Update: Text in the middle of this diary has been edited for clarity

Barack Obama, "the presumptive nominee" of the Democratic Party, must feel lousy today after losing Pennsylvania by more than 200,000 votes yesterday, despite waging an aggressive and negative  campaign against Hillary Clinton, in which he outspent her 3 to 1.   It's not hard to imagine how much greater Clinton's win would have been had advertising budgets been equalized.

Democratic strategists and experts, such as George Stephanopoulos, have said that a win of 5 points or less by Clinton in Pennsylvania would have effectively secured the nomination for Obama.  But he was unable to crack Clinton's winning coalition of union households, women, white people,  seniors, blue-collar workers, Catholics, and Jews.  As proven in other states, Hispanics bolster her nationwide coalition even more.

The results across Pennsylvania were impressive for Senator Clinton:

According to exit polls, Hillary won voters most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42) and union households by 18 points (59-41). She won those with incomes between 100K and 150K by 20 points (60-40); white women by 32 points (66-34) and Catholics by 38 points (69-31). She won those who decided on the last day (59-41), the last three days (58-42) and the last week (54-46). Hillary Clinton press release.

Additionally, Clinton once again demonstrated her appeal in rural and suburban America, winning nearly all counties across the state.  And her succcess in Pittsburgh serves as a reminder that she too can carry urban areas.

As expected, Obama held on firmly to his coalition of African Americans and the wealthy (over $150,000 annual income).

But the AP asks why Obama "can't close the deal."

The sobering reality is that Obama's coalition is too weak and shallow to win a major cross-section of core Democrats from shore to shore.  Losses in one or two major states would hardly be noteworthy, but accumulated losses over the past 3-and-a-half months starkly reveal a problem for this "frontrunner." California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, to name a few, offer classic Democratic demographics .  Surely the super delegates must wonder whether Obama, the most successful presidential fundraiser in history, can assemble a winning Democratic coalition in any of these electorally rich states.

Also, questions about Obama's character, experience, judgment, and ability to empathize with common folk have increasingly plagued him. Red flags are popping up on a daily basis:

The company he keeps, as described by conservative commentator Andrew McCarthy is an inconvenient truth.  Obama's ambition and charisma conceal his thin senatorial records, explains Todd Spivak.  His veracity about an assortment of matters, from meeting Nadhmi Auchi to what he actually knew about Rev. Wright's bitter rhetoric, is also problematic.  And Obama's arrogance, most vividly displayed recently when he "flipped off" Hillary Clinton doesn't help his image with average Americans either.  Along the same lines, today David Axelrod audaciously insulted white working class voters by declaring them irrelevant to a Democratic victory.  That dismissive attitude, along with patriotism gaffes, likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama. In the words of another writer:

If he becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama's campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America. Source.

One no longer needs to imagine how the GOP and 527's will attack Obama where he's most vulnerable.  The North Carolina GOP has already unveiled a television ad featuring Rev. Wright's damning of America, as reported today by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic.  Although the ad is short and crude, the devastating potential of similar assaults is indisputable.  You can view it here.

Obama's narrow delegate lead can be largely attributed  to an effective strategy in caucus states (for which his campaign deserves credit) in addition to a hypnotized mass media.  However, the media is slowing waking up, as ABC News demonstrated in last week's debate.  And legitimate questions have now been raised about whether caucuses accurately reflect the peoples' will (as illustrated most clearly in Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote by more than 100,000 but "lost" the caucuses) and whether caucus irregularities have created an unlevel playing field.

And speaking of the will of the people, Hillary Clinton now boasts a lead of 123,358 in the popular vote when results from Florida and Michigan primaries are included, according to Real Clear Politics.

Super delegates probably hoped to avoid the serious task at hand.  But because Obama can't close the deal on his own, their votes will now be determinative. And while General Election polls should be evaluated cautiously at this early date -- indicators of Obama's electability problems are evident.  For example, in Massachusetts, where Obama enjoys the support of Senators Kerry and Kennedy as well as Gov. Patrick, there is disturbing news for Sen. Obama, as reported by The Boston Herald:

While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error.

A Democrat struggling here in 2008? An unpopular war, a collapsing housing market and $4 gas - if Britney Spears were running as a Democrat, she'd pull at least 50 percent of the Massachusetts vote.

John McCain poses another threat to Obama, which is the potential to attract Hispanics, a voting bloc that can make or break a general election candidate. Clinton, on the other hand, has already established her good will among Latinos.

Obama is inclined to continuously blame Hillary for his election problems. But each candidate must be accountable for his or her weaknesses.  And that is one reason I admire Hillary Clinton.  Not only has she adapted her campaign strategy and structure when necessary, Clinton doesn't take the onslaught of assaults personally.  In fact, I'd guess that her grit and determination in the face of adversity have won over more voters.  Obama, on the other hand, is an incessant whiner, which of course is an unappealing quality in a friend, colleague, or spouse.  But in a general election candidate for President, petulance is a sure recipe for disaster.

All in all, the super delegates have many factors to consider.  At this stage, they should have a fairly complete picture of each candidate's advantages and disadvantages for the General Election, including their judgment, credentials, and demographic coalitions. It would not be surprising, therefore, if super delegates begin to break towards Clinton as the primary season finally winds down.

Cross posted at texasdarlin.wordpress.com

Let's get real. It's mid April and Obama hasn't closed the deal. Sure, he's got a slight delegate lead, but he's also failed three times to end the primaries: first in New Hampshire; next on Super Tuesday, particularly California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; and yet again on Super Tuesday 2, notably Texas and Ohio.

(Of course we're not supposed to talk about Florida, but he lost there too despite being the only candidate who broke the campaign pledge and advertised in that state. Source)

And now Obama's campaign is lowering expectations yet again, this time for Pennsylvania, another key battleground state. Surrogate Claire McCaskill recently predicted that Obama would lose Pennsylvania by "double digits." Which means, I guess, that if he loses by 9%, Obama will try to claim success.  Another surrogate, Sen. Bob Casey, didn't help the expectations game much when he said:

"President Clinton and Senator Clinton, either in terms of campaigning or governing, have been in this state for 15 years...Hillary Clinton chaired health-care hearings in 1993. She has a good base here, but I think we can cut into it." (emphasis added.) Source

In fact, it appears that the reverse will be true, according to SUSA, the most reliable pollster this election season. Their new poll says Clinton has actually cut into Obama's lead among white men recently.

What's wrong with this picture?

Has there ever been a Democratic nominee who lost the primaries in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida? (Obama would definitely still lose Florida if there were a re-vote, which is why he opposes one.)

Howard Wolfson was right when he said during a conference call on Monday:

"[Obama is] doing everything he can to win in Pennsylvania, and if he can't, it'll be a serious defeat...We all know the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue runs through Pennsylvania." Source

A while ago I wrote a diary called Hillary's Winning Coalition in which I discussed the reason for Hillary's success in the key battleground states, not only in the primaries, but more importantly for the general election:

Clinton leads among the groups that comprise the greater percentage of voters: women, blue collar workers, older voters, whites, and Hispanics. A Pew poll predicts that substantial numbers of whites, seniors, and lower-income Democrats could cross over to vote for McCain in the General Election if Obama were the nominee.

Hispanics may only make up approximately 7% of the electorate in November, according to a December 2007 Pew report, but their geographic distribution creates an opportunity:

Hispanics loom as a potential "swing vote" in (the) presidential race. That's because they are strategically located on the 2008 Electoral College map. Hispanics constitute a sizable share of the electorate in four of the six states that President Bush carried by margins of five percentage points or fewer in 2004 -New Mexico (where Hispanics make up 37% of state's eligible electorate); Florida (14%); Nevada (12%) and Colorado (12%). All four are expected to be closely contested once again in 2008.

Source

(Polls have indicated that McCain has a good chance of capturing Hispanic voters, against Obama.)

The bottom line is crystal clear. Obama has had pitch-perfect success in caucus states; he's done well with liberals and cross-over voters; and he's definitely sealed the deal with African Americans. But he does not bring home the Democratic base.

Time and again, he has failed to cut into Clinton's fundamentals. And without a candidate who has locked up Democratic women, lunch-bucket workers, people over 50, Hispanics, and a majority of white people -- we cannot win in November. The demographics for each candidate are solidified now; the patterns are predictable. Obama does not have a winning coalition.

Howard Wolfson was right on the money. Hillary does not need to win Pennsylvania by 20 points, contrary to Camp Obama's mantra.

It is Obama who needs to win Pennsylvania. It's his last chance to prove to the super delegates that he can carry the critical Democratic base required for victory in November.

I'm so happy that Texas Darling is back on this site.  I also really enjoyed the diaries of Universal.

Can the mods reconsider reinstating Universal (with a warning for whatever s/he did) as well?

Thanks

Here's Lou Dobbs giving 'em hell last night.  Thank the lord someone in prime time gets it:

"...What you said was she cannot win the nomination...well, neither can Senator Obama."

"...Why in the world is there this compulsion, this insistence, that she can't win the nomination....neither can Senator Obama!" (emphasis by Lou)

"...And I have never seen in my career greater favoritism applied in the national media..."

Lou is correct.  And I don't care whether Lou's views on public policy are conservative, moderate, or whatever.  He has in fact been one of the fairest commentators on any cable channel this election season, certainly on CNN.  
You can't even tell who he prefers for President...imagine that!

Give 'em hell Lou:

Updated 4/2/08 5:25 PM PST: In response to the comments below suggesting that it's un-Democratic and possibly criminal to quote Lou Dobbs, I want to clarify. The purpose of this diary is not to endorse or defend Lou Dobbs as a person or any economic, social, or political position he may hold. The intent of the diary is to endorse Dobbs' comments that are shown in the blockquotes, which unfortunately have not been heard so forcefully from any other prime-time broadcaster. In my view, it's myopic and un-democratic to pigeonhole a person: because Dobbs has conservative opinions about immigration, for example, doesn't rule out the possibility that he may have something of merit to say on another issue.

Updated 4/3/08 10:14 AM PST: I would like to note that several commenters to this diary have expressly or implicitly called me a racist. I urge myDD, in the strongest terms possible, to discourage and penalize this lowest form of insult. One such comment was posted at 12:30:06 PM EST