Look at that Chevron ad above her head on MyDD.

By the way, a Chevron ad on MyDD? Wouldn't that be like a Green Peace ad on faux news?

Latinos are only going to become more and more Democratic as it emerges that the Republican solution to the economy is to scapegoat them for everything.  Hillary's strength with these voters is truly impressive.

I'm still not sure I'm prepared to accept hwc's theory that the Democratic Party is going to tell blacks to go stuff it, because their states aren't winnable and Latinos are more biddable (they don't do uppity stuff like running their own candidates), but as always, hwc has the most provocative thoughts of the Clinton supporters.

Per usual,  excellent analysis. I noted the Clinton strength among Hispanics here. There is also validation in those quotes of what Taylor Marsh was reporting.  Hispanic voters were talking about the coercive tactics of the Culinary Union and voted in large numbers as a way of showing they refused to be cowed by the unions.  

1.  It would be suicidal for Democrats to throw blacks under the bus.  It would cost Maryland, any chance at winning Virginia, and could lose Michigan as well.  The party just can't toss its most loyal constituency to the wind.

2.  George, what did you think of the debate?
3.  Can Hillary attack McCain enough so his negatives go down?  That's her only chance.

You have to call her partisan.  She is not afraid to say Repubs suck and let me tell you why.  I think in the debate when she said that Universal healthcare should be a part of the Democratic Party platform and anything else just won't do she meant it.

IM so sick and tired of Edwards yapping about his electablity vs Mccain.  He has the ---- to sit up there and yap on for 5 minutes strait about how he can compete in the South, yet then claims his electability is not based on race!! WTF?!?? of course its a race issue.  The whole thing is a "fairytale"!  He directly contradicts himself by saying that throughout Chicago, L.A, and New York the dems are ok, but he is the only one that can compete in the south.  Ok, guy if this is true why is a White woman and a Black man beating you in your  own backyard!?!! Deception is such a vice.... Guys these elections have already been decided.  Ive figure it out, hes sticking around to win Georgia and Mississippi on super Tuesday.

The strong surge in young voter turnout that was seen in Iowa seems to be abating.  The longer this drags out, the more that trend is going to continue.  Young voters may be able to demonstrate momentary episodes of enthusiasm, but sticking with something for the long haul as things become tedious is not a strength.

Black voter were always going support Obama for tribal reasons. And there was always a fair chance Obama's campaign would try to use race as a wedge issue.

Females have long been predicted as supporting Clinton in overwhelming numbers. Seems like Penn was right after all.

Youth voters always flock to the new face it's been happening since Gene McCarthy and before. But they are a diminishing asset.

Hispanics are overwhelmingly in the Democratic camp and equally overwhelmingly in Clinton's camp. This has been showing up in polls for months. It's also a fact that there is some animus between the black and hispanic community.

Folks over forty who probably have the clearest recollection of the Clinton AND are able to compare it with earlier administrations are enormous fans of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

What's really important in all this is that Clinton and her strategists have appreciated this from the start. The problem for the rest of us is we either never understood it in the first place or it's very hard to hold on to broad strategic appreciations amongst the mass of media and blog chaff. That's the stuff they used to throw out of aeroplanes in WW 2 to confuse radar. Clinton has fashioned her coalition around these facts which stand out a mile from the numbers in NH, MI and NV. It's why victory is almost certainly going to be hers.  

about Hillary's ability to win the general than I used to be, and your diaries are part of the reason.

I still get scared when I think about how many regular Democratic voters I've called or canvassed who, unprompted by me, have volunteered that they are for "anyone but Hillary."

I hope that these people will all come around to vote for her in the general. I know that a certain subset will not, and I just hope it's not a large group. We can't afford to lose many Democrats from our coalition, especially against McCain.

I am also very concerned by what the elevation of the Mark Penn/Terry McAuliffe/Al From types would do to the Democratic Party, but that's an argument for another day.

Good analysis. While Obama will likely win South Carolina these numbers have to be a concern for him. He can't have Hillary with those kind of advantages among Women, Latinos, and older voters. If he doesn't change those trends these are the only states he will go down as winning by feb 6: Iowa, South Carolina, Illinios, Georgia, and Alabama. Hillary would take 19 of the 22 states on Super Tuesday.

I thought the most interesting observation was Obama caucus goers being shocked that Edwards supporters didn't immediately move over. And I see similar effects all over the various thread around the blogosphere. Obama supporters don't see, perhaps can't see the source of some of our reservations

Obama with his language continually disparages the efforts of older progressives. It is kind of subtle but when you combine a message of 'change' throw in the adjective 'generational' and throw in even backhand praise of Reagan as a change agent who put a country 'waiting' to be put on a new 'path' you might as well come right out and say "screw the DFHs". Which oddly enough disturbs some of the DFHs that helped introduced the real foundational changes we see today.

The actual record of Social change in the decade from 1964 to 1974 was epic. Whole areas of policy that had been thought to be fringe: environmental protection, equal pay for women, equal rights for gays, cementing into place the legal protections for minorities (largely initiated in the decade before but passed early in this period) all of them came into being during that decade. None of it came easy, but at the end of the day America had moved a huge way towards the progressive position. Well then we had Iran and the Oil Crisis, and Reagan was able to exploit that opening. Whereupon he unleashed Reaganism on us, which when fleshed out meant a total rollback of all social and economic progress. Reaganism promised change all right, it promised changes that would roll back not merely the 60's but the 30's as well.

Obama's youth base may not remember who James Watt was, but anyone who was an active environmentalist does. Watt was a  firm believer in the End Times, thought they were fast approaching, and that the right response was just to extract as much oil and coal in as many places as we could in the time we had available. Which made him the obvious Reagan choice for Interior Secretary. You had similar attitudes throughout the Administration, the only reason it didn't get as excessive as Bushism is become Reagan didn't have the congressional base to make the changes he wanted.

Parts of the VRWC pre-date Reagan's election, but not by much. Reagan's Morning in America was the same as the versions we see today which is Unitary Executive and Permanent Majority and
Gilded Age policies. Of all of the actual change agents in the last century two tower over the others: FDR and Reagan. When Reagan came in the institutional response of significant parts of the Democratic Establishment was to tack right, to triangulate and deliver DLC politics, in effect to repudiate FDR. The result was an immediate and constant erosion in Democratic control of Congress leading to an ultimate loss. Why did it happen? Because the DLC and allies allowed one election loss, one that clearly turned on externalities (Oil and Iran hostage crisis), to hand the power to define the Center over to the Republican Party in the spirit of the Big Table.

Well some of us are not willing to start from a position of compromise. We want the Center back in the position it was when the last Mr. 27% flew away in his helicopter. The 23 years since 1975 have really given working people nothing, and we shouldn't have to wait another 23 years just to get back to status quo ante, some of us won't be here for that.

Obama supporters often seem to be unaware of the history of progressivism in this country, being progressive is not about being hip or new, progressivism is about being aware that the powers of Reaction are always out there. If they can they will reverse every bit of Progress past generations fought for, and you can't just assume that past victories on civil rights and the environment are guaranteed going forward, look at the current push to reverse Roe v Wade. For that matter Brown v Board of Edcuation is under severe stress.

So I hope Edwards stays in the race as long as he can. It doesn't bother me that in certain aspects he is a recent convert, at least he is speaking our language. And contrary to certain modern thinking the theme song of liberal progressivism wasn't Kumbaya it sound a lot more like We Shall Overcome. Until Obama learns to speak to DFHs in ways that overcome a delivered message of passive cooperation and compromise a certain part of us will be standing on the sidelines hoping Edward's catches lightning in a bottle.

Why isn't Iowa in there.  If you are going to include New Hampshire, you ought to include Iowa as well.

The problem I have with georgep's analysis is that it is based entirely on exit poll analysis.  The problem with the focus on the exit polls is that they were proven wrong by the results.  The most notable example being rural votes.  According to the exit polls in Nevada, Clinton won slightly the rural vote, but when the results came in, the opposite was true:  Obama won the rural areas.  Of the 17 counties in Nevada, Obama won in 11 of them.  Indeed, outside of Vegas, Clinton's base of support with thin and shallow.  It is for this reason that in terms of national delegates Obama won more in Nevada than Clinton.  The demographics of Clinton's support base are carbon copies of those Gore and Kerry had in the general election --- primarily women and concentrated in urban areas.  If Clinton's base of support remains like this then she will lose the general election (if she is nominated) in much the same manner as Gore and Kerry did.

Very simply with Hilary on the top of the ticket we will probally lose as many as 20% of the seats we picked up in the 2006 elections. Why do you think alot of the red state senators are endorcing obama. Yes she may win with the Democratic base but if you look at every state so far and look at where obama pulled his votes from and where he won. IN northern Nevada they voted from him because he was not hilary.

What area can Hilary turn blue that neither Kerry or Gore did? I have seen nothing so far in her primary result that would show she is going to fair any better than Kerry or Gore did in the past two elections.

we are likely to lose a good number of the seats that are in red districts. Districts such as the 10th district in Pennsylvania, the second district in Kansas and a number of the districts we picked up in indiana for example