Pennsylvania Vindication Edition

[Bloggingheads]

[Baltimoron]

The Huffington Post link from the "New left-wing Jewish lobby formed" link on the "Pennsylvania Vindication Edition" diavlog page is busted. We need a new link!

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Baltimoron

The Huffington Post link from the "New left-wing Jewish lobby formed" link on the "Pennsylvania Vindication Edition" diavlog page is busted. We need a new link!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren...y_b_97548.html

[osmium]

wow, the first bloggingheads with an ad? shortlists, was that it?

edit: i see it over there to the side now, veryshortlist. cool. the fact that the video ad only runs on you once, that's a nice touch--noticeable but unobtrusive.

[Baltimoron]

It's a sign of the apocalypse!

It's time to stop watching bhTV!

[AemJeff]

The only presidential candidate I've ever voted for who actually won that election was Bill Clinton. And since his second term wasn't really much in doubt that means I've only cast one effective presidential vote in my life. My primary record is even more dismal, with a perfect zero percent success rate. I've been dithering between Obama and Hillary for months, maybe leaning slightly towards Obama, but as I've said before: I don't care who wins as long as the the winner in November isn't a Republican. So, yesterday was the primary in PA, a beautiful perfect morning to walk to my local polling place - a gentle breeze at sixty-eight degrees, chirping birds and flowering trees under blue skies - and pull the lever for Obama. At that moment Obama must have heard a thunderclap, as the skies darkened and a bony finger revealed itself among the clouds pointing his way while a low voice chuckled unpleasantly.

Ok, maybe it's not all about me. I still really only care that whoever emerges from the primary process on the Dem side is an effective candidate, and it increasingly looks like both of them are dismayingly incompetent. I would like, at some point, to feel as if my political judgment was shared by a majority of my neighbors - but right at the moment it looks to me like McCain is trending toward consensus support.

Which, getting back to my first point, is somehow appropriate - I would have strongly considered voting for him in 2000 - I wasn't a fan of Gore's at the time - so naturally he was womped by the most ridiculous opponent imaginable; this time I've decided that I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances, and right now, at this moment, it appears as if the skids are greased, his glide path to the Presidency seemingly assured.

Or maybe I'm just depressed - it's still a long way to November.

[Gravy]

Maybe the endless polling activity has alienated the voters to the extent that a sizable fraction just lie in exit polls simply to mess with the pollers' heads. You don't really need an excuse to lie to a poller; it's just a fun thing to do. Plus you get a fun bonus later when supposedly serious guys like Bob and Mickey try to assign a rationale to it and super bonus when Bob goes even further to draw some kind of expectations dynamic from the polling data. But be careful' you can't lie with an easily observable pattern. Flip a coin 20 times and assign a lie to heads and truth to tails and you are probably set for a good 10 years of polls you may be subjected to. A more complex methodology would be required where you have multiple potential lies available, but I'm sure if we all put our heads together we can find it.

[piscivorous]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

The only presidential candidate I've ever voted for who actually won that election was Bill Clinton. And since his second term wasn't really much in doubt that means I've only cast one effective presidential vote in my life. My primary record is even more dismal, with a perfect zero percent success rate. I've been dithering between Obama and Hillary for months, maybe leaning slightly towards Obama, but as I've said before: I don't care who wins as long as the the winner in November isn't a Republican. So, yesterday was the primary in PA, a beautiful perfect morning to walk to my local polling place - a gentle breeze at sixty-eight degrees, chirping birds and flowering trees under blue skies - and pull the lever for Obama. At that moment Obama must have heard a thunderclap, as the skies darkened and a bony finger revealed itself among the clouds pointing his way while a low voice chuckled unpleasantly.

Ok, maybe it's not all about me. I still really only care that whoever emerges from the primary process on the Dem side is an effective candidate, and it increasingly looks like both of them are dismayingly incompetent. I would like, at some point, to feel as if my political judgment was shared by a majority of my neighbors - but right at the moment it looks to me like McCain is trending toward consensus support.

Which, getting back to my first point, is somehow appropriate - I would have strongly considered voting for him in 2000 - I wasn't a fan of Gore's at the time - so naturally he was womped by the most ridiculous opponent imaginable; this time I've decided that I couldn't vote for him under any circumstances, and right now, at this moment, it appears as if the skids are greased, his glide path to the Presidency seemingly assured.

Or maybe I'm just depressed - it's still a long way to November.

I would never want to be accused of mental abuse, by contributing to someones depression, but this was just to nice a vehicle to to pass up by decorating it with this semi humorous opinion piece by P.J. O'Rourke 24 Hours on the 'Big Stick'

As I know that many here would not be found dead reading anything from the Weekly Standard I offer this

Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"

[AemJeff]

Actually, Pisc - that was a pretty good piece.

[piscivorous]

Yea I thought so myself.

[Tyrrell McAllister]

Originally Posted by piscivorous

As I know that many here would not be found dead reading anything from the Weekly Standard I offer this

Too bad The Onion beat him to the "Change" gag :P.

[piscivorous]

Given that Senator Obama outspent Senator Clinton 4:1 and the late deciders still went for Senator Clinton says to me that Senator Obama's stitch is starting to wear pretty thin.

[bkjazfan]

It appears Obama couldn't take the hits whether they were legit or not!

John

[bkjazfan]

Dick Morris today has an article using some convoluted logic which puts Obama in the catbird seat for the democratic nomination for president. It sounded reasonable to me. However, didn't he earlier write a book on how Hilary had a lock on the presidency?

John

[Tao Jones]

Is back-paddling and apologizing a wise thing to do politically? I prefer Obama's strategy of clarifying the intent of his statements and standing tall. Kinda like the John Wayne trait: even when he's wrong, he's right.

Speaking of eating shit, kudos to Mickey for his 10-point win prediction. Kaus was unusually on point for most of the diavlog.

[deecue]

Here is one cheering possibilty for Obama supporters (or Democrats in general). It seems in most primaries as of late that last minute deciders always pull the lever in large part for Hillary, or at least I have heard this stated several times in a couple different elections (sorry, I'm lazy and just want to throw it out there). This may be a function of the continually fouled up exit polling, or this may actually reflect a real undecided voter, who pulls toward Hillary out of being more comfortable with the more familiar candidate, or break along age demographics in a way that, say, Glenn Loury admitted breaking for Hillary in his last diavlog. In the general, if Obama wins, these late breaking voters would not necessarily be likely to switch to McCain, but would in fact seem to be Obama's to lose; that being said, I'm not really sure what percentage of the voting pool this reflects.

[deebee]

It's beginning to look more and more like Hillary may actually BE "Election" movie heroine Tracy Flick, the newly appointed Student Council president, who in the end opines that no one would have been hurt if they'd just accepted destiny and left well enough alone. We shall see; could happen.....

My reaction of Obama's shoulder brushoff was the same as Bob's.

The flag pin issue is stupid but effective because so many people reflexively cling to the Flag in all its forms (especially since 9/11).

Ayers -- not really an unsavory enemy to engage but someone who gave Obama one of his first State Senate fundraising parties. I believe that all or most of the recent Obama revelations were outlined in a Rolling Stone article about his radical roots but the press chose to conveniently ignore them because they so wanted to rid themselves of the annoyingly persistent "Tracy" Clinton.

[Happy Hominid]

How does the narrative change if Obama wins both Indiana and N.C. in two weeks? This is not particularly hypothetical. He leads in the polls in both states.

While Hillary continues to be "annoyingly persistent", Obama looks to be unfazed and just continues his "above the fray" campaigning. He held a town hall meeting in Indiana this morning and steadfastly refused to get into the mud. Certainly not the mark of a candidate running scared.

This might be annoying to Hillary supporters, who feel victimized by the MSM spin that she is the culprit in making this a dirty election. But if Obama does what most polls indicate likely and gets a double win in two weeks then people might actually give him a huge boost in that they will be sold on him as someone who won without using the "politics as usual" method.

Beating the Clinton machine under any circumstances is worthy of respect. Doing it while she does her best imitation of Karl Rove is even more impressive. She is the one who has made a point of "if you can't handle this pressure, you can't handle GOP pressure and you can't handle White House pressures". If he wins those two states - with all the "pressure" she has put on him, and does it with grace and dignity, there is good reason to suspect that Americans will hold him in pretty high esteem. We need to thank Hillary for setting the bar that Obama will hurdle.

[otto]

Underneath the 'links mentioned in diavlog'.

I thought I would never see the day.

[David Thomson]

"How does the narrative change if Obama wins both Indiana and N.C. in two weeks?"

The big question is just how many non-Ivy league whites in Indiana and North Carolina will vote for Obama. This contest between Hillary and "Barry" revolves around race---and don't let anyone con you into believing something different. A rational white person should not vote for Obama. He is out to damage them. One must never forget that Obama freely chose to join a black power church. He is a race card opportunist.

[jimM47]

Why isn't the right focusing on the more valid question?: Um... because it isn't the more valid question.

To ascribe people's sincerely held beliefs to bitterness over the economy, ignoring the reasons they give for holding those beliefs, is not just disrespectful and condescending, but naive in a way the questions Obama's ability to understand and empathize with people. Other politicians are elitist and condescending too, but the entire point of Obama is that he is a "change" from other politicians — he supposedly understands and respects you even when he disagrees with you.

We wouldn't be talking so much about this if Hillary or Edwards had said that, since the fact that they are elitist and condescending is part of their appeal — they condescend to the people democrats don't like and their policies are framed as shifting decision-making to government elites. The fact that Obama is different is the largest part of his appeal. If he isn't really different, then he has a problem.

[Scoop Jackson]

Bob and Mickey are missing a big part of the story in PA. Bob tries to take comfort in Obama closing the gap from 20% in early polls to 10% in final results. But he misses the regional differences, and surprisingly Mickey fails to chide him. The gap closed only because Obama gained ground in Philly and Pitt urban and surburban counties. In the rest of the state (in what we might call "the gun clinging regions") Obama didn't close the gap, and may have actually lost ground. In many SW PA counties, Obama lost by 40% or more. In NE counties, he lost by 30%. This despite record ad buys and much personal campaigning in these regions. His chief surrrogate, Bob Casey, is based in NE PA but that was no help to Obama there. The voters in those counties heard Obama's message loud and clear but they aren't buying it even a little bit.

This has significance far beyond Pennsylvania. These counties share many characteristics with key swing counties in OH, TN, VA, WV. Losided losses in exurban and rural Applachian counties put Democrats well on the road to losing tight general election campaigns. Just ask Al Gore and John Kerrey. Or Karl Rove.

[Abu Noor Al-Irlandee]

It should be noted for the record that the final margin was not 10, but (with 99. something percent counted) actually 8.6.

[Bloggin' Noggin]

Hi Abu Noor,
Where did you get that figure? TPM says it was 9.4 percent.

[Bloggin' Noggin]

There's one commenter on TPM who cites your 8.6% number, but when I go to the PA Election Returns site he links to , the actual number I calculate is 9.2%, which, if you're going to round it really should be rounded to 9%.

[Abu Noor Al-Irlandee]

Yeah, it's 9.2 now, the same site had the margin at 8.6 earlier, I guess it's been updated. (although like I said, even before I thought it had 99 percent of the precincts reporting).

[osmium]

there was a post on TPM a while back, talking about the effect where obama wins any place with all white people, or more equal white/black populations, but loses anyplace with a moderate african american population. (i'm googling for it, but can't find it.)

is there any economic argument to explain the difference seen between rural areas in, say, PA and iowa? or can it only be explained temperamentally?

i assume they are wary of city-slickers in equal measure both places. is the democratic primary about race? or has clinton successfully become blue collar somehow? if so, that is a remarkable turnaround.

[harkin]

Nice white-walls Bob!

[Scoop Jackson]

Michael Barone has the best theroy on this, why Obama can do better as people get to know him in the Philly suburbs but find much resistance in the rest of the state. It is more complicated than race.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2...cksonians.html

My takeaways:
--Appalachia is prime "Jacksonian" voter territory, as defined by Barone
--Jacksonians tend to be hawkish on foreign policy. They liked it when Clinton said Iran could be obliterated if necessary.
--They are not too impressed with lofty rhetoric on ecomomic issues. They have heard it all before. They want results and see the Clintons as having produced some economic results in the past. But also see Reagan that way.
--They are pro-gun rights
--They are culturally conservative
--They don't agree with Michelle Obama's attitude towards pride in America
--They don't agree with Rev. Wright on anything, wouldn't have stayed in that church for 20 seconds much less 20 years. They want to seem him completely rejected, not interested in "understanding" him better.
--They don't care if people in NY or LA think they are cool or not.

Obama has done more than offend theses voters, he has shown himself to be completely foreign to their worldview.

John McCain is in many ways an ideal candidate for these voters.

Tough to win PA, OH, TN, VA, WV if these voters are overwhelmingly against you. Tough for a Dem to win the election if he loses all these states.

[January]

Excellent points regarding whites in key swing states. Now, can some one tell me how Clinton wins the general if the young people and most African-Americans stay home? As all Bloggingheads fans must have discovered by now, no Democrat since Johnson has taken more than 46% of the white vote. For nearly 50 years, Dem presidential hopefuls have had to count on non-white groups to make up the difference in key states. If the Dem party is going to have to choose which group to scorn, maybe they should pick the one that is going to go for John McCain anyway.

And for an interesting historical take on Ohio and Pennsylvania, read David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed. Whites in Ohio and Penn descend mainly from what Americans call 'Scots-Irish', in other words, militaristic clans that value loyalty over learning, isolation over engagement. I'm not personally offended that this group exists, by I abhor an electoral system that gives it so much power.

[look]

Originally Posted by January

Now, can some one tell me how Clinton wins the general if the young people and most African-Americans stay home?

Beg Barack to run with her. He could cut a pretty sweet deal, beginning with a guarantee that his profile would be kept higher than Bill's. He'd only be about 54 if she made it to a second term, which is doubtful.

[Loren Michael]

I think the simple answer is, Pennsylvania is the second oldest state. Old people surrounded by old people is almost certainly going to provide an echo-chamber effect. This reverberating "get off my lawn" echo, combined with the other demographic disadvantages of the region (from Obama's perspective) make it spectacularly difficult for Obama to win.

I would say that the ray of light is that this probably is not going to (necessarily) hold true in the general, as the "Clinton is mathematically dead in the water" notion hasn't penetrated very well into the mind(s?) of the general voting public, and she's still viewed as a safe and viable Democratic alternative to the old media/low-info Boomers and their elders. Once (if?) she's defeated in a visible and final way, a lack of seemingly strong and viable Democratic alternatives will probably push Clinton voters towards Obama.

[Dudley Smith]

Guys, just want to say great work. I am a conservative-leaning independent that rarely listens to any liberal political discussion or analysis, but I have found you two to be informative, worthwhile and entertaining. Now I never miss a podcast of one of your diavlogs. Keep up the great work.

And I think the line Bob was looking for to describe Mickey was:

"Mickey Kaus is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

[claymisher]

I've given up on Mickey. I'm not listening to this. Somebody let me know when he gives his unbearable quibbling and starts being interesting.

It's too bad, because Bob Wright is an interesting guy, but nobody is worth listening to Kaus's grousing.

[David Thomson]

The so-called Bradley factor is often nothing more than rational white self preservation. The radical black establishment and its left-wing white yuppie buddies are out to damage them. "Barry" Obama is a race hustler who made the cold blooded decision to move to Chicago and become "authentically black." Nobody put a gun to his head and forced him to do this. Obama essentially declared war on whites. A vote for Obama is a vote to set back relations in this country a minimum of twenty years.

Bob kinda says it all...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/104...5&out=00:35:58

And why I like Mickey...

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/104...0&out=00:24:17

[uncle ebeneezer]

I've said it once, I'll say it again, does anyone really think the Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain or sit out the election. I just don't see it. When the pundits talk about Obama not being able to win big states, they rarely add the important "among Democrats against Hillary." Hillary is a great candidate and has a ton of very loyal followers (who are mostly loyal Dems too). The difficulty of knocking out Clinton in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, really doesn't predict how Obama will do in the general election against McCain. I lived in PA for 5 years and I could of told you that no matter how much Obama spent he wasn't going to beat Clinton in PA. For several reasons. Closing from 20 points to 9 would be seen as a huge success by any candidate in a year that didn't involve a Clinton and a media that is just desperate to keep the fight going.

I'm with Bob on this one. After the tidal waves of Rev. Wright and Bittergate, the fact that Obama lost by only 8-9 points shows that he's a pretty strong candidate. When the Hillary fans finally get on board and support Obama, I think we've got a better than average chance at the White House.

[popcorn_karate]

Its pretty easy at this point to call the election for McCain. Hillary's strategy is the "4 and out" for McCain - at which point she can run again.

I think she will stay in and continue to attack in Barak in ways the Republicans would have had a hard time pulling off, until he is so damaged he can't win. at that time, she can go back to the senate and continue being a republican-lite for four years.

personally, I could not ever vote for Hillary clinton. I'd Rather have McCain - so the democrats can Oppose his policies. With Clintons in power, you get them enacting the republican agenda with democratic support. Then i don't even have anybody to root for in politics. and that sucks.

[Scoop Jackson]

Obama is hurting himself much more than Hillary's attacks are hurting him.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Matt seems to share my logic here:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...m.php#comments

Popcorn, check out Ross' link on there about McCain. An interesting point from a Conservative.