Pennsylvania Observations

After six weeks of campaigning, mudslinging, and silly questions to candidates befitting a B-level reality show, Pennsylvania Democrats finally had their say handing Senator Hillary Clinton an important victory over Senator Barack Obama. The win may well be the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it gives Clinton added momentum and justification to continue in the race. On the other hand, it raises legitimate questions about Obama's ability to close the door on the nomination and lets fester concerns about his toughness. That's bad news for Democrats seeking closure in the nomination contest.

Clinton's win was expected, but the margin exceeded most forecasts. The punditocracy seemed to coalesce around the notion that a 10 percent or larger Clinton victory would be meaningful, contending that anything below that number would be a psychological win for Obama (Don't you just love it when round numbers taken out of the sky are bandied about as rational?) Her performance will temporarily quiet those who have called upon her to exit the race. While it is still very unlikely she can win the nomination, her Keystone State win allows her to continue to craft an argument that she's best positioned to win the states that Democrats will need in November. She has won the popular vote in eight of the nine largest states (North Carolina, ranked 10th, will vote on May 6). While two of those states -- Florida and Michigan -- require an asterisk, the reality is Clinton has done much better than Obama in the states that matter most to Democrats.

The Clinton coalition was as it has always been. She won nearly 70 percent of votes from Catholics, 53 percent from Jewish voters, 56 percent of Protestants, and 63 percent of seniors (Pennsylvania is the second-oldest state in the country). She carried late deciders, churchgoers of all frequencies, rural voters, and those without college degrees. An interesting exit poll finding is that Iraq seems to be receding as an issue. A New York Times exit poll indicated that 55 percent of voters identified the economy as the most important issue facing the country, nearly doubling the 28 percent of voters who identified the Iraq War as most important. That statistic suggests that the ground may be shifting in a way that works against Obama's campaign rationale. What good is being a strong opponent of the war if it no longer matters as much to voters?

Obama has some reasons for optimism. He won nearly two-thirds of 18-24 year old voters and, in what has to be an encouraging sign going forward, he also won a big majority of newly registered voters. His ability to expand the electorate is amazing and presents a great base going into the general election, should he get that far. He continued his overwhelming support among African Americans, winning 92 percent of the Black vote, and carried self-identified liberals. An ominous sign, however, could be his showing among churchgoers; he won 56 percent of those who never attend church, while losing in all other categories.

While Obama is still the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination, he now has some nagging questions to answer. Is his bulging war chest a cover for inherent weakness that could be exploited in a general election? Why is he unable to close the deal in some of the biggest states? Will he have to go negative to close out the race in North Carolina and Indiana on May 6? What would going negative mean to his image as a "new" politician?

For all that we think we know after months and months of campaigning, in many ways, things are still unsettled.

Michael K. Fauntroy is an assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University and author of the recently released book Republicans and the Black Vote. A registered Independent, he blogs at: www.MichaelFauntroy.com.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results

Comments

[kirksong]

One thing that is crytal clear - the Republican party prefers Hillary Rodham Clinton to run against in November. Have no doubt - watch Fox News commentators like Hannity and Colmes... you will find extensive Senator Obama bashing. Why, the Republican party knows it has a much better chance of prevailing against HRC. If this doesn't say something about Senator Obama's appeal and chances of success, what does? David Brooks - Republican conservative New York Times political writer who is frequently seen on PBS Newhour with Jim Leher - has confirmed this fact repeatedly. The Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee. It is also a given that the Republicans are under the radar doing what they can to assist HRC's success in the primaries.

[swoosie1]

Well, it is probably because Obama carries so much social baggage and is just so easy to bash. Those shows start slowly and build a theme over many months. They are starting this with Obama now, not because they want to run against Clinton, but because they want to ruin Obama. Their theme campaign against Obama is lack of patriotism and of course, inexperience, and Harvard-laced elitism. They will hammer this home through November, until he is just a shell of the man he once was. All the while, he will be experiencing the simple treatment of being a frontrunner. This is nothing new, and for sure this is what Hillary has said all along---Obama will not be able to withstand the Republican slime machine. It almost goes without saying that Hillary is the vetted candidate in this race, and if people would just get over hating her so much, we might have a winning candidate. Obama will never be that candidate. That is one thing that is clear.

[Sabreen60]

Do you not know how much junk is in Clinton's trunk? Right this minute there is a pending fraud charge against she and Bill waiting to come to trial. There are so many scandals surrounding the Clintons that the Repugs will have a field day. The little stuff they have against Obama is child's play compared to what they will pull out against Clinton.

[samanthasmom]

Many voters gave Obama their votes and their money based on his message of "Hope and Change". They didn't ask for much from him in return. Many are unable to give definitive answers about what Obama stands for, ("just checkout his website") and many have been flabbergasted when he has opened his mouth and said something that doesn't fit with the Obama they see through their own lenses. Thus was born the WORM. Now he's nearing the end of the battle for the nomination and is faced with answering to doubtful people who question his ability to win the general election. These last votes he needs will not be given. They will need to be earned. How Obama goes about earning them will say a lot about how he would govern. Expecting Hillary to leave the race so that he can have the nomination says that he's either lazy or feels entitled or both. Blaming the voters for not just seeing that he's the better choice is arrogant. Blaming Hillary for all of his own gaffes says that he lacks the personal integrity to take responsibility for his own mistakes. It's time for him to begin earning the rest of the votes he needs. Time to reach out to the part of the Democratic Party that supports his opponent. (Hint - you don't do that by dissing her.)

[Sabreen60]

Just curious, but how many voters did you speak with?

[superlive]

Obama already has all the votes he needs. It's Hillary who's desperate. If he ceased all further campainging and only ran mediancommercials he'd still win the most pledge delegates.

[mojopo]

I think you've made some extremely valid points. Each campaign has made some errors, forgetting that this race is about reaching all kinds of voters. There was an opportunity for Obama to welcome the blue-collar voters with open arms. I'm 40 years old, and I have often seen how important their vote is - I thought Obama and his campaign saw it too, but they don't get it. How come they don't get it? This is a troubling. I desperately want to Dems to win in November, but I'm honestly *not sure* Obama can ever make headway with Hillary's base. On the other hand, it's clear she can appeal to his side of the fence (by a nose) while holding onto her supporters. But is it too late? Probably. So there is every reason to worry.

Like many voters, I want sure bet. If Obama wins the nomination, of course I will vote for him - but we cannot say the same for the Reagan Democrats, and no matter how much that pisses some people off we really need their vote. I would vote for Hillary if she somehow manages to get the nomination. It's certainly clear that she can attract McCain and Obama supporters, and I am fine with that. I want as many people on the Democrat's side as possible! This country may need life support if another incompetent Republican takes the helm.

[kirksong]

Senator Obama has a real challenge on his hands: maintain respect, dignity, and integrity - or truly go negative against Senator Clinton. As Michele Obama rallied against fear mongering in Iowa - she said that fear stupifies the mind and deters reason (my interpretation). Senator Clinton is using fear unabashedly, and making every attempt to denigrate Senator Obama's character. In the short run, it is keeping Hillary in the game and working for her. There are plenty of genuine negatives that Obama could utilize against Clinton to finish off her sinking ship. At this point, I think the Obama campaign should take off the gloves and fire back with accurate representations of the Clinton's many negatives.

[oursin2008]

This idea may seem like a good idea, but the Clinton machine works a little too well.

1. Hillary attacks Obama

2. He replies

3. She attacks again

4. He comes back at her harder

5. Hillary plays the victim card and her supporter buy it

6. Obama is put on the defense for attacking a woman

She loves the fact that many women back her because shes a woman and will use any trick in the book to make sure her supporter hate him enough to stay home or vote for McWar.

[mojopo]

Kirksong, advocating the idea that Obama become a hypocrite is plain crazy. Please refrain from the wingnuttery.

[Sabreen60]

Obama is between a rock and a hard place and Clinton knows this. If he doesn't attack her, he seems weak to some and if he does attack her then he is going against his desire not to run a negative campaign. Actually I hope the 527's will do her in, just like they're trying to do him in (with Clinton's blessings) in NC.

[detriangulation]

"What good is being a strong opponent of the war if it no longer matters as much to voters?"
umm....because we're in an "Iraq Recession", that's why. Obama hasn't done enough yet to link the economy to the costs of the war, which he should do continuously.

He doesn't seem "tough enough" only because he's holding back from exploiting Hillary's negatives to the degree she has his, both b/c he wants to maintain the "new politics" theme and doesn't want to disparage a fellow Democrat. Hillary however shows no compunction whatsoever against throwing everything she can at Obama, including Farrakhan---all under the pretext that she's "previewing" Republican lines of attack on Obama, as if that somehow makes these attacks relevant issues and justifies her own Rove-like behavior . That's not toughness; it's selfish hubris that damages herself along with Obama and the Party.

I also saw an exit poll that had Obama narrowly winning Penn Protestants. Many Hillary and Barack supporters may be saying NOW in the middle of this contentious fight they'll stay home or vote for McCain, but the vast majority of them will vote for our nominee in November. Obama's underperformance against Clinton in big state primaries doesn't translate into weakness in the general, especially under the political/economic conditions constituting the record of the incumbent GOP. And don't forget how well he did with working-class whites in Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland. He also IMPROVED with these groups in Penn compared to Ohio.

[InDaZone]

McCain isn't going to win Catholics in Pennsylvania when his "spiritual advisor" refers to Catholics as "The Great Whore".

[oursin2008]

Thank you I always thought that a lot of these political pundits who keep saying that McCain will beat Obama in Penn, were really reaching. Any of the catholics that vote for McCain will have to explain to their fellow church goers why they support a man who went out of his way to seek an endorsement from someone who shows their church such blatant disrespect.

[InDaZone]

Why does Obama have to answer questions about electablity or why he can't close the door when the election was 'inevitable' Hillary's to lose in the first place. Hillary was the huge favorite to win from the outset and Obama has basically taken down the Clinton political machine. If Hillary is the stronger candidate, why is she LOSING to Obama, and why can't she beat him in 'his' states?

[IneptitudePrideB4Fall]

I think the media and everyone are making too big a deal about the Pennsylvania Democratic primary result. The result is not a trend; PA is just ONE state. Why should ONE state have so much implication for other states? Voters in other states have their own issues and views. (The voters in PA certainly don't represent my views.) What is the economy like across America? What is the profile of other voters across America? If we wanted One state to reflect the voting outcomes of other states, we'd have just a primary in that ONE state and declare the primary victor.

As you can conclude, the media, in making such a big deal about the PA primary outcome, is once again making a big deal about nothing.

[blindjester]

Barack should be our nominee, and then should become president.


If he doesn't, it says a lot more about us than it does about him.


We're the ones who have a lot of nagging questions to answer.

[bobste]

Why aren't people talking more about PA voter profiles? This state is not "typical". Voters here are much more likely to vote with race on their minds - than most other states. I look for Indiana to be a better, more accurate depiction of "typical rural" U.S. BO will win NC decisively and win in IN by 3-6 pts. and this thing will be over.

It bothers me that the media spends the past six weeks saying HRC must win 60%, then double digits, and now as she wins by single-digits and picks up just a handful of delegates, the media has spun it as a big victory for HRC. NC will just hand them right back to BO on May 6.

I think it's time the Supers starting showing some guts and come out from behind the shadows and pledge (Gore, Edwards, where are you???).

[SMP]

bobste,

I live in PA...Older female white voter( voted for Obama).....I am sad to say that PA is the most racially bias state in the union.....so the headline should read

Obama, in the most racist state in America, closed the gap on Clinton.

Expected to lose by a much bigger margin, over 20 points, Obama only allowed a 9.2 point win for Clinton, who was favored because of her gender and her family name.

Sexism is a non issue to the media....go figger

If Obama held a meeting with just black voters..OH, the media would have been all over it.
But, Clinton held several throughout the state...just for women.

[mojopo]

Guilting people and nagging doesn't win votes. Arrogance is not our friend. Don't blame the voters for mistakes the campaign has made. Invite the voters to the table and figure out how to fix things.

[bobdob]

Before Pennsylvania, Hillary needed to win all the remaining states by 25 points or in order to catch up with Obama in the delegate count. Now she needs to win by 28 points. After North Carolina, it will be closer to 40.

One can ask why Obama was unable to close the deal in Pennsylvania over and over, but it won't change a more basic question: why was Hillary unable to close the deal on Super Tuesday? How is a guy who was virtually unknown before this race began able to beat one of America's best-known Democrats? He is being double-teamed by a former President and his wife, and he is still ahead. Nearly the entire state legislature in Pennsylvania was campaigning against him in that state, and yet he was still able to close a formidable gap. The real question should be: why is Hillary still in this race?

[frenchynyc]

hmm....now..i am not a mathematician...but Obama does seem to be ahead in the popular vote and pledged delegates...the asterisk that is required for florida and michigan is actually quite substantial as obama didn't campaign in those states...and his name wasn't even on the ballot in michigan...and he was up against the Clinton brand...so no asterisk required - the primaries in those states - unless done over today - simply don't count - and the voters of those states have only their own locally empowered twits to thank for that.

lol...

jesus...the way these people work the numbers to justify their blogs is disgusting...

[ashenthorn]

The MSM likes to portray this contest as a back and forth battle with swings of momentum for both candidates. Actually the race has been consistently predictable with few swings of momentum or suprises since Clinton's win in New Hampshire. Shortly before Feb 2, observers were able to identify "Obama States" and "Clinton States" - Obamas states consisting of younger populations, protestants and new economy affluence, while the Clinton states have an elderly population, higher percentages of Catholics, and traditional democratic political machines that produce big time turnout operations led by local organized labor. There are a few key "tossup" states that contain equal parts of each candidates' strength - Missouri, Connecticut, Wisconson and Maryland. The story of the election - the one that should have been the headline yesterday is that Obama's insurmountable lead comes from that fact that he consistently OVERPERFORMS in "Obama States" including a remarkable 28 point win in Virginia, while Clinton consistently UNDERPERFORMS in "Clinton States" - most recently Pennsylvania, but especially Texas with its vast population of Roman Catholic hispanics. Obama has also won the "tossup" states noted above. In Pennsylvania, Obamas money advantage (basically the ability to buy more TV commercials) was not nearly as important a factor as Clinton's control of the PA democratic politcal machine led by the governor and mayor of Philadelphia (a machine that will be now working for Obama in November), but Clinton's win margin and delegate haul was relatively meager compared to where it needed to be.

[Sabreen60]

Maybe you can a job in the MSM!!

[S1m0n]

"On the other hand, it raises legitimate questions about Obama's ability to close the door on the nomination..."

Obama IS closing the deal. A third of the votes in this primary don't get cast until August, so while Obama has an unshakeable lead, that lead is not yet an absolute majority.

Pretending that he's losing or that the tide is turning is a ridulous and transparent attempt to move the goalposts one more time, just as Hillary Clinton has been doing steadily since superTuesday.

[DDeBlaine]

I suspect that if the Super Delegates go so far as to take the nomination away from the candidate with the most states won, most popular votes won and most pledged delegates won, that Denver will make Chicago 1968 look like a picnic. Supporters of Barack Obama will not sit idly by if the nomination is taken from him after he has earned it. He has beaten the Clintons at their own game.

Larstein, I love you. You are right on point.

[ashenthorn]

What the democrats would have to worry about under that scenario isn't riots, but the complete and utter face slapping of a voting group that turns out reliably & enthusiastically every 4 years and votes democrat at a 90% to 10% clip, and also losing an entire generation of young voters to apathy- all for the purpose of installing a candidate which such high negatives among non-democrats that she couldn't possibly win without an unprecedented democratic turnout. If anything in that scenario makes any sense to anyone who isn't a member of "operation chaos", please respond.

[misspeach2008]

Isn't it time to have a discussion about how the party comes together in November? If Obama believes that all of the Hillary supporters who are saying that they will not vote for him are redneck, uneducated bigots, which is the impression that we are getting, then what is his strategy for bringing us back into the party for November? Telling us that we are bigoted and stupid and the only way we can prove we are not is to vote for him isn't working. His negatives among Hillary's supporters are rising. To decide that the fault lies in the voter and not in the candidate may make all of his supporters feel good, but it won't get him elected. So what will the strategy be? We've read (yes, we can read) all of the position papers on his website, listened to the speeches, and watched the debates but haven't connected with him. What else does he have that might convince us? Because he does need us to win no matter how cavalier his supporters have been about telling us that he doesn't. To assume that when all is said and done, we will "behave ourselves" and vote for him is political suicide.

[bobdob]

"If Obama believes that all of the Hillary supporters who are saying that they will not vote for him are redneck, uneducated bigots, which is the impression that we are getting..."

Obama never said that. The reason you're getting that impression is because that's the impression Hillary wants you to get.

Obama's biggest problem with white, blue-collar workers is his message of change. They don't want change. They've had enough change already. What they want is jobs. And when people are hurting and when they're afraid about the future and about the ability to pay their bills, they tend to be risk-averse. And Hillary is presenting herself as the "safer" choice in this race. But it's a fiction. She's no safer than either of the other two candidates. None of them have been president yet, so all three are a risk. To my mind, Hillary's vote for Iraq and her subsequent statement about "obliterating" Iran make her a far greater risk than Obama. While he talks about meeting with the leaders of these countries, she talks about slaughtering millions of their citizens in a nuclear attack.

Look at the two campaigns. Hillary's campaign has been a disaster of poor strategy, poor planning and endless excuses. Obama's campaign has been the exact opposite. Hillary's claim that he outspent her in Pennsylvania is not an explanation--it's an excuse. And a pretty lame one at that. If you can't stand the heat, Hillary, get out of the kitchen.

[misspeach2008]

But he did say it - in San Francisco, for example. And you still haven't done anything except blame the voters for not seeing that he's the better choice. What is he going to do? He's not convinced us and neither have you.

[Sabreen60]

Obama has never said that he believes Hillary's supporters are redneck bigots......etc. I'm sure some of his supporters probably believe that SOME of Hillary's supporters fall into this category. I don't know if you speak for yourself or thousands, but if you speak for yourself, then it seems to me you need to answer your question for yourself. What is it about Sen. Obama that you don't like? Why don't you have a problem with Hillary's untruthfulness and her negative campaigning? I think everyone has to be honest with themselves first before there can be any kind of resolution. I use to like Hillary. Then I saw a side of her that I didn't like. The more I read about the scandals and the lies the less I liked. I supported Hillary when she first entered the race. I would love a woman president. But IMO, she is not the one.

[jaynevada]

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., received 53 earmarks for his state, worth $97.4 million."

Obama asked for a earmark for his wife's employer, and her salary more than doubled.

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has never asked for an earmark."

Let's all chant together "Yes we can, yes we can. WE WANT MORE EARMARKS, MORE PORK, MORE CORRUPTION"

And then chant "Change we can believe in. WE WANT MORE PORK, MORE IGNORANCE, MORE CORRUPTION".

[ajax2]

See you at the Rapture dear.

"Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has never asked for an earmark." if you say so.

[superlive]

John McCain represents one of the wealthiest states per capita in the Union. They don't need earmarks. Mrs. Obama works for a university hospital, so if the earmark got the hospital better equipment or raised salary for all staff (nurses, orderlies, janitors, etc), I'm all for it. My mother worked in a hospital office for years and the only people who weren't getting short-changed were the doctors.

[Sabreen60]

The question should be WHY CAN'T HILLARY CLOSE THE DEAL!! Why has she nott been able to put this relatively young Black JUNIOR senator away. All you ??pundits"?? just parrot each other, huh? It's laughable. Hillary is losing and she cannot close the deal. None of the "know it alls" on CNN, MSNBC and others in the MSM have enough since to ask that question. I wonder why? Wink! Wink!

[AnotherTry]

WHY CAN'T HILLARY CLOSE THE DAEL?

It's called the media.