late. He either endorses Obama and campaigns for him in Ohio, or he waits until March 5 and begins the less than subtle attempt to tell Hillary it's over.

Obama talks about "turning the page" with the next election, which is exactly the right message--I mean, I might say "a fresh start" but...--and it has been the message the electorate wants to send since 2006. (So don't be surprised if Obama wins Pennsylvania, if it gets that far.) But as of tonight, for Hillary Clinton, the page is turning, and it's almost turned.

On, Wisconsin!

About 17 minutes after the polls closed, NBC called it for Obama in Wisconsin. Two minutes or so later, so did CNN. Now we watch for the dimensions, but the exit polls indicate: big, and across the board.

Expectations Game

There' still an hour and a half before polls close in Wisconsin, but the expectations game has begun. The Clinton people have reportedly pointed to exit polls signalling a big Obama victory, and told reporters they expect the networks to call it immediately. So of course reporters are wondering if they believe it's going to be closer than that, and they want to exceed the expectations they are creating.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is framing expectations with this:

Wisconsin is almost the kind of state Hillary Rodham Clinton would have invented to win a Democratic presidential primary, brimming with whites and working class voters who usually support her. A poor performance there Tuesday would raise big questions about her candidacy.

So is this the writer's attempt to frame something dramatic, or are they reading exit polls and getting a jump on how the results will be framed tonight? Are they setting expectations?

As Wisconsin goes, so goes Ohio? Another of the expectations, pushed by the Obama campaign, I believe. In any case, the usually reliable SUSA has a poll in Ohio that shows Obama closing the gap: Hillary has a nine point lead, as opposed to a 17 point lead last week. SUSA also shows Hillary with only a five point lead in Texas.

More on Wisconsin expectations or at least framing the results: Because Hillary went negative, particulary with the first negative TV ads, and she loses big, it will be interpreted as a rebuke on negative campaigning (although she's engaged in it in other ways at least as far back as New Hampshire.) And Keith just asked the key question on this: "If negative campaigning did work, will we see more of it? And if it didn't work, will we see lots more of it?"

Wisconsin Tuesday

Hold onto your hats. It's a cold, icy day in Wisconsin. Polls close in 2.5 hours. But leaked exit poll information point unambiguously to a big Obama victory. The leaks could be wrong (though multiple sources are being cited, the ultimate source may be one guy) and the exit polls wrong or deceptive, but all this is coming in just as students at the major U.s and people voting after work are voting.

Also reports on the Obama ground game are tremendous. Here's this from a Kos thread:

Update 2:25 pm: Obama supporters can relax, because the Obama volunteers are not. They are mad men/women. Just off the phone with Obama HQ in Madison. Some facts:
- Entire City of Madison was hit with lit Saturday - They're doing it again today; F&^* the cold, hitting the Isthmus and campus. - Students do not vote early; they vote when they want, between classes and beers. - Obama HQ on Gilman St. on UW Campus, ran out of phones (too many volunteers), and people used their cell phones to call lists of people. - Cold out (five degrees), but staff is manning an outside tent in Library mall until they drop or the polls close. - Staff is more hyper than I - Obama has been through their phone lists, so they have begun calling them again
This may be Madison-centric, but from here nothing can stop the Obama train; because there is not quit in these people. Wow. I'm 40-something; was I that freaking nuts when I was 20?

This confidence has been growing during the day, though early reports were of light turnout (weather related) in some districts. So maybe there will be some news sooner rather than later, when the polls close at 8 pm, which will be 6pm here in CA. (There's good anecdotals coming out of Hawaii, too, but those results won't be available until tomorrow probably.)

Wisconsin Monday part 2

The latest polls out of Wisconsin show Obama with a lead, but neither is particularly trustworthy. One is by a local TV station, the other by Public Policy Polling, which shows Obama with a 13 point lead. Their polls were off by more than 8 points for Super Tuesday. Still, they polled over the weekend so it's at least recent information.

Reputedly the Obama campaign's own polling showed him ahead by 7 points as of Friday (also ahead by 5 in Hawaii) as of Friday. Hillary came into the state for two days of campaigning (Saturday and Monday) and made some additional ad buys.

But most other signs are positive. With lots of undecideds (at least as of Friday) there's always the problem of late deciders, and with Hillary in the state today and the phenomenon of day of voting deciders going for the name they know best, she could get a bump. Otherwise, the dimensions of the Obama effort are becoming clearer: his presence in the state since last Tuesday, money spent in media, etc. The ground game will be a crucial factor tomorrow. If that's up to snuff, it could be a big Obama night. Even though some in the media are lowering expectations for Hillary even more (Chris Matthews suggesting that if she comes within 7 points it's good for her), a 10 to 15 point victory would look very good, especially if the demographic breakdowns are good.

Al G. is analyzing district by district over at The Field, and he has Obama picking up delegates or being even in every district so far. He's planning to predict the delegate count tomorrow morning.

As you might see below in the comments section of "Wisconsin Monday" part one, Senate candidate in 2012 Ben Masel left a comment to say "I've since upgraded my sense of Obama's strength in smalltown and rural Wisconsin, so my range is now Obama by 6-8.[%]" He believes the youth vote in rural areas will make a big difference. Check out his specific predictions.


What to expect Tuesday: The weather forecast for Wisconsin is for cold and some snow. If turnout is huge, it has almost always been to Obama's benefit, but perhaps especially so tomorrow. But bear in mind what Ben Masel said: Wisconsin traditionally has high percentage turnout. What will tell, I presume, is higher numbers.

Tuesday night: first of all, don't expect returns from Hawaii. They're not likely until Wednesday. Polls close in Wisconsin at 8 pm their time. As much as I'd like another night like last Tuesday--when the TV anchors were literally timing their projection of Obama victory in Maryland to the second the polls were to close--I'm not expecting an early projection.

Obama will be in Texas Tuesday, for an event in San Antonio and a big rally in Houston, where I've "heard" at least two high-profile Latino entertainers will appear and endorse him. (He's already received some big local endorsements in Texas, and a huge one from the Mexican American Democrats, the oldest Latino party organization.) The Houston event begins before polls close in Wisconsin, so I'm not sure if we'll hear his victory speech from there. But it should be a very TV friendly event.

Already Obama is booming in Texas. A poll out today shows he's virtually tied with Hillary there now, which is a big swing even before he begins campaigning there. Judging from all I've heard, Texas could very well be Hillary's Waterloo regardless of what happens in Wisconsin tomorrow. If Obama wins Texas and comes close in Ohio on March 4, there will be a lot of pressure within the party for Hillary to cease her campaign. At this point, I don't think even a narrow win in Wisconsin will stop the Obama boom in Texas, but a big Obama victory in Wisconsin could result in faster movement in Ohio.

Obama held his last rally in Wisconsin at Beloit College (hey, I debated there once in college!) Monday night. According to a local TV station report, some people waited for six hours in the cold to get into the event. On, Wisconsin!

Just Words?

The Clinton campaign, in the person of Howard Wolfson, made a big issue today out of a powerful part of Barack Obama's speech in Wisconsin the other night, quoted here, in which he quoted several famous political phrases, and asked the question, "just words?" This was in response to the Clinton charge that all he's about is making speeches. It turns out that Governor Deval Patrick, responding to the same sort of charge in his campaign a few years ago, quoted some of the same phrases, and also appended "just words?"

Wolfson charged it was plagarism, and tried to make this a question of inauthencity and character. Obama disputed the larger point--saying that he writes most of his own speeches, and wrote two books--but allowed that he probably should have acknowledged Patrick, a friend with whom he swaps ideas and phrases (which was confirmed by Patrick.)

The networks used the story, and investigated Obama's rejoinder, that Hillary has used phrases of his. So they included instances in which Hillary used his words and those of her husband and John Edwards. So the story goes nowhere really. The fact that the Hillary camp made a big deal out of it made it a story, but the main effect was to shoulder aside that Bill Clinton story that looked like it was going to dominate the day, with footage of him shouting at hecklers and getting in the face of someone else at a rope line, with angry face and wagging finger.

Otherwise, to steal from somebody I heard on TV, the response has to be: is this the best you got? Plagarism is a serious charge to some of us, but this doesn't come close. For one thing, this was an impromptu addition, and not part of his prepared text. So there was no plagarism in the text. Since the person who "wrote" or originated the phrases doesn't object to Obama using them--and in fact suggested to Obama that he use them-- even without attribution, there is no case.

It was also a very small part of the speech, although Wolfson made it sound like everything Obama has ever said should therefore be called into question. Let the rabid right bloggers get to work! As for Wolfson, to say he is well named is an insult to wolves. All he is about is attack, and the truth is not germane. Mark my words: when Obama is the nominee, and John McCain loses one of his speechwriting advisors who says he'll quit rather than write negative stuff about Obama, it wouldn't surprise me if that void is filled by Howard Wolfson. If he doesn't have somebody to malign, the man's life is meaningless.

TV played the Patrick and Obama sections, and what struck me is that Obama's delivery was so much better. Patrick had the preacher thing going, but Obama's had more of an edge, and it was well integrated into the point he was making.

But the real point of this affair, it seems to me, is that the Clinton campaign created another non-issue and made the absurd claim that it calls into question Obama's entire candidacy, while the Obama campaign said not a word that I know of--and certainly didn't call an hour conference call with reporters--to point out how out of control Bill Clinton appeared yesterday, which calls into question Hillary's entire candidacy, because we don't know what his role is going to be. In the end, I believe this story will tell more.

Wisconsin Monday

I moaned about the dearth of specific information on Wisconsin, not only here but on Daily Kos. There I got some answers from the field--and speaking of that, from the Field later on.

One commenter--a Wisconsin U.S. Senator candidate no less-- responded with a pretty precise district breakdown, and others added to that. (This is what Al G. has started doing at the Field blog.) Ben Masel's general conclusion: Nobody knows how to poll this primary, wildcards include at the polls registration, crossover, and weather...Statewide, Obama by 4-6%. Turnout: Highest of any of the States in the cycle.

There were a number of comments from Obama campaigners in Wisconsin who were uneasy. Several agreed it was likely to be close, and there are a lot of undecideds even at this point. Some felt a Hillary victory was still possible, though the delegate split is likely to be pretty even.

One commenter (appropriately called notscared) made this (comforting) observation that also has a ring of plausibility:

Obama wins by at least 10 points...
I don't think this one is going to be close for the following reasons.
Obama has a superior ground game. If both campaigns had an equal ground and were campaigning hard I would give the nod to Clinton because the demographics suite her. But I think his ground games makes a big difference.
Same day registration. This benefits Obama because of the excitement factor. Most of Clinton's supporters are already in the system and are more then likely to be polled, not so for new Obama supporters.

Independents and Republicans. Independents and Republicans can vote is this primary and this obviously benefits Obama because of his cross-over appeal.
Endorsements. Endorsements don't usually matter but without a heavy Clinton presence strong Endorsements from the local politicians make a difference to the undecides. Add 1.5 to 2 points for everyone of the above and you should have a strong Obama victory.

Perhaps because her events were snowed out Sunday, perhaps due to the polling, Hillary is reportedly going to hold campaign events in Wisconsin all day Monday, instead of leaving after one event this morning. Obama has an event in Ohio in the morning, and one in Beloit, Wisconsin later in the day.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign waited until the last minute to put out a negative flyer accusing Obama of not covering 15 million people with his health care plan, and asking on the front of it--over a photo of a demographically balanced group of actors--"Barack Obama, which of these people don't deserve health care?" The Obama campaign countered with a conference call to reporters with the Wisconsin governor and also with Ted Kennedy, who called the flyer "a distortion, a misrepresentation and wrong."

This is the same tactic used in New Hampshire, with a last day flyer questioning Obama's support of a woman's right to choose. Hillary squeaked through with a lot of women's votes, though the flyer's lies ultimately led to several prominent women activists condemning it, and at least one withdrew her support from Hillary and became an active supporter of Obama.

Slight update: There seems to be a lot of buzz about a couple of campaign appearances by Bill Clinton, in which he engaged in angry exchanges with hecklers. If this dominates the media guff today, that can't be good for Hillary, though it depends on how and whether it sinks in with voters in Wisconsin.

Oh, Wisconsin?

I was only 14 and it was the first campaign--really, the first news--I ever followed, but my memory is that the 1960 primary in Wisconsin between Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy was big news, covered every day by reporters and camera crews on the scene.

Kennedy's win in Wisconsin and West Virginia were the defining moments of his campaign. I believe Wisconsin could be very important this year as well for Barack Obama. But the press isn't covering it. Even the vaunted political blogs like Hotline and Politico are just tap-dancing: noting the ads and the back and forth, but doing no reporting. Same with the big papers, as far as I can see.

So we're left with assumptions and signs, and the valuable eyewitness accounts of people there, who neverthless aren't experienced reporters. I'm back to feeling uneasy about the whole thing. Especially with an ARG poll showing Clinton ahead in Wisconsin, 49-42%. The internals are even more potentially damaging to the Obama campaign, reflecting divisions he'd transcended in Virginia and Maryland, especially the white vote which this poll shows him losing by 8 points.

Why is Wisconsin being ignored?


So it wasn't Hawaii, it was North Carolina: that's where Obama went today, to meet with John Edwards. If there was some evidence that an Edwards endorsement could help with the blue collar white vote, his endorsement would be important. I don't see any such evidence. Endorsing Obama is at this point more important to Edwards' credibility than to Obama's campaign. Stories are that Clinton has been courting him more, and her economic rhetoric has begun to sound more like his. But Edwards couldn't sell it, and neither can she. Only Obama can and Edwards ought to realize this, if he has eyes and ears.