An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Why Obama Will Win In Pennsylvania

oliph_color.jpg

Although most polls show Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama among likely Democratic voters in tomorrow’s Pennsylvania primary, I will once again stick out my neck and join the most accurate poll of the campaign season and predict an Obama victory.

This is because of two reasons: Clinton’s relentlessly negative campaigning has drowned out her message for many voters and the expected record voter turnout will skew heavily toward densely populated Philadelphia and suburbs where the Obama campaign got slews of new voters to register. The likely result is that any gains that Clinton makes in her Western Pennsylvania strongholds will be more than offset in the southeast.

It goes without saying that the Clinton campaign will spin any result to a farethewell, even a loss. Dick Polman’s hilarious but probably accurate take on how a defeat will be spun:

“We’re very pleased with where we are. We always knew that Pennsylvania would be a very tough environment for us. However, we strongly believe – as we have always believed – that the primary results in any state with 12 letters its name, conducted at a point in the calendar when many potential voters are likely to be distracted by baseball games and spring cleaning, should be deemed an inaccurate representation of the electorate’s mood, and therefore illegitimate.

“Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are crucial to this party’s prospects in November, and therefore we urge Senate Obama to join us in calling for re-votes in all three states. We think this would be an excellent way for Senator Obama to demonstrate his love of America, which of course is unimpeachable, as far as we know. We are confident that Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, and William Ayers will not influence his decision to support a Pennsylvania re-vote.

“But even if Senator Obama retains his negligible national lead after all the re-votes, and after the remaining nine primaries are conducted, we nevertheless believe there should be no rush to judgment, and that the people should be heard. We’d like to see the democratic process play out. Accordingly, Senator Clinton, in the interests of fairness, fully intends to reset the primary calendar and start over. Come June, we’ll see you all in Iowa. Iowa, the great state of corn. When Senator Clinton was a child, traveling through Iowa on car trips, she often ate corn . . . “

A final and perhaps unnecessary thought. If you’re registered to vote in Pennsylvania, do so early and often.

Apologies to Pat Oliphant for the colorizing © 2008 Universal Press Syndicate

  • I don't think Obama is going to win. I think a best case scenario has him losing by around 5 points. But even if he loses by 10-15, there is still no way Hillary overcomes his pledged delegate lead.

    Besides, any gains in Pennsylvania will be wiped out by North Carolina.
  • mw
    Chrswww, True but irrelevant. Clinton does not need to overcome the pledged delegate lead to win the nomination. She just needs to convince the Superdelegates that she is the better candidate in November. Obama is helping her make that case. Only the most starry eyed Obama acolytes like Saun here can fail to see the problems with his candidacy. After outspending 4-1 in Oho, he loses. After oust-spending 4-1 in Texas, he loses. After out-spending 3-1 in Pa he loses. In all the big states, a majority still prefer Clinton to Obama. After IN, a few more smaller primaries and a big finish in Puerto Rico, more Democrats will have voted for Clinton than Obama over the entire primary season process. That’ll be all that is needed and enough for the supes to switch to Clinton and push Obama into the VP role.

    Everyone knows that the pledged delegates are a joke, as they are heavily weighed with undemocratic caucuses, they disenfranchise MI and FL, and even reversing the popular vote and will of the voter in TX. After a 10 point win in PA, she gets enough money to keep fighting and will win in IN and ultimate popular vote plurality, and the nomination.
  • How elitist of you and Hillary Clinton to try to override the will of the average voters with your "super" delegates :-) Something tells me this strategy was conceived of in San Francisco!

    Only the most starry eyed Obama acolytes like Saun here can fail to see the problems with his candidacy. After outspending 4-1 in Oho, he loses. After oust-spending 4-1 in Texas, he loses. After out-spending 3-1 in Pa he loses.

    You might have a leg to stand on if there was any sort of correlation between primary victories and general election victories, but historically there is none.

    After IN, a few more smaller primaries and a big finish in Puerto Rico, more Democrats will have voted for Clinton than Obama over the entire primary season process.

    Are you counting those sham elections in MI and Fl again? Awww... how cute.

    Everyone knows that the pledged delegates are a joke, as they are heavily weighed with undemocratic caucuses

    You know what, I don't like the electoral college either, but those are the rules. And it's funny that Hillary didn't seem to mind caucuses until she started losing most of them. (BTW, Hillary would still be behind in delegates even if you didn't count the caucuses)

    they disenfranchise MI and FL

    This is the first time I've heard of pledged delegates disenfranchising the voters in MI and FL. I thought it the Democratic party elite that did that... you know, people like Hillary Clinton.
  • Mike_P
    I wish I were as optimistic as you Shaun. An Obama win would put the final stake in Sen. Clinton's campaign and end the long national nightmare Democrats are facing this year, but I'm afraid it's not to be - yet.

    My guess is Clinton by 10 - 12 in PA. But she's outta money, can't match Obama's popular vote totals no matter what, can't match his pledged delegate count no matter what, andhas now almost lost the huge superdelegate lead she once commanded. Then Obama wins NC, and possibly IN, erasing any delegate gains Sen. Clinton gets out of PA, and then, finally, the farce her campaing has become is over.

    But she'll always have that endorsement by Richard Mellon Scaiffe to fondly look back on.
  • mikkel
    "more Democrats will have voted for Clinton than Obama over the entire primary season process"

    Only if you don't count some caucuses, include MI (giving Obama 0 there) and FL, and assume huge Clinton blowouts in IN and PA way beyond polling.

    But yeah, if you do that then I guess he is behind in popular vote. Or you could just use a winner take all system and she'd be ahead too. At this point it's more intellectually honest to just say "Clinton should be the nominee because Obama is going to mess up. That's why."
  • Mikkel,
    It's amazing that these Clinton folks had the temerity to call Obama and his supporters crybabies after the last debate.
  • mw
    Chriswww
    Awww hey, how cute and and hypocritical of you and Barack Obama to pick and choose among which of the "rules are the rules" when it comes time to pick a nominee. When it is about disenfranchising MI and FL and working people with Caucuses, and reversing the will of the voters in TX, well... they can't say "those are the rules" fast enough. But when it comes to SuperDelegates, which come out of the same rulebook, well those cute Obama supporters don't like those rules so much do they?

    BTW - There is not one single rule about what kind of argument can be made to super-delegates about who is the better more electable Dem candidate. No rules - just arguments. And when we are done with the primary season it will an unarguable fact that more Dem voters put a check by Clinton's name than Obamas. Real people. Real Dems. Real votes. More votes for Clinton than Obama. And that is a very persuasive argument that violates no rules.
  • DWSUWF,
    You must have missed Mikkel's last comment.

    Make whatever argument you want to the superdelegates, but don't go on this hypocritical tirade about disenfranchising voters and Obama's supposed elitism at the same time.
  • mikkel
    Chris forget that, remember that Clinton didn't even get her full slate of delegates submitted to PA in time; professed shock at how the Texas two step worked only two weeks before it; and doesn't seem to be using any strategy to take advantage of delegate proportionality differences on the district level.

    The Democratic primary process is idiotic, where some districts you can win 65.9% of the vote and gain nothing, while others you can win 50.01% and gain +1...but Obama's campaign actually you know, figured this out and actively uses it to their advantage. I am definitely not in the camp that running a campaign shows you are a good leader, but golly gee, how inept do you have to be to not learn these basic rules.

    Oh yeah, and she heavily criticized Obama when he admitted that he is not primarily a detail oriented person. This whole process has made me feel down because both of the Clintons are some of the best politicians we have when it comes to actually crafting policy and tweaking it in a back room. It's only when they got out in public and are challenged that their glaring flaws dominate. If they just assumed the role of "head of Democratic policy formation" then they would make the country and party a lot lot better.

    We would also be having the final two be Biden/Richardson vs. Obama and that would have been very interesting.
  • mw
    We could have had a revote in Michigan. Clinton supported and Obama obstructed it. I wonder why? Could it be it would have been the exact same outcome as every other large industrial state except Il?
  • Pyronite
    Clinton is more electable because she says so. It's not the polls, it's not the primaries... it's because she says so. This is her argument. Oh, and DWSUWF says so too. Does that about summarize things?

    The suggestion that Obama obstructed a revote in Michigan is inane. Perhaps Obama supporters in the state legislature pushed in that direction, but since when have Presidential candidates the power to obstruct a state's primary? Beyond the point at which Obama and Clinton both agreed that Michigan and Florida would not count, that is.

    It's worth pointing out that Obama stood a lot more to gain from holding a revote. He was and still is polling even with Hillary Clinton in the state of Michigan. Had a revote taken place, Clinton apologists wouldn't have the opportunity to put on the false act that we see DWSUWF doing in these comments, because the disparity in votes and delegates would be absolutely insignificant.
  • mikkel
    I actually have to agree with DWSUWF about MI and FL. I don't think there is any evidence that Obama obstructed the revotes, but the states didn't want to pay and Obama should have offered to pay for them.

    I know that he is supposed to be a model of citizen interaction or whatever with his massive fortune from over a million people, but seriously, how many ads can you run? There is no need for him to have as much money as he does and he should have used some of it to have a fair vote or to (if it's legal) setup some community project groups or something that try to reach out to anyone that is interested in getting involved in cleaning up foreclosed properties or whatnot. Or just give it back.
  • Davebo
    It's odd that DWSUWF complains about the rules. Clinton agreed to them. Including "disenfranchising" Michigan and Florida. Obama isn't responsible for the trainwreck that is the Clinton campaign.

    Hillary is. The fact that she won't take responsibility for that is a concern in itself.
  • mw
    I am not complaining about the rules. I am supporting the rules. All of them. Especially the rules that say Superdelegates should vote their conscience and the most electable candidate, and should feel free to reverse a miscarriage like the like the pledged delegate totals. it is the Obama supporters who want to pick and choose among which rules they like (disenfranchising MI, FL, reversing TX) and which rules they don't (superdelegates).
  • it is the Obama supporters who want to pick and choose among which rules they like (disenfranchising MI, FL, reversing TX) and which rules they don't (superdelegates).

    That's just total BS. Obama supporters are saying that the superdelegates SHOULD vote for whoever has the pledged delegate lead. They aren't questioning the legitimacy of superdelegates, just making a case to them, like Hillary Clinton.
  • DLS
    Well, it must be consolation (if he retains any reasoning) that Chris isn't the only one detached from reality. Obama cultists need to understand that this won't end until the convention, and that there remains the chance that Clinton will not only survive, but make gains, as reality intrudes beyond the sound bites the Obama cultists swallow without thinking and Obama is [gasp] seen as less than perfect.

    Pennsylvania is coming. Then, Indiana. Then, other races, then, the convention.

    And, of course, the illegitimate Michigan and Florida elections will likely be ignored (along with typical Dem-dolt "disenfranchisement" lies and stupidity) and the large numbers of delegates from those two states will likely be permitted to attend and participate in the convention in some way. (I still hope there is a brawl at that event.)


    No, you robotic PC conformist-totalitarians, the whole universe hasn't yet chosen to vote only for Obama. You cannot count on your multiple votes and other traditional-Dem cheating to cover the potential difference.
  • DLS,
    Who are you supporting and why?
    =====
    Edit: What's wrong DLS? Afraid to have your own views subjected to the kind of disparaging attacks that you spew with great frequency?
  • mikkel, that's not how campaign money works. There's a specific set of things any candidate is allowed to use the money for. Some of it can only be used in the General Election even. It's set up this way so that candidates can't going around using the money as if it's some sort of discretionary fund.
  • mikkel
    janiendm he can definitely give it back. Also there was serious discussion of Clinton and/or Obama helping to pay for the revotes out of their coffers so I assume that it was legal (although to be fair I didn't actually check and knowing the accuracy of everything else that's reported then I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't).

    As for the other thing, I have no idea. He could perhaps set it up as a campaign event. It would be ironic if giving out hundreds of thousands in "street money" cash to local party bosses or millions to consultants was legal, but paying for materials and whatnot and having people to volunteer to clean up a city to spread a political message wasn't.

    The general election thing is anything over the first $2300. That's why Clinton has so much for the general racked up while Obama doesn't have much at all. He doesn't have nearly as many big money donors tapped out.
  • Of course he can give it back, but they're status is a campaign, not a charity so he can't use it for picking up litter or whatever. Otherwise, I'd have been able to write off my donations. I'm working so you'll have to settle for House rules for appropriate uses for funds, which are similar to presidential funds (in terms of what you can use them for).

    * may spend campaign funds for "bona fide campaign or political purposes" only,

    * may not convert campaign funds or resources to personal use, and must be able to verify that campaign resources have not been so misused, and

    * may not use campaign funds or resources for official House purposes.
  • pacatrue
    Well, I've had this argument with DWSUWF twice already, in which I disagree with the view that 5 party members is just as democratic as 30,000 caucus voters, so won't do it again.

    I did want to congratulate Shaun on the bravery of choosing an Obama victory one day before the primary so that we can't forget to rib him in 48 hours if he's wrong.

    Taking off on what mikkel has said, I also find the enormous amounts of money going into these campaigns incredibly wasteful, for lack of a better term. I mean the amount of money collected so far could almost fund some of the programs the candidates are trying to create. It's probably far larger than seemingly more important causes such as the budget of the American Cancer Society. It is a drawback to this never ending campaign season. And as a Democrat, think of how many millions of Democratic dollars are going to beating down other Democrats due to the lenght of the primary season. Ugh.
  • Cladia
    Barack Obama rode a wave of voter discontent to a historic White House victory on Tuesday, promising change as the first Black US President but constrained by a deep economic crisis and two lingering wars. Obama led Democrats to a sweeping victory that expanded their majorities in both Houses of Congress as voters emphatically rejected President George W Bush's eight years of leadership.Obama is the son of a Black father from Kenya and white mother from Kansas, and his election triumph over Republican rival John McCain marks a milestone in US history. It came 45 years after the height of the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Cladia.


    pennsylvania drug rehab
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC