I am rather perplexed by Todd Beeton's excitement about the Democratic candidate in MS-1 (and I understand Beeton sees this as a sign McCain might be vulnerable in Mississippi, an absurd thought imo):

[T]he Republicans' hold is being unexpectedly tested by a self-described "Mississippi Democrat," a gregarious local courthouse official whose positions on social issues -- guns, abortion, same-sex marriage -- are indistinguishable from those of the other party. . . .

I am for the Democrat in EVERY race. And a "economic populist," anti-Iraq Debacle Democrat is better than a Republican of course. Heck, I infamously had nice words for Gene Taylor. Buuut it seems to me the Left blogs have lost their way on the "better" part of the "more and better Democrats" formulation. The 50 State Strategy seems to require, unfortunately, anti-choice, anti-gay Dems in Mississippi. Hopefully, that will change one day. But let's not think that this potential gain in Mississippi is going to move the Democratic Party to a more progressive position. There is a "more" component here, but not a "better" one.

Ezra Klein treats his readers like rubes:

In mounting a furious -- but basically hopeless -- campaign, however, Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses, but not gaining any real advantage from them. McCain's folks, by contrast, might have previously suspected that they should target white, economically depressed states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, but now they have a precinct-by-precinct map of where Obama underperforms, ready narratives to activate in their negative campaigning (they don't have to grope around to create a line of attack), and a media thats now convinced of his vulnerabilities.

(Emphasis supplied.) You gotta be kidding me. Maybe Ezra did not know about the geography and the demography, but I can assure you the Republicans did. Talk about disrespecting your readership.

No endorsement (I have not had a chance to read it), but here is Lukasiak on the election.

Blogometer cites Right Wing blogger Matt Lewis on the so-called Liberal Media:

A close friend of mine (who also happens to be a liberal) is now a frequent [Townhall.com] reader. Why? She's supporting Hillary, and for the first time ever, she and I see eye to eye on things like the liberal media. She has always viewed herself as a liberal, but now she is seeing first-hand just how quixotic and dangerous the Obama supporters are."

This is bad reasoning. Being pro-Obama as the Media is does not make the Media liberal. The Media shares the Wingnut hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Media is not ideological. They are not conservative or liberal. They are merely biased and incompetent.

There is no evidence that Barack Obama is more liberal (or progressive if you prefer) than Hillary Clinton. There is not a dime's worth of difference on the issues (other than health care) between them and it is undeniable that Obama is the High Broder Unity Schtick candidate. I have said it often, there is nothing more unfathomable to me than the notion that Barack Obama is the Great Progressive Hope.

You might be familiar with my posts on Boehlert's Revenge. I am now adding a corollary to it - when you embrace, encourage and accept the narrative that Hillary Clinton is an atrocious person and public servant that no real Democrat could possibly support, you become open to this interpretation of electoral results:

[T]he implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama.

When you argue, embrace, encourage or accept the argument that no one could possibly support Hillary Clinton for any reasons other than racism, you invite the logical conclusion that any vote for Clinton is in fact anti-Obama.

Hunter writes (Let me give credit to Oliver Willis for a shrewd reaction to the PA results ("Yes, Clinton won. Doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.") Calm and cool is the approach for Obama and his supporters imo.)

The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) There also is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates. Hunter is offended that the Clinton campaign is arguing why the superdelegates should support Clinton. I am hard pressed to understand his outrage. Would he have them argue for superdelegates supporting Obama? Of all the blog outbursts at the Clinton campaign, being enraged at the Clinton camp for arguing for support from the superdelegates strikes me as among the most unreasonable. More . . .

The Media Elite despises the voters. They are, in the parlance of Leona Helmsley, the "little people," to them. Look at Maureen Dowd's contempt for regular Democratic voters:

“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”

Dowd's response?

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. ... You can go in an old blue shoe. Just go, go, GO!”

Like Russert, Dowd likes to tout her working class roots, but like Russert, she is now part of the Nantucket/Hamptons summer place elite. Those "little people" called the voters are an irritation to them. More . . .

And it's on to Indiana, and perhaps, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is an open thread.

By Big Tent Democrat

The usually solid Greg Sargent fumbles his post on Bloomberg's shoddy article on the popular vote count. Sargent uncritically regurgitates Bloomberg's recitation of the popular vote count. What both Bloomberg and Sargent failed to do was discuss the issues of Florida and Michigan. As the RCP popular vote counter demonstrates, the 800,000 vote lead that Bloomberg assumes excludes the Florida and Michigan votes. It has been clear for some time that the Clinton popular vote argument includes counting Florida (Clinton won by 300,000 votes there) at the least, and Michigan as well.

The Bloomberg article is a very poor one and Sargent should have known this. Bad show Greg.

By Big Tent Democrat

The differentials in the polls are pretty easy to decipher. Take PPP. It has Obama up 3 in PA. And how it gets there is clear. It has low white turnout (76% of the total), high A-A turnout (18% of the total) and Obama only losing the white vote by 14, 52-38 (it has the by now standard 8-1 A-A win for Obama.)

The Q Poll, which has Clinton up 7, has White voters backing Sen. Clinton 57-38 percent (with A-A going for Obama 84-10). By my calculation, Q has a more convention turnout model, somewhere around 81% of the vote will be whites and A-A around 15%.

There are two factors now, the turnout of whites and A-As, and how close can Obama run with whites. Demography is political destiny in this race. NOTE - The final Ras poll has Clinton up 5, up 2 from its last poll, and demography is key again:

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is an interesting development; Hillary Clinton will appear on the Obama News Network's Countdown program with Obama's O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann.

What approach should Clinton have in that appearance do you think? My view is she should come in prepared to discuss only issues. Presumably, Olbermann will have the guts to say to Clinton's face the awful things he has said in his broadcasts. IF and when he does, I think she should go aggressively against him. Be prepared to critique him and his network's atrocious journalistic performance. Picking a fight with the Media, especially NBC, on the eve of the PA election would be smart imo.

By Big Tent Democrat

The worst pollsters, ARG and Zogby (PDF), have new PA numbers. ARG has Clinton by 13, 54-41 (down from a 20 point lead) and Zogby has Clinton up 6, 48-42 (up from a 3 point lead). Watch Zogby hedge his bet:

“A big one-day of polling for Clinton. If a 10-point victory is the pundit-driven threshold she needs on Tuesday, it looks like she can do it. This does not look like a one-day anomaly – undecideds dropped to only 5% in this latest single day of polling, and they are breaking Clinton’s way. As I suggested yesterday, if white and Catholic voters, who still are the biggest portion of undecideds, actually vote, Clinton will have her double-digit victory. Just today alone, she polled 53% to Obama’s 38%.

Sure, Zogby, whatever you say. ARG's internals make sense to me:

By Big Tent Democrat

We have certainly had our differences this campaign season, but this is a great post by Oliver Willis.