Beware Pennsylvania Tunnel Vision.

“Simply put: If Obama (and supporters) set expectations for a knockout punch in Pennsylvania, they will be giving oxygen to a gasping Clinton machine on its last breaths. But if they keep Pennsylvania in perspective (no single state has determined the nomination, although New Hampshire, Nevada, and Ohio were all frantically seen and spun as such in their moments), they’ll emerge from the coming Pennsylvania Clinton victory – a kind of Last Hurrah for the politics of the last century – to cross into the 21st century beginning in early May.” I added this link to the post below, but in case you missed it: Al Giordano crunches the numbers and argues that focusing on the Keystone State is not the way to go.

Along related lines, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe downplayed the importance of PA today: “Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be.” (And before anyone argues that this broader focus means Obama can’t win Pennsylvania in the general, take a look at the polling there. As in many other states, Obama does significantly better against McCain in Pennsylvania than does Clinton.)

So that explains it…

“Despite the attention blogs can get, the poll said 56 percent of Americans say they never read blogs that discuss politics. Another 23 percent read them several times a year, the survey showed. While blogs are largely considered the realm of young people who are most Internet-savvy, only 19 percent of people ages 18 to 31, and 17 percent of those ages 32 to 43, regularly read a political blog, the poll said.” A new Harris Interactive poll finds that most people don’t read political blogs. Believe me, I’ve noticed. :s

24, 24 hours to go…

“All that matters tomorrow – and we might not know the answer until later in the week – is which campaign advanced in delegates and which campaign did not, and by how much. That Clinton spokesman Wolfson is saying here that the Texas Caucuses don’t matter is your clearest indication that he thinks they’re going to get shellacked at ‘em. He’s already spinning them into ‘doesn’t-matterland’ before they’re even held. That’s because it is precisely the caucus results that will advance Obama to a greater lead among pledged delegates nationwide than he has today.” As the election season builds to a fever pitch in Ohio and Texas, Clinton sends out more attack ads, and the Clinton campaign begins trying to move the goalposts all over again to stay in the race after tomorrow night, Rural Votes‘ Al Giordano puts things in perspective.

In the meantime, the polls — minus Zogby, who had Obama up 13 in California, and is thus someone I’m not putting much stock in at the moment — seem to suggest Clinton is pulling away in Ohio (although not by enough to really make a dent in the delegate situation.) Texas polls are more favorable to Obama, although at least one has Clinton pulling ahead there too. But, to be clear, despite these leads (which also don’t reflect the respective ground games), neither state shows anything like the margins Clinton needs to stay mathematically viable. Her campaign may continue wheezing and sputtering for several weeks yet, but — if these numbers hold up, even with Clinton wins — the race for all intent and purposes ends tomorrow…and not a moment too soon.

Some More State of the States.

Electability update: In case you missed the recent state poll findings showing that at least nine swing states choose Obama over McCain and McCain over Clinton (totalling 100 electoral votes, if you throw in Michigan below), the polling firms have crunched some more numbers. Here are a few more where the party winner doesn’t change, but the margin of victory/defeat is considerably better for Sen. Obama:

Kansas: McCain beats Obama by 6 (50%-44%), McCain beats Clinton by 24 (59%-34%).

Michigan: Obama beats McCain by 8 (47%-39%), McCain and Clinton are tied (44%).

New York (yes, Sen. Clinton’s home state): Obama beats McCain by 21 (57%-36%), Clinton beats McCain by 11 (52%-41%).

The only state examined thus far where Sen. Clinton outpolls Sen. Obama by a significant margin is Florida. (McCain beats Clinton by 6 (49%-43%), McCain beats Obama by 16% (53%-37%)) That margin seems to have a bit to do with the Florida delegate fiasco, however: “Most notably, just 55% of Sunshine State Democrats say they would vote for Obama over McCain.” One would presume that figure would change after the convention, and after Sen. Obama has a chance to campaign in the Sunshine State.

It don’t mean a thing, if you ain’t got those swings.

As posted here awhile ago, national polls have consistently shown Sen. Barack Obama performing better against John McCain than Sen. Hillary Clinton. Well, the polling firm Rasmussen has taken the question a step further, and begun asking swing states what they think of the three remaining candidates. Check these out.

Colorado: Obama beats McCain by 7 (46%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 14 (49%-35%).

Minnesota: Obama beats McCain by 15 (53%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 5 (47%-42%).

New Hampshire: Obama beats McCain by 13 (49%-36%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (43%-41%).

Nevada: Obama beats McCain by 12 (50%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 9 (49%-40%).

Oregon: Obama beats McCain by 9 (49%-40%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (45%-42%).

Pennsylvania: Obama beats McCain by 10 (49%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (44%-42%).

The only swing state studied thus far that can give the Clinton campaign any comfort is Missouri, which shows a statistical tie: McCain beats Clinton by 1 (43%-42%), McCain beats Obama by 2 (42%-40%).

On the issue of electability, the choice seems clear. Update: SurveyUSA has more, and they follow the same pattern.

Iowa: Obama beats McCain by 10 (51%-41%), McCain beats Clinton by 11 (52%-41%).

Virginia: Obama beats McCain by 6 (51%-45%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (48%-45%).

Wisconsin: Obama beats McCain by 10 (52%-42%), McCain beats Clinton by 7 (49%-42%).

Love is a battlefield.

A Valentine’s afternoon campaign roundup:

“I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability.” Former Republican (now Independent and Dubya critic) Senator Lincoln Chafee officially endorses Obama. The Senator from Illinois also picked up a Clinton superdelegate in Christine “Roz” Samuels (meaning, as MSNBC points out, a 2-point swing in the superdelegate column.) And Al Gore, meanwhile, has confirmed to TNR that he will not be endorsing anyone. “Basically, Gore appears to be preserving for himself the option of stepping in and declaring a winner in the event of a war over superdelegates, and thus being seen as a kind of mediating figure, rather than as someone trying to influence the outcome” Given yesterday’s threat of a party meltdown by the Clinton campaign, that’ll probably be more useful for Sen. Obama anyway.

Meanwhile, in an interview with WMAL, Bill Clinton just makes up random stuff as he goes along. (I was going to say he was commiting seppuku to his legacy, but, as Wikipedia just reminded me, seppuku involves dying with honor.) “Of his wife’s recent travails, he said, ‘the caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.’” (If you’re keeping score at home, be sure to add “upper-income voters” to the 20 states in the “not-significant” column.) “‘I think she has been the underdog ever since Iowa,’ Clinton said. “She’s had, you know, a lot of the politicians, like Senator Kennedy, opposed to her…He said they’d done well considering their slim budget. ‘We’ve gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,’ he said. He did not mention that his wife’s campaign has raised more than $140 million.“

The best news for the Clinton team today: As of this past weekend, Sen. Clinton still held a big lead in Ohio (between 14 and 21 points, depending on the poll.) Of course, these were taken before the Potomac results and before Sen. Obama has started campaigning on the ground, and they still don’t show the kind of massive spread Sen. Clinton needs to take back the pledged delegate lead. But I’m sure they’ll take solace where they can find it. Update: I’ve tried to swear off taking much out of polls of late, but there’s an interesting further discussion of the Wisconsin and Ohio poll numbers here.)

Update 2: “That’s the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions.” With really no other recourse at this point, Sen. Clinton (and her husband) try the blunderbuss of negativity approach. I’d point out the many flaws in Sen. Clinton’s screed today, but, as it turns out, the Obama team has already done it for me. I’ll just leave it at this: Can anyone point to a single “solution” Sen. Clinton has ever offered and carried through for the American people? And, no, running health care reform into the ground in 1994 doesn’t count. Well, to be fair, I guess she did once go out on a limb to put an end to the horrible scourge of flag-burning. Now, that takes leadership.

A blip, or two ships passing?

It’s just one poll, of an almost meaningless sample, now that we’re past Super Tuesday. As we all know, polls have often not been kind to Obama supporters over the past month or so. And the last thing the Obama campaign needs right now is a false sense of security. But, since I’ve been willing these lines to cross every day over the past few weeks, screw it: I’m blogging it: Obama finally pulls ever-so-slightly ahead of Clinton in the Gallup daily tracker, 45%-44%. Onward and upward. Update: Sen. Obama takes his first statistical lead, 49%-42%. But will it hold?

The Storm Ahead.

While the focus is now rightly on Wisconsin and Hawaii, some thoughts on the March 4 contests (I didn’t want to post these until the chickens had hatched and the Chesapeake came through):

The good news: Part primary, part caucus, Texas is basically a logistical nightmare. That’s good news for the Obama campaign, since thus far it has shown considerable organizational savvy, particularly as compared to Team Clinton. (In fact, people who seem to know what they’re talking about are predicting a delegate lead for Obama in the Lone Star State.)

The bad news: A SurveyUSA poll released today has Sen. Obama down 17 in Ohio. We have work to do.

Last Stand in Texas and Ohio?

“Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, also said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some of them said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, may ultimately ‘go with the flow,’ in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.” The NYT reports on the general shakiness in the Clinton campaign at the moment, and reemphasizes the importance of Ohio and Texas on March 4. (Jon Chait disagrees.)”‘She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,’ said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. ‘The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.’ Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.“

All well and good, but really: Let’s not put the cart before the horse here. We have the Chesapeake primaries tomorrow, and while the polls clearly favor Sen. Obama, they favored him before New Hampshire as well. Let’s see how those critical primaries shake out first before presuming the Clinton campaign is in full rout. As we should all know by now, there’s nothing more politically dangerous than a Clinton with his or her back to the wall. (And, being as oblique as possible for Wire fans behind the curve, Norman Wilson‘s recent advice to Tommy Carcetti about Clay Davis also comes to mind.)

Education: The Real Cleave?

“Generally speaking, the more education a Democrat has, the less likely he or she is to support Hillary Clinton, and the more likely to support Barack Obama.” For all the talk of age, race, gender, and class divergences, some analysts at Gallup see a different dynamic at work in the Obama-Clinton race: education. “In short, education is a highly significant predictor of Democrats’ vote choices…Gender, too, is a predictor, but is essentially overwhelmed by the impact of education.”

In fact, a worthy regression analysis of poll data over at dKos pushes the point further: “It is educational attainment, rather than income level, that appears to be the driving force behind Obama’s ‘upscale’ support. In fact, there is some weak evidence that Obama actually does a bit better in states with lower median household incomes, once we control for educational attainment (but, the effect was not quite statistically significant enough to make the final cut). Trust me — I looked and looked for this one, analyzing variables such as household income, per capita income, home values, home ownership, unemployment rates, and union membership. The idea that Clinton does better with working class voters seems to be a myth; she does better with voters without college degrees, but not working class voters per se. To the extent any such effects exist, they appear to point in the opposite direction of the conventional wisdom.” (Speaking of which, there are number of CW-defying findings in this regression analysis, and it’s worth a look-see.) Update: Poblano has more.

Update 2: The WP parses more data and finds the same education cleave. “In each of the states where the Post subscribed to exit polls (and voters were asked about their level of education), Clinton did better among non-college than college-educated white voters. She also outpaced Obama among non-college whites in all 14 of these states, but beat him by more than a single percentage point among college graduates in only five.“