Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?

[Alcon]

Clinton, basically.

More specifically:  I'll tell you after I read the wires tomorrow morning.

Working against Obama: counties may go to sleep, not resume counting until after newspaper press tomorrow.  Which is unfair, but c'est politics.

[Alcon]

California was considered a toss-up, and ended up a bit more solid for Clinton than expected.  Result: a small public victory for Clinton.

Elsewhere, a small public victory for Obama thanks to the overall state wins, the "we've surged in a few months" argument, Missouri and Connecticut.

Most importantly, all of the news coverage was of a tie.  Some news sources focused on Obama winning more states (and probably more delegates); others focused on Clinton's California win.  There were no big news stories either way, even from the sensationalist newspapers.  That says a lot.

This is really not a big public perception deal either way, and I'm amazed that the Clinton and Obama die-hards are spinning it that way.  Man, you guys are really true believers, both in the American public and your candidates.

[Alcon]

J. J., I have no real way of proving it, but I doubt the average American really heard more than an off-hand comment about California.  And then even, I bet the reaction was more "oh, gee, screwy polls.  I heard Obama won some other states though!" than "OMG Obama collapse."

People are generally stupid and poorly-informed, not just stupid.

[Alcon]

People are generally both more intelligent and less well informed than the political and media classes like to think.

Well, intelligence is irrelevant here.

What's relevant is:

1. Ability to analyze political results realistically
2. Keeping up with said political results

In both cases, the average American fails much too miserably for last night to mean much.