Care to provide some proof that the VA numbers are off? And not just to me, but the NYTimes, who provided the figures? And while it is true that it is difficult to make projections for the GE based on primary election results, it is also true that you can most definitely see a candidate's demographic strengths and weaknesses from primary results, especially when those results include the vote from 50 states (that's right, 50 not 48 -- just like what will be counted in the GE).

No matter what you want to believe about Obama's share of the white vote, since what you call the "Wrightmare", his total share of the white vote continues a downward trend from the beginning of the primary process until now.

And as for being confident that Obama has the white SD vote locked up (which I'm not sure is true, perhaps you'd better check your SD demographic chart again), that's great if your final goal is winning the Democratic nomination and nothing beyond that, because Obama's problems with white males in the population are growing, even among those who self-identify as Democrats.

<blockquote>Obama's support among white male voters, the most tightly contested bloc over the primary season, has slipped. He did well early on in states such as Virginia, where he took 52% of the white male vote to Clinton's 47%. But this week, Obama lost, 58% to 42%, among white men in Indiana and 55% to 42% in North Carolina. He has won majorities of white male voters in 10 states since January, but Clinton bested him in 13 others, including the critical northern battlegrounds of Ohio and Pennsylvania.</blockquote>

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-race10-2008may10,0,5432711,full.story

You've told me that the NYTimes figures are wrong, and the told me that Obama's share of the white vote is actually increasing (again, with no offer of proof, or citation of any kind), are you now going to tell me that the LATimes is similarly misguided? Are you, like Karl Rove, the only person who understands the real math?