On April 22nd, as Hillary Clinton's win was declared in Pennsylvania, an L.A. Times blog reported on a statement by Harold Ford Jr. to MSNBC:

Harold Ford Jr. -- not so long ago the rising black politician within Democratic ranks -- now heads an arm of the party that seeks to keep its focus on "middle" America and crafting centrist messages: the Democratic Leadership Council. Often vilified by liberal activists, the DLC sees itself as quintessentially practical.

From that perspective, and in the wake of Hillary Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, Ford just set a political bar for the black politician that surpassed him in prominence.

"You have to win Indiana," Ford told Barack Obama (via an interview on MSNBC). And, Ford added, Obama has to "steamroll" Clinton in the other state with a primary two Tuesdays from now, North Carolina.

The Obama camp will not publicly embrace that equation. But for him to truly regain the momentum he captured during his February surge, most party pros will see Ford's formulation as spot-on.

Interestingly, the Obama campaign released a spreadsheet back in February (mistakenly, they said) predicting results for all primaries and caucuses.  Many Obama supporters on this and other blogs have since boasted about its accuracy.

Take a look at the spreadsheet...

Today the Clinton campaign sent out a memo to Interested Parties. It reads in part:

MEMO: Why Did the Obama Campaign Predict Victory in Indiana? Does That Prediction Still Stand?

Three months ago the Obama campaign produced a spreadsheet that, with one exception, has accurately predicted the winners in each of the upcoming primaries and caucuses.

Tellingly, that spreadsheet predicted an Obama victory in Indiana by 7 points, as well as an Obama victory in North Carolina.  

Does the Obama campaign still stand by that prediction?  If not, why not, and what has happened?

It is easy to see why the Obama campaign predicted victory in Indiana.  Senator Obama has won each of the primaries in the states that border Illinois Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri, and 25% of Hoosiers get their television from Illinois stations a huge advantage for Senator Obama. Indiana s primary is open, and Senator Obama has tended to do better in those contests.

The Obama campaign has also dramatically outspent Senator Clinton in Indiana by more than $2.4 million -- $5.6m - $3.2m and has even gone up on broadcast television in the very expensive Chicago media market.

Despite Senator Obama's advantages and his prediction of victory, we have worked hard in Indiana to do as well as we can and anticipate a close finish.

In North Carolina, Tuesdays other contest, Senator Obama enjoyed a lead of over 20 points in public polls throughout this year and outspent us there on TV by $1.3m -- $4.9 - $3.5.   Senator Clinton has been working hard to narrow that 20 point gap.

The Clinton campaign certainly raises some fair questions, especially in light of Obama's shrinking support among the working class, as reported today by the A.P.:

Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.

~snip~

The April poll -- conducted before the Pennsylvania contest -- also showed an overwhelming preference for Clinton over Obama among working-class whites. They favored her over him by 39 percentage points, compared to a 10-point Obama lead among white college graduates. Obama also did worse than Clinton among those less-educated voters when matched up against Republican candidate John McCain.

~snip~

"It's the stuff about his preacher ... and the thing he said about Pennsylvania towns, how they turn to religion," Keith Wolfe, 41, a supermarket food stocker from Parkville, Md., said..."I don't think he'd be a really good leader."

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has consolidated her coalition of women, labor households, seniors, Catholics, Jews, blue collar voters, Hispanics, and others -- a winning coalition which has continued to grow stronger since February.  In terms of momentum, Hillary is looking like a champion.

Obama's momentum has been fading since February, and he's been falling short of his own expectations.  Obama's spreadsheet predicted a 5-point loss in Pennsylvania (Clinton won by nearly 10 points) and an 11-point win in Guam (currently he's winning by 6 points.)

Does Obama have revised projections for Indiana and North Carolina?

UPDATED: Obama won Guam by 7 VOTES, a statistical tie, and a re-count has been announced.

Cross posted at texasdarlin.wordpress.com

The author is unaffiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign.

i am, as a scorned troll, going out on a gnarled limb, saying hillary basically blows obama out of the three rivers.

the expectations game by both sides are in full force, but pay no attention, nor pay attention to your polls.

some have an ear, some do not, but i am trolling here, as a troll, since i am for hillary, i refuse to buckle under to the santimonious obama prostelytizers and i remain of good humor, which is strange for a troll.

Update [2008-4-11 22:5:47 by FOB92]:DISCLAIMER - This diary was inspired by the creative piece Obama Must Win Pennsylvania that was formerly on the rec list. Please read that diary to understand the context of the message below.
-----------------------------------

Let's get real! It's mid April and Hillary hasn't closed the deal. Sure, she has got a slight super delegate lead, but she has also failed over EIGHT times to end the nomination: first in Iowa, then in South Carolina (despite Bill's best efforts); next on Super Tuesday, then on the FEB 9-10 contests, after that she could have wrapped it up in the Potomac Primaries, and don't forget all her family's efforts on the FEB 19 (HI, WI), and finally she had two more recent chances that slipped by in WY and Mississippi.

And now Hillary's campaign is lowering expectations yet again, this time for North Carolina, another key battleground state.

RALEIGH -- Officials with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign Monday downplayed the importance of the North Carolina primary, as both she and Barack Obama announced plans to stump in the state this week.
- - - - - - - -
"It's not good enough for her to have a win in Pennsylvania and then turn around and lose in North Carolina," said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who is not working with either candidate. "She needs to basically win everything that's left on the calendar."
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=28 9531

The expectations game should be familiar to everyone by now. Typically, campaigns try and underplay their own expectations while hyping up the chances of their rival. This way, come election day when their candidate does "better than expected," they can claim victory while their rival, coming in under expectations, is handed a defeat. The vote totals don't seem to matter, it's all about expectations.

Hillary Clinton's advisers are no slouches when it comes to managing expectations, and they seem to be doing it more consistently as this primary season rolls along.

Both campaigns played the game back in the early primaries, but Clinton seemed to come out ahead. Especially before New Hampshire, a state that had pretty much always favored Clinton, the campaign made some downright gloomy predictions:

The tone out of the Clinton campaign was future-focused, a seeming recognition that the fight in New Hampshire is all but over. "With just five days, it was difficult to stop the wave out of Iowa," said deputy communications director Phil Singer. "Our crowds here have been enormous and the enthusiasm we've seen has been extraordinary. Regardless of outcome, it's onward and upward."

Of course, the New Hampshire victory "reinvigorated" her campaign and allowed her to play Obama to a stalemate in the the early primaries.

Notably, Clinton is playing the same game with respect to the Texas and Ohio primaries on Tuesday, but Obama largely seems to be sitting this one out. Yesterday, the Clinton campaign sought to raise expectations on Obama in a memorandum that was widely publicized:

"If he fails to garner big wins, there's a problem," the memo states.

"The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday."

"Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states," the memo continues. "He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches."

The Obama campaign hit back, saying that Clinton was the one who needed to win big to catch up in delegates, but otherwise, Obama declined to lower expectations for Tuesday. His website boasts of his winning streak and over 1 million supporters, and his campaign seems to be doing little to counteract news reports saying he's made inroads on Clinton's base among women and older voters.

This failure to mitigate expectations may turn out to be a mistake for Obama, if only because it may prolong the primary season. I don't know who will win on Tuesday. The polls have been tightening in recent days; any candidate could win either state. However, most of the people I know expect Obama to win in Texas and hold out hope for Ohio, even though he was behind by an average of 10 points in the polls in Texas just two weeks ago. Texas and Ohio have been Clinton country for months, and if she does win both states - even if it doesn't keep her in the delegate race - she can claim that her campaign has once again been reinvigorated, giving her reason to stay in through Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

Of course, the pendulum swings both ways. If Obama wins Texas and Ohio - or wins Texas and comes very close in Ohio - I think he can lay claim to real momentum, something that's been elusive in this contest so far. By failing to play the expectations game, Obama is taking a gamble. A big win for him on Tuesday will likely knock Clinton out of the race permanently. A loss, given the expectations, will likely keep Clinton in it for a while.

It's a gutsy move by the Obama camp, betting on a knockout victory on Tuesday. Can he pull it off, or do you think it will backfire?

This is what I was thinking, and this post sums it up nicely.

  http://reachblack.blogspot.com/2008/02/w hat-if-roles-were-reversed.html

* What if Obama lost all of these states by such huge margins (we're talking 25-35% in many states)?
    * What if it was Obama who, despite running on name recognition as the inevitable candidate, could only claim his home state and California as major (hard fought) wins thus far?
    * What if Obama had negatives in the low to mid 40s?
    * What if Obama had low appeal with Independents and virtually no appeal with cross-over Republicans?
    * What if Obama lost a majority of the swing states on Super Tuesday?
    * What if it was Clinton who lead McCain by 7 points in the latest head to head contest, instead of Obama?
    * What if Obama had as much dirt on him as the Clintons do?
    * What if Obama brought as much fatigue and divisiveness as the Clintons do?
    * What if it was Obama who had to "loan" himself $5 million dollars of his own money just to stay competitive?
    * What if Obama trailed in PLEDGED delegates and could only claim a slim (misleading) lead by counting super delegates (party insiders who can change their mind at the drop of a dime and show loyalty through political favors)?
    * What if Obama lost 6 out of 8 primaries (perhaps even 8 or 9 in a row) as Hillary Clinton is expected to lose this week?

Go read the original post.

 Can anyone honestly say that were the players situations exchanged, that there wouldn't be intense pressure for Obama to pull out of the race?

I'd like  your thoughts.

Okay, so what does Barack Obama have to do to "win" tomorrow?  He's ahead by double digits in the polls for Virginia and Maryland.  He exceeded expectations all weekend, including a greater than 20 percent win in Louisiana.  So under the protocols of expectations he must win both Maryland and Virginia tomorrow by at least 20 points.  He is expected to exceed expectations.  A 19 point win does not exceed expectations, so it should be interpreted as a major setback for him.

The media continues to overhype the Obama campaign and build expectations that will not be met.  Lacking any specific polling data the media has been continually predicting that all of the following February primaries & caucuses will go Obama's way.  I have very specific reasons why that will not happen:

Washington:  The two state senators have both endorsed Clinton.  It is a caucus which means this type of support will heavily help turn-out & control of the caucus process.  Similar to Nevada where the Reid family helped control the caucus process.  Also, Californians supported clinton, and Washington most resembles California in it's population demographics.  Finally, Asian-Americans in California showed clear support for Clinton, and Washington has a high percentage of Asian Americans.

Louisiana:  Hurricane Katrina greatly altered the demographics of Louisana and African-Americans do not have as great of a majority as they once did.  Add in Clinton's strong and visible work after the Hurricane and Louisana shows strong potential for a Clinton win.

Maine:  Clinton won neighboring states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts by significant majorities.  Maine has supported strong female candidates for Senate.

Virginia:  The rural south has been strongly supporting Clinton in low African-American areas.  There is enough of a balance demographically in Virginia for this to be heavily contested.  Additionally, the DNC has a strong presence in Virginia and a lot of the heads have already endorsed Clinton including: Terry McAuliffe, Jennifer McClellan, and Susan Swecker.

I do think the remaining states still hold advantages for Obama, but these four show that she can easily hold her own through the month of February and into March.

OK, so I've read and participated in MyDD.com since late 2003. I read it EVERYDAY and scan EVERY post. And there's this energy that's here that's hot and cold and defeatist. Stop it right now!

Look, I understand that everyone, including myself, feels stung by the 2004 elections. I worked my ass off for more than nine months straight to elect John Kerry President. I was so sad on election night I nursed a bottle of cheap red wine until I fell asleep. I thought I would wake up and like on that crappy TV soap "Dallas" everything would turn out to be a dream. Instead, it's been a two year nightmare.

Chris and many, many others on this board have strained to temper expectations for the coming election. They get excited about large gains in the House and Senate and then add caveats such as that the media might sabotage these gains. Or, (another) October Surprise. Or, the difference between local, state and national elections.

Well, BUCK UP! None of this matters.

Expectations, predictions and polls are smoke and mirrors. Here is what matters: how much you and I get off our f**king asses, motivate our friends and neighbors and do something. There is only one way to win and win big. Typing at our keyboards won't do it. Reading newspapers won't do it. Dancing around in a Grandpa Gorilla suit or that crazy old anti-bush man on YouTube alone won't do it.

Blood, sweat, tears and action WILL DO IT!