Yet MORE sloppy analysis on "white working people".

First off, by no means is this a unified/united demographic in anyone's minds other than the tea-leaf readers in the press. Secondly, Obama's had no problem at all garnering overwhelming support from "white working people" in states like Wisconsin, Kansas, Idaho, Colorado, etc. What is required here is more subtle:

"Obama has a problem with working class whites who are the progeny of industrial workers in the Rustbelt and/or the underclass of Appalachia, who tend to be less educated and among whom there has been generations of racism/racial tensions due in part to the economics and demographics of these regions."

Granted this is not a pithily summarized demographic, but at least it has some accuracy. Further, Edwards speaks a fantastic populist message, and looks the part with his drawl and rolled up sleeves (while campaigning, that is). But I question whether he has traction among "working people" in the same way: wasn't it this column (among others) who suggested Edwards was a "phony" and that people saw that on the campaign trail? So which is it?

Honestly, you get paid for a living to shovel out this "analysis"? I can get far better on any number of blogs, who have actually done something called "research" that requires more than glancing at exit polls, and most of those people work for free.

Edwards could not carry his own State.

I was impressed with Edwards. No more,after he did this the day after Hillary won by a 40 point margin.He is as bad as the rest. I wonder what he was promised?

That nasty working class bit is failing and even the MSM is beginning to realize how that sounds.

People are not very different all over the Country and the states Obama won were small caucuses and red all the way through.We know many Republicans voted in them.

Hillary won all the big states that Dems need to win.!

MaryAnne, you really need to do a bit of research before you post. You, like many others, are being badly abused by Clinton by reinforcing the notion that she has a chance to win. She lost, fair and square and according to the rules. You can play the game of dodging goal posts, you can recite her latest "argument", but unless you stick to facts you won't get much play, it simply supports the notion that many of her supporters are very well informed.

Thank you for your assessment of what I know. I will keep that in mind!

Now, go stuff it!

Made that choice when I decided I was not happy with any of them.

"People are not very different all over the Country and the states Obama won were small caucuses and red all the way through.We know many Republicans voted in them."

This is just patently false. Illinois is neither a caucus state, nor a red state.

Not to mention the fact that most Republicans who are voting in the Democratic primaries are voting for Hillary, as ordered by their pompous windbag felon of a leader, Rush Limbaugh, because they know good and well that they can't beat Obama in November.

Well,for heavens sake,if he could not win his home state he needs to take his marbles and go home!

Shall we check the surrounding states? Did Obama win Ohio? Indiana?Pennsylvania? Will he win Kentucky?

FYI , Ohio turned blue in 2006! Know why? All the corrupt Republicans who ran the state in the ground! Taft,first Ohio Governor ever found guilty. Tom Noe, Coingate, Workmans Compgate.

The Dems just threw Tom Dann out ? Why? He was corrupt too!

Check your map. Of the 5 states that actually border Illinois, Obama won 3 out of 5 (conceding Kentucky). I do believe that's what we call a majority. Which is how we decide the winners of these elections.