The Momentum Myth

"The tide is turning," said Hillary Clinton after her win in the Pennsylvania primary. And her victory, like the tide, was due to scheduling more than anything else.

Almost without exception, both Clinton and Obama have won where they have been expected to win. Obama's win in Iowa was a true upset, but Clinton was favored to win in New Hampshire all along except for the five days between that contest and the Iowa caucuses. After New Hampshire, states have fallen pretty much as predicted, though Obama's margins in some places have been larger than anticipated.

It's always possible that patterns may change, but it doesn't seem likely. And if they don't change, it's extremely unlikely that Clinton will get the nomination, no matter what the predictable--and predicted--benefit she got last week. She can spin her Pennsylvania win as momentum, and can Obama same next week Obama assuming he wins in North Carolina.

But in this contest, it seems that demography is destiny. There is no real momentum, only the happenstance of the Democratic primary/caucus schedule.

David Brooks has been one of the few people to bring up this point (for instance, on the April 25 PBS Newshour). It's disappointing to see so many others in the media failing to question the momentum myth, though it's only one myth among many that they've failed to analyze in their consistently disappointing coverage of this race.