Pennsylvania margin may turn on Philadelphia and ’burbs
Dante Chinni
Posted: 04.20.2008 / 10:42 AM EDT
After six weeks of waiting, the Democratic Party – and the rest of the nation – may learn late Tuesday how much longer its presidential nominating process will go on.
A big win by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary (by at least 10 percentage points) would give her campaign a boost to continue. A narrower victory (5 percentage points) for Senator Clinton would present a foggier picture for her candidacy. If Sen. Barack Obama pulls off an upset, most say Clinton’s campaign would be dead in the water.
The latest polls show that the race is tightening – with a 3- to 5-percentage-point spread favoring Clinton.
Pennsylvania contains one of the nation’s more diverse populations. Eight of Patchwork Nation’s 11 community types are represented in the state, and five types have big blocks of counties and voters – Campus and Careers, Emptying Nests, Industrial Metropolis, Monied ’Burbs, and Service Worker Centers.
After last Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, Patchwork Nation checked in with Pennsylvania cities and towns in these key community types to assess how the Tuesday primary is shaping up.
•Industrial Metropolis, Philadelphia County: It’s expected to be Obama territory, and Patchwork correspondents there say it will be, though some are not sure it will be as big a margin as expected. The “enthusiasm” and the “organization” are with Obama in Philadelphia, says Zack Stalberg, president and CEO of the Committee of Seventy, a local civic group. The numbers from Philadelphia should be enough to “make it close” in the state overall.
Most say Obama will win Philadelphia by about 20 points, close to the margin by which he won Cleveland last month. One difference: Philadelphia is much bigger.
•Monied ’Burbs, Montgomery County, Lansdale: These communities, primarily around Philadelphia, are key to Tuesday’s vote. Lansdale, which sits in the middle of the county, is evenly split between the Democratic candidates, people there say. Nona Breaux, editor of the Lansdale Reporter, says the paper hears from supporters of both candidates in equal amounts. Even the number of signs in yards are about equal, but talk seems to center more on Obama than on Clinton.
In other areas of Montgomery County, residents say they sense Obama has a slight edge, thanks in part to his organization. Obama’s “change” message is also resonating with the better-educated, more affluent voters.
•Service Worker Centers, Luzerne County, Wilkes-Barre: These counties may be crucial to the Pennsylvania vote, according to Patchwork Nation’s analysis. If Clinton wins the state, Service Worker Centers might be the group that gives her a victory. Well stocked with less wealthy, slightly older voters, they look to be strong Clinton country. “The crowds have been much larger for Clinton and much more enthusiastic for Clinton,” says Bill O’Boyle, a reporter with the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader.
Clinton’s edge is not only in the state’s northeastern section where she has family roots, but also in western Service Worker Center counties such as Cambria, where a big turnout for Clinton is anticipated.
•Campus and Careers, Centre County, State College: College campuses have been Obama strongholds, and the home of Penn State University looks to continue the trend. Since January, 5,000 PSU students have registered as Democrats. In terms of organization, Obama was out front here. His student volunteers quickly got official status as a university club, so they could use classrooms for meetings, says Mike Joseph, a reporter at the Centre Daily Times. “Hillary’s people were meeting at Starbucks.”
State College Mayor Bill Welch also sees few late-deciders. “People here seem like they’ve known their preference for weeks,” he says.
•Emptying Nests, Somerset County, Somerset: These areas tend to go with the GOP in general elections. In Ohio, they went overwhelmingly for Clinton and look to be important for her in Pennsylvania, too. “People seemed to side with Hillary pretty early on here,” says Rob Gebhart, city editor at the Somerset Daily American.
Others say the Democratic race doesn’t seem to be generating much interest. “I’ve seen maybe one sign for Obama; none for Hillary,” says Gail Smith of the Somerset Historical Center.
April 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm EDT
The longer Obama’s candidacy continues, the more we hear about the kinds of associations - personal and professional - that are perfect for the wine-sipping part of Hyde Park where domestic and international terrorists and criminals go to influence peddle. You know, that part of life where Obama was going to bring hope and change. Where instead Barack became the most invited guest of all. That won’t play in America. The Democrats are creating the Reagan Democrats all over again and will propel John McCain into the White House in November.
April 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm EDT
I have to agree with you LonghornMama, time seems to be the enemy of the Barack Obama campaign. I thought Senator Obama was a shoo in until that ABC debate earlier this week, he really looked rattled.
April 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm EDT
Longhorn, if you are fair and wish to condemn people according to their associations, then you MUST know that Hillary has more nefarious characters in her past, including her philandering husband, than Obama. To deny this would be intellectually dishonest. Let’s see, there’s the cast of Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, the Colombian government, Mr. Hsu, Vince Foster, the Emir of Dubai and on and on. Surprisingly, Senator Obama has not brought up one of these people or the issues surrounding them. The Republicans will not be so magnanimous. I support your right to vote for whom you choose. But when you make negative statements that apply to your candidate even more than your target, you don’t help her. People these days are able to sift through the smoke.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm EDT
Obama supporters can bring up Bill Clinton’s follies all they want, but he was the ONLY democratic president elected in the past 28 years and say what you will about his personal piccadilloes, he did not associate with people that damned America and thought that bombing federal buildings and killing cops was the way to bring about “change”. And lookup Krugman’s columns where he points out that the economy was far better off when Clinton left office, and we had a surplus! And besides, this race is against Hillary, not Bill.
Here’s hoping that PA sees Senator Obama for the divisive, inexperienced candidate he really is. He keeps hammering on Clinton’s legacy without realizing how it undermines his message of hope and the entire basis his Democratic candidacy.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm EDT
I am guessing by the negative comments, they are coming from Ms. Clinton’s base……the uneducated. If you would read newspapers and the internet, you may find you are terribly misinformed.
April 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm EDT
Bill pardoned 2 of the real bombers, force-fed NAFTA to us, and made a quick $800,000 shilling for CAFTA, and another 1.5 Million shilling for Chinese businesses.
You, and maybe the whole Democratic base, are canon-fodder for Hilary’s do-anything-to-win campaign. A campaign run by another guy who’s company is making millions promoting CAFTA.
Maybe those things don’t mean anything to you, but they speak volumes to me about the focus and intent of the Clinton campaign. “Say/do anything to win” — that’s exactly what we’ve got now.
Finally, ‘the Economy’ is not the same as ‘the People’. It sounds like it is, but it’s not. The people were not better off when Clinton left office, (even with the Internet boom), the people were getting minimum-wage service jobs while companies were rushing to move manufacturing jobs out of the country.
April 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pm EDT
MY FELLOW “BITTER”, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of “BITTER”!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
You Might Be An Idiot!
husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
You Might Be An Idiot!
husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Best regards
jacksmith… Working Class
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!
If you don’t know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering…
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year.
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on…
April 20th, 2008 at 7:35 pm EDT
Yikes! Why the invective and the intolerant language? No need to get so bent out of shape. Those decrying Obama really ought to look at his record and his education. The gentleman might not have tons of experience in the Senate, but that does not mean he is not prepared for the Presidency. Hillary has experience as a first lady, and minimal experience also as a Senator. Much of the Presidential decisions are made with plenty of advisors however, and I think them both smart enough to select wisely.
However, remember that you don’t need any particular combination of experience to run for President, nor to hold the office. Look at our history as a nation and you will find that about the most common traits for our Presidents are height (tall over short), and white, and of course with plenty of money.
In any case, Sen. Obama is running a campaign that is decidedly different, promising a change that we desperately need, and has good ideas and policy propositions. In my estimation, Hillary has (and will continue to) run a 20th century campaign, fully indebted to powerful interests that she and Bill have courted over a long time, and that will hamper her ability and desire to bring substantial change. Her preferred mode of change seems to be top-down, with plenty of triangulation. Obama’s preferred mode of change seems to be a bottom-up approach that truly seeks to understand people and where they are at. These differences are important. I think it takes both approaches to change to make our strange government work, but right now I think we need Obama’s more than Hillary’s. It is precisely Obama’s point that we need a more decisive change, a better break with the entrenched system in place. Hillary represents too much of that entrenched system. She has conducted her campaign in that way, and her aides have demonstrated too much of that politics of negativity.
No need to hate each other, or the candidates, but please look deeply at their approaches and don’t just dismiss each lightly based on little but innuendo and media reports.
I’m not in Pennsylvania, but I expect that my primary vote will go to Obama. I think he promises the best change right now, the best philosophy to accomplish that change, and the better philosophy to work together, re-build the Democratic party, and rebuild the reputation of the U.S. abroad. He also better understand, in my estimation, what it is like to be powerless, oppressed, discriminated against, and marginalized. I think that will prove to be super important for regular folks.
Best,
N
April 20th, 2008 at 7:47 pm EDT
Why isn’t anyone writing stories about how Hillary Clinton is only running for the votes of super delegates. She admittedly and whole heartedly does not believe that this election should be based on the popular vote of normal non-super-delegate citizens. Moreover, she bluntly states that the votes of ordinary citizens of the United States of America should not amount to any value whatsoever in this election. I heard her interviewed on NPR stating that pledged delegates who were appointed by elections in previous state primaries should ignore the vote of the people and vote for her regardless of percentages. Please, listen for yourself via this link to npr.org’s recording of the interview by Michele Norris. She mentions this at around the 6min mark. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89476099 Afterwards, ask yourself, “does she care about us?” I demand fair coverage by our evidently spineless commercial media!
April 20th, 2008 at 7:53 pm EDT
Oh, about JackSmith’s post… please spend some time looking at the points highlighted. There is plenty of misinformation there.
Obama does not think working class folks are stupid. He did use the word bitter, but you know, what lots of us are, and lots of us want better, and plenty are angry, and plenty rely on various issues he mentioned as substitute for other issues. Hillary did vote to support the war, so the issue of cannon fodder might be better applied to her. I don’t think that’s what she wants either, but her decisions helped send so many of our young people to the front lines.
Hillary does not have 35 years of experience, but even if she did, remember that bad experience, or experience with the same system that needs change is not necessarily a good thing.
Check the facts on Bill Clinton’s economic progress. He did fine, but at the expense of many many working class folks and middle class folks. Bush, of course, had done horribly, but we should not just look at Bill’s as if it were the golden goose.
Hillary did not anticipate a health care crisis. It was staring us all in the face. She tried, bungled it by creating a byzantine system, and dropped it.
It seems that JackSmith is relying a lot on Bill Clinton not Hillary. The idea appears to be that somehow Bill grants Hillary legitimacy on the war, on environment, etc. Maybe something did rub off, but frankly we should argue the merits of the candidates, and not their spouses. The fact that Bill Clinton did this or that does not mean that Obama will not be able to do the same or better.
Again, no reason is provided for why Hillary (and as JackSmith repeats; whose husband is Bill Clinton) would be any better than Obama at this or that. The only support seems to be that Hillary is still married to Bill. If this were right we would be electing spouses immediately after their husbands left office! Why, with all the experience they would have, etc. No, no. Let us judge the candidates on their own. Hillary has plenty of experience, Obama does as well. Hillary has made more mistakes in judgment (in my opinion), the most important one was voting to authorize an immoral, illegal war.
Finally, Republicans are the ones who have been voting for Hillary. Rush Limbaugh and others have encouraged them to do so.
Funding for both candidates comes from many sources. Hillary is no saint here and has far more funding from huge corporate interests and entrenched interests in DC. Obama has far more small folk funding support, and has mobilized a better funding program, activating lots of folks to contribute.
No need to distort anybody’s record. Look deeply at Hillary’s campaign. Why does she find herself in such dire straits? Pennsylvania must and has to be a win for her or else things start turning even worse for her campaign. WHy? Because so far she has run a rather old style campaign, hurting Democrats, negative, and folks have noted that she is not motivating change neither in her style of politics nor regarding the issues we want to see changed. Look at her record during the Clinton presidency. She dismissed working class folks plenty at that time.
Best,
N
April 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm EDT
The only one bitter in this Presidential race is Hillary Billary Bittery Rotten Clinton!
April 21st, 2008 at 8:20 am EDT
A report in the IHT indicated that the “Surplus” at the end of the Bill Clinton period was in no small part the result of increased Tax Income flowing into the IRS as a result of his administration allowing the creation of those so innovative Financial Products whose collapse are now threatening the Worldwide financial system.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:56 am EDT
Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Manchester, Massachusetts regarding “HER” health plan.
The audience actually started booing her - after she said she “would require all business owners to pay for complete health insurance - including regular check-ups for all their employees and their families. The audience boo’d! that loudly and left the meeting place while she was still trying to tell us how that should be done - mentioning payroll deductions.
I’ve noticed she never has repeated that statement in her “No Child Left Behind” speeches.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:00 am EDT
Apology: I said Manchester, Massachusetts - I plead temporary insanity - it was in Manchester, Connecticut. Please correct my mistake in my statement.
Arlene Hobbs
April 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am EDT
The fact of the matter is that for most issues, there is precious little that separates the two Democratic candidates. One area that clearly does is the war. Obama is the only one of the three who had the guts to oppose it from the beginning (”I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to stupid wars” - a classic, and so prescient.
Obama did not just appear out of nowhere. He was an Illiois state senator before he came a US senatory. Hillary is competent as well, and has more Washington experience. But it’s the bitter, partisan and divisive kind that has pitted people in this country against each other for the past 20 years. We’re devided into “red” and “blue” boxes and we can’t even have a discussion about issues anymore, without things degrading into hateful diatribes, calling each other idiots. No one exchanges ideas, or even considers that another point of view might have merit.
We need someone who is not still fighting old battles, someone not of that mindset, who might acutally try a different approach - to be the “uniter” that George W Bush said he was, but clearly isn’t. For that reason Obama is the right man for the job. He won’t be perfect, but no one is. And no one can forsee what challenges will come the way of whomever is president. But at least with Obama there is a real chance for a fresh perspective, from someone who doesn’t have a score to settle. He can’t be any worse than any of the other options - he can only be an improvement.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:32 am EDT
The fact of the matter is that for most issues, there is precious little that separates the two Democratic candidates. One area that clearly does is the war. Obama is the only one of the three who had the guts to oppose it from the beginning (”I am not opposed to all wars. I am opposed to stupid wars” - a classic, and so prescient.
Obama did not just appear out of nowhere. He was an Illiois state senator before he came a US senatory. Hillary is competent as well, and has more Washington experience. But it’s the bitter, partisan and divisive kind that has pitted people in this country against each other for the past 20 years. We’re devided into “red” and “blue” boxes and we can’t even have a discussion about issues anymore, without things degrading into hateful diatribes, calling each other idiots. No one exchanges ideas, or even considers that another point of view might have merit.
We need someone who is not still fighting old battles, someone not of that mindset, who might acutally try a different approach - to be the “uniter” that George W Bush said he was, but clearly isn’t. For that reason Obama is the right man for the job. He won’t be perfect, but no one is. And no one can forsee what challenges will come the way of whomever is president. But at least with Obama there is a real chance for a fresh perspective, from someone who doesn’t have a score to settle. He can’t be any worse than any of the other options - he can only be an improvement.