Again in memory of the late Mr. Buckley, here’s something (or rather, two contradictory things) from National Review Online:
This is interesting. One of my sources has gotten two sets of exit poll results. It’s unclear whether this is different pollsters or, I suspect, different times of day.
For the first set, Obama is up by 2 percent in Ohio, Hillary is up by 2 percent in Texas, Hillary is up by 3 percent in Rhode Island and Obama is up by a 2 to 1 margin in Vermont.
The second set is similarly close – Hillary up by 2 percent in Ohio, the two Democrats tied in Texas, Obama ahead by 2 percent in Rhode Island and a similar 2 to 1 margin in Vermont.
Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic says the Clinton campaign is leaking info from leaked exit polls that show her with narrow leads in both TX and OH.
UPDATE: But Jonathan Singer at MyDD has numbers that show Obama with slim leads:
Vermont: Obama 67, Clinton 33
Ohio: Obama 51, Clinton 49
Texas: Obama 51, Clinton 49
Rhode Island: Clinton 49, Obama 49
The common thread here seems to be that it’s close everywhere except Vermont. Is these numbers at least vaguely hold up, I wonder how much the press will focus on Obama’s unexpectedly good showing in Rhode Island.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Alter at Newsweek (a big Obama booster, I think) argues that even if Clinton implausibly wins every primary from now until June, she is still unlikely to catch up in pledged delegates. He doesn’t really address all the “ifs” regarding “moral claims” and superdelegates that were outlined in the Real Clear Politics article I linked to last night.
My summation: as usual in this primary season, nobody really knows anything, and if anyone does know anything, there’s no way for anyone else to know which other people know something and which other people know nothing. So with that in mind, I’m off to walk the dog, who is supporting Obama and eagerly awaiting the canine primary (I don’t have the heart to tell her there isn’t one).