About Last Night

A few observations about last night.

First, the live coverage was weak. A bunch of superfluous talking heads saying nothing of substance while we waited for the only thing that mattered--the numbers. When the vote was about 25% in, and Hillary was leading by 6%, here's what I wanted to know--are the votes in from the urban areas yet, or not? But (flipping around the channels--perhaps I missed someone discussing it) as far as I could tell, all they were saying were empty things they could have said yesterday and will say tomorrow.

Second, once again, Obama overperformed in the exit polling. (Luckily, two Democrats are running so you won't see a lot of stories about a stolen election.) Furthermore, everyone seemed to expect this and downplayed the polls. If you know about the phenomenon, can't you take it into account when you gather the numbers?

Third, Hillary got the solid victory she needed. She's still a long way from taking the nomination, but this was enough to continue. And she's got a pretty strong argument that she's the one her party should go with. It goes something like this:

Here's a list of the seven most populous states, in order--California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio.

Now no one knows if the upcoming election will be close, but the smart money is to plan on it, since the last two came down to a single state, we haven't seen a true blowout in over two decades, and the polls are showing no one is running away with it. The Republicans have a strong foothold in many less populous states and it's the big states cutting for the Democrats that saves them. They can expect to win California, New York and Illinois. The Republicans expect to win Texas.

So it's the big swing states that matter. (This isn't guaranteed, but there's no reason to think it won't continue to be so). Above all, it seems likely whichever party can take at least two of these three states--Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania--will win the election. Hillary has now convincingly won these three. Pennsylvania, in particular, had over a month to look at Barack very closely, and he outspent Hillary about 3-1, but, in the end, they rejected him, and rejected him pretty strongly. Why would the party want to take a flier on such a candidate?

In fact, it's even worse than that. The only reason Barack is ahead in delegates is because of the weird caucuses and representational delegate system they have. In the general election, no caucuses, no representational electors--it's winner take all. And Hillary wins that contest against Obama hands down.

Furthermore, a central reason Barack is doing so well is he gets a monolithic black vote against Hillary. But if Hillary is the candidate in the general election, while the turnout may drop a bit, she will get that black vote. Meanwhile, there are certain Dem blocs who have a lot of trouble with Obama, and may bolt in large numbers--Jews (to some extent), blue collar "Reagan" Democrats and Latinos. This combination gives McCain a much better chance at taking the big swing states, and may even give him a shot at such Dem strongholds as New Jersey and perhaps California.

It still looks pretty bad for Hillary getting the nomination, but if she can win another major Midwestern industrial state--Indiana--and not lose too big in the high-African American state of North Carolina, then I wouldn't be surprised if the superdelegates give her a second look. (On the other hand, I doubt they have the guts.)

One final point. My guess is no matter what the Dems do, this primary may have been a turning point for Repubs. They may now believe Hillary will be the tougher candidate to beat.