Off Message

PA governor Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, has a problem with going "off message" but this time instead of saying something embarrassing he's just said something probably accurate:

Pennsylvania's perennially close, but when you look at a state that went Democratic in the last four presidential elections and hasn't shown any underlying pro-GOP trend, it seems unlikely that any Democrat would lose it in a generally favorable political climate for Democrats.

Comments

Maybe. But I'll bet that McCain plays better in PA than Bush. Might not be enough in this sort of year. But helpful for the Republicans.

Posted by ikl | March 14, 2008 1:25 PM

Hmmm...interesting. I'd really like to hear Tim K weigh in on this with his always insightful perspective.

Posted by ken | March 14, 2008 1:42 PM

It depends on if Clinton insists on continuing to extend a laurel, and hardy handshake to our new town Obama. If her strategy is to GOT racist V, don't be surprised if it happens in November too.

Posted by MikeJ | March 14, 2008 1:50 PM

I think the Clinton campaign is getting pressure from Dem insiders to stop with the "Obama can't win in the general" assertions. Not that this matters. It's part of their strategy.

Send out false claims in handy sound bites that the average voter will digest. The complexities of "why it isn't true" don't stick, and Viola!

Mission Accomplished.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 1:53 PM

I'd really like to hear Tim K weigh in on this with his always insightful perspective.

"Insightful perspective"? Didn't you actually mean "hateful invective"?

Posted by Tim J | March 14, 2008 1:57 PM

I'm pretty sure speaking out of both sides of their mouths is Clinton playbook 101.

Did we say that? Oh no, that's not what we meant (nudge nudge, wink wink)!

Posted by Jake | March 14, 2008 2:21 PM

I wonder if he actually went "off message" or if he is looking at the writing on the wall and trying to cover his bases.

Or not put his eggs in one basket.

Sorry, I realized that I had quite the cliche string happening and was trying to keep it going.

Posted by Kat | March 14, 2008 2:22 PM

I live in PA and I'm pretty sure McCain's the rare Republican who could win PA in a national race. He's old (so is PA), frank, a hardass and sort of hostile to big business (but not as hostile to unions).

PA voters tend to like Republican hard-asses that don't always go along with the plan, such as Spector, to some extent Thornburg, and, initially, Santorum (who was elected as a brash, young iconoclast pledging to make waves in Washington on spending issues and sent packing when PA voters realized he was a Zealot who, not only wasn't good on spending but, in typical, corrupt Washington fashion, signed his own kids up for a state Welfare program). McCain could easily win a PA Senatorial or Gubernatorial race.

As for a presidential election?

McCain won't win Philly or the surrounding areas(probably not even with a bribe, which is more or less required in the region), but his particularities might be enough to take aging Pittsburgh and Pennsyltucky. Unless, that is, he gets crushed by anti-Bush turnout (a scenario more likely under an Obama candidacy).

Posted by Shinyk | March 14, 2008 2:44 PM

But the Pennsyltucky bits might be unimpressed by McCain's conservative credentials on issues that may be important to them like Hating On Teh Brown Folks or Hating On Evolution and Global Warming.

Also, though he's a hawk hardass, he's also pro-100-year-war, while PA has given us Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy in 2006, as well as Jack Murtha. I think PA is going to be more like NJ in the election: a state that looks like it might be at risk, but turns out not to be.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 14, 2008 3:01 PM

Dude, you call Pennsylvania safe when it's gone Dem for the last four elections but Washington marginal when it's gone dem (and by larger margins) for the last five? Why is it that folks on the East Coast are so ignorant of what goes on in the West?

Posted by dpa | March 14, 2008 3:18 PM

It's just bizarre to think that if a Democrat runs 2nd to Hillary in a primary that they have to run 2nd to McCain in the general. It's bizarre to think that but it's also dishonest to assert it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 14, 2008 3:38 PM

"It's just bizarre to think that if a Democrat runs 2nd to Hillary in a primary that they have to run 2nd to McCain in the general. It's bizarre to think that but it's also dishonest to assert it."

Too late, Jeffrey. It's now convential wisdom, so it's now true.

Which, of course, doesn't make it any less of a lie or any less annoying.

Posted by brewmn | March 14, 2008 4:03 PM

My model of Pennsyltacky is that denizens view themselves as Appallachian sophisticates. This is not the country of wild preachers.

They like their politicians to be moderate, DINOs or RINOs. Spector and Rendel are what they like, and congressmen bringing pork barrels. They like low taxes, but, again, in moderation -- balancing the budget is good too. A segment of conservative Christians are Amish -- really conservative, and apolitical. (Do you know that roller skates are deemed OK, and bicycles -- too wordly? So you see Amish girls roller skating from village to village.)

The conclusion is that both Obama and McCain would have to make as much mileage as they can from they "moderate acts", and each is to a degree, phony. I mean, Obama is a true blue liberal and McCain is a raving conservative. My money is on Obama -- McCain is a bit too old to keep a convoluted story straight.

Posted by piotr | March 14, 2008 7:42 PM