From the Rachel Maddow Show...
FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE

Barack Obama right now is clearly ahead in the race for the democratic nomination for the presidency. He’s won more delegates than Hillary Clinton, he’s won 24 states to her 11, he’s won every single state since Super Tuesday. I think that it is actually factually wrong, at this point, to say the race is still a tie. The race was a tie before, it is no longer. Barack Obama is ahead and Hillary Clinton is behind.



Now. So. Does that mean it’s over? Does that mean she should be getting out of the race? Is it just a matter of time now? My first advice to you, for figuring that out your own opinion about that is to ignore mainstream media. Because when it comes to reporting on Hillary Clinton’s political career, as I said last night to Keith Olbermann... who is one of the only people on television calm enough to entertain serious discussion of this fact, as I said last night on MSNBC before the election coverage started, the mainstream media, generally speaking, has Clinton psychosis. They are capable of decorating and promulgating, precisely two storylines about Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president. Either she’s a shoo-in, the presumptive nominee, a juggernaut, an unstoppable machine. Or! She’s dead meat. She’s absolutely toast. She’s not got a snowflake’s chance in heck, of getting the nomination, and any suggestion by her or her campaign that she’s still in it to win it, that she’s still got a chance, that’s an outlandish suggestion. We should mock them for even suggesting for even suggesting that there’s a reason for them to keep going with this campaign because obviously she’s dead meat. Those are the two choices that you have if you’re mainstream media apparently and you want to talk about Hillary Clinton’s chances.



I think if you really want to arrive at your own, well-informed conclusions about whether or not Clinton still has a chance. I suggest you ignore both of those unhelpful storylines, and instead think for yourself based on your own values, your own political acumen, your own opinions about what matters to yourself and your fellow Americans. Figure out on your own what kind of information, what kind of evidence, you think, would help a person come to a reasonable conclusion, about whether Clinton’s still got a shot at the nomination.



What kind of evidence, should we be looking at in order to form a well-informed opinion, about whether this race is still competitive.



For me? Personally. In terms how I understand the word. There are three things, I want to know. Number one? I want to know, when Hillary Clinton campaigns does she make progress? Does the act of campaigning for Hillary Clinton work on voters? At this point?


Number two? Can she reasonably expect to have a firewall in the upcoming states, against Obama? Does she reasonably expect to do much better in forthcoming states then she has in the previous states?



And number three? How hard a task is ahead of her right now? What’s the real nature of the Obama lead at this point? Is it surmountable?



I think that the Wisconsin results last night gives us a chance to start answering those questions. And those are the three questions for me that I feel are the most relevant to making this decision, making this assessment. You may have different questions but there is so much different data available right now thanks to the magic of the interwebs, there’s so much data available in terms of exit polls and organization of the facts, if you can get online and spend time on any of the major networks’ election information websites, you can answer almost any question you can come up with about the results thus far. The Wisconsin results last night I think give us an opportunity to set aside the spin, to set aside the rushing-to-judgement and the media bandwagon effect, to ignore the chattering classes for a minute and just take a cold hard look at where we’re at right now. So I spent much of the night last night, very late into the night. And all of the day today. Going through the data that is out there about the democratic race. And I think there’s some factual information we all ought to get on the same page about.



Number one.



One of the ways the Clinton campaign tries to explain away the fact that Obama’s won 24 states to her 11, the fact that he’s won every state since Super Tuesday. One of the ways that they try to explain that fact away is that the Clinton campaign hasn’t fully been contesting those states. Obama has been spending more money, he’s running more ads, he’s got more campaign offices, he’s got more staffers and she’s not really trying to win some of these states that he has won.



And when she tries they say. When she really goes for it, like she’s going to do in Ohio and she’s going to do in Texas and she’s going to do in Pennsylvania – those are the states where she’ll win. By virtue of the fact that she will campaign hard there.



That’s not implausible argument to me. It seems reasonable to me that you ought not brag about winning uncontested elections, it seems reasonable to me that campaigns make strategic decisions about where to compete and where not to compete. The argument that some of a candidate’s wins can be discounted, because he or she faced only token opposition in that place. You know it’s not the most inspiring argument in the world, but rationally, in terms of cold hard facts and the way that campaigns work, it makes sense. Even after Giuliani crashed and burned in Florida – essentially, the argument still makes some sense.



The question for us, though, in trying to decide whether or not that argument really offers some hope for Hillary Clinton’s chances at getting the nomination, hinges on whether her campaigning works.



When she makes campaign appearances, when she runs ads, do the people who are targeted by that campaigning, then vote for her?



In the Wisconsin results from last night, I think there’s a way to assess this. To assess whether or not her campaigning actually has an effect on voters. In terms of the overhaul state of Wisconsin, Barack Obama had more staff, more campaign offices, more ads in more places, he bigger rallies, than Clinton did, in the state generally speaking. But Clinton did campaign in some areas of the state of Wisconsin. Her campaign realized late in the game that they couldn’t just look past Wisconsin altogether, they had to try to avoid a blowout there. They wanted to get some delegates there. So they put Hillary Clinton in Milwaukee, in Green Bay, in Madison, in Eau Claire, in Wausau and in Oshkosh, in the last days before voting in Wisconsin. She did campaign appearances in all those places. Clinton also ran television ADS in Green Bay and Eau Claire and La Crosse.



Now the thinking, pretty clearly, was that Obama was probably going to win the state overhaul. He was definitely going to clean up in Milwaukee and madison, but the thinking from the campaign was that Clinton could avoid getting blown out, she could hold onto some delegates, by competing well in these more rural and working class areas. So she campaigned in those more rural and working class. So now we get to ask the question: Did that campaigning work? Did the fact that she campaigned in those areas of Wisconsin mean that she did better in those areas of Wisconsin, then she otherwise would have been expected to do? Does her campaign getting traction, when she tries? Does the campaigning work? In areas like Green Bay and Eau Claire, let’s say, right?



In Green Bay, Wisconsin – Brown county – Barack Obama beats Hillary Clinton 56 to 42 – he beats her by 14 points. That’s three points better than the overall state total by which he beat her – but still – a blowout.



How about in Eau Claire? In Eau Claire, Wisconsin – Eau Claire County – Barack Obama beats Hillary Clinton 64 to 35. He blew her out by 29 points.



How about Oshkosh? In Winnebago County, in Wisconsin. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton 60 to 39. Beat her by 21 points.



If those were the places where the Clinton campaign was concentrating its resources, where they were turning on the campaign, to try to stop Obama. They were not successful. That is not a good sign.



It’s one of the things I said I wanted to look at from yesterday’s results. The first one – when she campaigns, does her campaigning work, does it demonstrate results? The micro county by county results in Wisconsin, say no.



She only won 11 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties – and none of the ones she was trying for with those campaign appearances and TV ads.