Do you think the fact that it's just north of Illinois makes any difference to the Demographic breakthroughs?

Historically, WISC has had significant crossover voters. Ranney (1972) and Adamany (1976) have presented evidence that crossover voting in three successive Wisconsin presidential primaries was extensive:

http://tinyurl.com/2v3ns4

... out of Texas, particularly. Obama had cute Clinton's extensive lead in half in just a week. Hillary campaigning there may slow it a bit, but he'll also get a bump from the Wisconsin and Hawaii numbers.

It is hard to imagine that she gets to a 20 point lead in Texas, which is what she needs at this point to close the delegate gap.

You know, I've been against HRC since the beginning of this campaign, but she is a better candidate than her campaign team deserves.

a small Obama lead in Texas post-WI. The question will be can he hold it.  He needs to not make any mistakes, stay on message, continue to attack the Washington crowd (and include McCain and Clinton in that contrast) and its ineffectiveness at bringing change, hit the Clinton administration on NAFTA, and ... its the economy, stupid.

According to Sam Stein:

The Clinton camp took exception to Plouffe's math. Taking into account superdelegates as well as those from Michigan and Florida (which currently do not count because the states' parties violated DNC rules), officials with the campaign predicted that sometime around the Puerto Rico primary on June 7, Clinton will have clinched enough support to secure the nomination.

Disagreements between the two camps extended well beyond delegate math. Putting an optimistic take on a larger-than-expected Wisconsin loss, Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn once again stressed that Obama had yet to win states that would portend a strong general election run.

"It would be hard to imagine a nominee from this party who didn't win New York, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania," said Penn.

Asked whether or not Wisconsin's electorate reflected that of Ohio (as is commonly perceived), Penn retorted: "Ohio is very different from Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a very different electoral history. We always said that it would be extremely challenging for us."

Sam Stein - Obama Camp Optimistic As Clinton Camp Attacks Huffington Post 20 Feb 08

There you have it, Puerto Rico is now the firewall, and 'Wisconsin is very different from Ohio,' at least until Obama wins both, one assumes.

Damn. Stealing bases.

If Obama could get the endorsement of Rachel Robinson, he could steal home on March 4.

Somehow I doubt that "I've resolidified my base" will be a winning argument for staying in after TX and OH.

Clinton's biggest problem is the superdelegates. They will not let her continue to trash Obama for SEVEN WEEKS after TX and OH when those two states fail to make a dent in the delegate deficit.

Look for about 150 superdelegates to announce for Obama within a week of March 4th. She will be forced to withdraw.

umm, I wonder if the 'non-existing' momentum Obama has been building all throughout February had any affect on the final margin in the final margins in Wisconsin and Hawaii.  Actually, I don't.

"the voting trends the Wisconsin electorate exhibited, namely that, as CNN cleverly put it today, Barack Obama is stealing Hillary Clinton's bases."

Todd, that's what I'd call mommentum!

Obama  winning Iowa made him go from 'no way he can win NH' to actually making it extremely close, actually a tie there, if one goes by delegate count.    In turn, Obama  having won both Iowa and NH helped go from dead on arrival in Nevada to getting the biggest endorsement there was to have and coming close to winning there, ..well, he actually won, if one goes by delegate count.  ditto, South Carolina.  Obama doing great in Iowa, NH, Nevada, and South Carolina helped him go from expected to loose California by  at least twenty points in California getting clobbered in most of the Feb. 5 states and - per the Clinton machine atleast - having his candidacy killed then and there, to actually coming out on top. Coming out on Top on Feb. 5 greatly helped him with the winning margins in every state ever since..

Momentum helped him come from behind to clobber Clinton in Washington, Nebraska, and Maine.  ditto  in Maryland, DC, and Virginia, particularly in Virginia.  ditto coming from behind just a few weeks ago, to actually clobbering Clinton in Wisconsin and doing way, way better than expected in Hawaii.  Ditto to eventually closing the gap would a good galloping horse in Ohio and Texas ..perhaps even winning there.

You'd be hard press to find a politician that has  been able, to time after time, so consistently close the gap in election after election. (it would be sort of like Republican actually winning in 2008 in every Senate race they're actually behind in now.

You could say his organization and the money he has raised has a lot to do with it.  You would be right, but I doubt he would have been able to raise the money and build such organization in so many states had he, say, lost in Iowa.  Yeah, OBAMA HAS BEEN A MOMENTUM MACHINE EVER SINCE.
 

Wisconsin mattered in that Hillary had to get a respectable number of delegates relative to Obama, and she did. I'm not going to analyze the numbers specifically, but I think the fact that Independents and Republicans could vote in the Dem primary skewed the lower income demo towards Obama. I mean, when you think about it, that's Hillary's base, and there's no specific reason why that would evaporate, irrespective of Virginia, which has not voted Democratic for president since LBJ. Half the voters in Wisconsin vote Republican for president, and because the primary numbers for the Dems were that much higher, I think there was a fair amount of crossover.

Of course not everyone will be happy, Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes.  Yes, I am a nerd) once said "a good compromise leaves everyone miserable."  This I think would be the best way to go if Obama wins enough on March 4th to make the Clinton candidacy impossible without a miracle/super delegates.  Clinton drops out, Obama chooses Janet Napolitano as his veep (months down the line) as a way to help satisfy those who wanted a female president.  Janet will help dull McCain's edge in the south west, and has a bit of the "elder stateswoman" thing to her despite being a spry 50. Once elected, Obama takes Reid into his cabinet.  He gives Reid a job he can handle, secretary of balloon doggies or something, I don't know (always assuming Franklin Sherman left the post).  Clinton becomes senate majority leader.  This way Clinton is the senate majority leader, Obama prez, Janet in the Whitehouse, ready to lead the party eight years from now, and Reid is out of the senate where he's been nothing but an incompetent pain in the ass (pun intended).  Not the solution everyone wants, but I think it works.

"there's no specific reason why that would evaporate"

perhaps they decided they liked Obama more. Sure, you can't imagine anyone would come to that conclusion. but trust me, some people have. Actually, lots and lost of people have.

The most stark comparison between the Obama and Clinton campaigns is the amount of arguing and general disarray going on inside the Clinton camp, while we never hear a whisper out of the Obama camp. I think I can name 5 or 6 clinton campaign officials right off the top of my head becuase they've been in the news so much lately. The only obama person I can think of is David Axlerod.

Maybe the reason has been so many turf wars inside the Clinton camp is that each campaign operative is looking out for their own ego and status, while the ones in the Obama camp are more focused on just getting the job done to help elect someone they really believe in.

Reports of the demise of Senator Clinton's presidential ambitions are exaggerated.

Thanks to Todd for the convenient breakdown of each demographic.

I never thought Hillary's support would slide to this degree, due to the foundational support of women and Hispanics and older voters. But I have a habit of underestimating motivation in primaries. When the more talented and more likable candidate is also the one supported by the most fervent members of the base, in this case the ones who identified the Iraq vote as the focus, it's like trying to catch Tiger Woods from 5 shots behind in the final round of a major.

I should have listened to my early instinct. More than a year ago on DU I posted that Obama has undeniably special gifts and charisma, and that typically leads to late surge once everyone is fully in tune to the race.

But damn, in the past few months I've salivated at the prospect of my right wing friends having to deal with Hillary as president. They despise her with such intensity the biggest problem is not to laugh when their vocabulary achieves new profane lows. I remember how I felt after SCOTUS 2000. A Hillary presidency would have been the conservatives' equivalent of that for 8+ years. We're talking cold sweat time, one morning after the next, disbelief that one family beat them 4 out of 4, with no way to rationalize or dream it away. As much as I like Obama, he doesn't deliver any semblance of vengeful satisfaction like that. Oh well.

Wisconsin was truly a no excuse state for Hillary. I always keep a chart of the demographic breakdown in each state, primarily for betting purposes on Intrade if the polling and the odds don't jive with demographic common sense. That led to an easy pickup, betting Hillary to win California. But it also identified Wisconsin as a likely tossup. Only the high percentages of independents worked severely in Obama's favor. For Hillary to lose Democrats in that state and be trounced by 17 points was more devastating than the cable networks were asserting, for the most part. It got lost in the winning streak, but this one was more relevant, like winning a mini-major, let's say the Player's Championship, to use another tired golf analogy. Which allows a pathetic forced transition: I made 4 birdies today. :)

Still, let's not overlook how fortunate Obama has been. Florida was originally scheduled for March 4. I severely doubt he could have overcome Hillary's demographic edge in Florida, even at the current tide. The narrative of Hillary winning Florida, Ohio and Texas on the same day, then Pennsylvania a month later, could have trumped everything Obama has managed since Super Tuesday, in perception of stronger candidate, if not overall delegate count. As Craig Crawford said today, Hillary has potential to win 7 of the 8 largest states.

Though I've been supporting Hillary once it was obvious Edwards had no chance, I almost hope Obama steals either Ohio or Texas, if not both. I'd hate for Hillary's candidacy to have been tipped, in large part, by a rash and senseless change of the calendar.

In your CNN data, you show Obama got 53% of Democrats (leaving out crossover repubs and independents).  What you left out is Hillary's % of Dems.  Hillary got around 69% of Democrat voters in Michigan.

indydem99 and code blue are right on.  In most states, Democrats don't pick their own candidate anymore by a long shot.  It's not even a DEMOCRATIC Primary anymore -- though it's still called that. If it were, Hillary won Wisconsin bigtime.

correction:  in above comment it should say Hillary won 69% of Wisconsin Democrat voters (not Michigan)

I would have fallen behind HRC if she had become the nominee, depsite my support for Obama.  Real progressives of loyal stripe would have done so.  

The new voters (youth and AA's, and some right-leaning moderates) for Obama, probably would not have followed my path...but that is not the point.

The point is that REAL, long-time supporters of progressive ideals and long term democrats who suppoted the Clintons WILL line up behind Barack sooner or later.  

For Baracks REAL people to antagonize Hillary's people now that there is no longer a legitamte path to the nomination for her is UNFAIR and Counterproductive...just as it is for Hillary's REAL supporters to attack Barack.  I think that this is a minimal problem though.

The truth, I beleive is that there ARE a number of GOP Trolls here who are doing the 'ol "Less filling, tastes great" inciting-a-fight bit.

As intelligent, thoughtful folks, let's stop falling for it. We need to unite behind Obama..all of us.  McCain just received a wound, furhter bolstering Obama's chances in November.  Let's not blow it by allowing Trolls to divide us!!!

If we unite, we will not only win the presidency, but will also make gains in the Senate and HOR to the point where Obama's agenda will be GOP-proof.  

I think we can ALL agree that this is just what we need.  A strong majority in the Congress to implememnt the Democratic/Progressive's agenda!!!  

Had it been HRC, I'd be saying the same thing today.  I am sorry for those of you who have put so much time, energy, and desire into Hillary's campaign...I have felt the sting of nomination defeat myself a couple of times... but when your candidate has lost their ability to compete with honor and certainty...it is time to brush yourself off, get up, and fight the good fight for yourself, your family and your nation.

Please Join me in Uniting behind Obama.

Yea, my right-wing Bush-enabling friends in Wisconsin called laughing about being able to vote in the Democratic Primary there. All the while telling me that their vote counted while mine (a good Democratic Liberal)in Florida did not. I'm beginning to think they may be on to something when my party is so screwed up.

A few things about Wisconsin...

Yes, we do matter.  I can attest to it.  

I am neither an Obama nor Clinton supporter (still voted Edwards on Tuesday night), so I can say a few things with objectivity.  Obama very clearly won the progressive activist Democrats and the socio-cultural liberals, and a solid majority of the non-AFSCME/AFT union households here in WI.  Had independents and Republicans not been able to vote in the (open) primary here, Obama still would have won I believe.  Not 60-40, but he would have won.

The open primary is a creation of the La Follette progressives and makes democracy something of a currency in which we can all trade.  I don't necessarily like it - but even as a member of the state party executive committee, I can't do a darn thing about it.

Why?  Because it's not a party-controlled thing!  It's set by the state legislature - you know, one of those 'law' things.

Primaries are odd because they're a hybrid of partisanal and public resources being leveraged for partisanal and public benefit both.  Blurred lines...

She's done.