Decision ‘08

Hillary Wins Pennsylvania, Declares AP…

…but that’s no surprise. How big will the margin be? I predicted 9 points yesterday, but it may end up closer than that. If so, I consider that a victory for Obama, though Hillary will, I suspect, disagree…

UPDATE 8:41 p.m.: There was one candidate today who chose not to pander to economic fears in the Rust Belt - unfortunately for the Democrats, it was John McCain in Ohio:

John McCain came to the Rust Belt on Tuesday to promote worker re-training for the new economy and to denounce “the siren song” of protectionism.

“The answer is education and training,” McCain said in front of a rusted, empty steel-fabricating factory here.

…A man who identified himself as a former AFL-CIO official challenged McCain over the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada.

McCain said that, violations aside, the problem is not free trade, but rather “our inability to adjust to a new world economy.” He said the future does not belong to the “old industries,” but rather “the information technology revolution.”

Tying the area’s struggles to his own early struggles in this presidential race, McCain said, “Sometimes you get a second chance and opportunity turns back your way. And when it does, we are stronger and readier because of all that we had to overcome.”

UPDATE 10:16 p.m.: Well, with 87% of the vote in, Hillary has opened it up to 10%. I’ll wait for the final margin, but that’s a pretty big win. Obama needs to put out the fires of doubt that Hillary’s supporters are sowing and finish strong, with wins in both North Carolina and Indiana, because he’s been limping for a while now, and even though mathematically, he’s a shoe-in, his poor performances of late have the doubters coming back out of the woodwork…

UPDATE 10:20 p.m.: Marc Ambinder puts it well, as usual, in explaining why this latest showing is so disconcerting for Obama supporters:

The bottom line for tonight: both fields of spin have within them a few grains of truth. It’s still likely that Obama wins the nomination, and it’s true that his pledged delegate lead will still be in excess of 150 when tonight ends; it’s true that Clinton will have 158 fewer delegates to play with; that Obama has a strong chance to win in Indiana and North Carolina; that the superdelegates may well consider the cost of a prolonged contest as well as their own feelings about electability — all this is true.

But it’s also true that were Obama an organic frontrunner, he ought to a win a state like Pennsylvania unless he fully embraces the racial and geographic determinism that his campaign has run against since for fifteen months. He’s outspent Clinton by at least six million dollars; Clinton has higher negatives across the board; he’s visited the state nearly as many times as she has; his press coverage is better than hers; he has well more than her 5,000 volunteers on the ground.

As Jake-o writes:

But what’s so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner — flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings — should be able to win a blue state primary?

The answer, of course, is that Clinton is playing the economic fear card, and that runs well among traditional Democratic constituencies (read seniors, unions, and poor folk)…but the fact that these ARE Democratic demographic groups that have pretty solidly rejected Obama is Hillary’s strongest argument to the superdelegates (in other words, the pander has worked well)…

28 Responses to “Hillary Wins Pennsylvania, Declares AP…”

1 Howard4Obama Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
It is clear that there is a missing piece of coverage…The Republicans who have openly stated that they were to vote for HRC to make her an easy target for McCain as well as to force the Dems to spend their war chests. It is clear that the HRC campaign will continue to say that a win is a win. Let’s not forget that she (HRC) stated that they were to win by 20+ points. As a Pennsylvania voter who campaigned for Obama I met many PA voters who stated that they would never vote for a black man over a white woman. I found it to be offensive and the Obama campaign never mentioned that to the media. The historical context of PA’s racial history cannot be forgotten; yet, it can be healed. For Obama to lose PA by less than 20 points in a state that is her base demographic…what does that say??/
2 Howard4Obama Says:
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I campaigned in Lebanon, PA and I met several HRC supporters who stated that they would gladly campaign and vote for Obama in NOV should he be the nominee. The perception that they would not vote for a DEM in NOV is not accurate.
3 DBrooks Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 am
Well, I live in Columbus, home to Ohio State-who plays Penn State every year, and I have talked to several Democrats who say they would gladly vote for a hoot owl before they’d vote for HRC or Obama. So there.

On a serious note, if you changed nothing about Obama other than to make him a solid Conservative, these racist voters you allude to would be voting for him in droves.
4 Chris J. Breisch Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Hillary’s odds of getting the nomination move a tick upwards. From 1 in 7 to 1 in 6. 10 points is enough to stop the flow of superdelegates in Obama’s direction, but not enough to reverse the movement.

If she can eke out a win in NC and IN, she moves to even money. Or better. I firmly believe that if Hillary wins those two states that Obama will not win another primary. If that turns out to be the case, then the sound of the superdelegate stampede to Hillary will be deafening.

The real problem with Obama that Hillary’s people will be mentioning to every single superdelegate is how he does with “moderates” and, yes, it’s unfortunate, but “white males”. These are people that the Demorcrat nominee needs to get to beat McCain.

The other problem that Obama has has been mentioned by both Rasmussen and Zogby. Late deciders in pretty much every state have broken almost universally for Hillary. If this happens in November, he will lose.

Hillary’s comment that Obama can’t beat McCain is starting to look more and more true. Of course, he’s going to have a huge cash edge. Maybe that will be enough.

I refuse to make any picks on the presidency until at least June.
5 too many steves Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Is it true that Obama’s delegates largely come from his caucus wins rather than from primary victories? If so, does that imply that he is strongest with the insiders while Hillary is so with the run-of-the-mill voters? Does that validate her argument that she is the stronger national candidate? Who is doing best with Independents and Republicans (not that the latter matter all that much)?
6 Ryan Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
A monkey in a hat with a picture of a donkey on it would beat McCain in November. This continued back-and-forth about electability is insane. No one is going to lose to George Bush’s crazy 400 year old uncle.
7 Crawlinkingsnake Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Ryan, that is hilarious. Although I completely disagree. Bush’s crazy 400 year old uncle can beat Gore’s cat lady, bitch aunt or Cheney’s pretentious, know it all, socialist cousin any day of the week. Bush’s uncle hasnt even begun to run against either of the dem candidates yet and we have atleast another month of cat lady pretending to be a hick/making up war stories and Dr. Words Matter avoiding the press because he is completely counter productive when someone else hasnt written a speech for him. The dems put up two unelectable candidates, one that everybody hates and one that is so inexperienced he cant stray beyond talking points without looking like an idiot.
8 too many steves Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Bush was going to lose big first to Gore and then to Kerry too.
9 peter Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Well, he did lose to Gore. But let’s not go there.
10 too many steves Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Oh, but you already have… Not by the measure that counts.
11 too many steves Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Please add this

to the end of my comment above.
12 peter Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
After seven years of Bush, one would think the emoticon should be a frown.
13 too many steves Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Well, personally, I have done as well during Bush’s presidency as I did during Clinton’s reign. Besides, the emoticon was for you.
14 Bob from Ohio Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Ryan is half right. No Dem should lose in November.

Yet, the GOP stumbled into the one guy that has a chance. And the Dems are picking the one guy with the best chance to lose

Against Obama, McCain has a decent chance in Michigan and Ohio and Pennslyvania, all of which should be easy Dem wins. If he wins those states, against all odds, he wins.

Part of this is the race angle, no doubt. The Dem areas in SE Ohio will not support Obama in sufficent numbers. Neither will some of the Dem suburbs of Cleveland. A Dem in Ohio needs good numbers in these areas.

It goes beyond race though. McCain has a national image that will be difficult to shake. Obama is much more of a blank slate which is being gradually being written on in ways that will hurt him in November.

I still think McCain, unless he folows my advice on his VP, is a 3-2 underdog at best.
15 peter Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I did better under Bush than I did under Clinton, due to the tax cuts. However, since the tax cuts were financed with borrowed money, it’s a short term gain which will inevitably be reversed once fiscal sobriety returns to government.

My goal in life is to vote like a Democrat but live like a Republican.
16 DBrooks Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
peter-That’s a little like saying your goal is to think like a 10-year-old, but live like an adult. It sounds nice, but it isn’t practically applicable.
17 peter Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
No: it’s the recognition that policies which benefit me personally are not helpful to society at large, and hence I ought to vote against them.

If the government wants to give me lower tax rates on dividends, capital gains, and income, I’m happy to take it. However, running huge deficits to pay for the tax breaks is wrong for the country and the economy, so I’ll vote against them every time.
18 too many steves Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Silliness; you should always vote in your own self interest, if everyone did we would all be much better off. Society at large couldn’t care less about you - and shouldn’t.
19 peter Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Whether society cares about me or not – and I’m sure that it doesn’t – has little if anything to do with what I should do.

I’m not a smoker: if I voted my own self-interest, I’d vote to raise the cigarette tax to $10 a pack. I get over 20 miles to the gallon, and the wife has a Prius: my self interest would be to raise the gas tax to $5 a gallon. Then I would take the money from the two taxes and vote for a low flat tax so I pay the same marginal tax rate as the mailman.

I expect to fund my own retirement – so I would vote against Social Security. I have a company health care plan – so I would vote against Medicaid. I’ve never been on welfare and rarely needed unemployment insurance – so I would vote those programs away too. Foreign aid to countries I’ll never see? Fuhgeddaboutit. Why should I send tax money to support programs which I am unlikely to ever need or use?

I think you get my point. If we all voted strictly out of self interest, the law of the jungle would apply and the strongest would prevail. If you really believe the e pluribus unum stuff, then I think the responsible course is to vote with the interests of the country as a whole in mind.
20 Ryan Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Well, you’re all free to believe what you want, but the fact that McCain can’t break 50 when he’s running against no one says everything that needs saying. He’s the worst presidential candidate in 50 years and I can’t wait to see him utterly dismantled. Say what you will about Bush’s “chances” against Gore and Kerry, but he was only wrong, incompetent, and stupid; McCain is wrong, incompetent, stupid, and insane. This is going to be a massacre.
21 Mark Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Well, Ryan, you know I disagree with you about McCain so I won’t go there - but Bob Dole was the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime. Good man, but horrible candidate - then again, he was a sacrifice to the then-unbeatable Bill Clinton…
22 Peter Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Dukakis was worse.
23 Mark Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Hmmm…you may be right. What an election that would have been: Dukakis vs. Dole! Then again, Dukakis had the sacrificial role against the Reagan juggernaut, much like Dole to Clinton…
24 Ryan Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Then just you wait. McCain is just like Dole, only he’s also completely nuts. Who needs the boring old soldier when you can have the boring old soldier who wants to bomb Iran and start a war with Russia?
25 Ryan Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Actually, here’s your comparison. McCain is like the political lovechild of Dole and Goldwater. Disaster will ensue.
26 peter Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I give McCain a lot more credit than that. (Also, I have a lot of respect for Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater: don’t agree with them much, but respect the consistency of their thinking and their obvious love of country.) McCain has a compelling life story, his views are not poll-driven, and the media love him. I also would not underestimate the strength of the Republican political machine. No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, I think the ball game will go nine innings before we know who the winner is.
27 Ryan Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Wait, you think McCain’s views are NOT poll-driven? Can you explain his about-face on immigration in any other way? Or the fact that he went from conservative heavy in 2000 to almost-a-Democrat in 2004 back to religious-right-pandering-phony in 2008? There’s no way to understand this guy except as someone who will do or say ANYTHING to get elected.

You’re certainly right that Dole and Goldwater are respectable for their consistency of thinking. Too bad McCain hasn’t got a shred of that.
28 peter Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I give him credit for going against his party (and popular opinion) on immigration and campaign finance reform, as well as originally voting against the Bush tax cuts.

I recognize that he’s flip flopped somewhat — as politicians are wont to do — but just because you’re not a virgin does not mean that you are a whore. In the brothel of politics, I think McCain is a fairly clean player.