Well, Jade just because you can quote from What's the MAtter with Kansas doesn't mean you should. Particularly when for white working class voters, a vote for Obama is against their self-interest. The #1 issue for working class families is the cost of health care and Clinton's plan is realistic and offers universality and savings. Obama's plan is a compromised pastiche that promises a lot but lacks the enforceability to deliver much at all. Additionally, by proposing a plan that adopts so many Republican talking points, any compromise will inevitably make it worthless. He gave away the baby and the bathwater on health care reform.

So, they are not irrational voters voting on race lines, but ration voters voting on class lines. I would posit that the most irrational voter is the Obama supporter who repeats the canard that Clinton is too conservative. An Obama supporter saying "he will bring us together" at least locates their support within the Obama platform, but the Obama supporter claiming he's a progressive is not rooted in reality.

It will be hard to rationally argue that she has momentum if she wins two states that everyone knows she is going to win anyway and then looses the one state that is competitive based on her lovely demographics.

Unless of course she lies again and says that she "came from behind" like she did in Indiana. Note that Pollster.com shows that since March she had a constant lead.

http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

She has a very strong base of support; but Obama won more of the contests when he had to by wider margins. Even if it only came down to one delegate; the one with the lead... wins.

"West Virgina could be a turning point in the Hillary Clinton's Campagin."

And exactly which "turning point" are we up to now? Three? Four? Shucks, I'm losing count and getting a stiff neck tracking those goal posts whipping all over the field and out into the parking lot.

As to the 5% of pundits you suggest see this narrow gap that puts HRC in the Oval Office, I suppose we should not find anything coincident between that percentage and the fact that her Operation Chaos Republican votes in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana came in around 5%, Right?

Another guess: Those increases in "white working class American" supporters...? What are those percentage increases, and would that new metric disappear without the 90% white Republican cross-overs in the tally (just as those voters will disappear for her in the fall)?

About that last point (the disappearance of cross-over support), let's look at those pesky exit poll results in Indiana as an example:

As mentioned, she received about 5+% self-admitted Republican cross-over — and those are the ones that admitted it (the smarter mischief voters would also game the exit pollsters and keep a lid on it; makes for "surprise" results that way...).

Six out of ten of those said they would vote for McCain in the fall — probably the least-smart of the whole lot for admitting that. Makes them a good fit for McCain. I truly suspect that three of the remaining four percent were a bit smarter, will vote for McCain in the fall anyway, but weren't going to fess up to their mischief. The last percent just probably can't tell the difference anyway.

Whatever. Let's just focus back on the ones who admitted to mischief voting. Subtract them from the mix and what happens?

Hillary only won Indiana by 2% with the mischief vote. Six out of 10 of 5% (whew! math!) is 3%. Oops! There goes another "turning point" victory. Hill would have lost Indiana to Obama by one little percent, instead of winning by two percent. But it would not have been a win. Ditto the 5% cross-over votes in the Texas primary (two weeks after the inception of Operation Chaos) where her win was a 3%.

The 25% Republican HRC turnout in Mississippi was a shocking exception in many ways. Just think about the phrase "turning point" if she did not even have those votes (as she will not in the fall), since her loss there was by a breath-taking margin as-is.

Just as those white working class Republicans will not be there for her in the fall. I know. I grew up in a very conservative Republican family (before I personally saw the light; the draft had a way of opening my eyes back around 1970), in a very conservative part of Michigan. I know them because I share holiday dinners, weddings and funerals with them.

Those white working class Republicans would rather have their tongues nailed to the coffee table with a rusty spike than to ever vote for any person named Clinton.

Final thoughts to ponder: Why do you think folks refer to Bill Clinton as the First Black President? It is simply because he would never have won his first term, let alone the second, without the African-American voter turnout supporting him. The most important voting block for Democratic presidential races since the 60s has been that demographic. Besides, the "poor" showing for Obama even with his win in North Carolina? He actually did slightly better with the "working class" NC voters than did John Edwards — when Edward succeeded in his run for the senate.

That narrow gap HRC would have to thread on the way to the Oval Office is narrow indeed, especially when the comparison is apples to apples instead of the specious comparisons now being offered as terms of "electability."