Let's look at some data as opposed to throwing numbers and accusations around. Exit polls ask if the gender and race of the candidate was important in who you voted for. We'll have to make a couple of assumptions.

1.    The responses are an accurate reflection of the person responding to the question.

2.    As in all polls, we'll have to assume the results reflect the voting population.

3.    And we'll also have to assume that voters using gender as a reason to vote for Clinton aren't sexist (since in this campaign its generally understood that if you aren't voting for Clinton specifically because she's a women that represents a sexist approach) and that voters using race as a reason to vote for Obama aren't racist (likewise, if you're not voting for Obama specifically because he's black that is construed as a racist approach).

More in the extended entry.

Yes, the title is meant to be sarcastic. While the media will inevitably frame the division found within the early exit polls out of Oregon and Kentucky released today as "Democrats divided," (in fact, they already are) what we're seeing is actually a nation divided -- the stark differences that exist between the voters in two very different parts of the country.

In Kentucky:

In Kentucky, just 33 percent of Clinton voters said they would back Obama in the general election if he is the Democratic nominee - 41 percent said they will vote for McCain, and another 23 percent say they won't vote.

Meanwhile, in Oregon:

Oregon voters felt differently on that question, according to the exit poll. A majority of Clinton and Obama voters in the state would be satisfied if their opponent got the nomination. And 68 percent of Clinton voters say they will back Obama in the general election if he is the nominee and 80 percent of Obama voters say they will back Clinton in the general election.

Last week, the media's narrative had no counterbalance or context to it since WV was the only contest, so they merely projected the West Virginia results onto the the nation as a whole; tonight, thank goodness, the media will have Oregon to serve as a reality check.

Hillary Clinton's overwhelming victory in West Virginia on Tuesday night, brings to light the significant problems that Barack Obama has with White Working Class and rural voters, not just in West Virginia, but across America in general.
Clinton Crushes Obama Across the Board
Results of West Virginia

There are many questions still unanswered by the Obama campaign as to why their candidate cannot close the deal on this nomination process. How can a "presumptive nominee" for all intents and purposes lose a primary in a major swing state by a humiliating 41%, and then boast about his prospects for winning a general election during a poorly worded speech in a conservative Missouri southeastern district on the eve of Clinton's smashing victory in West Virginia.
Obama in Missouri

There are many more questions that must be disturbing not only to voters but also to the superdelegates that will ultimately determine the nomination for either candidate. For instance, why can't Barack Obama connect with White working class individuals, especially Blue-Collar voters in those important swing states that any candidate would need in order to capture the White House. If Obama has any hope of winning over those voters than he will have to do a much better job of convincing them that he has their best interests at heart and will work hard for them every day.

Then there is the question of the demographics that make up particular regions of the country, especially in those all important rust belt states or swing states that could very well determine who our next president will be. Obama has a big problem with rural voters, possibly due to their distrust for an unknown candidate, but also because his recent comments towards "small-town" rural Americans were insulting, especially to those rural farming communities who "cling to guns" or attend church on a regular basis.
What the Exit Polls Say

Furthermore, Obama should be worried when exit polling is showing as it did recently in Pa, Indiana and West Virgina, that nearly 60% of Clinton's supporters will not vote for Obama in the Fall election, either voting for McCain or choosing to stay home on election day. Certainly these are troubling numbers for any candidate that will need their support in order to win on November 4th. Although some pundits and analysts will say that many of those defectors will come back to roost in the nest after the Democratic convention in late August, it is still discerning to consider the possibility that many will choose other options.
A Clear Rift in the Party

There is also the continued problem that exists with Rev.Wright. Early exit polling in West Virginia indicates that the controversial remarks made by Wright are still a factor for the Obama campaign. It is certain to be a continued factor raised by Republicans in the upcoming general election if Obama becomes the nominee.
Wright and Race are an Issue

It is now conceivable if not highly probable that Clinton will win the popular vote after the final tally is counted on June 3. Having erased most if not all of Obama's gains from the North Carolina primary in last evening's contest, she will now begin gaining on his overall popular vote margin, and will likely overtake his lead after the Puerto Rico Primary is completed. The Island primary which is scheduled for June 1, is reported to have more than 2.3 million registerd voters with at least 80% of those voters predicted to go to the polls. Clinton is favored to win that primary by a comfortable margin due to its overwhelming Hispanic and Catholic demographics, as well as Clinton's support among Puerto Ricans which make up a sizable voting block in New York. Hillary could very well come away with more than 500,000 more votes than Obama when all is said and done in that primary.
Why Puerto Rico Matters
Popular Vote Leads Directly to the Superdelegates

If Clinton should win the popular vote, and it now looks as if she will(exluding Michigan and/or Florida) it will be another valuable argument she can make to the superdelegates and party officials who are sitting on the fence until after June 3.  

Clinton's confidence is showing despite the media thrashing she endured over the past week, and the calls for her to quit. Her thumping of Obama in West Virginia indicates her strenghts and his weaknesses. Voters have sent a loud and clear statement that they want this race to continue and for every vote to be counted. Last nights primary results sent a message to the Obama campaign, as well as to their supporters, and especially the political pundits that it it very unwise to attack Clinton and denigrate her campaign, that it can cause voter backlash, as was evident in West Virginia.

Unwise to Attack Clinton

Clinton's continued persistence in spite of the odds to remain in the race, have overshadowed many of the gains made by the Obama campaign. She may be considered by some to be a thorn in Obama's side at this late juncture, but to many she is the candidate best poised to propel Obama into the White House. Without her help, his prospects are dim. To believe otherwise would be foolish and condescending.

It is safe to say that no candidate has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916, and the last Democrat to win that state not once but twice, was Bill Clinton. Hillary is by far the strongest candidate to go up against McCain not only in this region of the country, but in all of rural America.
So Goes West Virginia, So Goes The Nation

Next stop is Kentucky where Obama will face the same humiliation that he witnessed in West Virginia, which has to be embarrassing for the man who claims the label of "presumptive nominee." The candidate claiming the mantle of victory one week, but knocked down the next week in a major landslide, must explain himself to the American electorate. Obama if he expects to be the nominee which is still not his to claim, must act and demonstrate that he can win, even when the going gets tough. His lackluster performance in West Virginia and his willingness to write off a swing state as though it doesn't matter will only come back to haunt him in the end.
Kentucky, Another Clinton Landslide

Obama must soon come to a realization that the votes of all citizens are important if he hopes to win in November, and to overlook the wishes of those who don't support him can only lead to more trouble for him in his quest to be president. Being overconfident at this point in time, could cause a reversal of fortunes for the Obama campaign as the stakes are high and the road remains long and burdensome.

 

Odd that one of them was a Southern state that's in play for the General Election and for a Senate pick-up.

Using CNN exit polls, I've mimicked Jerome's front-page graph, which showed Obama's growing margin of victory among African-American voters over the course of the primary season. Jerome's post asked whether or not Obama's percentage of the white vote has been decreasing. Let's take a look...

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

Either that or outright dishonesty

From the CNN Indiana exit poll

Did race matter?

Whites saying "NO"  Vote: Clinton 57%, Obama 43%

Blacks saying "NO"  Vote: Clinton 7%, Obama 93%

The virtually incontrovertible pattern of evidence as this primary season rolls on is that, for the overwhelming majority of black Democrats, nothing else is even remotely as important as race.  

OK, Obama supporters, I'm ready for your denunciations, denials, troll, and hide ratings.  

People are looking at the results of primaries in individual states and using the voting results and exit poll data in an effort to predict who will carry that state in the general election. That approach is fraught with errors. One way to show this is to look at historical data and determine if there is a correlation. Since Ohio is a focal point in 2008, and since Pennsylvania didn't have 2004 primary exit poll data, let's compare how Kerry did in the 2004 Ohio Democratic primary to how he did in the GE later that year. As you'll see in the extended entry, the correlation isn't very good in a lot of areas.

Since the Pennsylvania primary finished up the night before last there has been a dizzying tornado of spin from pundits about Obama's continuing, "problem," of not being able to break into Hillary's constituency. The loudest of these cries came from Republican pundits, like Pat Buchanan or Joe Scarborough,  incessantly crowing that Obama losing Pennsylvania is somehow indicative of greater problems within his campaign and will surely doom, DOOM him in the fall. This same sentiment is echoed so frequently by the Clinton campaign and its surrogates one would assume it to be a HRC4Prez-approved talking point. Before I get to exactly what about this phrase nearly induces an aneurysm in my brain every time I hear it, I want to take a second to examine Pennsylvania and Hillary's win.