Congrats to team Clinton on putting a  Rovian talking point in play, so much like "turning the corned in Iraq" or "the President is reducing the deficit." The corporate press is singing in harmony.

Todd,

Can you please make some corrections?

1. Clinton didn't raise $10 million. Terry M. said she is "on track" to do so, whatever that means.
See http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/04/hillary_on_track_to_rais e_10_m.php

2. Clinton didn't win by 10 points. Her lead is about 9.2%.

Thanks in advance!

I don't agree with all of this analysis, as I do think that we're missing an opportunity to define John McCain right now, but there certainly are counterveiling positives.    

As an aside, I would note that the PA GE poll cited here really undercuts the idea that there's a correlation between winning a primary and the loser of the primary's ability to nonetheless prevail in the General.  In other words, it's almost as if Senator Obama can win "the big states" after all.  Who knew!  

Todd you are on fire recently.

Best Blogger leading up to PA and dead on analysis today, thank you.

He is the GOP sacrificial lamb. The plan is to blame the mess on the next Dem candidate, hope that the people are stupid enough to fall for that, and try to get back the House, Senate, & WH.

Maddow is right up to a point.  But while it's easy to say "the race would continue even if Hillary had lost PA," the statement is untestable and I happen to disagree with it.  The primaries that have been played up as "must-win" situations for Hillary were, in fact, must-win situations, but it doesn't follow from that that if she does win then now it's Obama who must give up.

If you're down 3-0 in a best-of-7 series, the next 3 games are must-win for you, but even if you win them all you haven't done anything except force game 7.

The argument that the race will inevitably continue just because Hillary has fundraisers scheduled is ludicrous and I'm a little disappointed to see it advanced as a serious point.  John Edwards had all sorts of events scheduled right up until the moment he cancelled them all and dropped out.

I don't know if Indiana really merits "must-win" status but a number of these contests truly have been must-wins.  There's little doubt that if Obama had won PA people would have very little interest in seeing the race continue.

Another benefit to the extended primary season is the GOP & McCain will haven't difficulty staining our candidate.  It took month's to create a negative image Gore and Kerry that the media needed to repeat over and over again until it sets the voters mind an 'image'.  The GOP is losing out on this.  Dems however (Hello DNC/Dean, DCCC, DSCC, 527s) can start now advertising blitzes to ruin McCain's image with truth.  It may have begun, but I haven't noticed.  Dems have plenty of extra months to create whatever narrative we want since it does not depend upon which candidate goes to the GE.

I happen to think the extended primary is a good thing for the party.  Infrastructure is being created where none existed before, and party registration is off the charts.  If all this was so horrible, turnout and registrations would be down with each succeeding event, fueled by disaffection with the process.  We are being beautifully positioned (at least downticket) for huge gains in November.

As much as I'd love to see this race end right now, with Obama as the nominee, I do think the extended race has done wonders for party building. Has it also exposed major demographic rifts within the party? Sure. But unless the candidates explicitly appeal to those rifts in divisive ways, then the coalition will come back together again just fine. Keep arguing about the recession, Iraq, health care, etc. and we will do great. But arguing about race, elitism, and patriotism will kill the Democratic Party. That's the only thing that has angered me about the extended primary.

I disagree that this is good for the party.  If the primary was being run in a clean way, without the Osama Bin Laden ads and dispersions on each other's character, then I would agree with you... but, the longer this goes on, the bloodier our candidates get, and the more entrenched and yes, "bitter" our candidates' supporters will be when the other is declared the winner.

The longer it goes on, the uglier and dirtier it gets... it's not a good thing at all...

Attaining voting age in '85 I can recall that the Democrats have always had a problem in picking a presumptive nominee. And debates were always fierce and many times negative. But by the convention we would always have a nominee.

It seems though that the GOP always selected their nominee much earlier and relatively unbloodied. If the Dem. Candidate was strong they would win in the general. If not they lost which was most of the time (Mondale, Dukakis).

But the same storyline always came out that the Dems were indecisive and very petty. The GOP would use the primary honed ammunition and the Dems always started out on the defense. So this is nothing new.

I agree the difference here is that the field organization is amazing and although on the outside the party seems in "disarray" the thruth is we are more organized on the local level and nationally via the web that ever. Way beyond the GOP wildest dreams. That is why the GOP has had to steal the last two Pres. Elections.

But please stop giving Ammunition to the GOP.

I have been of two minds as to whether or not the extended primary is a good thing for the party as a whole. Obviously the energy and work that is going into the Dem race is setting up infrastructure that will come into play in Nov, but all the same the fact that the race has turned so negative fights against what should be Dem Ascendant narrative and instead presents the party as a squabbling, disfunctional organization. Not exactly the message we want to be sending to nervous voters. If somehow the campaign can wrap up without the eventual winner (most likely Obama) being mortally wounded it will have been worth it. But that's a big if...

Seriously, it is very sad that I had to watch Fox News to get the results of PA first.

Ross Douthat had an interesting article on McCain's peak in polling. Basically, he worries that McCain's numbers in GE match-up polls haven't climbed higher, given the present climate. Here's the thrust of it:

But by all rights, this ought to be a peak time for McCain's numbers - not the peak, necessarily, but certainly a high point. His right-wing critics are making nice with him, his favorable ratings are sky-high, and his opponents are too busy driving each other's negative ratings upward to spend any time (or money, more importantly) putting a dent in his halo. Moreoever, the Democrats' intra-party tensions are bound to diminish once the party picks a nominee: At least some of the Hillary supporters who tell pollsters that they'd vote for McCain over Obama may actually follow through on that pledge, but a lot of today's McCainocrats will come home to the Democratic fold when all is said and done.

Yet even with all this going for him, McCain's poll numbers are bumping up against the same 45 percent ceiling that they've been hitting since December. If the election were held today - a pretty good day for McCain, all things considered - he'd probably lose to Obama, and might lose to Clinton as well.

http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archiv es/2008/04/mccain.php

All that being said, if the negativity and emphasis on nonsubstantive matters continues, put me in the camp that wants this nomination process over. However, if the candidates can run  more positive substantive campaigns, then I'm perfectly content to let this play out until June.

MyDD has done a nice job with it's "front page" diaries today.  It's refreshing to dispel some of these media machinations.

I can support whichever candidate wins a fair contest.  But some of these pundits I will never support again.

... numbers that show Hill backers or Obama backers claiming they will not vote for the other candidate in a general, I think the active participation is a net plus for Dems.

First, many of those voters who now claim they will never vote for one candidate or the other, will, in fact, vote for the Dem once everyone gets a good, long look at McCain.

Second, despite the fact that the media narrative is that McCain is "getting a free ride," he also is unable to garner even the slightest headlines. He has been locked out of the picture by the Democratic contest.

Frankly, I think the Democrats could nominate Daffy Duck this year and beat McCain. He is a weak candidate in a very, very bad year for Republicans. The economy is not getting beter before November and neither is Iraq. And McCain will wear those like lead weights around his neck.

Obama or Clinton will thump the living hell out of him in the general. And the more states that participate, the higher the the number of registered Dems all across the country. (And the better we'll do in local, state, House and Senate elections, too.)

The reason PA was a "must win" for Clinton is that early polling in the state had her up by 20 points.  If she had blown such a huge lead, it would have crippled any credibility her campaign had remaining.

The points about the extended campaign hurting Democrats are spot on.  The situation where an extended campaign would hurt one party is where the party in question is blowing all its cash on the primary, while the other party is sitting on a pile of untapped cash.  The situation in 2008 is quite different - McCain is practically broke while both Democratic candidates have significantly outraised him, and either would likely still have a significant advantage in the Fall.

I agree with your analysis up to a certain point.  Yes, the voter registration is good.  Yes, the increased attention on the party is good.  But, no these two things do NOT necessarily outweigh the negatives of this race continuing.  Maybe if Clinton (and yes, more recently Barack) were not slinging mud like their lives depended on it.  

Right now, I just don't see a positive end-game in sight that is keeping Hillary in the race. Prove me wrong, but it seems as if this is her best-case scenario:  She forces an Obama error so damaging that he is forced to withdraw by the Superdelegates.  The party could very well implode, with alienated black and youth voters leaving in droves.  Even if they stick around, the greatest new Democratic political star of the century would be completely destroyed.

The other situation would be, we continue on our current course:  She keeps throwing the self-proclaimed "kitchen sink" at Obama.  He gets the nomination, but his approval rating amongst voters he has less success with (the elderly, working class, white males) takes a beating from her attacks.  The election cycle starts out framed in Hillary's terms, national security, who will keep you safe at 3 AM etc.  

How does any of this help the Democrats regain the White House in the fall?

I just freakin' love the contradiction in the HRC narratives:

1. No matter what happens this. primary. will. continue.

2. Obama can't get Hillary to leave the race, therefore he is unelectable and he is the one who should leave the race.

I didn't think I could hate this country more than I did after the 2004 election, but I'm really starting to get to the point where I hate 3/4 of it instead of 1/2 of it.

I guess I'm an elitist.

i'm at a loss right now. The front page diarists have yet to discuss pledged delegates won/lost. Unless I've missed it.

isn't delegates what a primary is all about, once the votes are counted of course?

while this is primarily a Clinton fan-fest site, I'll be damned if we dumb down the debate once in the GE. I implore that any rose-tinted glasses get tossed out and that the progressive and liberal community look at things more objectively and broadly.

Prepare to become relevant!

old politics as usual.  Do you know about the Daley family?