If obama won Missouri, he can win ohio. He'll have time for more than the 2 stops he made in Missouri.

Mr. Meyerson,

Can we, the faithful readers of this blog, get a hint later today of the nature of the evil deed the Clintons are orchestrating which you, inadvertently, will be discovering later this month? I'm guessing this time you will owe your scoop to your special familiarity of the politics of Seattle's University District.

Obama has run a great campaign to this point. I thought it was high risk high reward strategy and that he was hoping to bust Clinton in New Hampshire.(Somewhat suprised how well he did on Super Tuesday) That being said, he has run to the right of Clinton on economics and health care. He has actively sought the support of Republicans and independents including the "Dem for a day" appeal. How does he switch up to appeal to the white base of the party without either coming across as a complete phony or losing his mojo with upscale voters and college kids.

When his campaign hit Clinton/Edwards with the healthcare mailers in NH I thought his "new politics" meant being the first successful candidate to run to run to the right in the primary(and hopefully to the left in the general.) I was skeptical that he could do that. Everything since New Hampshire but the union endorsements and South Carolina win have solidified his image as the outsider/wine track/economic conservative so I think it may be even harder to change mid-primary. (There is also a chance that he really is more conservative on domestic policy and will only make minor adjustments in his speeches and ads)

He's run a less statist way on health care than clinton, but its not to her right and it is less corporatist.

Good analysis, thank you. Goes well with John Judis's analysis on TNR's The Plank (Who Won Super Tuesday?), which outlines the weaknesses that the exit polls from the Super Tuesday states reveal about each candidate.

One point of criticism: the whole "wine track" analysis of Obama's appeal is still largely on target of course when you're considering the fundamentals, but didnt Obama yesterday also put in some impressive proof that he can overcome it? I mean, he won (and won big) across the moutains & plains states - Idaho, North Dakota, Colorado, Kansas, plus the primary in Utah. With the possible exception of Colorado, those are hardly "wine track" states...

If you're going to analyze, don't forget geography. I hope it hasn't been lost on people that Obama has been cleaning up in the upper midwest and upper mountain west (if there had been a real vote in Michigan, he might have done well there too). Particularly, states bordering Illinois have gone for him (Iowa, Missouri-a squeaker, but torn by also bordering Arkansas). Thus Wisconsin should be pretty securely in the bag for Obama and proximity even puts Ohio and Indiana in play.

Pennsylvania (my grudgingly adopted state) is a different story and will be hard for Obama to crack. The way he could do it? There's a lot of dead time before PA, and Obama always does better the more exposure he gets. He'll have time and money to concentrate on wooing Pennsylvania. Also, if he's ahead on delegates coming into Pennsylvania, it will be easier to make his case.

I live in Pennsylvania, in the suburbs of Philadelphia. I have no polling data whatsoever to back this up-- but I hear lots of Obama support, while most of the Clinton supporters seemtired and dispirited. I know Gov. Rendell will support Clinton, but I am not so sure that many Democrats still like him-- his home base in Philly has turned on him because of the casino issue, in which he is seen as shoving casinos down the unwilling throats of the neighborhoods.

I think Obama may surprise you in Texas. He probably can't win but I predict a strong showing in the upscale suburbs of Dallas. Some of those areas have actually begun swinging over to the Dems in the last elections. The population is younger there now and looking for a change from old politics. Obama seems perfect to pick them off. Whether he will try or not is another issue.

Is your description of Indiana's demographics based on Indiana Democrats or the state as a whole? My sense is that Indiana's Democratic coalition is similar to Ohio's, and is composed of ethnic Catholics in the northern part of the state, African-Americans in Indy and the smaller cities, autoworkers in Muncie, Kokomo, and Anderson, progressives in Bloomington, Lafayette, and parts of Indianapolis. Rural, white Hoosiers tend overwhelmingly to be Republicans (with the possible exception of some parts of the Wabash Valley south of Terre Haute). Unquestionably, Indiana is overall less urban and less ethnic than Ohio, which explains why Indiana is always red on presidential election day while Ohio is a battleground. But I would be surprised if Indiana's Democratic coalition, while smaller, is all that demographically dissimilar to Ohio's Democrats.

Also, keep in mind that at least 10 percent of Indiana residents (and NW Indiana is the most Democratic part of the state, so significantly more than 10 percent of Indiana's Democrats) live in the Chicago TV market, and that part of the state includes a significant number of former Illinoisans. Obama certainly should expect to compete in Indiana.

Bucks County should be Obama heaven and he will do well in all the Philly suburbs. In Pittsburgh and western PA they prefer the Iron City candidates.

Kansas and North Dakota probably are not wine but there are so few Dems in Utah and Idaho I don't know what to make of those states. I assume they are more libertarian and therefore at least a bit grapey. fwiw Jerry Brown won Colorado and Paul Tsongas won Utah way back in 1992.

I don't even know if diverse geographic wins can offset the whole wine/beer thing since it is supposedly based on demographics. Will be interesting to see who Obama won in those states.

I second JMS. Obama has won every Northern State West of the Appalachians and East of the Rockies. Moreover, he will be close in Texas. The only Southern states Hillary has taken have bordered Arkansas (or Arkansas). The candidates seem to be winning in regions- Hillary in far West and Northeast, and Obama in the Midwest, Interior West and South. There are exceptions, but that seems to be the pattern.

I think the key is that the dynamics of the race change.

I'm not discounting demographics - but Obama fares much better when he spends time in a state. With 22 states-at-once gone, Obama can pick and choose his battles.

He lost CA by 10 points -- but he didn't really spend much time there (proportionally).

Obama is going to have time to literally camp out in places like OH, PA, and TX. In fact - I think CW is that he probably just needs to steal one of them to be the prohibitive favorite.

He's got the money to run ads - see where the needle moves the most up to the 2/19 WI primary... Then - whichever looks most fertile, camp out.

I know Obama has been doing well in caucus states, but I have a hard time seeing him do well in Washington state or Maine. If this Saturday's round follows the geographic pattern, I'd expect Clinton to pick up the northwestern Washington and northeastern Maine, while Obama would pick up Louisiana and Nebraska. The trick will be that Obama has an excellent change at sweeping the Potomoc primary the following Tuesday, and that would give him significant momentum.

And to pile on individual-state comments, I'd say NC could well favor Obama--a hefty black population (20% of the state, and more among Democratic voters), a healthy economy, and a couple quite large and younger areas (Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham).

Wisconsin is on the wine track? This wine vs. beer track thing has clearly become a joke...

(typing this from Madison, Wisconsin)

Indiana is unlike Ohio or any other Midwestern state. It has a lot more southern heritage, even in comparison with downstate parts of Ohio or Illinois and has a matchless degree of racisim and xenophobia, as well as striking insularity even with respect to adjacent states. Expect it to be unlike the rest of the Midwest. This is one reason why Evan Bayh would be a useless VP condidate, in terms of picking up swing states in the region.

Ohio Democrats tend to be more culturally conservative, working class, white and rural than their counterparts in most big states.

Didn't Obama just win Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, and North Dakota?

Democrats now know that McCain will be the opponent. Obama will argue that he is more electable because his new cult of personality is stronger than McCain's old cult of personality. Clinton will use her superior policy knowledge and more progressive domestic positions (particularly on health care) to bludgeon--fairly, I might add--both Obama and McCain. My money's on Hillary.

Obama does well with religious voters and Ohio is chock full of them. It looks like Hillary does better with Protestants which there are a lot of in Ohio for what that's worth...

I would imagine Indiana to be Obama-friendly. The Clintons are NOT well-liked in the state and while I'm sure Democrats in the state like him, you don't see the adulation for me you do in other parts of the country.

Plus, Obama's from neighboring Illinois and will probably carry the state's northwestern corner (which is in the Chicago metro area).

I would imagine Obama could well win Indiana should it get that far.

VOTE FOR OBAMA!!
You all should go to:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
AND COMPARE ISSUES!!!

I will not vote for Hillary because she wants to FINE and MANDATE us who do not have health insurance. I can't even afford health insurance!!!

I'm going with OBAMA at least he will NOT fine or mandate us and he will make it affordable!

WE NEED OBAMA NOT HILLARY!!!!!

If you look specifically at Indiana's rather small typical Democratic voter base, you actually have a large number of African-Americans in Lake County (Gary) and some of the others near Chicago. Then you have Indianapolis, which also has a large African American population, formerly represented by the late Julia Carson. The only Democratic areas that wouldn't seem favorable would be South Bend and Evansville. Fort Wayne is a hodge-podge.

It might be notable however that the May date may be late enough to disperse Obama support on campuses in Bllomington, Lafayette, Muncie and South Bend.

Washington and Maine should be very interesting - is Obama's advantage in caucus states enough to overcome what should be a Clinton advantage based on geography?

If Clinton gets a split decision over the weekend, and then can avoid a sweep in the Chesapeake primary, it sets her up for Wisconsin. If she can win Wisconsin, she is in good shape to hold off Obama on March 4th. If Clinton is ahead in pledged delegates (or within 50 or so of Obama) after March 4th, her institutional advantages make it hard for Obama to recover.

On the other hand, if Obama can overcome Clinton's geographic strength in WA and ME, he sets himself up for a sweep next Tuesday and then a week of good press leading into Wisconsin. If Clinton doesn't win anything between now and March 4th, I think she is done.

There have actually been polls here in Ohio, and Clinton starts with a substantial lead. There also hasn't been any campaign to speak of here yet, and that will change. The governor supports Clinton (and is quite popular), but the economy is terrible and that may play into a change narrative. I expect the gap to close quite a bit once Obama hits the air, and I wouldn't count him out. But he will have to make up ground - and I say that as a former Edwards (now Obama) supporter.

I think Washington is going to be a comfortable Obama win. Those who argue that Washington is in some Pacific state bloc and thus should vote like California really do not appreciate significant differences between California and the Pacific Northwest states. There are no large hispanic pops here, as in California. Affluent, educated White voters, who predominate in the population centers of Puget Sound, are Obama voters. Alaska and Idaho, northwestern neighbors with similar Caucus selection systems, delivered crushing victories for Obama. Oregon will almost certainly be closer, because it's using a primary, but the demographics are broadly similar to those of WA.

I'll concede I don't know much about the demographics of the Pacific states, being a east coaster myself. If Obama does have a comfortable demographic edge in WA, it seems like Clinton has to spend all her time trying to hold Obama to two wins next Tuesday. Even if she can hold on to Maine, it can't be good news for Clinton if she loses 6 of the next 7 primaries. That substantial lead she has in Ohio isn't going to hold up to a sustained losing streak, I don't think.

Reading the article was great. Some real insight and fair. Then the Obama blitz posting begins....Hillary will have a big lead with the Super Delegates after a victories in TX, OH and PYNp

Obama won a number of states that will NEVER go Democrat in the general election. So the argument he's proven his electability is bogus. He may have won the Democratic primary votes in those states but rest assured that WILL NOT translate into electoral votes in November. Utah and Idaho? Give me a break.

The problem with trying the parse Ohio is the diversity of the state. While not as ethnically diverse as some states, Ohio has so many different cultural differences within its borders, it's almost impossible to divine. This is shown almost every election.

Cleveland has a large african-american population, a large white working-class population, and a small cadre of professionals. Columbus is primarily white and white collar with over 100,000 college students. Cincinnati has more in common with Kentucky than Cleveland. Toledo and its environs are similar to Cleveland, but more suburban.

It's essentially a microcosm of America and it's extremely hard to determine how it will go. However, if I was forced to guess, I would give the state to Obama on the strength of the educated middle class voters in Columbus and African-American voters in Cleveland and Cincinatti.

Tell every people the following equations:

Obama wins Democrat nominee = Democrat loses California in general election = Democrat loses general election in November 2008