Pa. primary results raise real issues of electability

With Hillary Clinton's win in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary come some real concerns about Barack Obama's ability to win over voters. Or rather his lack of ability. The Obama campaign's defense is that Clinton had a stronghold on Pennsylvania and so her win there should not be a surprise to anyone. My issue with that defense is that these voters are just the type that he will need to win over in the general election. And I'm not sure he can do it nationally, if he couldn't in Pennsylvania, where he outspent the Clinton campaign by a 3 to 1 margin.

Both candidates have their strong and very loyal base, and that's how the voting went. CNN has the exit poll data -- click there to read all the numbers. But to summarize, the results don't show me that Obama is making any inroads with the voters he will need to win the general election in November.

Obama won
Younger voters
Blacks
College grads
Philadelphia and suburbs
Independents
Liberals
Candidate quality: Change


Clinton won
Women and older voters
Whites
Church-goers
All regions except Philly area
Gun owners
Democrats
Moderates and conservatives
Candidate quality: Cares about people, experience, electability
Voters worried about the economy
Union members

But by far the most interesting result to me was this oddity (click to enlarge):



Does anyone want to explain that one to me? Because what I see is that only 79% of Obama's supporters believe he will be the Democratic nominee, and I find that stunning.

Pa. primary night ...

I'm flipping through the channels to see what the asshats pundits are saying. But wait! It's Bravo! It's "Work Out" with Jackie Warner! No no! Must change the channel.

I don't know. Wolf Blitzer? Jackie Warner?

Tim Russert? Jackie Warner?

I ask you: Chris Matthews? Jackie Warner?

I guess I can check the exit polls ... later.

Polls, polls, and more polls! Clinton up by 20 points

The Pennsylvania primary is a week from tomorrow, and there will be many more polls popping up in the coming the hours, I suspect. The candidates have had a very busy weekend, and it will be interesting to see how the Pa. voters react. But first out of the gate is the poll from American Research Group, which has Clinton up by 20 percentage points (click image to enlarge it):

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 48% to 44% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 64% to 31%.

Clinton leads 64% to 29% among white voters (82% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 79% to 18% among African American voters (14% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Clinton leads 52% to 43% among voters age 18 to 49 (50% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 62% to 31% among voters age 50 and older.

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

23% of likely Democratic primary voters say that excessive exposure to Obama's advertising is causing them to support Clinton.

What's going on with that last item? People have complained about Clinton "attacking" and running a "negative campaign" in the past, but it looks like Obama's campaign is it's own worst enemy in Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton ahead in Pennsylvania, and why she will win there

This is from Greg Palmer's blog at Keystone Politics as well as MyDD, and I think he's got a point. What do you think?

Let's face it - Barack Obama has run a great campaign, inspired a lot of people, and will probably win the nomination. So why is Hillary Clinton doing so well in Pennsylvania?

In short, it's the economy, stupid. Much of Pennsylvania was once supported by enormous manufacturing operations who supported entire regions of workers. Pennsylvanians still haven't fully recovered economically from the effects globalization had on manufacturing hubs.

In my hometown, some estimate that Bethlehem Steel once employed 40,000 people, and Pittsburgh has a similar history with US Steel. Those companies closed years ago, but the economic and emotional wounds run deep in Pennsylvania. As those large companies faded away, new businesses failed to take their place, and workers were left worrying about their pensions and the lifetime of health benefits they were promised.

Pennsylvania has been hurt further by NAFTA and other trade deals that are unfavorable to workers. Since 2000, we've lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs. Walking downtown in many parts of our state can be a sobering experience - where mom and pop stores once thrived and profits were recycled back into small businesses, big box stores now suck dollars out of the local economy.

Barack Obama has been talking about "his story" and what it means for America, but that's not the sort of thing that resonates with Pennsylvanians. We're a pragmatic state because we've seen all too closely how the whims of so-called "visionaries" affect real workers, and how plans from self-professed Smart Guys can wreak havoc on entire regions.

Honestly, I don't have anything against Barack, and I'm kind of disappointed that Hillary hasn't gracefully bowed out since the numbers are so clearly against her. But I'd like to see the Senator from Illinois stop telling me his story and start telling me about how he's going to change the story for people in places like Pennsylvania.

Say what you will about her, but Hillary has done that and she's done it well. She's told us she recognizes that we got the shaft with NAFTA, and that to stay competitive we need universal healthcare.

Rather than show up in Philadelphia to give a big speech that most Philadelphians will never hear, Hillary walks around our towns and sees what has happened to places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. She's told us that she's learning the lessons along with the rest of us, and here in PA, that's something we can respect.

When it comes down to it, I know they have just about the same positions on everything. I just wish Senator Obama would take some time out from talking about himself to let us know.

Who elected the pundits?

I'm so tired of reading and watching all of these political "experts" telling me what's going to happen in this campaign. They don't know. And the American people have done a wonderful job of proving them wrong.

After all, it was the pundits in the press who announced that Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable" Democratic candidate -- she never said that. But then suddenly Obama was "unstoppable" -- only to be stopped in Ohio and Texas. The theory I personally despise states that women ('cause you know we're all the same) will be so upset/betrayed/angry if Obama gets the nomination that we will either (a) vote for McCain, or (b) not vote at all. Of course neither of those things are true in this household, nor I'm sure, are they true across the country. That's just ridiculous, and insulting.

The last great theory I heard was that massive numbers of influential African Americans who had supported Clinton were suddenly "defecting" to the Obama camp. Except, no they're not. Today's Washington Post reports on Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who is endorsing Hillary Clinton:

Nutter's endorsement of Clinton in December seemed inconsequential at the time. After all, no one in the political world believed the race would last beyond Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.

But, as the race has gone on (and on), Pennsylvania has become more and more relevant, and Nutter has emerged as a far more central figure in the ongoing debate over whether black elected officials should line up behind Obama and his potentially history-making candidacy.

Asked how much pressure he has come under to reconsider his endorsement of Clinton, Nutter responds curtly "none" before noting: "I don't know if anyone is asking Senator Kennedy or Senator Kerry, who happen to be white, whether they are getting any pressure from their constituents for their endorsement of Senator Obama."

So, dear pundits, please quit trying to second-guess the American people. We'll only prove you wrong.