The NYT takes apart the latest Clinton nonsense:
"I won the states that we have to win -- Ohio, now Pennsylvania," Mrs. Clinton said on CNN about her successes over Senator Barack Obama, in one of her six appearances on morning news shows. "It's very hard to imagine a Democrat getting to the White House without winning those states."
Mrs. Clinton says her popularity among blue-collar workers, women and Hispanics makes her the candidate to beat Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the swing states that decide presidential races. Along with Ohio and Pennsylvania, she also cites her success in Michigan and Florida -- even though the Democratic Party disqualified those contests, and Mr. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot -- to claim an edge in crucial battlegrounds.Yet for all of her primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.
According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones -- just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.
And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women.
Mr. Obama may lead in the national popular vote and among delegates needed to win the nomination, but his inability to "close the deal" with voters -- a phrase Mrs. Clinton skewered him with Tuesday -- has been widely discussed in light of the Pennsylvania results. Mr. Obama found himself on the defensive over the issue Wednesday, and he countered that the governors of Ohio and Pennsylvania had worked their political networks on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.
"Among all these groups that people have been focused on -- blue-collar workers, white working-class folks -- we did better in Pennsylvania than we did in Ohio, so we're continually making progress," Mr. Obama told reporters in Indiana, which holds its primary on May 6. "If you look at these states that I'm supposed to win, if you look at the polling, I actually do if not as well then better than Senator Clinton relative to Senator McCain."
In recent weeks, Clinton advisers have been challenging Mr. Obama's electability in a general election, and her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania are perhaps her best evidence yet to argue that she is better suited to build a coalition across income, education and racial lines in closely contested states.
But the Pennsylvania exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for five television networks and The Associated Press, underscore a point that political analysts made on Wednesday: that state primary results do not necessarily translate into general election victories.
"I think it differs state to state, and I think either Democrat will have a good chance of appealing to many Democrats who didn't vote for them the first time," said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster not affiliated with either campaign. "Take Michigan. It has a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators, and many Democratic congressmen, so it's probably going to be a pretty good state for the Democrats in a recession year."
Mr. Hart, as well as Obama advisers, also say that Mr. Obama appears better poised than Mrs. Clinton to pick up states that Democrats struggle to carry, or rarely do, in a general election, like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, all of which he carried in the primaries. Obama advisers say their polling indicates he is more popular with independents, and far less divisive than Mrs. Clinton, in those states.
"Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn't go as wide," Mr. Hart said. "Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats."
And that's what this is really all about. If you believe like Sen Clinton does that the political map is fixed and unchangeable, then Sen. Obama's candidacy is a fairly major risk for the party. But if you believe like I do that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redraw the map in ways that will favor the Democratic Party for decades to come, then Sen. Clinton's candidacy means throwing that opportunity away. And given that Obama will be our nominee this fall, it looks like we're going to test that theory whether Sen. Clinton likes it or not.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
