I'm sure some of you regularly checked Jay Cost's RCP post-primary analysis of the various states throughout the primary season.  The dominate themes of these essays were that Obama has his coalition and Clinton has hers and that he wins venues where his coalition predominates and she wins where hers predominates.  Sure, there were variations of degree and there may have been some minor exceptions, but these coalitions held pretty steady througout the primaries.  The more striking conclusion that might be generated from this phenomena is that these coalitions were relatively impervious to campaigning and other contemporaneous events.

Throughout this campaign, Obama supporters have often jeered that Clinton supporters thought only certain states and voters matter.  Of course, that was a mistatement of our positions.  Our position could more appropriately be characterized as the belief that our coalition was more expandable outside of the Democratic party because our coalition came closer to resembling voters with lower allegiance to the Democratic party while Obama's was more heavily populated with those who never vote Republican.

Our belief may or may not be supported in November, but the conclusion is inescapable that our belief did not triumph in the nomination process.  In this nomination process, it was the Obama coalition that was the winner if the candidate played the game smartly and the Obama campaign played the game almost like they invented it.

The core of Obama's coalition consisted of very heavy support from three groups:

1) Youth

2. African Americans
   
3. The left-leaning and, at least somewhat angry, "anyone but Clinton" faction

Clinton never had a chance with these three groups.  They were determined to derail her candidacy.  For the first group, she was way too yesterday for most of them.  For the second group, she was in the way of the nomination of the first viable black candidate.  

For the last group, they were never going to forgive her and Bill's Republican enabling.  They'll never forgive her for the authorization vote (and a few other departures) and they'll never forgive Bill for such things as triangulation and the 1994 midterm losses (Oddly, both Truman and Eisenhower had losses in the same range but no one ever seems to remember them and they are invoked as good presidents across the political spectrum). This group was emboldened by the 2006 midterms and disenchantment with Bush to flex their muscle (apparently, all the rejections of them before that are conveniently forgotten).  Now was the time to throw off those DLC chains!   A couple of friends of mine who are strong Obama supporters (and surely belong in this group) pretty much admitted to me that "anyone but Clinton" was their entering paradigm and they didn't decide completely on Obama until it was clear to them that he was the viable Anti-Clinton.  Their emotional investment came naturally after their commitment decision.

The first of these groups (Youth), considering their strong Obama margins, was a formidable block everywhere.  Combine them with the second group (AAs), with their virtually monolithic support for Obama, and, in any state where African Americans were a significant minority, the odds against Clinton were virtually insurmountable.  The third group became particulary significant in caucus states (and in some very Red Republican states with a more homogenously liberal Democratic minority) where their participation and influence far exceeded their overall population numbers in very low turnout affairs.

The Obama campaigned maximized its strengths to deliver an impressive tactical electoral victory.  Obama's coalition did not widen as the campaign reached its final period.  In fact, it may have narrowed, but the coalition was stronger than expected and its strengths delivered what now appear to be crushing blows in February.

OK, now what?  The second and third groups have very little expansion potential outside of the Democratic party.  For the first group, hard to tell.  In the past, younger voters have often been a little more fickle than older ones.  Something we don't know yet is how large is the youth vote that has not participated in the Democratic primary and where will it go?  Are they a silent majority or a silent minority of the young?  I would presume they are more right leaning or more apathetic than those who partipated in the primary, but how much more of either of those?  I don't know.

Finally, there is the Clinton coalition.  Most of it will vote for Obama but what will be the size of the minority that doesn't?  That is a key question.