Pennsylvania Hurt Obama’s Electability

The New Republic: Tuesday’s Loss Shows Dems' Growing Disillusionment With Ill. Senator

(The New Republic)  This column was written by John B. Judis.

---

Hillary Clinton won a decisive ten-round decision over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary, but she didn't score a knockout. The struggle continues. Clinton still has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama's delegate lead or his edge in the popular vote. And the superdelegates will be loath to ignore this advantage. Meanwhile, Obama's weaknesses as a general election candidate grow more apparent with each successive primary.

Clinton's best chance of winning the nomination was to win Pennsylvania so decisively that she would have set off a media firestorm about Obama's electability - one that would lead superdelegates to wonder whether she would not be a much, much stronger candidate in November. In the wake of revelations about Obama's relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Clinton was ahead by 15 percent or more in polls. I visited Pennsylvania during this time, and could feel the growing disillusionment with Obama.

Obama, of course, cut into Clinton's lead through outspending her two-to-one on advertisements, but Clinton seriously damaged her own cause by going negative on Obama during the April 16 debate - and probably, too, by her subsequent ads. ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson had already done sufficient damage without Clinton piling on. According to the exit polls, 68 percent of Pennsylvania Democrats thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and they backed Obama by 55 to 45 percent. It's hard to know for sure, but these tactics probably cost her among white college-educated voters who don't like to think of elections as prize fights. (The editorial in this morning's New York Times, entitled "The Low Road to Victory," reflects this dissatisfaction with the way Clinton conducted herself.)

For his part, Obama cut into Clinton's advantage, but couldn't erase it. Even though he campaigned extensively among white working class Pennsylvanians, he still couldn't crack this constituency. He lost every white working class county in the state. He lost greater Pittsburgh area by 61 to 39 percent. He did poorly among Catholics - losing them 71 to 29 percent. A Democrat can't win Pennsylvania in the fall without these voters. And those who didn't vote in the primary but will vote in the general election are likely to be even less amenable to Obama.

But Obama also lost ground among the upscale white professionals that had helped him win states like Wisconsin, Maryland, and Virginia. For instance, Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton. He lost upscale arty Bucks County by 62 to 38 percent.

My colleague Noam Scheiber attributes Clinton's success among these suburbanites to the influence of Governor Ed Rendell, who campaigned with Clinton, but I wonder whether Obama's gaffes and his suspect associations - whether with Wright or former Weatherman Bill Ayers or real estate developer Tony Rezko - began to tarnish his image among these voters. If so, the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents - is being undermined.

Indeed, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.

The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come.

[suzyqj1]

It is time for Barack Obama and his media cronies to "drop out of the race!" Hillary has more of the popular vote (if you count all votes), more super delegates at this time and has won the big states which have more electoral votes - Barack Obama should be toast, but the media keeps popping up the toaster!!!

[julieelu]

EFarris38: The only reason Clinton "won" Michigan is because Obama and the others were not on the ballot! Michigan held an illegal vote regardless of your stance on DNC rules and the electoral college, etc. The other candidates backed out due to party rules. Clinton violated convention rules and left her name on the ballot, thus the supposed "win." Obama has the support of Detroit and much of southern Michigan--even in the great white north where I live he receives support from the few dems up this way. Clinton does not deserve any votes from Michigan, period.

[julieelu]

EFarris38: The only reason Clinton "won" Michigan is because Obama and the others were not on the ballot! Michigan held an illegal vote regardless of your stance on DNC rules and the electoral college, etc. The other candidates backed out due to party rules. Clinton violated convention rules and left her name on the ballot, thus the supposed "win." Obama has the support of Detroit and much of southern Michigan--even in the great white north where I live he receives support from the few dems up this way. Clinton does not deserve any votes from Michigan, period.

[efarris38]

The controversy is over Florida and Michigan folks! Florida voters have to be feeling like they shouldn''t even bother voting. The fact of the matter is that they should COUNT! Clinton clearly has won the popular vote if you count every one who went to the polls!!!!! The media and the few elite politicians at the top of the food chain need to keep their mouths shut and let people''s votes count!!!! This delegate stuff and electoral college should be scrapped. Remember Al Gore in 2000?? That should have been a good lesson but apparently things never change. We should have a winner take all in the popular vote just like most other democracies in the world. If you get under 50% then you have a runoff. QUIT discounting people''s votes!!!!!!! Florida and Michigan are states and ClINTON WON them out right!

[susan10001-2009]

IF...after WINNING MORE STATES and MORE DELEGATES, the nomination is STOLEN from OBAMA...

the DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TOAST!!

Mark. My. Words.

[susan10001-2009]

NO, IT DIDN''T!

THOSE are the CLINTON TALKING POINTS *** MOrris SPELLED out MONTHS AGO! He said they would DO THIS! And the MSM is PLAYING their TUNE!

MEDIA BIAS is SICKENING!

You ALL are using CHARACTER ASSASINATION on OBAMA!

You should be ASHAMED of YOURSELVES!!

[joe1022joe]

Hillary Clinton is not only untrustworthy she is dishonorable. We can''t elect a person with these personality traits.

[cfcarlos]

Barack Obama%u2019s association with the fanatical Jeremiah Wright, his serving on a board with the terrorist William Ayers, his marriage to a less than patriotic woman, his alleged elitism have provided much fodder for talk show hosts and the news media. They%u2019ll be feeding off it for months to come.

But the blue collar crowd Obama needed to win over in Pennsylvania could have cared less about any of that. Obama lost their vote because he came across to them as a wimp. Throughout that sham ABC debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton relentlessly beat up on Obama, like the gutter fighter she is, and he meekly took it. He could easily have crushed once and for all by dredging up the well-documented sleaze and corruption of the Clinton years, yet he chose to keep to the high road.

His forbearance, if that%u2019s what it was, may be perceived as strength by his more affluent, better educated supporters, but to the former mill workers in Pennsylvania struggling to make ends meet, it was a sign of weakness. Those folk may not be well versed in economics and foreign affairs, but they know from experience that the world is a tough place and that when diplomacy fails, as it often does, a Commander in Chief needs to have what it takes to wield a big stick.

If Barack Obama doesn%u2019t start showing some cojones real soon, he should step aside and let John McCain deal with Hillary. The old warrior, we can rest assured, isn%u2019t going to take any gruff from her.

[lakwildd]

Pennsylvania result has said it all.It has proved that after this 2008 Election America will be more divided than ever before.RACE issue is real playing big and the World is watching.
This is indeed a trying moment for the Supperdelegates,the writting is already on the wall for them,should they decide otherwise then that will be the beginning of the fall of America because it will be more divided than ever before.And Hillary campaign is not helping that either.God Bless America!!!

[tiredofthebs]

We pick who is best because we want to win. This isn''''t the general election. This is where we pick who goes to battle in the general election. Picking Obama is political suicide, not just in this election, but for many elections to come. It sends the signal to America that the Democrats stand for identity politics and not for working class interests. It not only guarantees McCain a win, but a mandate.

Posted by wwsword at 10:57 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Why is it SOOOOO HARD for the OBAMA nation to understand this ?! Barack Obama is toast !!!!!!