Predicting Pennsylvania

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:54:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

It is still more than a month until the Pennsylvania primary, but what the heck, let's look at the demographics of Pennsylvania as compared to who voted in Ohio and other states.

More . . .

By my math, Hillary Clinton won about 64% of the non-African American vote in Ohio. African Americans were slightly less than 4% of her total votes. By contrast, Barack Obama won about one third of the non-African American vote. Even then, non white voters amounted to two thirds of Obama's vote. (Compare that to Mississippi where two thirds of Obama's votes came from African Americans.) Indeed, Obama garnered 26% of the white vote in Mississippi as compared to 34% of the white vote in Ohio (the difference largely stems from Clinton winning white Republicans in Mississippi and splitting them in Ohio.) Not that significant a difference, particularly among white Democrats, which were 70-23 in MS and 70-27 in Ohio. The demographics of Mississippi are what led to Obama's win.

It seems clear that if the Ohio result predicts Pennsylvania, Obama will get trounced. Indeed that is what SUSA predicts currently, Obama losing by 19 points, losing non-African Americans 61-29. If we adjust the SUSA number to match the Ohio exit polls (the adjustment primarily would be to up Obama's percentage of the A-A vote), the result would be about 60-40 Clinton. Thus, it seems fair imo to expect a Clinton win in Pennsylvania of at least 15 points.

Another possibility is a return to the Wisconsin model. In Wisconsin, Obama won among all whites 54-45 and African Americans 91-8. If this occurs, Obama wins Pennsylvania handily. The question is will Wisconsin or Ohio be a better model for Pennsylvania? Can Obama recapture his Wisconsin magic?

So I looked at another state, Missouri. Obama captured 39% of the white vote in Missouri and 84% of the African American vote. What can we learn from these three results?

Let's look more closely. In Ohio, Clinton won white Democrats handily but tied among Republicans, who are 99% white. Thus, Obama lost white Democrats in Ohio by 70-27, Mississippi numbers. In Missouri, Obama lost white Democrats by 62-35, won white Republicans by 75-21 and white independents by 59-37. To wit, white non-Democrats were nearly a third of Obama's vote in Missouri.

In Wisconsin, white Democrats voted for Hillary by 51-48, while white independents (26% of the vote) went for Obama 62-35 and white Republicans went for Obama by 72-28. Thus, nearly over a third of Obama's vote in Wisconsin was white non-Democrats.

As we all know, Pennsylvania is a closed primary. Only Democrats can vote in it. If Obama could somehow capture 48% of white Democrats, as he did in Wisconsin, he can narrowly win Pennsylvania. If he loses white Democrats 70-27, as he did in Ohio, he will lose Pennsylvania by 20 points.

< Fighting For Obama? | Edwards Delegates Bolt To Obama In Iowa >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Predicting Pennsylvania | 122 comments (122 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It almost seems as though (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:00:37 PM EST

by campaigning in Indiana today and the Obama campaign's notations about the other remaining states that they have pretty much figured out that there's little that they can do in Pennsylvania.

He's likely to run well in NC, MT and OR and likely to lose fairly handily in WV, KY and PA which has him looking at IN as a state that he might be able to make some headway.

I suspect that if they can get PA to a 15% loss, they are gonna call it a victory.

The flip side of that (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM EST

there is a developing narrative that the Obama campaign doesn't care about PA which Hillary's surrogates are pushing hard. The Obama campaign had a strategy memo which basically minimizes PA as just one of the 10 primaries remaining, and Rendell and Nutter have been working hard at pushing the disrespect narrative.

The whole disrespect thing has contributed to Obama blowouts in previous states where Clinton only made a token effort. She could flip the script if PA starts to feel ignored by Obama.


Disrespect narrative (none / 0) (#32)
by ROK on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:08:39 PM EST

Give me a break! Obama is not being disrespectful to PA. He's simply not allowing Clinton to run from her loses by pointing to one contest that she could win. She has done that the entire race and by doing so, has disrespected almost every state that she has lost.


Look (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST

I am like BTD in that I have no problem pointing out that 99% of politics is BS.

The argument that "the other candidate doesn't respect your vote!" is one of the silliest arguments in all of politics. But it's part of the game to pretend that your favorite thing in life is a Philly cheesesteak.

I am not suggesting that Obama actually has some sort of disrespect for PA. I hope your comment was not seriously intended to suggest that Clinton had disrespect for all those other states where the narrative took hold. It's all just a political argument.


Disagree. See WI and MS for example. (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:26:29 PM EST

Maybe WI but surely not MS (none / 0) (#54)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:53:09 PM EST

Oh, did I miss HRC saying, yes I lost (none / 0) (#55)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:54:39 PM EST

but you guys didn't matter, so there.


arguing the inverse (none / 0) (#85)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:04:56 PM EST

MS lost before she stepped foot in the state. Wouldn't have mattered if she'd dropped her drawers and mooned them all--same outcome.


Give me a break! (none / 0) (#119)
by ROK on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:50:35 AM EST

You read into every single utterance that BO makes, but you can't see HRC's blatant strategy of diminishing EVERY loss to keep the train going. She feeds us the "just you wait" narrative and it's eaten up.

I've been a TL reader for years. One of my law professors turned all of us on to it. In fact, TL was my first blog to visit and read. I loved it everyday and still visit at leats 15 times a day.

Now, I'm torn.

I've been here for other elections. I was here before BTD (who I love to read). Yet, now I feel as if the direction of the blog is pandering to its commentors. I think DK lost their edge when they started writing for their commentors and I fear this has happened here.

I hope I'm wrong.


: Every single candidate (none / 0) (#120)
by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:42:09 AM EST

I've ever heard or seen or voted for or against, has a "blatant strategy" of diminishing their losses, including both Clinton and Obama. Its hardly a surprise. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but if you're trying to claim there is something out of the ordinary in a politician attempting to diminish the importance of his/her losses, then you are completely and spectacularly wrong on this.
That said, I don't think that it means that the losing candidate is "disrespecting" the voters by playing down the importance of any loss. But the winning candidate is liable to encourage that meme, simply because that's the way politics is played. And sometimes voters are foolish enough to believe it.
I don't get your frustration. I don't see any pandering, other than that election coverage is overwhelming the rest of the posts. It seems like you don't object to the topics covered, you just don't like the thrust of most of the comments. Am I right?

Rendell & Nutter (none / 0) (#61)
by chrisvee on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM EST

Yes, I heard Governor Rendell and Mayor Nutter making this point last week. Rendell even went so far as to discuss that the path to the White House for any Dem goes through PA. We'll see if it sticks.

Living in PA, I definitely sense some excitement that the state actually has a role to play in the primary. But whether than translates to anything measurable, I don't know.


Even if Obama thinks he can't win PA (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST

--correctly--I would be surprised if he doesn't end up making a significant effort there, if only to avoid an embarrassing blow-out. He can't pooh-pooh PA as a state that doesn't matter, and for Clinton to win a blow-out there, close to the end of the primary season, and close to the MI (and hopefully, FLA) do-over, would be very damaging to him. Even if ended up with the nomination, he would be weakened.

So I think that Obama will end up spending a lot of time in PA. He just can't afford to lose it by the margin by which he lost Ohio.


According to Huff Post, Obama campaign (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:02:46 PM EST

predicts gap of 10 in PA.

Meanwhile, according to a DK diarist, Obama picked up an additional 7 delegates at IA county caucuses today.


I think (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:26:45 PM EST

that they are gonna be very hard pressed to get it down to 10 points. Can a candidate that is losing each of OH, PA, FL by more than 10 points a nominee for the party?


The fallacy of this argument (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST

is it is Dem v. Dem. Not Dem v. McCain.

A more realistic version would be will the majority of the HRC voters in PA, Ohio, etc. vote for Obama as a 2nd choice to their preferred candidate or will McCain get that vote? Further refining requires taking into account whether Obama could make up the difference in Independent voters. Another issue is whether HRC will do a Dean and vigorously encourage her supporters to support the nominee, or will she pull a Ted Kennedy 1980? I believe she will do the former.

Finally I note in closed Democratic states, you are talking about voters loyal enough in 2008 to still be registered as Democrats. This isn't 1980 (thank God for small favors). I'd like to think those self identified Democratic voters are registered Democrat for a reason.


sure (none / 0) (#51)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:44:48 PM EST

Obama has had the benefit of non Democratic voters in many jurisdictions but at least on some levels, it makes sense for Democrats and only Democrats to pick their candidates. You completely obliterated your argument for open primaries in your closing so that point is entirely lost on me.

I object to your characterizations of 'do a Dean' or 'pull a Ted Kennedy of 1980' because she has already stated clearly that she will support Obama if he wins.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from your assertion that 'she will do the former' is that you believe that she is a liar...nice, classy, the kind of attitude that is indicative of what's at play in the Democratic party these days...Obama supporters insulting our candidate and our intelligence.

For the record...it was Michelle Obama who stated that she was unsure that she would support Hillary if she won...with Democrats like that, well...

Molly...thanks for nothing


I realize this is a complicated issue (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST

and therefore would lose someone unable to read carefully.

I will try to bring it down into bite size pieces.

1. Will Democrats in a given state vote for their 2nd choice in a GE?
That is pretty simple to understand, though it does have an inherent assumption that their 2nd choice is a Democrat, not a Republican or Ralph Nader.
2. Will the loss of any of those Democrats be made up by Independents in that state (regardless of whether or not they could vote in the primary for or against Obama)?
This is also pretty simple to understand.
3. I actually stated I believed Hillary will vigorously encourage her supporters to vote for the nominee.
I suspect her effort would be wasted on you. You would miss her point as you missed mine.
4. I concluded by noting self identified Democrats are Democrats for a reason. Since you need someone to draw you pictures, It seems likely to me that self identified Democrats will vote for the nominee, even if the nominee wasn't there first choice.

Hope this helps.


thanks (none / 0) (#72)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:16:22 PM EST

but please don't insult us...I did confuse former/latter, forgive me.

BHO was neither my first nor my second candidate but if he is the nominee, he will get my vote because the alternative is McCain (or I suppose in some way, Nader).
Neither McCain nor democrat (Obama|Clinto) wins without some cross over vote and some independent votes.

My apologies (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:19:55 PM EST

Earlier today I specifically stated I was trying not inflame passions on either side. So I blew it.

Sounds like you are one of my allies- someone who will vote for the nominee regardless if it is BHO or HRC. If that is indeed the case, I do indeed apologize. We need everyone of us we can get.


These are trying days for all of us (5.00 / 3) (#76)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:25:17 PM EST

I didn't see you call out (none / 0) (#80)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:44:05 PM EST

Michelle Obama for her lack of commitment to support Hillary should she win.

The distinction I think is clear.

Because of her other comment quite heavily seized upon by the wing nuts about this being the first time she is proud of her country.
Because it appears that neither candidate will arrive in Denver with enough pledged delegates to ensure nomination thus leaving it in the hands of super delegates who by design are free to choose, despite any pressure ratcheted up by the various campaigns...thus it's possible that HRC could emerge as the candidate in a split manner.

That you brought up the concept of trusting Hillary to support BHO was rather surprising in light of this.


Don't make me take back my apology (none / 0) (#99)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:52:23 PM EST

It appears to me that you assume I am an Obama supporter.

Let me be perfectly clear (gawd you've got me quoting Milhaus!).

I am a supporter of the nominee. With regard to Michelle, if I haven't before, I hereby denounce, renounce and reject her previous statements vis a vis supporting the nominee.

I don't believe I will dignify your next point (1st time proud).

As to your final point- I am voting for the nominee. How that nominee is selected is of no consequence to me other than it be done in a manner not guaranteed to piss off half the Democratic voting pool (as you seem willing to allow). Going down that road would make me take sides.

Why would it surprise you that I would trust Hillary to do the right thing? She is a good Democrat as far as I am concerned. A woman I admire very much. And to be clear, I specifically said I believed she would encourage her supporters to support BHO, should he be the nominee. There was no ifs, ands, buts or other hidden qualification in that statement.

As MT notes these are trying days.


regurgitating Cass Sunstein's post (none / 0) (#112)
by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:28:10 AM EST

seems to be a very good indication about where you stand - but hey, I appreciate the fact that you are trying to maintain a position that is uncommitted.

You didn't just link it. You wanted to make certain that everyone here saw it - as if we don't see things on HuffPo.

Just sayin'


: You make a lot of assumptions (none / 0) (#121)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM EST

which may explain your low reading comprehension skills.
On the other hand, reading CS twice probably helped you get a handle on what he wrote. I am sure some of it went over your head the first time.

OK (none / 0) (#102)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:36:07 PM EST

I suggest you visit Rasmussen, (www.rasmussenreports.com)

According to him, only 57% of HRC voters will support Obama, and only 64% of Obama's will support her.

Hope I have those right - something very close to that.

Tthat does not mean they will vote for McCain.


: Thanks (none / 0) (#122)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:05:02 AM EST

I did leave out staying at home, which is also an option- a poor one which will help McCain. This bring up my 2nd point. Will the loss of
43% (assuming that number is correct) of HRC voters be made up by Independents?
Another issue is the poll is its only a reflection of today, not November. It may be static, it may not.
But overall, your information comes a lot closer to answering the original question.

If Clinton wins PA by fewer than 10 points... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Universal on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:03:20 PM EST

...I would be shocked.

Two additional factors (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM EST

Pennsylvania is culturally more similar to neighboring Ohio than it is to Wisconsin or Missouri, so one would expect the same demographic groups to fall into the same patterns.
Clinton has key endorsements in PA that she lacked in the other states. In MO and WI, most of the key players were with Obama. In OH, she had the valuable endorsement of the governor, but the Dem machine in Ohio is new to power and not nearly as influential as what Rendell has in PA. In addition, Hillary has the endorsements of both big-city mayors in PA, for whatever that's worth; in OH I believe Obama had all three big-city mayors on his side.

Hillary is going to need a massive blowout in PA; Obama's spin may well be accurate that a loss by less than 10 points would be a good result for him. The stars are certainly aligned for a big Clinton victory if she can close the deal.

Obama will need to make a major effort (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:11:14 PM EST

in PA to keep Hillary to a less than 10% margin. I think he will make such an effort, but I don't think he'll succeed. He may succeed in keep her margin from being in the utter blow-out category, and that may be all he needs in terms of keeping his status as "frontrunner."

It's gonna be interesting.


: He cannot afford to write off PA (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST

completely if he hopes to avoid a convention fight. If he wants to be the nominee, he must make inroads into both the PA popular vote and delegate count. A slip in either gives Clinton an opening to make her pitch. If he comes out of PA holding onto a lead in both popular vote and delegates, Hillary's task becomes harder. I don't see how she can make a credible argument for the nomination without leading in one or the other.

She also (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:55:52 PM EST

has deep family ties to PA. Her family goes back 100 years in (I believe) Scranton. Her brothers still live there-maybe a grandfather? The Clintons visited it several times while he was president. So, home state advantage.

I predict a 30 point Clinton win!


You left out the family burial plot. (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:00:16 PM EST

: Weren't you going to post pictures of that? (none / 0) (#64)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:03:45 PM EST

PA shares a 400 mile border with NY... (none / 0) (#34)
by ineedalife on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:14:07 PM EST

and NYers love themselves some Hillary. She will not want for volunteers.


the new york border with pa (none / 0) (#89)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:10:42 PM EST

The actual NY border with PA has more mule deer than people. Where the main influx of NY staters may come is NYCers going to the Poconos, Lehigh Valley & Upper Bucks which are all about 75 minutes away by bus.

The real advantage Hillary has in PA is not geography rather that the Philadelphia machine has picked Hillary over Obama. As Philly dems go, for good or bad, the rest of the Commonwealth's dems tend to go.

One final factor that helps Hillary over Obama, the Comm. has the third oldest population (or did last time I checked) on a per capita basis in the US.

With that said, Hillary needs a blow out to catch up in delegates and the popular vote (assuming Mich & Florida's current counts don't stand). She can do it in PA, but her campaign needs to commit to it in order to make it happen.

With that said, however, my friends who are politically active in PA at the volunteer and small donor level HAVE been contacted by Obama's people but not yet by Hillary's folks. Obama is also on the air in all markets, not so yet (or if so, not in large buys) for Hillary.

I should note that although it didn't make national news, Hillary did a hell of a job in Scranton today. Her eyes were on fire from being back in her father's ancestral hometown.


x (none / 0) (#95)
by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:37:50 PM EST

White-tailed deer, not mule deer!


: I originally had elk.... (none / 0) (#100)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:54:31 PM EST

I originally had elk listed in the post but switched to mule deer. I know better. Talk about boneheaded.

A question? (none / 0) (#103)
by TN Dem on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:42:08 PM EST

Having ties to PA, what is your take on the delegate split and how it will work out in the end?


hillary will win pa (none / 0) (#108)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:06:44 PM EST

The only question in PA is how many delegates she gets, my back of the envelope guess is +15 to +25. A large to huge win, anything less, due to her trailing nationally, is a lost.


: loss too (none / 0) (#109)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:07:11 PM EST

typo, that should have been loss.

: Thanks! (none / 0) (#117)
by TN Dem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:54:17 AM EST

Either of those two numbers would help change the delegate narrative at least in the days following PA, but prior to the primary on May 6.
I was just considering +15 (must be psychic ;0), that would be a decent showing, and combined with some progress in MI or FL, may prove to 'open' what many in the MSM have decided was a closed race.

No predictions! (none / 0) (#123)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:06:02 AM EST

I've said before, the past presidential elections have taught me I know NOTHING about why people vote the way they do.

It will be interesting to watch Philly because there are machines competing for the AA Obama vote. This could mean his AA margin won't be as large as we've seen previously. Or not. :-)

This is one state where I think we might see Clinton eating into Obama demographic.

Montgomery County is the one to watch - Allyson Schwartz has endorsed Clinton but it seems to me to be natural Obama territory. There is the Jewish vote to consider there (especially in light of Voldemort), and Rendell is not an insignificant factor.

In my area, people seem to use their votes as a statement of what they're against. We're a negative and spiteful population. My advice to the Clinton campaign is to avoid robo-calls like the plague. Also, they should reach out to committee people individually rather than rely on county committees.

Voldemort (he-who-shall-not-be-named) will have a huge impact on the election here, IMO.


Thanks! (none / 0) (#125)
by TN Dem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:26:14 AM EST

Great insight! I for one will look forward to watching for your ummmm, un-predictions. ;0)


: x (none / 0) (#126)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM EST

I can only claim insight into the county I've been living in and canvassing for the past 18 years.
One thing I really, really love about this place politically is John Henry Stump and his legacy. Scratch an old Dem here and find a Socialist. I love to talk to them. Dems my age, not so much. Younger Dems are also a treat.

For whom does the Quaker/Mennonite (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:11:17 PM EST

demo break in Ohio and PA?

It breaks (5.00 / 9) (#11)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:11:45 PM EST

for thee...


: LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM EST

Steve, thanks for the laugh of the day.

Although PA is critically important ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST

doesn't Hillary really have to win in a state where Obama is strong. Isn't that the game changer her campaign really needs?

Like in NC?

Either that or (none / 0) (#23)
by flashman on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:41:01 PM EST

get Florida's vote counted.


: There is a push to Keep the Vote as is (none / 0) (#30)
by Josey on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:00:12 PM EST

The rationale is with gas and food prices rising it doesn't make sense to most Florida Dems.

catholics (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:34:38 PM EST

important swing demographic with which obama has been struggling. not a huge factor in oh or wi, but will be in pa.

Any insight on why Obama is struggling (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:29:02 PM EST

for support from Catholics? He's got lots of Kennedys plus Kerry.


: I don't believe that (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:05:24 PM EST

the Catholics care much for the Massachusetts Catholic lawmakers. I know that when I lived in Mass. there was no Kennedy worship. They're figureheads, all right, but they're not the figureheads of the Catholic Church for them.

: i haven't seen any analysis (none / 0) (#46)
by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM EST

and i'm not familiar enough with the demographic to know.

: Pa catholics are,,,,, (none / 0) (#92)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:18:59 PM EST

I'll suggest two reasons:
- PA's population (incl. Catholics) is much older than the average state's demographics & older voters favor Hillary;
and
- there are seemingly more blue collar workers in PA (incl. blue collar catholics) than the states where Obama has done well.
You've heard it said that PA is demographically the same Ohio and that is why Hlllary is doing well. I disagree, Pennsylvania is demographically a much older & much more blue collar version of Ohio. Hillary should win by at least 10 & if she throws her machine & treasure chest in to it 15-25.

Huh? Wisconsin one of the most Catholic states (none / 0) (#113)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:39:53 AM EST

and most went for Clinton.


Hillary was at the parade today in Scranton (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:39:59 PM EST

Last Monday Hillary made a appearance in Scranton at the Scranton High School. The overflow of people had to go to another gym area. Est about 1500 I believe. I know people who got in. On this Monday night Obama will be in Scranton at the Radison Train Station for dinner for the Irish American Society.Holds up to 1k and the tickets are all sold out. But 100,000 plus people were at the St. Patricks Day Parade. The Scranton Times reported that "The crowd roared as Hillary Clinton turned the corner from Spruce St. to N. Washington Ave. The block is the final leg of the parade before the reviewing stand. I tried to put the link in but couldn't get it right. So if you want to see the pictures and video, please go their site. Pretty impressive. So with the demographics here, she is a shoe in for NE Penna.

She was here in Pgh... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by smott on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:45:11 PM EST

last night for a speech and today for the parade. I listened to her speech and was surprised how relaxed and connected to the crowd she was. Didn't sound scripted at all.


I heard her in Atlanta (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:02:02 PM EST

and she was fabulous--engaging, funny, on point, speaking to every person in the room, even though there were around 3,500 folks there. I was very impressed, and came away knowing exactly where she stands and what she plans to do when she gets the job. It was amazing.


So how do I link the Scranton Times Video? (none / 0) (#56)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM EST

Just can't make the video or Scranton Times link. She got to Scranton at 12:45 for the parade. I watched her speech on TV the other night. She is so at ease in the crowd. The people loved her.


She is capable of being (none / 0) (#93)
by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:20:07 PM EST

absolutely charming, warm, funny -- and still display that killer intellect and incredible depth of knowledge. I've seen it, in person, and it is dazzling.

Of course, I am a middle-aged Latina who graduated from Yale Law School, so I suppose I am karmically obligated to think she is dazzling, but still...I don't know why it gets lost so often.


: the wing nut narrative... (none / 0) (#98)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:41:24 PM EST

divisive thing...didn't you get the memo?
Ignoring the decade and a half narrative perpetrated by the right wingers, many Obama supporters parrot the same language as if BHO isn't going to be tarred and feathered by the same media, the same wing nuts that perpetrated the narrative on HRC.

Remember the moratorium (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST

on a certain pastor.

All comment on that subject will be deleted.

What? (none / 0) (#68)
by BrandingIron on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:07:07 PM EST

I didn't see any moratorium. Moreover, the topic IS relevant and IS part of the reason why Obama's down 7% in the polls since yesterday. To render it irrelevant or taboo is to be overly censored about something that is definitely having an effect on Obama's campaign.


Except in Iowa, apparently. (none / 0) (#70)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:13:09 PM EST

Can't we say she's up by one? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:17:28 PM EST

Re: the Lug That Dare Not Speak Its Name...we all play by the rules here, gang. There are many, many other places to go if you wanna talk about The Thing. No Quarter or Taylor Marsh, for example. TL has made a decision and though you may not agree with it, y'all have to admit it's nice that we're not overrun with nastiness, and not talking about The Thing here is a very cheap price to pay.


Sure, we can say she's up by one, (none / 0) (#75)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:23:27 PM EST

but why is Obama up by seven?


: stolen vote (none / 0) (#87)
by Kathy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:05:45 PM EST

Fraud.
Mail-in kool-aid.
Gimme a minute. I am sure I can come up with one more-oh!
Killed her cat!

Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:25:05 PM EST

opines Obama's "full disclosure" sessions w/Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune plus distancing himself from a certain pastor was good politiking. Clear out all the negative stuff and plunge into PA contest.

: Um (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:41:57 PM EST

Please do not try to obliquely test our rule.

I believe (none / 0) (#5)
by OldCoastie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:04:27 PM EST

we will not see quite as big a slide in the polling from Clinton in this contest because of that which shall not be named. I don't think a lot of people will flip from their current positions.

But, I could be very wrong about this.

I've made my predictions (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST

Look to the 2002 Gubernatorial primary, call HIllary Casey and Obama Rendell. Then change Rendell's Philly suburbs percentage from ~80 to ~50-55%.

Shapes into a Clinton blowout.

That's pretty obique for everyone but (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:36:19 PM EST

you and BTD!


: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST

Obama Is Heavily Soliciting Republicans And Indies (none / 0) (#18)
by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST

to register as Dems so that they can vote for him in PA. His success in this endeavor might change the results.

But that's a harder sell (none / 0) (#21)
by katiebird on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:39:34 PM EST

than asking people to just pick a certain ballot on election day.

Isn't it likely that people who actually go to the trouble to change their voter registration weeks before the election actually like him?

And is that bad?


: Republicans Have Been Known To Register As Dems (none / 0) (#28)
by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:54:51 PM EST

in order to skew the results and then switch back to Republican for the GE.

Might backfire (none / 0) (#39)
by ineedalife on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:21:48 PM EST

Recent events might make those Republicans change their minds.


I agree- the events (none / 0) (#78)
by kenosharick on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:29:27 PM EST

"we may not speak of" could change everything. Barack may still win the primary- but he CANNOT win the general. The Survey USA win had him winning Va. Is that possible now?


: Well (none / 0) (#84)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:04:38 PM EST

I'd at least wait for one more poll before deciding that it's impossible!

: That Which Must Not Be Named (none / 0) (#90)
by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:14:35 PM EST

I am not an Obama supporter, but I would be sad if he were brought down by Voldemort.
'nuff said.

i have a feeling that obma's appeal (none / 0) (#83)
by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:02:03 PM EST

to independents and republcians is slipping. don't look for more strong numbers there. it would appear to me that the aa vote can be counted on for him. the rest? well the media is no longer quite the love machine it was, and i see the right wing media picking up their negatives on him. hence, the swing vote won't continue swinging his way.


Steve M makes the point (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:41:51 PM EST

that there's a media narrative developing which says that Obama is ignoring PA.

That's getting some play, and he'd better worry about it.

Love it. (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:45:42 PM EST

Where is this narrative? (none / 0) (#79)
by kenosharick on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:31:13 PM EST

I still see a pro-Barack "protection racket" going on.


The narrative (none / 0) (#86)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:05:09 PM EST

is in Pennsylvania.

No one else cares whether the voters of Pennsylvania are supposedly being "disrespected." Heh.


I wonder if that had impact in Ohio (none / 0) (#114)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:45:29 AM EST

when he went home for a day or two in the weekend before the primary there. I thought it was an odd thing to do. Maybe Ohioans agreed with me.

Btw, I don't see Wisconsin useful in this analysis at all. Coming immediately after the campaign manager upheaval, plus with all the cancellations owing to the awful weather, she hardly campaigned there.


: Also, Wisconsin skews much younger (none / 0) (#116)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:49:11 AM EST

than Pennsylvania. That's a key factor in this campaign.

I am very (none / 0) (#29)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:59:37 PM EST

familiar with PA.

It is my firm opinion that the very best he could do here in PA is lose by 10.

Of more concern to me is that PA will go to McCain if Obama is the nominee.

I have seen polls that show if the nominee is Hillary then PA will stay blue, if Obama is the nominee it will turn red.

I want to understand this dynamic (none / 0) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:07:47 PM EST

anybody have further words or links about this?


Quick look from US Census (none / 0) (#71)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:13:32 PM EST

Population: 12 Mil plus Under 18, 22.5% Over 65, 15.2% Female 51.4% White 85.7% Black 10.7% Asian 2.4% Latino 4.3% 53%+ are Roman Catholic. Hope that helps.


I still can't figure out WHO (none / 0) (#77)
by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:28:54 PM EST

when denied Hillary votes McCain instead of Obama? And why? I know very little about Pennsylvania though. I think the Liberty Bell is there ;)


ahhh (none / 0) (#81)
by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:51:57 PM EST

all you need to know about Philly is here - please order in English ;-)

I thought Pittsburgh is a beautiful city though.

Liberty Bell is worthless...it's cracked.


Easy answer (none / 0) (#88)
by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:06:57 PM EST

Old people!

I'm sure there is some racism in the older generation, but much of it is due to the perception of Obama as a somewhat arrogant newcomer who isn't ready yet. (Of course, that narrative is supposedly racist too.)

My grandfather, who has voted for every Dem since FDR, simply can't stand Obama. We're going to have to work on him.

This is definitely Obama's biggest problem in a demographic sense.


I'll tell (none / 0) (#104)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:43:32 PM EST

you who, with respect to PA - now this isn't all, but some of these groups.

Catholics, Jews, blue collar workers. seniors, and women who are angry.

I've had to talk to people to ask them to just sit out, rather than vote for McCain. It is pretty strong for some people.


: Thank you to the three of you (none / 0) (#127)
by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:10:46 AM EST

for helping me understand this dynamic.

how is it possible (none / 0) (#82)
by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:53:38 PM EST

that 53% of PA's population is Catholic? That's gotta be wrong. Adherents.com has PA at 30.93%, in 1990. If it really grew that much, my apologies.

Catholics

Hillary did really, really well in Rhode Island. And RI has the highest Catholic population in the US.


Took that one off Wikipedia (none / 0) (#101)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:26:44 PM EST

It showed Southern Babtist at 1/2%.


I did see that on Wikipedia (none / 0) (#106)
by lilburro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:51:46 PM EST

but I don't think it's possible that PA really has that many Catholics. There are many interesting articles about the Catholic demographic in PA though.

NY Sun
Philly.Com
Catholic News

The Catholic News puts PA's Catholic population at around 30%.


I don't know.... (none / 0) (#110)
by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:51:34 PM EST

Practically everyone I know around here is Catholic. All my neighbors, all my fellow workers, and a lot of Irish, Italian, and Polish descents. I am not saying we are great Catholics as we obviously are Democrats and understand Pro Choice, and not even good Catholics who go to church every Sunday, but we know the rules and we were baptized Catholic.


: re: catholics (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by lilburro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:12:25 AM EST

Catholic Pop
Honestly, I don't know how reliable this source is, but it claims to be drawing from the Official Catholic Directory. It puts PA at 29.4% Catholic pop. Rhode Island is 59.2%. I think there must be something wrong with the Wikipedia source.
I've lived in PA (Berks County/Delaware County and Philadelphia) most of my life and only recently, very recently moved away. I feel envious of those who get to enjoy the primary fun. BUT I did move to NC, so I guess I'll get my turn ;)

Flawed stats -- NO state is that Catholic (nt) (none / 0) (#115)
by Cream City on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:47:32 AM EST

Bingo (none / 0) (#33)
by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:12:20 PM EST

PA is the new OH.


: Yup (none / 0) (#42)
by smott on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST

BO wins the Philly area.
HRC wins central PA, and Western PA.
Handily.
I think BO will be lucky to keep his loss out of double-digits.

Why would it go red if Obama is the nominee? (none / 0) (#91)
by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:16:38 PM EST

I don't understand that (and I am a Hillary supporter). I can see other states swinging red if he is the nominee, but not PA.

What am I missing?


two reasons (none / 0) (#94)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:27:17 PM EST

Two reasons McCain will do well in PA against BHO:

The demographics are among the oldest in the nation.
The right wing in PA is as rabid as that in southern Indiana & northern Mississippi, incl. a fairly large amount of people who would never eat with a person who wasn't of their "race" -- Rendell & Tweety are right about that observation. (And no that isn't Hillary bashing, the dems don't tolerate the race baiting that has marked several republican races in recent years in Pa.)

: Well, that's discouraging (none / 0) (#96)
by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:39:42 PM EST

My sole experience with Pennsylvanians is Philly. They're like New Yorkers, only mellower.
I've never been to the Alabama parts.

Democrats who (none / 0) (#105)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:46:02 PM EST

don't like Barack. And there are a bunch of them.


there actually aren't many (none / 0) (#107)
by sef on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:03:57 PM EST

Most dems like both candidates. A few hyperpartisans in the hillary & obama camps will stay home or vote 3rd party if their candidate doesn't get the nod. In the end, however, the race has created many more dem voters than we will lose to those who claim to be dems but want to pull a nader in '08 & vote to effectively put a republican in the white house.


: I get the impression that (none / 0) (#118)
by TN Dem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:07:23 AM EST

the number who like both candidates is rapidly decreasing and the 'hyperpatisan' argument used, with merit in the beginning of this campaign is quickly dissolving.
Starting with Sen. Obama's remarks in Jan. regarding his "confidence" in gaining the support of Hillary voters while questioning her ability to gain his supporters vote, the tide seems to have turned. Now, the polarizing nature of the campaign perpetuated by both sides, has ensured some rift in the Democratic party which I feel will be difficult to repair by the Convention.

x (none / 0) (#97)
by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:40:30 PM EST

I think Hillary will have a hard time in PA against McCain, also. But I think she'd do better than Obama.


The last (none / 0) (#35)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST

poll I saw with that data is Surveyusa.

PA's quirks (none / 0) (#37)
by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST

I lived in PA for nine years, in Wilkes-Barre, and it has to have one of the most pronounced cases of multiple-personality disorder in the country.

I have relatives there who openly refer to it as "Pennsyltucky", and I'm sure we've all heard the line about it being Philadelphia and Pittsburgh separated by Kansas. That's not far from the truth. When my wife and I visit relatives in PA (in the W-B area) we're still shocked by how it's like traveling in time to about 20 years ago.

Frankly, I would hate to bet money on how that state will vote in a primary or the GE, if it's Obama vs. McCain. In the GE race, I could see the big cities going very heavily for Obama, with the middle of the state going just as strongly for McCain.

Well, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST

it's Phila and Pgh on the ends, and Alabama in between.

Some people jokingly call the middle of the state Pennsyltucky. The Appalachian chain runs through, and while not exactly like Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc, it has alot of those elements. It is a very different life in those parts of the state, than it is in the big cities. Generally that section votes solidly Republican.

The Southwest(including Pittsburgh) is about as solidly Democratic as you will find anywhere in the country and has for years. That will be Clinton country big time.

The coal regions in the northeast and southwest have alot of European ethnic groups all meshed in - Italians, Irish, German, English, Polish, Czech, Ukranian, etc I doubt that Obama will do well in the coal regions.

Basically Obama will do well in Philadellphia, and possibly the surrounding suburbs, but they could go either way.

PA is the second oldest state, after Florida, and the seniors will go to her big time.


: not exactly Alabama in between.... (none / 0) (#49)
by smott on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST

...if HRC's the nom. She hails from Scranton.
If BO is the nom, then yes. He has to win East and West big, to overcome the central red influence. Doubt that will happen.

Originally from Central PA (none / 0) (#45)
by ahazydelirium on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:32:50 PM EST

I agree with you completely. This is how the state broke in the 2004 General Election.

Kerry won, even only with those couple counties. I suspect Obama would have similar results in the General. Centre County is likely to go blue this year, though. Mifflin and Juniata will stay red. That's it for my area of the state!

I think Hillary could take some of those red interior counties, though, in the General. I think her status as a Clinton could help her win some of the same counties that Bill won in 1992 and 1996.


I expect Hillary to win (none / 0) (#47)
by andgarden on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:37:48 PM EST

everything but Philly, Bucks, and MAYBE Montco.


In Bucks (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST

Our congressman , Patrick Murphy, went down to Phila last week to ask the ward leaders to hold off endorsing anyone until after the 4/22 primary.

This he does, of course, after endorsing Obama, in August of 2007, a full 8 months before the primary.

Strikes me as hypocritical to say the least.


: x (none / 0) (#124)
by Mary Mary on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:10:41 AM EST

Pat Murphy came up to ask my husband's progressive Dem group for help in his last campaign. If I see that he's going to come up again, I will stop in to give him a piece of my mind.

Clinton by 10 points (none / 0) (#50)
by Chango on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:44:47 PM EST

plus or minus.

I will concur with (none / 0) (#59)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM EST

you on her crowd persona. I went to her rally in Phila. this past Tuesday. The crowd was huge and wildly enthusiastic.

Governor Rendell, and Phila Mayor Nutter gave introductions, and when she spoke it was very relaxed, and on message. She talked about her plans, and the crowd loved her.

Afterward, she gave autographs, posed with people for family pictures, etc. She stayed for about an hour afterward, until it seemed everyone who wanted to meet her, could.

Republicans (none / 0) (#67)
by sas on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:06:22 PM EST

will never let it go away. That's their red meat.

Another reason PA will go to McCain, if he is the nominee.