Here is Obama's campaign memo (emphasis added by me)

Tonight, Hillary Clinton lost her last, best chance to make significant inroads in the pledged delegate count.  

The
only surprising result from Pennsylvania is that in a state considered
tailor-made for Hillary Clinton that she was expected to win, Barack
Obama was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the
Ohio primary.   For example, among white voters, Obama narrowed the gap
with Clinton by six points. Among voters over 60, he nearly cut the gap
in half, from 41 points to 24 points.   And Independent voters – the
group that will decide the general election and a group Obama is
particularly strong with – were not able to vote in... Not surprisingly,
she led by as much as 25 points in the weeks leading up to the election.

As
he has done in every state, Barack Obama campaigned hard to pick up as
much support and as many delegates as possible and was able to stave
off Clinton from achieving a significant pledged delegate gain from
Pennsylvania. 

The bottom line is that the Pennsylvania outcome
does not change dynamic of this lengthy primary. While there were 158
delegates at stake there, there are fully 157 up for grabs in the
Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6.

Obama was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart tonight. He was relaxed, had an easy smile, and busted some good jokes (including one about Jon's paranoia qualifying him to be a debate moderator). Great stuff!

After watching the MSM dedicate the weekend leading up to the OH/TX/RI/VT primary to forwarding Hillary's talking points and sidelining Obama, I was afraid the same would happen again. I have not been disappointed (actually, I am).

As I watch MSNBC this evening (Monday), the network that is Obama's network according to Hillary's fans here at TPM, has dedicated their shows to, again, pushing Hillary's talking points. Race to the Whitehouse was dominated by Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, who not surprisingly talked up Hillary. They are doing their part to continue this primary and protect their candidate. Hardball had Clinton-supporter Mayor Nutter on to talk about how great Hillary is, with none of those supposedly hard hitting questions. And Keith Olbermann had Hillary herself on his show.

The bias is maddening.

There have been quite a few posts referring to the Survey USA (SUSA) PA poll showing Hillary with a massive 18% lead over Obama. In light of the others polls that have come out this week which show Hillary with only a single-digit lead (and in one case tied), this SUSA seems a bit off, to say the least. However, I suggest we take the long view. These number, like everything else, only make sense in context.

CLICK FOR CHART

I have been updating this graph for a few weeks now. Hillary's points are plotted in orange, and Obama's in blue. There are two fit lines. The polynomial regression line (with 6 orders) plots the best fit (see the r-squared values for goodness of fit), while the darker line plots the mean of the last 5 data points. These are just two different ways to bring order to the chaos. Refer to the one you like best.

What we see is that over the past 6 months, Hillary has maintained her support, while Obama has picked up support as other candidates have dropped out and as PA has gotten to know him. What is most amazing, to me, is the deficit that Obama had to overcome. In 6 months, he has moved from 14% to about 42%.

Now, to point. The SUSA poll doesn't look like an outlier when seen in perspective of time. Each poll has a margin of error, and I suspect that the SUSA poll just happened to put Hillary at the top of the error range and Obama towards the bottom. I can't know that for sure, obviously, but the values don't particularly stand out (FYI, the point mostly in question is the one that appears right under Clinton's name on the chart).

So, I don't think the SUSA poll is an outlier. I also don't think that it is any more predictive than the rest. It is just part of the distribution of polls. When all are brought together, the picture is much clearer. Context is key.

On March 21, Josh Marshall made a front-page post referencing a Politico article which stated that the obstacles blocking Hillary's nomination are "virtually insurmountable", and that the press, including TPM, should be more candid about that.

A few hours later, Josh Marshall made a second post which pointed out that few emails had been received that argue against the first post. This served to provoke the proverbial beast, which was apparently Josh's primary goal, as a series of rash, factually-challenged emails to Josh were given front-page attention. All of this produced a TPM front page dedicated to Hillary's campaign--the campaign facing "insurmountable" obstacles.

Despite Josh pointing out what the stance of the press should be, TPM has continued to forward every Hillary talking point, often unchallenged. Hillary enjoys 4 out of the 5 featured videos in the vodpod (the other is about McCain), even though new Obama ads have been posted. This isn't rare for today, rather, it is the common occurrence. The Clintons get the majority of headlines and the majority of coverage both on TPM and in the general press.

When will the TPM staff meet Josh's own strong suggestion that Hillary's nomination should be seen through the light of its improbability? A great start will be challenging the factually challenged talking points pushed by her campaign, rather than simply printing them.

(If comments could be made on front-page posts this would be less of a problem. But since front-page posts are immune to direct scrutiny, the posts must be held to a higher standard than those in other sections of the website which may be directly challenged through user comments.)

I was watching SiCKO tonight, and something jumped out at me. Moore was reviewing the history of Hillary's attempt and unfortunate failure to push universal health care in the USA. He then discussed the power of the present-day health-insurance lobby, and how many politicians have been bought off. The politician who received the most funds from the health-care industry from 2005-06 was Rick Santorum ($977,354). The politician who received the second-most funds from the health-care industry was Hillary Clinton ($854,462).

Link: The New York Times reference

While some people in the health care industry are still wary of
Senator Clinton, many say they see her as the likely next Democratic
presidential nominee and are moving to influence her agenda on an issue
that polls indicate is of growing concern to voters.

Frederick H.
Graefe, a health care lawyer and lobbyist in Washington for more than
20 years, said, “People in many industries, including health care, are
contributing to Senator Clinton today because they fully expect she
will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.”

“If the
usual rules apply,” Mr. Graefe said, early donors will “get a seat at
the table when health care and other issues are discussed.”

So, Hillary has received over $800k from the health care industry, yet she is supposed to be on the voter's side? She has received this support, but she is supposed to fight these forces in behalf of the public?

Hillary has repeatedly (and proudly) stated that her plan will have mandates for all to purchase insurance. What she hasn't said  is how people will be able to afford it. According to her website, people will be able to afford it through a "refundable tax credit" that "prevents premiums from exceeding a percentage of family income". So, people will get a tax credit? That is what will keep the industry in check? Sounds like the health care industry has a lot to gain in a Hillary presidency.

So much for the "Hillary will provide universal health" talking point.

Dear Campaign for Hillary,

As it seems the campaign is changing its narrative on a weekly basis, I would like to suggest something for the next version. Try giving reality a chance.

1) You agreed before any votes were cast that FL and MI would not have any delegates seated. Those two states never had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama, and MI didn't even have his name on the ballot. Those two pseudo-primaries were nothing more than a name-recognition test. Yet, now that you are losing, you are arguing that the voters of FL and MI are disenfranchised and that the pseudo-primaries were fair. Fair? How can I cast a vote for someone who shows such a lack of intellectual honesty?

2) Arguing that Hillary is better than Obama because she won NY and CA is ridiculous. You really think that historically blue states will vote for McCain over Obama? All the available evidence suggests that Obama will win NY and CA in a general election vs. McCain. Arguing otherwise makes you look irrational and divorce from reality--in other words, it makes Hillary look like W. Bush.

3) Pushing the media-bias story has made your most rabid fans foam at the mouth, but does nothing to persuade people who don't already support Hillary to do so more. The race- and sex-baiting that the Hillary campaign has engaged in, while simultaneously accusing the Obama campaign of doing so, makes you look delusional. Especially when, in the days leading up to March 4th, the media covered the Hillary campaign almost exclusively--no doubt having some influence on the March 4th results. The media has been rough on Hillary, but the media has also allowed her to float her "experience" argument without question. We all know that there isn't much in that balloon, and that it could pop with a single pointed question.

4) Including the votes from MI and FL in your count of "popular vote" is dishonest and divorced from reality. It is yet another example of behavior that makes you look delusional.

5) Stop assuming that Obama's supporters will vote for Hillary if she manages to finagle the Democratic nomination. Putting your fund-raisers to work as bribery agents of the DNC is offensive and highly unethical. I suppose I should thank you for doing so, as it shows Hillary's true colors (win at all costs). It will make it easier for me to decide to vote for McCain if Hillary does, by some back-handed way, steal the nomination.

If you wish to earn hearts and minds, you need to start speaking truth. Your illogicaly, delusional, and ridiculous claims only serve to persuade me and voters like me that Hillary simply cannot be entrusted with the highest office this country offers.

Cordially,

stYMied

Source: NY Times

Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style,
relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her
aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her
insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake
things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again
and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty
and familiarity over experience and expertise.

Mrs. Clinton
stood by Mr. Penn and Patti Solis Doyle, who was until last month her
campaign manager, even as her campaign was at risk of letting Mr. Obama
sew up the nomination. When some of her closest supporters pressed her
to replace them, arguing that the two were clearly struggling with
their jobs and had become divisive figures in the campaign, she
responded by saying she would “think about it.”

When Mrs.
Clinton finally pushed out Ms. Solis Doyle, she chose Ms. Williams,
like Ms. Solis Doyle, an old friend who had never before managed a
presidential campaign.

We've already seen this movie. Its the same thinking that gave us the occupation of Iraq and the tragedy of Katrina in NOLA. We already know what happens when cronyism trumps competence.

Recently a commenter suggested a respect for McCain because he has been speaking truth to the public. The allegation was that Obama simply panders to the public for votes. I know that Obama has spoken uncomfortable truths to audience on multiple occasions. Two quick examples that come to mind:

1) He spoke at Pastor Rick Warren's (author: The Purpose Driven Life) evangelical church about the need for condoms in addition to pushing for abstinence and fidelity:
"I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality - that we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions - and that if condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available. I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree.

2) He spoke at Martin Luther King Jr.'s Ebenezer Baptist Church. In this speech he called out the shortcomings of the black community to embrace other minorities.

"And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity."

You can watch the speech here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

So, I argue that Obama has a history of not pandering. Moreover, anyone citing McCain's statement that jobs won't be coming back as an example of him speaking truth to the public is being disingenuous about McCain. Remember that McCain has recently voted against banning torture and that he has been courting the far right that he correctly recognized as agents of intolerance earlier this decade.

I know that Obama also spoke to auto workers about hybrid vehicles and alternative energy, but I don't have a link to that speech. I ask that if you have other examples of Obama (or Hillary or McCain) speaking hard truths to the audience, please post them below.

Supporters of both sides argue that their candidate will be the best to defeat McCain in the general election. Each side has their arguments. Obama’s supporters argue that he has more crossover appeal, can draw independents away from McCain, and that he doesn’t mobilize the right-wing in the way that Hillary will. Hillary’s supporters argue that she is a ruthless fighter, has already been covered with battle-scars, and will be able to overpower McCain. I suppose we will get to see how one of those head-to-head matchups goes.

For now, we have to be contented with national polling data and the impressive 50-State work of SurveyUSA. As for national polling, I have compiled all of the head-to-head comparisons for Obama and Hillary vs. McCain that are found in the Poll Tracker here on TPM. I subtracted the percent that voted McCain from the percent that voted for Obama or Hillary in their respective head-to-head polls. These difference scores are graphed here.

CLICK HERE FOR GRAPH

Hillary’s scores and her best-fit trend line are in orange. Obama’s scores and his best-fit trend line are in blue. As you can see in the graph, Obama has consistently out-scored Hillary in head-to-head polls against McCain.

I submitted the difference scores to a paired-samples, two-tail t-test. Obama’s scores are significantly higher than Hillary’s (alpha = .001). This means that the difference between Obama’s and Hillary’s performances against McCain are statistically different. That is, Obama out-performs Hillary against McCain.

Looking back at the graph, Hillary
does seem to have attained some upward momentum against McCain in the past 2
weeks, culminating in the highest scores after her March 4th victories.
We will have to keep watching to see how far that trend goes before it hits the
ceiling. It would appear that Obama’s ceiling is much higher than Hillary’s,
given that he has scored as much as 12 points over McCain. However, a high
ceiling could mean that his floor is lower.

If someone is looking for bragging rights in a head-to-head against McCain, it seems that Obama's camp has the most to boast.

-stYMied

(If you found this analysis useful and/or interesting, please click the "recommend this" link below so others can see it. Thanks!)

A lot has been said over the course of this primary about different age groups and their voting tendencies. Exit polls are consistently reported, but rarely analyzed, by the TV personalities who dutifully read lines from teleprompters while standing in bizarre rooms or on ledges overlooking the news room. The exit poll data provide a wealth of information that has generally been ignored. Here I present analyses on the pooled exit poll results of the 27 states that are available on MSNBC’s website. Exit polls, as we all know, are not perfect, but the tremendous sample size obtained by pooling all of the exit polls provides some assurance that biases are minimized.

Watching the reports, one may go away with the idea that Obama is supported by young, “naïve” voters, whereas Hilary has the support of old, “mature” voters. I have heard otherwise rational people suggest that Obama’s supporters, being young and unpredictable, will not show up for the election (despite the fact that they did show up for a primary). Exit polls provide the opportunity to test whether there are differences between the % of votes cast for each candidate within each age group, and to see just how big these differences are. We can see whether, as suggested, Obama’s support is limited to the youth, or if he garnishes support from older voters as well.

Data Analysis

We aren’t merely interested in how each age group favors a candidate. We also need to know how much of the vote each voter group makes up. The exit polls, however, are published to highlight only the differences between the candidates, by showing what percentage of each voter bloc the candidates earned. To correct for this, I reverse-calculated the percentage of the vote for each category by multiplying the percent of each voter bloc earned by the candidate by the percent of the vote that particular voter bloc made up. For example, 17-24 year olds made up 17% of the vote in Iowa. Obama won 57% of that age group. So, the actual % of the vote for Obama was: 57 * .17 = 9.69%. The same rational was used to convert all of the statistics provided by exit polls for this analysis. So, what we are looking at is how the total vote (100%) has been made up in terms of age groups, and how these groups have split between Hillary and Obama (votes for other candidates were removed from the analyses).

Results

The graph of this breakdown shows the percent of votes for Hillary in orange and the percent of votes for Obama in blue. The error bars represent 1 standard error of the mean. The asterisks show where there are statistically significant differences (alpha = .05) between the amount of the vote that went for each candidate.

TPM doesn’t allow “bloggers” to insert images, but be sure to follow the link to the Figure.

According to these analyses, Obama received a higher percentage of the vote than Hillary among voters under the age of 40. These voters made up almost a third (28.5%) of the primary vote. Voters aged 40 – 64 broke evenly for Obama and Hillary (not statistically different), and this voter bloc made up half (50.8%) of the primary vote. Obama received a lower percentage of votes among voters who are older than 65, and this voter bloc made up 17% of the total primary vote.

I emphasized the differences between the percent of the vote for Hillary
and Obama and how it significantly differs across age groups here.

Conclusions

Obama wins or ties among every age group except those 65 and older. The voter groups that favor or break evenly for Obama make up 79.3% of the primary vote, whereas the voter groups that favor or break evenly for Hillary make up 67.5% of the vote. It is true, as suspected, that voters under 40 years old favored Obama, and it is also true that voters over 65 years old favored Hillary. The under-40 vote has outnumbered the over-65 vote by 11%, and seem to be the age group that has carried Obama to his lead in the primary.

It is not for me to decide what these numbers mean for the election. I merely provide them so that we have a better description of what has taken place. As we understand what has happened, we may better understand what will happen in the future.

 -stYMied

If you found this analysis useful, please click the “Recommend
This” link below so that others have a chance to read it. Thanks.

Introduction

The wealth of information provided by exit polls seems to have been ignored. The data is available, but I have not seen any more in-depth analyses of the data than the primary evening reports. In this series of posts, I will provide some basic statistical analyses of the 27 exit polls that have been conducted and are available here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

Results

The figure below shows the preference for Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton for different voter age groups. Zero represents “No preference”. If the line is above 0, it shows preference for Hillary. If the line is below 0, it shows preference for Obama. The greater the line diverges from 0, the greater the preference for that candidate.  

The line marks the average preference, and the error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Preference was determined by [reverse] calculating the percent of the total vote that each age group represented, then subtracting the percent that voted for Obama from the percent that voted for Hillary. A One-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of Voter Age, leading to the conclusion that young voters significantly differ from older voters in their voting preference.

 

<img src="http://www.psyccomm.com/kent/Leaning_by_Age.jpg">

 

Conclusion

I doubt these results come as much of a surprise. However, perhaps the analysis will help further our understanding of the influence of age (or generation) on voter tendencies. I specifically want to point out that these analyses were done on the reverse-calculated voter percentages, not on the percentages of each age category (as shown in the exit poll data). I did this to be able to see more clearly how much each voter category influenced the total vote, rather than to simple make distinctions between age groups. All analyses in future posts will be done similarly (unless any commenters can make a good case for doing it in another way).

States included:

IA, NH, SC, AL, AZ, AR, CA, CN, DE, GA, IL, MA, MO, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN, UT, LA, MA, VA, WI, OH, RI, TX, VT

How far will they go to get votes? All the way to one of the main sources of much and sludge: Rush Limbaugh's radio show:

http://www.wbap.com/Article.asp?id=606119&spid=6051

What is discussed?
The 3 AM phone ad wasn't fear mongering, it was for real!
The "disenfranchisement" of FL and MI democrats.
What Bill will do in a Hillary Presidency.
Hillary makes good decisions (trying to offset Obama's good judgment theme).

As pointed out by Jonathan Alter, the press wants Hillary to stay in this thing. A brokered convention is the stuff that the press' dreams are made of.

Dan Abrams (Video warning: May cause rise in blood temperature.) mentioned this argument, but threw it right out as his three analysts basically backed it up. Dan cut people off as they brought up the fact that Hillary's campaign, not the pundits, had decided that Ohio and Texas were her last chance. Dan set up the fictional case that the press was writing an early obituary for Clinton (because of disdain for her), despite the evidence to the contrary (i.e., that the obituary was written by her campaign and that the press was merely repeating it).

Is there bias in the media? Definitely. Is it against Hillary. Definitely NOT.

Hillary has just given us a reminder of right-wing tactics and demonstrated that Democratic voters will fall prey to them just as quickly as Republican voters.

Tactic #1: Blame the media.

Hillary castrated the media by taking 1 instance of an otherwise careful reporter and turning into an affront on all women by the entire media (web-based included). By continually running the theme that the media is biased against her, she not only made reporters less likely to question her assertions, but also allowed her and her surrogates to claim that any question was another example of media bias.

Tactic #2: Smear, smear, smear.

Despite Obama's incredible ability to let the scat-storm of smear slide off of him like water off a duck's back, Hillary and her surrogates have doubled their efforts sully his character. They have managed to dig up a couple of new fictions, but mostly they have just recycled the fictions of old. To continue the metaphor, as soon as Obama has wiped a piece of sludge from his suit, Hillary and her surrogates are there to pick it up and throw it back at him. The facts have no room in these attacks, as all that matters is a victory for Hillary. The end justifies any and all means. Win at all costs (WAAC) is the name of the game.

Why are none of these smears pointed out in the media (including the weblogs)? See Tactic #1.

The Result

The media, especially TV media, has been easy on Hillary.  From the beginning, the media have always failed to point out the fact that Obama has had to come from behind in every state by ~20 pts. Rather than point out these impressive comebacks, the media have merely discussed the wins/losses as if both candidates were always on even ground. This has benefited Hillary immensely, as it has allowed her to forward a "comeback" theme.

Now, the night before the March 4th primaries, Obama's name is hardly mentioned on MSNBC or CNN. Hillary, however, is the main topic, with a small side of McCain. The rare mention of Obama's name is paired with Rezko or Islam. Its as if Obama quit campaigning. The stories of tonight are:

Hillary & Catholic Voters
Hillary & Momentum
Hillary & Media Bias
Hillary & SNL
Hillary & Is Obama Muslim
Highlights of Hillary's Ads (but not Obama's)

If there is any media bias, its to keep this primary going as long as it can. They have allowed Hillary to forward her smear campaign uncontested, as it both favors their ratings and avoids any additional criticism of bias by Hillary's camp.