decentralized affront provinces:…

Nice spin no one as smart as you could not of seen what Billary did.

You can call me John!

The only “race card” that has been “played” has been in the media.

The candidates themselves, on the other hand — all of them — are neither racist nor stupid.

A few weeks ago, though it feels like months, exhausted campaign staffers and reporters amused themselves with gallows humor about the Pennsylvania Scenario — a wildly improbable convergence of circumstances that would extend a race that was supposed to be over by winter deep into the spring with a dramatic showdown in the last big state on this year’s Democratic calendar.

Now, the Pennsylvania scenario is here.

READ MORE

Hillary Rodham Clinton erased Barack Obama’s recent inroads with whites Tuesday night in Ohio. And she did it more with men than women, more with the working class than any other, and more strongly on an economic appeal.

Clinton’s resurgence, in contrast to her early comeback in New Hampshire, was propelled by more than white female support. Clinton did win the majority of Ohio’s white women, the defining attribute of nearly all of her victories. But the percentage shift of her white male support outpaced the shift of white female support.

About 65 percent of white women backed her and about 55 percent of white men did the same, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for television networks and The Associated Press.

Once again, it was the white male swing vote that proved most willing to change candidates. The two campaigns have won this bloc in about dozen states each. But white men had shifted to Obama in the last three primaries. On Tuesday white men returned to Clinton, though she also significantly improved with women.

Clinton gained about 15 percentage points with white women and about 20 percentage points with white men since the Wisconsin primary. About six in 10 voters in Ohio were women.

Clinton’s dominance of whites in Ohio was larger than in early February, on Super Tuesday, when she won a slim majority. In Ohio she won six in ten white voters.

In Wisconsin, Obama won six in ten white men, while Clinton won only a slim majority of white women. This time, it was Clinton who won about 55 percent of white men and about 65 percent of white women.

Obama won 9 in 10 black voters, but that could not compete with Clinton’s strength among whites.

Clinton improved most in the past week with working class whites, and those from rural areas. She gained more with those who voted on the economy than those who voted on the war in Iraq or health care, perhaps as a result of her recent populist appeal.

In contrast to other contests on Tuesday, like Vermont, Ohio’s Democratic electorate was also quite moderate. Obama won Vermont, where about 65 percent of voters were self-identified liberals. Only about 40 percent of Ohio Democratic voters identified as liberal.

Regionally, Clinton showed more strength with exurban voters. Compared to Wisconsin, Clinton did no better with voters living in cities of more than 50,000 (Obama won 6 in 10). Clinton though improved 10 percent with suburbian voters. They made up about 65 percent of the Ohio Democratic electorate (20 percentage points higher than Wisconsin).

Clinton gained among all levels of education in Ohio, but she improved the most (15 percentage points) with the quarter of the electorate who were only high school graduates; she won 6 in 10. She won the same portion of those voters who made between $15,000 and $29,000 in annual family income. It was the only income group she did not split with Obama in Ohio. In Wisconsin, Obama won each of these working class groups.

Clinton improved by about 15 percentage points with white voters age 44 and under. She improved about 20 percentage points with middle aged and senior voters. But Clinton’s gains with youth voters were perhaps most notable.

Clinton cut deep into Obama’s bedrock support of young white voters. Obama only won half of white voters age 29 and under. One month ago, in states like California and Missouri, Obama could count on 6 in 10 of young white voters. In Wisconsin he had won an even larger portion.

Obama also only won a slim majority of independents. In Wisconsin he won more than 6 in 10.

Wisconsin voters were split on which candidate was most qualified to be commander in chief. In Ohio a clear majority gave that nod to Clinton.

Still, economics dominated the day in Ohio. A striking 6 in 10 Democratic voters in Ohio said the economy was the most important issue, about 15 percentage points higher than in Wisconsin. That economics were a concern was no surprise. Ohio boasts one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country. Clinton won a slim majority of these economically anxious Ohio Democrats, an improvement of about 10 percentage points since last week.

About half of Democrats again said the most important candidate quality was that she or he “can bring about needed change.” That Obama still won 7 in 10 of these voters but lost this economically distressed state seemed to be a bump for Obama after weeks of momentum.

You do not think Hillary has been playing the race card?

Hillary Rodham Clinton won back her base in Texas, and with it a narrow victory in the state.

Clinton split white men and won six in ten white women. Barack Obama’s strength among blacks was neutralized by Clinton’s continued strength among Hispanics, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International for television networks and the Associated Press.

In important respects, Clinton’s Texas victory mimicked the coast-to-coast contests of Super Tuesday.

Clinton won six in ten Hispanics, as she had a month ago. Obama won nine in ten blacks, as he had in early February. In Texas, Hispanics constituted a larger portion of voters than blacks, by 10 percentage points.

White men, as they were a month ago, were divided between Obama and Clinton.

Obama narrowly won the large cities, half of Texan Democratic voters. But Clinton ran away with the support of those in small cities and rural areas.

Obama did win six in ten voters age 29 and under, including Hispanics. But more seniors voted than youth. And elderly voters backed Clinton by a two-to-one ratio.

Obama won a majority of college graduates. But Clinton won a majority of those without college degrees — a larger share of Texas Democratic voters.

Obama won a slim majority of independents and Republicans. But about 65 percent of voters identified as Democrats; Clinton won a majority of them.

Point by point, Clinton’s strength overwhelmed Obama’s.

As it had been early on in the race, Clinton’s bloc of Hispanics and white women was simply too unified in Texas. Obama’s inability to win white men, as he had until Tuesday’s large contests, meant he could not overcome Clinton’s base.

Obama won seven in ten voters who said the capacity to bring about “change” was the candidate quality that mattered most. Half of Texas Democrats also said that was the most important quality.

In comparison, Clinton won nine in ten voters who said experience matters most. They were a quarter of the electorate.

Half of Democrats said economics mattered most, about ten percentage points fewer than in Ohio. This bloc split between Obama and Clinton.

Eight in ten Ohio Democrats believed that U.S. trade with other nations cost jobs. Less than six in ten Texas Democrats said the same.

Obama won only a slight majority of those voters who said the war in Iraq was the most important issue, often a greater advantage for him. A fifth of voters said health care matters most, and Clinton won six in ten of these Democrats.

Texas and Ohio both showed that Clinton’s central criticism of Obama is also beginning to make headway. In both states more than 65 percent of Democratic voters said it was Clinton who “offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country’s problems,” and Clinton won an equal share of their support.

In Texas, like Ohio, more Democrats thought Obama “inspires” and more Democrats thought Clinton would prove a better “commander in chief.”

Voters worried about their “financial situations” leaned toward Clinton. Those not worried backed Obama. But by a two-to-one ratio, Texas Democrats were concerned about their family’s economic stability next year.