"Hillary should do the decent thing: quit."

Simon
Obviously MOST Democratic primary voters will support the Democratic nominee in the fall. But it's what happens at the margins that matters. There's no spin involved in pointing out that Obama hasn't shown an ability to do well among working class whites who vote in primaries (and they are only a small minority of the working class whites who will vote in November).

Obama has had more working class white people vote for him in this primary than any primary candidates in a two person race before this point. (Not hard, when you get that sort of turnout.)

As for panicking Repuvlicans, you've got to be joking. Every Republican I know is pleasantly astounded by the way the Dem contest has unfolded.

Really? Pleasantly astonished by massive Democratic turnouts?

I love how the Republican narrative just steamrollers over the unpleasant fact that suddenly there appear to be five times the active Democratic volunteers this year as in 2004 and that people are fighting to get into the caucuses and participate. That, as I said, more people voted in the Texas Democratic primary Tuesday than voted for the Democratic candidate in the general election in 2004. There already was a massive sweep in 2006, do you guys think it's over?

I'm sure they're all there to only support their guy, though, and will wander away and not vote in the general election if their person doesn't get in. Because Democratic primary voters aren't, you know, actually that interested in politics and wouldn't mind if McCain got in.

The Obama Adulation bubble bursts, as Barack loses the last three major contests (Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania), but because of his pledged delegate lead the Democrats nominate the fading Illinois Senator anyway.

The 'Obama Adulation bubble' is going away the second he wins the primary anyway. It doesn't even really exist except as a difference between how he and Clinton run their campaigns. He says 'I have good Democratic policies, and I think the future is hopeful', she says 'I have good Democratic policies, and I think I should be president and not him'. At this point, it is a popularity contest, not an issues contest, because they have the same issues.

Once there are actual disputed issues on the table, once they can say 'Here are my policies', either one of them can trivially take McCain down. 'Less jobs, more war!' is not exactly the most popular slogan right now.

I love how the Republican narrative just steamrollers over the unpleasant fact that suddenly there appear to be five times the active Democratic volunteers this year as in 2004 and that people are fighting to get into the caucuses and participate. That, as I said, more people voted in the Texas Democratic primary Tuesday than voted for the Democratic candidate in the general election in 2004.

Sorry, David, but primary turnout isn't much of a predictor of general election results. Texas, for example, will not be in play in November regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.

Right now there's a great horse race on the Democratic side, and anyone who follows politics is excited by it. If I were a Texan, I might well have been an Obama voter on Tuesday; I certainly won't be one in November. But expansions of the primary electorate have to be seen in proportion: The bigger picture is that most of the folks voting in November will not have participated in either party's nominating contest.

There already was a massive sweep in 2006, do you guys think it's over?

There was a far more massive sweep in 1994, which didn't turn out to be very useful in predicting the 1996 Presidential results.

I expect Democrats to build on their House and Senate majorities this year -- the structural advantages of incumbency are such that they will keep their majorities in Congress until the next big shift in partisan tides. Presidential voting works a lot differently, however, as people look very carefully at the individual they want to put in that job.

This cycle favors a Democrat in the abstract, and John McCain isn't exactly an inspirational figure. OTOH, he has a long-established image as "Not George W. Bush", which appeals strongly to independents and which isn't going to change no matter how often Democrats try to talk about the "1,000 year war." The worst-case scenario for him is probably a Bob Dole performance (losing by about 8 points and getting only around 200 electoral votes). But fortunately for McCain, instead of running against an incumbent President, he'll probably be running against a candidate who represents a huge roll of the dice by the Democratic Party.

Once there are actual disputed issues on the table, once they can say 'Here are my policies', either one of them can trivially take McCain down. 'Less jobs, more war!' is not exactly the most popular slogan right now.

Personally, I oppose the Iraq War, but mark my words: If Iraq turns out to be the central issue in this campaign, John McCain is going to win in a landslide.

Most likely, the election will be fought over the economy, with Iraq and foreign policy only a side issue. Economics aren't McCain's strong suit, but I don't see how that issue plays to any strength of Obama's either.

Florida Democratic voters have already been disenfranchised once, in 2000. Now their own party is disenfranchising them.

In my view the only fair thing is to hold the Florida and Michigan primaries again, in mid-June. Regarding the superdelegates, the only fair thing, it seems to me, is to follow the same rules as in previous elections. When the election wasn't in dispute superdelegates were never an issue. If they become an issue, perhaps it's time to get rid of superdelegates, but it's too late to do that in this election cycle.