Does anyone have a breakdown of how white, working class men voted versus white, working class women?

At this point, everyone assumes that Obama is going to win a gigantic share of black votes in the primaries.  He's been winning an ever-increasing share of black votes and this transcends across all other demographics (sex, education, income).  Nobody talks about these voters not supporting Hillary in the general election.  Well, people talk about it in the context of Hillary winning via superdelegate and being viewed as "stealing" the nomination from it's rightful winner, but nobody talks about Hillary having "trouble" with the black vote.  It's basically assumed that the reason she isn't getting black votes is because Obama is so strong with them and not because she is particularly weak with them.

Okay, so let's look at white voters, particularly with white, working class voters.  What is it, 65-35?  60-40?  Depending on the state.  What if we split that between male and female votes?  I don't have the numbers compiled but I know she does stronger among white women than white men.  Couldn't that right there be applicable to Clinton's strength among women and not Obama's weakness, per se?

Also, Clinton does particularly well among older white women.  Couldn't this be even more attributed to a Clinton strength (i.e. wanting to see a woman president in their lifetime, whereas younger women might not feel the same urgency) and not an Obama weakness?

I am NOT saying that there's anything wrong with voting in this manner.  What I am saying is that much has been made of Obama being black and getting so much of the black vote but much less has been made of Hillary being a woman and in the same way getting a lot of female votes.  Both of those voting patterns are attributable largely to the strength of the winner in that demographic and not to a weakness of the loser in that demographic.

Maybe this is an obvious point, but I wanted to add a thought I had about who "needs" to win what states and by how much tonight.  I hear lots of controversy whenever someone (in particular, Greg and Eric in their TPM EC posts) says something like "Obama needs to win NC by double digits!" and then someone responds saying "He's winning, he could lose NC by 40% and still be winning."  Then someone else says "Clinton needs to win both states!" and someone responds with "Clinton needs to win EVERY state with 70%!" etc, etc...

In my opinion, everyone is basically correct.  The problem is that everyone leaves unspoken the GOAL they are referring to when they state a "need".

So for example, I could say "Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests."  What I really should say is, "In order to win more overall pledged delegates than
Obama, Clinton needs to win 70% of the remaining contests."

I could also say "Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana."  What I really should say is, "In order to keep the media narrative in his favor, Obama needs to win NC by double digits and barely win Indiana."

So what ARE the candidates' goals?  Barack Obama is already winning, so he doesn't "need" anything in a strict sense.  Hillary Clinton is losing, so in one sense she "needs" everything from here on out.

Clearly, however, Hillary can't catch Barack in the pledged delegate count so in my opinion her current goal is to keep the media narrative positive for her to prevent the superdelegates from coming out overwhelmingly for Barack.  Barack's goal is to push Hillary out of the race, and to do that he needs to maintain a favorable media narrative so as to give the superdelegates cover to come out and overwhelmingly endorse him.

Obama has won this thing, barring some improbable and questionable tactics from Clinton such as forcing the MI and FL delegates to count, engaging in character assassination to "prove" that Obama is unelectable, etc...  The longer the race goes on, the more of a chance Clinton will succeed with this.  It's still very unlikely, but in order to have ANY chance at all, she must extend the race.  Thus, Obama's goal is to end the race ASAP.

Clinton's goal is to keep the race going and to keep the media covering her favorably.

What's my point?  Well, I see that Greg and Eric get a lot of criticism on this board for how they are covering this election and for various statements they make regarding who "needs" what.  In my opinion, they aren't really being biased and they aren't really trying to make it seem as if Barack has a higher standard of "need" than Hillary does.

However, I do think that they often leave the "goals" unspoken and if you look at it in terms of "extending the race" versus "ending the race" it becomes much clearer why Obama might "need" a double digit NC win and a small Indiana win whereas Clinton only "needs" to force a split and keep NC relatively close.

If you're simply talking about winning the most pledged delegates, then Obama hardly needs anything.  But I think we've moved past that.  The "goals" at this point in the game aren't about winning the most delegates, they are about extending versus ending this contest.  If we all phrased our statements of "need" in terms of a goal, all of a sudden we ALL start making a lot more sense.