There's little doubt that this is looking like a Democratic year. Obama has a number of impressive things going for him:

1) Advantage in Democratic registration. Rasmussen currently has it at 41.4 D, 31.7 R, 26.9 I...the largest gap since they began tracking party I.D. six years ago. [Nov. 04: 38.8D, 37.1 R, 24.1 I; Nov. 06 37.5 D, 31.4 R, 31.2 D. ]

2) The right track/wrong track number is 17/79. [Rasmussen]

3) Bush's approval rating is at a new low, 31 percent. [Rasmussen]

More beneath the fold.  Cross-posted from:  http://outsidetheechosphere.wordpress.co m/

Excuse me.  Could the inflated talking heads -- and that includes you Mr. Russert and you Ms. Brazile -- shut up for two seconds?

No?

Ok, just press mute and tune out the Pundit Choir (plus, embarassingly, the voices of some progressive bloggers) singing Clinton's swan song at the top of their lungs.  Because I would appreciate a serious response to a serious question:

Why couldn't Barack Obama win the state of Indiana?

Let me re-phrase that:

Why did Barack Obama lose the state of Indiana, a state his own campaign predicted he would win in February, a state he declared would be a "tie breaker," a state in which 25% of the electorate lives in Obama's hometown media market?

The headlines this morning are so predictably anti-Clinton, and once again resemble a bulleted list from barackobamadotcom::

Hillary loses support of white women!
Obama cuts into Hillary's base!
Obama was cheated in Indiana!
It's over for Hillary!
Obama landslide in North Carolina!

Honest headlines written by professionals who still give a damn about objectivity -- you know, that extinct breed -- might read:

Clintons Pulls Off Upset in Indiana
Obama wins North Carolina, as Expected
Obama Loses White Vote by 26 Points in NC

That's right.  Here is a Fact Check for anyone still interested in unbiased election reports:

1.  Obama was favored to win Indiana all along.  Both campaigns had internal predictions that Obama would carry Indiana by approximately 7 points.  Only recently did Clinton begin polling favorably there and once Obama started spending outrageous sums of money on negative ads, Clinton's double-digit lead returned to earth.

2.  25% of the Indiana electorate lives in the Chicago media market, Obama's hometown!  On the day before the primary, the Obama campaign spent $300,000 advertising in that neighboring market.

3. Clinton's share of white women did go down in Indiana, compared to Ohio and Pennsylvania, which one might expect given Obama's aggressive advertising campaign targeted at that demographic, but she still won over 60% of the white vote in Indiana, which means she picked up some white men (is that being reported? no).  Somehow, though, this is being cast as "Clinton lost white women" in support of the meme that Clinton lost support among her white base yesterday.  It's simply false.  She has been gaining white support since February 5th.  

4. Indiana is the only state neighboring Illinois that Obama has lost.

And, although this post is about Indiana...

5. Clinton also improved her share of the white vote in North Carolina (over 60% compared to 50% in Virginia).  And again.. it's not being widely reported.  Obama's share of the African American vote increased in North Carolina as well.

Cliff notes for the weary:  Clinton is the one who out-performed expectations yesterday.  Clinton's core base grew, and Obama did not cut into it.  Obama lost ground in Indiana.  A big Rezko-sized lot full of ground.  A net 9-point loss from his own projections.  Despite massive advertising expenditures and a hometown advantage with 25% of the electorate, Obama could not close the deal in Indiana.

On April 11, Obama himself predicted that Indiana would be a tie-breaker:

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. -- On the second day of his Indiana bus tour, Obama said the state could be a potential "tiebreaker" in the lengthy nomination process.

"I think Indiana is very important," Obama said. "We've got three contests coming up in pretty big states -- Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana. They all have significant numbers of delegates, and they are states where Sen. Clinton and I are actively campaigning."

"You know, Sen. Clinton is more favored in Pennsylvania," he added, "and I'm right now a little more favored in North Carolina, so Indiana right now may end up being the tiebreaker. So we want to work very hard in Indiana. While Sen. Clinton has some advantages here, I benefit coming from an adjoining state."  MSNBC.com

Senator Obama was correct.  They both campaigned actively in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana.  He was also right in predicting that she would win Pennsylvania and he would win North Carolina.

And Indiana is the tie-breaker.  Now, Senator Obama is a smart guy.  I don't think he would have said this had he expected to lose Indiana.  So what happened?

It wasn't Rev. Wright, of course, many analysts have already concluded (including myDD's own Jonathan Singer).  But how do they know?  50% of voters told CNN that Rev. Wright made a difference in their vote, and Obama lost ground with white voters.  Maybe it was Rev. Wright.  Or William Ayres, the Weather Underground friend standing on top of the American flag. Or Obama's unguarded characterization of bitter small-town Americans. Or maybe it was just the slow-motion epiphany that Sen. Obama is not yet ready for the most trusted job in the world.

(The Obama campaign, by the way, is blaming his Indiana loss on Rush Limbaugh, but that's not supported by exit polls, which indicate that the percentage of Republicans who voted for Clinton was consistent with the share of Democrats who voted for her.)

I am sick and fed up of the mainstream media, in particular Obama-drooling Cable TV weaklings such as Tim Russert who dominate prime-time airwaves, distorting facts and misusing the public's trust in order to spin Hillary Clinton out of the race.

Another example:  there are a growing number of articles suggesting that African Americans will "abandon" the Democratic Party en masse in November if Obama is not the nominee.  But I don't hear anyone pointing out that white Democrats might do the same if Clinton is not the nominee, despite the exit-poll data on race and despite that up to 50% of Clinton voters now state that they would never vote for Obama.  

Why would anyone (such as a Superdelegate) assume that white Democrats will ultimately be more loyal to the Party than black Democrats?  Isn't that racist?

Barack Obama lost Indiana.  And I just beg someone more visible and important than an anonymous citizen blogger such as myself, someone like Wolf Blitzer or Britt Hume for instance, to pose the question:  Why did Barack Obama LOSE Indiana, a state he had every reason to win?  And what does his loss mean for the Democrats in November if Obama is the nominee?

Note: Exit poll data from CNN.com for Indiana and North Carolina.

TexasDarlin, all rights reserved.

Cross posted at TexasDarlin

[See Update on new national polls from USA Today/Gallup and CBS/NY Times at bottom]

General Election polls continue to demonstrate that Clinton is the far stronger candidate against McCain than Obama.

Real Clear Politics has data from 6 recent national General Election polls.  In a Clinton v. McCain match-up, Clinton beats McCain in FIVE of the 6 polls. In an Obama v. McCain match-up, McCain beats Obama in 3 of the polls and ties him in one.

More importantly, in key battleground states, Clinton beats McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, while Obama loses to McCain in all 3 states. And RCP highlights a recent McClathy article about Obama's likely loss in Indiana to McCain. A new Rasmussen poll for New Hampshire claims "Clinton gains on McCain...Obama heads in opposite direction."

Obama's problems with working class voters have worsened, according to a story posted yesterday by the AP:

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll...53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton's strength among seniors, women, and key demographic groups such as Catholics improves with each election, as most recently seen in Pennsylvania.

*CLINTON, THE POPULIST*
Hillary Clinton is a candidate of the people, successfully delivering a populist message across American towns,  cities, and suburbs.  As the Washington Post said recently, "Clinton Is In Her Element:"

Clinton attacks the rope line with more gusto than her husband, who invented the genre in modern campaigns.

~snip~

Clinton has found a home -- and a potentially receptive audience -- among rural Democrats...Small towns. Middle-class and working-class. Older voters. Women.

~snip~

The rope line in Terre Haute late Thursday was dominated by women of all ages, who are as passionate in their support of Clinton as Obama supporters are for their candidate

UPDATE ON TWO NEW POLLS:

A USA Today/Gallup poll released on 5/5/08 gives Clinton a 7 point lead over Obama, "the first time in 3 months she has been ahead." USA Today writes:

Barack Obama's national standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, raising questions for some voters about the Illinois senator's values, credibility and electability.

The USA Today/Gallup poll also demonstrates Clinton's strength on a number of variables:

Clinton Obama Advantage

Is a strong and decisive leader 53 37: Clinton +16

Has the best chance of beating John McCain in November 48 43: Clinton +5

Shares your values 47 42: Clinton +5

Cares about the needs of people like you 47 43: Clinton +4

A CBS/NYT poll released on 5/4/08 is being publicized by many news sources as showing a 12-pt. lead for Obama over Clinton, but this is among those who have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary.

However, Clinton actually leads Obama by 1 point when the question is asked of "registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats, regardless of whether they have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary".

This means that Obama has lost substantial support among people who have already voted for him.

In other good news for Clinton, the CBS/NYT pollster's report states:

For the first time since October 2007, more registered voters overall have a favorable impression of Clinton than an unfavorable one.

and...

When asked who is "tough enough to make hard choices," Clinton gets 70%, McCain 71%, and Obama 58%.

See related post 2 New Polls: MORE HILLARY MOMENTUM.

Redacted

Oh, look: guess what, Hillary Clinton loses the white vote to John McCain in the latest Newsweek poll. By ten points.

I know, shocking, after all the play-pretend effort with guns, shot glasses, bowling balls and other implements utterly foreign to a Georgetown aristocrat with a nine-figure bank balance.

Well, actually, it's not shocking: Democrats tend not to win a majority of the white vote. Neither Kerry, Gore, Clinton or Dukakis got it.

A little bit more on the subject below the fold, before we proceed to fruitful demagoguery in the comments section. >>>

Sen. Barack Obama's Reverend Jeremiah Wright problem is just the beginning of his would-be November defeat.  The right-wing 527's will morph Sen. Obama into Louis Farrakhan by the time the general election rolls around.  As much as the MSM (and shameless Obama-shilling sites like Kos & HuffPo) try to play down the story, this one will linger.

Many Americans have never heard such vile things said about their country, let alone from the father-figure and spiritual adviser to a leading Presidential candidate.  Besides that, word came out today that Obama's financial ties to Tony Rezko are much closer than he previously declared.  What else will come out of Rezko's trial?  What will the 527's uncover about Obama's admittedly (sometimes) seedy youthful endeavors?  How many more times will Michelle Obama put her foot in her mouth?

Sen. Obama has already "bamboozled" us about his Rezko ties and is now trying to "hoodwink" us by saying he wasn't aware of his pastor's frequent hate-filled rhetoric.  Uhhh, didn't he sit in the Reverend's pews every Sunday on & off for the past 20 years?  Was he in the bathroom every time the Reverend spewed something detestable about our great country?  Or did he doze off during those screeching sermons about the "U-S of KKK"?  How else would he not hear those sermons?  I'm telling you it would be a huge mistake for the Democratic party to fall for Sen. Obama's "okey-doke" and nominate him.  If the super delegates give him the nomination in Denver, we are talking McGovern/Mondale style defeat in the fall here.....

Here's a little tidbit for you, just in case you missed it today.

Remember the 20-something in hot pants who did the "I've Got A Crush On Obama?"

You know the one...

Last week, Bill O'Reilly laid the identity politics of the conservative base bare to a degree we rarely see from the public face of conservativism:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

This quote neatly supports a point I have argued extensively over the past two and a half years (see here, here and here). Conservatism is, at its core, a defense of powerful, status-quo or backward leaning institutions. The primary driving force of contemporary American conservatism is a defense of a type of white Christian identity that is an institution unto itself. Still, it is one thing for me to make that argument, and it is quite another thing for one of the most prominent conservative pundits in America to make the point plain.

With less than 40% of Americans age 40 and under self-identifying as both white and Christian, many of those who support this institutional identity perceive it to be under attack, or at least in imminent danger or losing its dominance. (Then again, supporters of the institutionally dominant identity have always viewed that identity, whatever it may be, as under attack. See modern era, backlash against, 1775-current, worldwide.) Looking at the most recent poll data from Pew on the 2008 Presidential election, this demographic shift also holds the potential for groundbreaking ideological shifts within American government. Here are the percentages of Americans, ages 18-49, who indicated there is a "good chance" they will vote for any of the current and potentially leading Presidential candidates, whether Democratic or Republican:

Clinton: 24%
Obama: 22%
Gore: 19%
Giuliani: 15%
Edwards: 11%
McCain: 9%
Thompson: 7%
Gingrich: 7%
Romney: 6%

These are not just teenagers and young kids fresh out of college. These are the standings among all Americans under the age of fifty. Combined, the four Democrats hold a 28% lead over the five Republicans (76%-44%). Further, the five Republicans combined could not even manage 50%, despite the fact that poll respondents could choose more than one candidate. Further, the two Republicans who perform best among Americans under the age of 50 are Giuliani and McCain, who are often lambasted by conservatives for not being conservative enough. There isn't a conservative champion in the double digits in this poll, and neither of the two leaders are white men. In another twenty-five years, the people who were included in this crosstab will make up virtually the entire American electorate.

Consider Fred Thompson entry into the race as the supposed "conservative savior" in the context of contemporary conservative identity politics and the voting predilections of Americans born after 1964. Now, consider that the same Pew poll shows that 70% of his potential supporters are male, and 65% are over the age of 50. In this context, it seems quite reasonable to draw the conclusion that those people urging Fred Thompson into the campaign view him as the savior of what Bill O'Reilly calls "the white, Christian, male power structure." His strongest potential supporters are by far the oldest and most male of any other currently major candidate, even when compared to other Republican candidates. Fred Thompson is the old, male white knight for conservatives in 2008. Among major candidates, he is the ultimate identity politics throwback in this campaign. I'm sure it helps that he is currently best known for portraying a district attorney, and that he recently served as an extended substitute host on Paul Harvey's radio program.

Fortunately, I think it also means he has virtually no chance to become president. If he can't even excite Republican women, then we could be talking about a candidacy that serves as a nice coda on the 44-year electoral run of the conservative movement that started with Barry Goldwater in 1964. I doubt he has any chance to exceed 45% in a general election, no matter who we match up against him.