The Old Eighteen

The day after

News and notes from last night's election:

• Barack Obama won by 10 points in Lake County, but it wasn't enough to help him overtake Hillary Clinton, who squeaked out a 2 point win in Indiana.  Meanwhile, Obama won big in North Carolina, wiping out Hillary's gains in Pennsylvania.  So Indiana was a wash, and North Carolina and Pennsylvania were a wash, and Hillary is stil just as far behind as she has been.
• Hillary has canceled all public events today so her campaign can meet with superdelegates, presumably to feel them out about whether or not she should bother continuing her campaign.  She might not like what she hears: she has reportedly already received a phone call from General Wesley Clark, one of her supporters, urging her to drop out of the race.
• David Chalian at ABC News reports that with about 18 of last night's pledged delegates remaining to be allocated, Obama's magic number is now 182, and he only needs about 37% of all remaining delegates (pledged and unpledged) to clinch the nomination.
• According to Chuck Todd, even if you throw in the results from Florida and Michigan, Obama still maintains a popular vote lead of 150,000-200,000 and a delegate lead of almost 100.  This supports what I have said here previously, that Obama should call for the delegations from these two states tbe seated.
• With his big win in North Carolina, the Obama campaign is looking to clinch a majority in pledged delegates by May 20, the date of the Kentucky and Oregon primaries.
• The Indiana voter ID law scored its first victory for democracy last night, when 12 nuns, all in their 80's and 90's, were prevented from voting because they didn't have ID.
• Video from Obama's victory speech last night:

Cue the fat lady

It's not the end yet, but it may be the beginning of the end.  Barack Obama won a huge victory in North Carolina tonight, negating Hillary Clinton's gains two weeks ago in Pennsylvania and then some.  With 77% of precincts reporting, Obama has 56% of the vote to Clinton's 42%, giving him a huge margin of victory if it holds up, as it looks to.  Meanwhile, in Indiana, Hillary has a much more tenuous lead: with 84% reporting, she leads by 4 points, 52%-48%.  Lake County, which includes the city of Gary, hasn't reported yet - this is part of the Chicago metropolitan area, so Obama is expected to do well here and it looks like he could close the gap.  How much remains to be seen, but from a practical standpoint Indiana is effectively a tie, so she really gains nothing here.

Obama clearly outperformed both my expectations and, judging by what I'm hearing on MSNBC, those of the media.  The spin emerging from tonight will be that the race is all but over, and the remaining superdelegates will probably begin lining up behind Obama over the next few days.  Hillary hasn't spoken yet, so what her reaction will be tonight is anyone's guess, but the drumbeat for her to end her campaign will probably pick up pace as the week progresses.  I hope she's able to read the writing on the wall and that she begins making plans for a graceful exit - if not tonight, soon.

Fun with poll numbers: Indiana & North Carolina revisited

As we approach the votes in Indiana and North Carolina tomorrow, here's a look at where the two races stand:

North Carolina:

ARG:

5/2-5/4: Obama 50%, Clinton 42%, Undecided 4%
4/30-5/1: Obama 52%, Clinton 41%, Undecided 5%
4/26-4/27: Obama 52%, Clinton 42%, Undecided 4%
4/14-4/15: Obama 52%, Clinton 41%, Undecided 5%

InsiderAdvantage:

5/4: Obama 48%, Clinton 45%, Undecided 7%
5/1: Obama 49%, Clinton 44%, Undecided 7%
4/29: Obama 42%, Clinton 44%, Undecided 14%
4/14: Obama 51%, Clinton 36%, Undecided 13%

Mason-Dixon:

4/28-4/29: Obama 49%, Clinton 42%, Undecided 9%

PPP (D):

5/3-5/4: Obama 53%, Clinton 43%, Undecided 7%
4/26-4/27: Obama 51%, Clinton 39%, Undecided 10%
4/19-4/20: Obama 57%, Clinton 32%, Undecided 11%
4/12-4/13: Obama 54%, Clinton 34%, Undecided 13%
4/5-4/6: Obama 54%, Clinton 33%, Undecided 13%

Rasmussen:

5/1: Obama 49%, Clinton 40%, Undecided 11%
4/28: Obama 51%, Clinton 37%, Undecided 12%
4/3: Obama 56%, Clinton 33%, Undecided 11%

Research 2000:

4/29-4/30: Obama 51%, Clinton 44%, Undecided 3%

SurveyUSA:

5/2-5/4: Obama 50%, Clinton 45%, Undecided 2%
4/26-4/28: Obama 49%, Clinton 44%, Undecided 3%
4/19-4/21: Obama 50%, Clinton 41%, Undecided 5%
4/5-4/7: Obama 49%, Clinton 39%, Undecided 5%

Times/Bloomberg:

4/10-4/14: Obama 47%, Clinton 34%, Undecided 17%

Zogby:

5/3-5/4: Obama 48%, Clinton 40%, Undecided 8%
4/30-5/1: Obama 50%, Clinton 34%, Undecided 8%

Several of the polls show Hillary closing the gap somewhat, but Obama still has a substantial lead in most polls ranging from 7-10 points.  Obama will probably win North Carolina, but the question is by how much, and that depends on which way undecideds break.  My guess is that Obama will still win, but it won't be the blowout that he was looking to have a few weeks ago.  What happens after tomorrow will hinge on the outcome of Indiana's vote.

::

Indiana:

ARG:

5/2-5/4: Clinton 53%, Obama 45%, Undecided 2%
4/30-5/1: Clinton 53%, Obama 44%, Undecided 3%
4/23-4/24: Clinton 50%, Obama 45%, Undecided 5%
4/2-4/3: Clinton 53%, Obama 44%, Undecided 2%

Downs Center:

4/28-4/30: Clinton 52%, Obama 45%, Undecided 3%
4/14-4/16: Clinton 45%, Obama 50%, Undecided 5%

Howey-Gauge:

4/23-4/24: Clinton 45%, Obama 47%, Undecided 8%

InsiderAdvantage:

5/4: Clinton 48%, Obama 44%, Undecided 8%
4/30-5/1: Clinton 47%, Obama 40%, Undecided 13%

PPP (D):

5/3-5/4: Clinton 51%, Obama 46%, Undecided 3%
4/26-4/27: Clinton 50%, Obama 42%, Undecided 8%

Rasmussen:

4/29: Clinton 46%, Obama 41%, Undecided 13%

Research 2000:

4/23-4/24: Clinton 47%, Obama 48%, Undecided 5%

Seltzer-Star-WTHR:

4/20-4/23: Clinton 38%, Obama 41%, Undecided 21%

Suffolk:

4/23-4/24: Clinton 49%, Obama 43%, Undecided 6%

SurveyUSA:

5/2-5/4: Clinton 54%, Obama 42%, Undecided 1%
4/25-4/27: Clinton 52%, Obama 43%, Undecided 2%
4/11-4/13: Clinton 55%, Obama 39%, Undecided 3%

TeleResearch:

4/25-4/29: Clinton 48%, Obama 38%, Undecided 14%

Times/Bloomberg:

4/10-4/14: Clinton 35%, Obama 40%, Undecided 19%

Zogby:

5/3-5/4: Clinton 42%, Obama 44%, Undecided 8%
4/30-5/1: Clinton 42%, Obama 42%, Undecided 9%

Barring a few older polls that date prior to the latest Jeremiah Wright kerfuffle, the polls pretty much consistently show Hillary with a lead in Indiana, ranging from 5-8 points.  SurveyUSA shows a more substantial 12-point lead, and they've been pretty generally reliable during this election cycle thus far, so it's possible that her lead may be bigger here.  The polls don't show a consistent trend in favor of one candidate, but a few of the polls seem to indicate that independents may be breaking for Obama.  It looks like Hillary will win by a substantial margin of 5 points or more unless independents do break for Obama, which might narrow his margin of loss somewhat.

::

Hillary may use a victory in Indiana as an excuse to keep her campaign going, but my guess is that over the next week, more superdelegates will begin to endorse Obama.  And after tomorrow, there are only 217 pledged delegates remaining to be allocated in six contests: West Virginia a week from tomorrow, Kentucky and Oregon a week later on 5/20, Puerto Rico on 6/1, and Montana and South Dakota on 6/3.  None of these races have a whole lot of polling yet, but the early numbers suggest that West Virginia will be a blowout for Hillary, so  she probably won't feel any pressure to drop out if she hasn't already done so.  However, even if she took 2/3 of the state's delegates, she would only cut into Obama's lead by about 10 delegates.  Kentucky, which votes a week later, also looks to be a blowout for Clinton, but Obama is currently leading in Oregon, and if he can get a substantial win there, he can negate whatever gains Hillary makes in Kentucky and maintain the margin of his lead.

At that point, Hillary would probably need to sweep the remaining pledged delegates to erase Obama's lead, which obviously won't happen.  Hillary will probably do well in Puerto Rico, but Obama may perform well enough to minimize her gains here.  And if Montana and South Dakota break the way that the rest of the region has, Obama will win big in both states.  If Obama performs better than I'm expecting him to tomorrow, the race could end pretty quickly.  But even if he doesn't, I doubt that it will go much further than 5/20 - by then, the math will be too strong for superdelegates to ignore.  A deal may have been reached by this time to seat Michigan and Florida's delegates - if so, this would cut into Obama's lead but not eliminate it altogether.  And that would leave Hillary with no argument to fall back on in trying to woo superdelegates.

Obama's magic number is now 277

That's how many delegates Obama needs to clinch the Democratic nomination.  He'll make a significant dent in that number tomorrow night, though how much of one remains to be seen.  There are 187 pledged delegates on the line, so if he just breaks even in both states, he can bring that magic number down to near 180.  And depending on how he does tomorrow, he may also get a nice round of superdelegate endorsements in the days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.  Is it too much to hope that this might almost be over?

::

(via Andrew Sullivan)

"I’m here to tell you the truth"

Obama's new ad running in Indiana and North Carolina:

Obama is on the right side of the argument about suspending the gas tax.  It would provide no benefit to consumers, because even if gas prices didn't change after the tax was suspended they would only save about $20-30 - but if the gas tax is suspended, prices will rise to cover the difference, and the money that was once going in the government's coffers to pay for stuff like new roads and alternative fuel research will go instead to boosting the profits of the oil companies and the handful of people who own them.  Suspending the gas tax is a cosmetic solution that would do nothing to alleviate the burden of gas prices on the everyday consumer.  What we need are long-term strategies for reducing our dependence on oil, and short-term strategies for addressing the weak dollar, which has played a significant role in the recent inflation of gas prices.

::

(via Marc Ambinder)

Group with ties to Hillary Clinton behind deceptive robocalls in NC

Facing South has learned that a group with ties to the campaign of Hillary Clinton is behind a series of misleading and possibly illegal robocalls in North Carolina.  This group, which calls itself Women's Voices Women Vote, claims its goal as boosting turnout among "unmarried women voters," which apparently somehow involves keeping black people away from the polls.  The robocalls have been targeted at African-American voters, and provide false information in an apparent attempt to suppress turnout:

In at least one version of the call, a man says that voter registration packets must be returned before a person can vote. The State Board of Elections released a transcript of the call.

"Hello, this is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is sign it, date it and return your application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return the voter registration form when it arrives. Thank you."

This isn't the first time that Women's Voices has been caught engaging is such behavior:

But since last November, in at least 11 states nationwide, Women's Voices -- sometimes working through its Voter Participation Center project -- has developed a checkered reputation, drawing rebukes from leading election officials and complaints from thousands of would-be voters as a result of their secretive tactics, deceptive mailings and calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law. For example:

• In Arizona last November, election officials were "inundated with complaints" after Women's Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming that recipients were "required" to mail back an enclosed voter registration form. Many who received the mailing were already registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date. Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group's tactics as "misleading and deceptive." A similar mailing in Colorado that month "[drew] fire and caused confusion," according to a state press release.
• In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: "One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters," sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to actually not be.
• Michigan officials ended up "fielding tons of calls from confused voters" after Women's Voices did a February mailing to "380,000 unmarried women" -- including numerous deceased voters and even more that were already registered. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voices "seemed confused by the confusion," the Lansing State Journal reported.
• A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it "disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voice said, "I'm sorry to hear that."
• By March, Women's Voices was backing off the erroneous "registration is required" language, but there were still problems. For example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that "registering to vote is voluntary," but a clerk in Washington County reported that "the majority [of forms] sent back to the county come from registered voters, causing needless labor for office employees."

Problems with the group's tactics have also been documented in Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

Is the Clinton campaign behind these calls?  Well, you be the judge:

Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. [Women's Voices founder and President Page] Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org. She has not contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database.

Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.

Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. Podesta also donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his candidacy for president.

It's nauseating that a Democratic candidate for president has chosen to run a campaign employing tactics straight out of the Jesse Helms/Lee Atwater playbook, but that's where we are.  The Democratic party is doomed if it allows her to become its presidential nominee.

Hardballin': Obama hits the court with UNC players

I bet Tyler Hansbrough can't bowl either - but I'd like to see how long John McCain can last on a basketball court with him, much less Barack Obama.  For his part, Obama held his own pretty well as he took the court with the UNC basketball team:

Hillary "makes Rocky look like a pansy"

...and Mike Easley makes Hillary Clinton look like an idiot:

North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley (D) made his endorsement official this morning, saying that Hillary Clinton “gets it” and is a fighter who he said “makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.”

“There’s a lot of ‘yes we can’ and ‘yes we should’ going around,” he said, taking what seemed to be a subtle jab at Obama. “Hillary Clinton is ready to deliver. That’s the difference.”

You'd think that a sitting governor would know better than to use a homophobic slur in any context when trying to talk up a candidate he's endorsed.

John Edwards: still waiting for his jet ski

As the North Carolina primary approaches, speculation continues to grow over the question of if and when John Edwards will make an endorsement in the battle for the Democratic nomination, and why he hasn't done so already.  According to the New York Times, Edwards has indicated to people within his inner circle that he won't make an endorsement prior to the NC primary on May 6.  But why not?

One former aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Mr. Edwards was angling for a role in a Democratic administration, and with the contest still undecided, was hesitant to commit to a candidate.

“He doesn’t want to pick the loser,” the aide said.

However, others have indicated that he has a high opinion of both candidates and appears to be genuinely torn between the two of them.  It doesn't help that he appears to be getting yanked in both directions by those surrouding him:

Many of Mr. Edwards’s supporters in North Carolina have been quietly pressing him to endorse Mr. Obama, and a large group of them, led by Ed Turlington, his campaign chairman during the last presidential race, came forward publicly last week to support Mr. Obama.

On the other hand, Mrs. Edwards, her husband’s closest and most trusted adviser, has made it clear that she favors Mrs. Clinton; aides said she had recently tried to persuade Mr. Edwards to do the same.

As to why Elizabeth Edwards supports Hillary over Obama, while it's possible that gender politics may be playing a role, the deal-clincher appears to be health care: Elizabeth favors Clinton's plan because it contains broad mandates, while Obama's plan focuses on reducing health care costs so that insurance is more affordable and only mandates coverage for children.  Neither plan is single-payer insurance and therefore neither one will provide true universal health care, but Obama's will arguably be more successful because it addresses affordability and doesn't give the Republicans mandates to use as a talking point in their inevitable "Harry and Louise" ads.

It's disappointing to hear that Elizabeth Edwards supports the DLC machine candidate, because she's been such a strong voice for our party and its values during this election cycle.  I can certainly understand the importance that she places on health care; having lost my mother to cancer several years ago, I know all too well the woeful deficiencies of our health care system.  But I think she's misreading Obama's plan and overstating the importance and political feasibility of mandates.  Single-payer should be our ultimate goal, but until we're able to get there, we should back the plan that does the greatest good at the least cost, and that plan appears to be Obama's.

In the end, my hunch is that if Edwards does endorse, it will probably be HIllary Clinton.  But he may wait until after May 6 to do so, and if he does and Obama sweeps both Indiana and North Carolina, Edwards's endorsement might be moot.  Let's hope that's the case, because an Edwards endorsement for Hillary could make things even more complicated than they already have been thus far.

::

(via The Page)

North Carolina TV station refuses to air race-baiting GOP ad

Good for them:

At least one North Carolina TV station is refusing to air the N.C. Republican Party's ad about Sen. Barack Obama's former minister.

A spokesman for WRAL-TV in Raleigh said the station will not show the ad. A spokesman for another Triangle station, WTVD, said it had not been asked to air the ad but would have reservations about doing so.

The ad points out that Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore have endorsed Obama. It calls Obama too "extreme" because of his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and implies that Obama heard Wright's controversial sermons.

It's nice to hear that there are at least a couple of TV stations out there with the integrity not to air this Willie Horton-style attack ad.  But you've got to think that at least the Fox affiliates in NC will have no qualms whatsoever about airing the ad, because, well, they're Fox.

And more good news from DNC chairman Howard Dean, who has made it clear that he isn't going to allow Grandpa John to get a free pass on this:

Meanwhile, national Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said McCain should lead his party in protesting the ad.

In an e-mail message to supporters, Dean said if McCain were serious he should have no problem making sure the ad never runs.

"This is a test of leadership for John McCain," Dean said. "If he can't pick up the phone and make members of his own party stop airing a television ad he claims to oppose, how can he lead our country through an economic crisis or the war in Iraq?"

He said McCain should discipline state GOP chairwoman Linda Daves for producing the ad.

It's pretty apparent that state GOP leaders were hoping that the controversy raised by the ad would help them raise some much needed moeny, and they might be right.  But it may backfire on them by giving state Dems a talking point to use when soliciting their own donations:

Jerry Meek, chairman of the N.C. Democratic Party, has sent out a letter to North Carolina Democrats saying the ad shows "just how out of touch North Carolina Republicans truly are."

"This much is clear: North Carolina Republicans will say anything and do anything to win," Meek writes.

Meek tells Democrats that they need to raise money to "prepare us for the challenges ahead." He asks them to send a contribution of $50, $25 or $15.

I have a feeling that the Republicans are going to find that the dirty tricks they used in the past aren't going to work for them this election cycle.  This ad in NC is going to do nothing but tarnish Saint John the Straight Talker with the taint of dirty politics, and give Democrats a rallying point to fire up their base with;

::

(via First Read)