Link to Krugman

Paul L. at corrente has done an analysis of demographics and Obama's support has declined across all groups except for AA's.

As far as money goes, it hasn't really helped him that much. If you spend over 11 million dollars in PA on tv ads alone and can't close the deal then there's no amount of money that can buy you the demographics that you need.

Obama peaked in WI imo.

Latest poll had Obama losing VA so I really think that one is out of the equation for him in the general election.

Since Obama will be the nominee, unless extreme events intervene, the only way the Democrats can win includes:

• Some form of unity ticket (not necessarily president and VP)
  
• Serious and honest, on Obama's part, effort to heal the wounds he caused and his divisive, hateful and racist campaign. (I doubt he even contemplates that.)

Of course, Obama is also an electoral map expander - see Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Virginia, etc.

I think this is the flaw in your argument.  Prior to the Texas and Ohio elections I might have agreed that Obama's positive message of unity resonated with a lot of non-Democratic voters.  But now, especially after Pennsylvania and his comments about working class voters, it is quite obvious to most people that he is, as Wright puts it, "a politician."  Which is to say, that he has always been saying what he needs to say to get elected.  

Which is why he will probably continue to lose big states.  Before he was the Fresh Face of New Politics, now he's a Junior Senator playing Old Politics worse than Clinton.  His ability to expand the electoral map was based on a characteristic that he now cannot recover, even if he becomes the nominee, because he's just a politician now, not a figure of transcendence.

I also think that the idea that he expands the electoral map is based on the assumption that the Republicans who voted for him in Colorado et al did so because they want him to be president.  I would argue instead that those voters may have alternative reasons-- knocking Clinton out, for starters -- that may not and probably won't translate into general election support for the Democratic nominee.  Instead, it is totally likely that for the November election, those Republicans that became Obamacans will revert back to their previous state and vote lock-step for the Republican nominee, as Republicans have tended to do since Nixon.

These states have been stalwarts in the Democratic and progressive coalition....sending reliable and reasonably progressive legislators to Congress who have seniority and can make progressive legislation happen.  the entire Northeast and middle states now has only Democrats in the Senate except for Maine.

While thr states where he may, and I say, may expand are not reliable on a long term basis and certainly are not on the progressive end of the political spectrum.  Who then will carry on progressive positions without worrying about a challenge from a more conservative Democrat?

by the way BTD...Media Jump Ship from Obama to Clinton says Thomas Edsall (making Arianna choke on her milk and cookies).

I personally will watch NC, too.  Yes, he'll win.  But, her success in 2 of the 4 Philly suburbs among the well-educated middle class was a shift.  Credit may need to go to Rendell for that for now....but I'm watching to see if she can expand on that.

If he loses Indiana, it also won't change anything. He'll still win the delegate race, and it's highly unlikely that Clinton will get the 80% + of the SDs left that she needs to be the nominee. It's not impossible, but at this point it is a near certainty that Barack will be the party's leader in the fall.

Media Jump Ship From Obama To Clinton

Link

In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally, pressing just the message -- that Obama is a likely loser in the general election -- that Hillary and her allies have been promoting for the past six weeks.

The new tenor of media coverage is visible almost everywhere, from Politico, Time and The New Republic to The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Meanwhile, today a black leader is piling on Bill Clinton, for acting insane on the campaign trail, insulting blacks, playing the race card.

Lets say that AA turnout is 35%, and Obama gets 90% of the AA vote.  He starts out with 31.5% of the vote.  In order to get to 55%, he needs 36% of the non-AA vote.  Depending upon the poll you look at, he may or may not get it.

Now, I think Clinton has a chance to win.  But I also think Indiana is unrepresentative of the states Dems have to win in the Fall because it is neither a blue state nor a swing state.  It's like proclaiming Kansas representative because its white with farms and some industry.  When in fact there's a world of difference between Kansas and Ohio.  Same thing for Indiana and Pennsylvania.  They're two different worlds.  

Having said that, I think Clinton has a decent shot to win Indiana.

And while I would've agreed in February that Obama is an electoral map extender and Clinton not so much, I don't think the recent data from polling match-ups back up this claim nearly so much.  In the most recent SUSA polls:

Clinton is 2 points behind McCain in Kentucky (it voted twice for her husband)

She is ahead in Arkansas in two of the last three polls, including the SUSA poll that had her leading McCain 51-40,

She is competitive with McCain in Missouri (leading McCain by 1 while Obama trails by 8),

She does much better in New Mexico than Obama where she is behind 3 compared to Obama's 6

That's four states and 30 EVs.  

Now let's look at the states you claim Obama could extend the electoral map:

Virginia- It's true he does better than Clinton in Virginia, but he's still down 8 and Virginia has not voted for a democratic president in my lifetime and I was born during the Johnson Administration (Lyndon, not Andrew).  What's more he's down 8 in April after being up 1 in March.  Clinton now gets beaten even worse than Obama.  However, if you want to insist on including the March poll, Clinton was tied then.  Personally, I think Dems chances in Virginia depend more on Mark Warner's coattails than anything else.

He's up 9 in Colorado and I think he probably does have a shot at that state even if it has only voted democratic once in the last 40 years in 1992.

Nevada - He does better than Clinton in Survey USA's most recent Nevada polls, but they were from February, a lifetime ago.  The more recent Rasmussen have both Obama and Clinton leading slightly, albeit with Obama three points instead of one over McCain.  But I have little confidence in Rasmussen one way or the other.

Iowa - is the a state I think Obama is genuinely stronger than Clinton.  He spent a lot of time there and I think has a very strong base there.  Having said that, Clinton only trails McCain by 6 in Iowa in the most recent Survey USA poll.   So I don't think Iowa is inherently out of reach.

So we have four states, 34 EVs, one of which has never gone blue in the last 40 years.