Pennsylvania Demographics

My sense of things had been that, demographically speaking, Pennsylvania was like Ohio but I thought I might look up the actual census data to see what we can see. Basically, Pennsylvania is like Ohio. The differences -- more old people, fewer black people, more Hispanics -- mostly cut in Clinton's favor, with only the larger number of college graduates helping Obama. The bad news for Obama, basically, is that he needs to fight a big, protracted battle in a state that's very demographically unfavorable to him.

The good news for Obama is that given how Clinton-friendly the state and, and the fact that Clinton can't overtake him in the delegate lead anyway, if he does manage to beat her here she'll have no excuses left to stay in the race.

Comments

Okay, so PENNSYLVANIA is the Alamo. And this time we really mean it....

Posted by Robert Powell | March 5, 2008 10:28 AM

It's also a closed primary, which cuts against him. But one intangible is that Pennsylvania isn't quite as hard hit by economic issues.

Posted by Dark Heart | March 5, 2008 10:33 AM

Is that the demographics for the entire population? Since it is a closed primary (the first one for the Dems?), the demographics of the Democratic registered voters would be more telling.

You would think that blacks will be a larger demographic in Democrats than Pennsy as a whole. Plus, older voters will probably be lower as many will be registered Republican.

Posted by Patrick | March 5, 2008 10:34 AM

Tax Returns???

Posted by eh? | March 5, 2008 10:36 AM

Who's right? Andrew Sullivan has a post today stating that PA has more African Americans and less Latinos than Ohio.

Posted by Mike | March 5, 2008 10:37 AM

I have the feeling that the PA white population is not so Ned Lamonty as CT, for example, which works against him.

Posted by bob h | March 5, 2008 10:38 AM

Even worse for Obama, Pennsylvania has a closed primary. If Obama doesn't change the dynamic he could lose by 15 points. But fear not, I'm here to help. He needs to

1. move left on the economy by scrapping his crappy subprime plan and replacing it with one to the left of Clinton's, lead the rhetorical battle against the Columbian free trade agreement, jobs, jobs, jobs.

2. Run against both St; John and Hillary on the war. Run ads that morph the their faces. Obama should stress his plan to get out, not just his vote against the war.

Posted by David Mizner | March 5, 2008 10:39 AM

The impetus is on Obama to have to do what it takes to win the state, rather than reacting late to Clinton's moves. He has to win where it's difficult for him to win.

Posted by El Cid | March 5, 2008 10:39 AM

Look, here's the deal: If the Dem party does not want to disintegrate into civil war, they've got to have a candidate with a clear margin of elected delegates by the time of the convention. Neither side's supporters will accept the result otherwise. And the only way you're going to get that is to re-run Michigan and Florida.

Obama will have some legitimate complaint that this is changing the rules that were agreed upon. But neither side can secure the required number of delegates to win outright, so SOMETHING has to resolve the outcome, and what could fairer than making sure all voters are considered.

This will likely cause Clinton to win the nomination, and may cause moderates (including, possibly, me) to vote for McCain. But it seems the only way to generate a nomination outcome that will avoid civil war and preserve the appearance of Democratic fairness.

Posted by jbd | March 5, 2008 10:39 AM

Unless I am mistaken, you can register new voters in PA until 30 days before the election.

This gives the Obama campaign a huge advantage they have not had since Iowa and New Hampshire.

There are tons of colleges and universities in the state, and their students will be on campus on April 22.

With the time, money and political savvy we saw on display in Iowa, I think he can do very well in PA, despite the demographic advantages for Clinton.

Posted by DSG | March 5, 2008 10:41 AM

Clinton only got away with going negative because there was a foreseeable end that could plausibly justify it -- winning Texas and Ohio. She didn't get the delegates to justify doing it again.

Over the last two weeks, Obama made up tremendous ground in both states. He can do it again, since he has more time and more money to compete in Pennsylvania, and Clinton doesn't have the ability to go negative again without incurring a serious backlash. Anyway, PA won't close the delegate gap. It'll be close for the reasons I just mentioned, but the rest of the states are all super pro-Obama. Even with Ohio going her way, Obama will be net plus on the week once Wyoming caucuses.

She shows disturbing signs of believing her own spin, which serves her ill. It's not like these voters dislike Obama or won't vote for him. They just have prefered Clinton. But not if Clinton can't give a reasoned account why she's still in the race or what the upside is of voting for her. Tearing down Obama is not going to be enough.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 10:42 AM

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that while there are 18 days left to register new voters in PA, at least one of those weeks in going to be spring break on most college campuses.

D'Oh!

Posted by DSG | March 5, 2008 10:45 AM

I seem to remember Mississippi and Wyoming being up next. If I recall, there is a lot of blacks in Mississippi. And originally being from Wyoming, I'm just going to put it out there that Clinton is in for a loss there that is close to Idahoan proportions.

Posted by flounder | March 5, 2008 10:46 AM

On the list of things cutting in Clinton's favor in PA, isn't the Governor also a big Clinton backer?

Posted by Ryan | March 5, 2008 10:49 AM

I wonder how many democratic voters there are in PA outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Obama should absolutely destroy in Philadelphia -- the city is almost entirely made up of African Americans and white professionals/hipster types. Pittsburgh is less certain for him. I also don't think the electorate is as racially polarized as in Ohio, so he stands to maybe regain the white male vote.

If he wins Pennsylvania, then he'll be in good shape -- she'll drop out and it will be a clean win for him, rather than a win that feels like an artifact of the delegate apportioning rules. If, on the other hand, she wins by 8 or so, but fails to make up any real ground in the pledged delegates, then we're all in for a wild and terrible ride.

Posted by pjs | March 5, 2008 10:49 AM

How about the fact that I have been favoring Barack Obama even though I find Hillary Clinton's economic plans far superior from health care and Social Security to mortgage assistance? Obama is my candidate because of foreign affairs, but he needs more.

There is the idiot Austan Goolsbee, in addition.

Posted by Jennifer | March 5, 2008 10:53 AM

Obama also has money to his advantage, and time to campaign which always helped him in the past. It will be rough terrain for him.

But it seems there was some other demographically unfavorable state he won, not Idaho, but something like that. I forget. So long ago. One of those states in the middle of the country that he always wins. You know, the ones that don't count for anything.

Clinton has done very well in recent days and won the past week, but I think we're jumping the gun, overreacting to a few points gained in polls. Or a deceleration of Obama's gains in Texas. Plus the delegate count does not favor her.

Perhaps Clinton majored not in math, but in undemocratic miracles? I'm sure that's a department at Wellesley.

Posted by Jimmy | March 5, 2008 10:54 AM

My personal experience in PA is heavy on the bigotry especially in the countryside. I predict a huge win for Hillary. (God it's going to be hard to vote that first name much less put a sign out).

Posted by chuckchuck | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM

On the list of things cutting in Clinton's favor in PA, isn't the Governor also a big Clinton backer?

But Rendell is not a particularly popular governor. Mind you, he's not unpopular, either, but I don't see his endorsement being worth all that much either way, at least relative to a dozen other factors. He does command a reasonably formidable machine, but of course Obama's main talent is organization, so Hillary's best hope here is probably mere parity, if that.

Posted by ERM | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Yup, pjs nailed it. Not much more to say.

This is going to be an awful long 7 weeks...

Posted by dan k | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM

More Hispanics, a lot blue-collars whites in tougher economic straits. I'm not a big believer in the power of endorsements, but Richardson's and Edwards' might work for one or the other.

Posted by Jim | March 5, 2008 11:01 AM

Rendell has coattails in his mind. The whole Southeast is probably going to be pro-Obama, and the rest of the state more or less backs Eddie but won't follow him on something as big as this. It's also an anti-incumbent state. If Obama gets local and exploits the pay raise issue, it's good. Draw an analogy between the old PA legislature and his ethics reform bills. Also, Obama's been anti-casino gambling, historically, while Clinton is pro, and that's a big debate that Rendell has handled arrogantly and made enemies on.

Yo, it's not Goolsbee's fault that some Tory Canadians go in the diplo corps without knowing the ins and outs of memo writing.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 11:03 AM

Yes, getting new voters on the rolls in time for the primary could be crucial. Inds and Repubs can also switch sides until the 24th in PA. I hope the campaign gets focused on this in a hurry. This could also come into play in other upcoming states (IN, NC, etc).

http://www.rockthevote.com/2008-presidential-primary-caucus-calendar.php

Posted by zgbethie | March 5, 2008 11:04 AM

Will it be hard for Richardson and, to a lesser degree, Edwards to remain on the fence for six weeks? It seems that way to me.

Posted by Question | March 5, 2008 11:11 AM

David B. - Do you think it makes a difference that Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter supports Obama?

Posted by phillycat | March 5, 2008 11:14 AM

So, the dem primary in Pennsylvania will likely be:

70% white
23% black
7% hispanic

Likely: 39% white women, 31% white men, 13% black women, 10% black men, 4% hispanic women, 3% hispanic men.

Math from this link:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4328

Obama= .39*.37 + .31*.49 + .81*.13 + .86*.1 + .04*.3 + .03*.4=51%

If my estimates are correct, or close to correct, and even giving it a big MoE, it seems like Pennsylvania will be close enough to a tie that this race is effectively over.

Posted by Joel W | March 5, 2008 11:14 AM

if he does manage to beat her here she'll have no excuses left to stay in the race

My God, Mr. Yglesias, have you even been paying attention?

Posted by TooManyDans | March 5, 2008 11:15 AM

It's all about mountains: the Appalachians tend to vote for Clinton, while the Rockies favor Obama.

Who has the mayor of Philadelphia endorsed? That will matter a lot more than Rendell's endorsement.

Posted by lampwick | March 5, 2008 11:15 AM

They call it Pennsyltucky for a reason folks/

Posted by Sharon | March 5, 2008 11:16 AM

Who has the mayor of Philadelphia endorsed?

Nutter endorsed Clinton.

Posted by David Mizner | March 5, 2008 11:21 AM

Although Philly has a very large African-American population, which should favor Obama, big players in the African-American political leadership have lined up behind Clinton, from the still-honeymooning mayor Michael Nutter (an African-American who's very popular white well-educated whites because he's a "reformer") to the head of the Philly NAACP, Jerry Mondesire.

The one big, African-American name I've seen endorsing Obama is Rep. Chaka Fattah, who has his own political machine, which has always been thought of as strong and effective but which really sucked in the recent mayoral primary, in which Fattah, one of the early favorites, got absolutely torched.

Clinton also has suburban support from north of Philly (Rep. Allyson Schwartz) and Southwest of Philly (Rep. Joe Sestak). These districts are ground zero of the R-to-D shift that's been happening in Pennsylvania over the last decade or so.

Here is a rundown of the lay of the land from the Philadelphia Daily News last week.

Posted by Pesto | March 5, 2008 11:22 AM

For real, toomanyDans, at this point, I don't know what it would take for Yglesias to wake up.

She will NOT drop out! Will NOT!

Assume she loses PA. She will continue on, sue for a rematch in MI, FL, and keep on chugging.

It boggles the mind how liberal bloggers are living in some dream world where Hillary drops out of the race. There is no reason for her to do it, this is power we are talking about, not some blog post. Money, power, legacy is at stake - the Clintons are walking living history - Hillary could be the first female prez. Matt still thinks that anemic delegate totals tipping slightly one way or the other will matter. What a poltroon!

Posted by chump | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM

@lampwick

Mayor Nutter supports Clinton - Obama backed his competitor in the recent election. He held an "Election Night Results Watching Party" last night with invites sent out by the Clinton campaign.

Posted by phillycat | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM

Philadelphia's mayor has endorsed Hilary (although the rumor is he did so reluctantly and at the behest of Rendell). That really doesn't mean anything, though. He has been in office for only two months and, while he is very well liked, he hardly commands a machine. Indeed, he won as the explicitly anti-machine candidate. Philly is going to go huge for Obama.

Posted by pjs | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM

wonder how many democratic voters there are in PA outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Obama should absolutely destroy in Philadelphia -- the city is almost entirely made up of African Americans and white professionals/hipster types. Pittsburgh is less certain for him. I also don't think the electorate is as racially polarized as in Ohio, so he stands to maybe regain the white male vote.

Philadelphia went 80.4% for Kerry in 2004; Allegheny County where Pittsburgh is went 57.2% for Kerry. All the rural counties went for Bush. Kerry did quite well in the Philadelphia suburbs, the greater Pittsburgh area (Fayette County), and the Erie area. In the Pennsylvania heartland he didn't do well at all.

Philadelphia in 2000 was 45.0% white and 43.2% African American. There is a very large European ethnic population -- i.e. South Philly is predominantly Italian American.

Personally I will be quite surprised if Obama does better in Pennsylvania than he did in Ohio.

Posted by gordonminor | March 5, 2008 11:24 AM

If I had been Barack Obama, although I never would have had Goolsbee on my campaign, I sure as hell would have gotten him to resign within hours of that news story, and if he was half a decent guy he would have volunteered -- even if he 100% thought he had done absolutely nothing wrong.

Idiot.

Posted by El Cid | March 5, 2008 11:24 AM

Well I called OH and TX correctly, for Hillary yesterday.

I call PA for her now, too.

I also say she gets the nomination.

There you are. I haven't been wrong yet.

Posted by chump | March 5, 2008 11:26 AM

A few points on Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia which, like most cities, has a history of voting on racial lines, just elected a black mayor who was more popular among white voters than black. (And the candidate who came in second was a white guy who was surprisingly popular among black voters). This would seem to be a plus for Obama, except that Nutter is supporting Clinton.

Rendell recently made news by announcing that voters in the middle of the state are to bigoted to vote for Obama. That remark probably is good news for Obama because the reaction to it seems to have quieted Rendell a bit, and it could trigger a backlash among the few democrats in the middle of the state.

One odd difference between Ohio and Pennsylvania (from my perspective of having lived in both but being native to neither) Ohio's love Ohio. They love the whole state, even the parts that would seem to have nothing in common with the parts that they live in. Ohio is a midwestern state and proud of it.

Pennsylvanians tend to associate with their part of the state and disassociate themselves from the rest of the state. Philadelphia does not have even a friendly rivalry with Pittsburg. It looks to New York instead. Pittsburg looks towards Cleveland. And the middle of the state does not want anything to do with either of the big cities. Maybe it is the fact that (small Eastern) mountains separate these regions while Ohio is flat, but there seems to be less interplay.

This point may matter for whether one thinks of Pennsylvania as a state with a moderate black population of the sort that favors Clinton, or as divided into three states, two with large black populations and one with almost no black population, both scenarios that have favored Obama. Or it may amount to nothing but irrelevant state self-identity.

Posted by Lon | March 5, 2008 11:28 AM

Right, Goolsbee should have been reprimanded instantly "He does not speak for the campaign!" and forced to resign. I can't believe he's still going to be hanging around now after his huge gaffe made Ohio a Clinton blowout.

Posted by Rob | March 5, 2008 11:30 AM

I think Nutter's endorsement of Hillary is sort of personal to him. It's sort of more confusing than anything else. Nutter also doesn't seem interested in pulling sketchy stuff unlike some local pols, so there's no material advantage, and I'm not sure active campaigning on his part is going to make much of a difference. Clinton also can't disparage the Teddy endorsement and then talk up Rendell and Nutter. Pittsburgh's prepubescent mayor endorsed Obama. The Philly suburbs, which I know best, I see going for Obama. Affluent, trending younger in age the last few years. Moving left in large part because of the war. And here one endorsment that could matter a lot is Patrick Murphy from the 8th (South and Central Bucks, East Montco, Norfeast Philly).

I just hope to God Milton Street doesn't endorse Obama. You think having to answer for Farrakahn is bad.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 11:33 AM

Goolsbee screwed up, but he's not some political hack-- he's a part of the campaign because of his brilliance as an economist, I assume (I can't vouch for that brilliance personally, having zero background in economics). The campaign was more responsible for the handling of that situation than he was, I think.

Didn't Carville say that PA is Philadelphia in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama in the middle?

I think the voter registration deadline in PA is 3/24-- and that includes switching from R or I to D. The Obama ground-game has some work to do.

Posted by PJ | March 5, 2008 11:38 AM

The good news for Obama is that given how Clinton-friendly the state and, and the fact that Clinton can't overtake him in the delegate lead anyway, if he does manage to beat her here she'll have no excuses left to stay in the race.

I don't understand this line of argument. Let's say she wins PA. She'll have won NY, NJ, TX, OH, PA, CA. Let's assume they finish the race with Obama leading by 100 pledged delegates, assuming 1700 to 1600. In that circumstance, I just don't see how anyone could really be upset over superdelegates falling in line behind her. In fact, this scenario seems to be precisely the reason why superdelegates were created in the first place: To basically correct for what party leaders' see as a fairly small (6-7 percent difference) in delegate counts, and to choose the candidate who at the time of the convention appears to be best equipped to defeat the Republican.

That's especially the case in this race where Obama's gains were made in states that voted before Rezko went to trial, for instance, and before he was fully vetted.

I think there's been a lot of momentum built up on liberal blogs the last three weeks in the expectation that Obama would win. But, in fact, he has suffered a major setback. It's time for Democrats to reconcile themselves to the fact that Clinton is likely to be the nominee.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 5, 2008 11:41 AM

I think there are some intangible factors that make PA more favorable to Obama than OH. Southeastern PA has much more in common, culturally and demographically, with Maryland than Ohio.

That said, I can't see Obama winning PA without going negative. It's the worst scenario imaginable for the Democratic Party right now, but Hillary Clinton brought this on herself. Obama needs to go after the sheer self-destructive vacuity of her "experience" talking points, which are little more than free air time for the McCain campaign. He needs to remind voters that attempts to use phony, non-existent scandals to question his ethics ring a bit hollow, when coming from Hillary Clinton.

He also needs to make a clear, unambiguous, and convincing rebuttal to the "Muslim" smear, because it's killing him with working class white voters.

I think he also needs to dispel the false impression that Clinton's economic package is significantly more progressive than his. This claim seems to be conventional wisdom now, but there's no meat to it. There's a strong economic policy argument to be made for forcing individuals to buy private health insurance, but it's not exactly what liberal voters have in mind when they say they want universal health care.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | March 5, 2008 11:43 AM

The white Philly voters who love Nutter because he is a reformer are going to love Obama for the same reason. The Philly black vote will go for Obama 9 to 1. White working-class ethnics will probably go to Clinton, but not in the same numbers as the other groups will go for Obama, and they have become a smaller and smaller share of the city population of late. The Philly suburbs should also go to Obama, although I worry some about the female vote.

Anyone have any real insight into Pittsburgh?

Posted by pjs | March 5, 2008 11:43 AM

What the heck does the big state point even mean? Can somebody explain it to me?

And can't Obama just say "Why do I continuously outpoll McCain, and Sen. Clinton doesn't?" to the super-elegates. I really don't get this line of argument that Joe Strummer is making.

Posted by Joel W | March 5, 2008 11:43 AM

Goolsbee is a brilliant man, but some here think he hates America, so they want him gone.

Posted by ZednCu | March 5, 2008 11:44 AM

I wonder how many democratic voters there are in PA outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Obama should absolutely destroy in Philadelphia -- the city is almost entirely made up of African Americans and white professionals/hipster types. Pittsburgh is less certain for him. I also don't think the electorate is as racially polarized as in Ohio, so he stands to maybe regain the white male vote.

Have you been to Philly? There's a lot of white working class types in South Philly and the Northeast. And that 20% that voted for Bush? At least half of them are probably registered as Democrats, because there's no point being a registered Republican in Pennsylvania. All that being said, Obama should win Philadelphia easily, and pick up significant number of delegates from Bob Brady and Chaka Fattah's districts.

There are actually a fair number of Democrats in the rest of the state. In addition to Pittsburgh, and Philly and its suburbs, Kerry won in the Lehigh Valley (Allentown and Bethlehem), in the Wyoming Valley (Scranton and Wilkes-Barre), in Erie, and in some of the western parts of the state around Pittsburgh. Harrisburg (with a significant African-American population), State College (with all the Penn State students), and Reading (which has, apparently, a lot of Hispanics) also have significant Democratic blocs.

And the Republican parts of the state will of course have some Democrats - Lancaster and York in east Central PA are very very Republican, but there's a lot of people there, for instance.

Anyway, my sense is that Obama will do well in Philly and its suburbs, in Harrisburg and State College, and in the city of Pittsburgh. Clinton will do well in the Pittsburgh suburbs and the rest of the state. How that ultimately plays out, I'm not sure. Certainly I'd say Clinton would have the edge.

Posted by John | March 5, 2008 11:49 AM

What the heck does the big state point even mean? Can somebody explain it to me?

And can't Obama just say "Why do I continuously outpoll McCain, and Sen. Clinton doesn't?" to the super-elegates. I really don't get this line of argument that Joe Strummer is making.

I'm not saying that she necessarily has to be the nominee. I'm saying that where the delegate count is close (under 10 percent), she has very reasonable argument to make that she should be the nominee. And that seems to me the whole point of superdelegates: to make a decision late in process about who at that point is the most viable candidate.

You make a good counter argument, which is the one Obama folks would be making and would be their strongest argument. That, of course, depends on him remaining popular with respect to McCain. I think the pattern in Ohio/Texas actually was that at the very end of the campaign, the negative attacks on Obama hurt him and Clinton reversed her slide and maybe picked up some ground.

So if enthusiasm for him is not sustained and she's right that he's not viable after the vetting process, then I think your argument is less good.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM

the city is almost entirely made up of African Americans and white professionals/hipster types

Yeah, except for all the Italians in South Philly, the Puerto Ricans in Kensington, and the Irish and Russians in the Northeast.

Obama's obviously going to loose Pennsyltucky (the middle part of the state). He shouldn't even bother there.

Philadelphia proper is his, he has to win over a lot of white suburbs and make big inroads in the rust-belty northeast part of the state (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, Easton, etc.) and win over white ethnic men in greater Pittsburgh.

Basically, he needs to get those white downscale men. He's gonna be eating a lot of cheesesteaks in Philly and a lot of pierogis in Da 'Burgh.

One thing to remember is that Pennsylvania's a pretty big anti-war state. John Murtha's a Western PA Dem, and we've also got Patrick Murphy here in Philly, the only Iraq War vet in Congress. I'm pretty sure Murphy's an Obama backer, don't know about Murtha--anyone?

I also think Obama should try to flip Mayor Nutter to his side, just to further shore up Philly.

Posted by Philly | March 5, 2008 11:55 AM

One comment in re: Penn hispanics (or at least SE Penn hispanics) - they're mostly (though not solely) Puerto Ricans (or of Puerto Rican origin) who went to the Redding, Lancaster or LVA to work when there were lots of industries there.

Puerto Ricans (and all other Caribbean latins) are VERY different culturally from Mexicans.

I can't prove it, but I would think that should work in Obama's favor....

Posted by JRVJ | March 5, 2008 12:02 PM

PA is 54 percent Catholic.

PA is 5 percent Jewish.

Catholics and Jews are solidly in Hillary's corner.

I project Hillary winning PA with 61 percent of the primary vote.

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 5, 2008 12:03 PM

Anyone who thinks the real Joe Strummer would support Hillary is engaged in self-bafflement, or is unfamiliar with the Clash.

Sueprdelegates should care about the party, and therefore not reward her really shameful tactics. Saying "McCain and I are experienced" is not kosher. Also, unless you are a hack or stone ignorant, Rezko's trial has shit to do with Obama. It's getting clear that the Clinton idea of being vetted is that it only occurs if they get the answer thy want. Discovering that Obama got no gain from Rezko and did him no favors is not "vetting" to Clinton because she can't use it to bring Obama down to her level.

Obama's mobilization of new voters is about leading past the election. Clinton hasn't thought that far ahead, or is willing to sacrifice governing in exchange for winning. This is why liberals keep getting screwed.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 12:04 PM

I have a slightly queasy feeling we're going to be revisiting the whole Cheez Whiz controversy any day now.

Posted by live | March 5, 2008 12:05 PM

I've no personal knowledge of Pittsburgh but can't help but wonder if Obama's longtime experience with steelworkers could help. In the long haul to PA, I'd love to see Obama get down and dirty among the blue-collar workers. When he does, it works. The whole reason he came to Chicago 20-odd years ago was the mill closures.

I also hate the idea of going negative but he does have to get seriously tough on HRC. We can't count on the media to press the tax return/Clinton Foundation donor issue, not to mention the release of her First Lady schedules. This weekend Wolfson stated they'd be released at the end of this month. Now, I seriously doubt it. He also stated that the tax returns would be released around 4/15. My guess? 4/23.

Should experience be continually drummed, Obama needs to risk looking overly cocky and run a counter-red-phone ad. Something that points out that if you believe a candidate with only two years' experience in Congress yet great oratory skills is not ready for the Presidency, you just cast a vote against Abraham Lincoln.

What I hear no one discussing is the power of the caucus. Amongst all the talk about their limitations, what they DO prove is enthusiasm for a candidate. If HRC's base was truly motivated, they'd be showing up and fighting for her.

Posted by Judy | March 5, 2008 12:05 PM

I think one big difference between Pennsylvania and Ohio is that Philadelphia dominates Pennsylvania in a way no one city dominates Ohio. Demographically, Philly ought to be congenial to Obama, in the same way he ended up winning Columbus pretty easily (Philly has more "ethnics" than Columbus, but a lot more blacks too).

But realistically, he's probably going to have to concentrate on limiting the damage. Hopefully, he now realizes what anyone who follows American politics should have learned a long time ago: negative campaigning works.

Posted by ChuckE | March 5, 2008 12:07 PM

Obama has only been really competitive in states where blacks constitute over 25 percent of the population, or states known to buck national trends by being to the left of the Democratic center.

PA is only 10 percent black. Obama will lose, and lose badly.

Posted by Ringo Meza | March 5, 2008 12:09 PM

I have a slightly queasy feeling we're going to be revisiting the whole Cheez Whiz controversy any day now.

Heh. I'll vote for the first candidate who goes to Geno's Steaks and asks, "What's English for 'provolone'?"

Posted by Hogan | March 5, 2008 12:16 PM

"Obama needs to risk looking overly cocky and run a counter-red-phone ad."

He ran one in Texas. Unlike Hillary's which for 25 seconds looked like an ADT ad, he talked about things he did in oposing the war and working with Lugar on loose Russian nukes. It's not cocky. Obama's record is in fact quite strong.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 12:16 PM

The NYT reports that Hillary is saying her campaign has "turned a corner."

I just thought that was amusing in light of uses of that phrase within recent memory, and what the cash value of it turned out to be.

(No prediction implied.)

Posted by hello | March 5, 2008 12:17 PM

That's especially the case in this race where Obama's gains were made in states that voted before Rezko went to trial, for instance, and before he was fully vetted.

I am really not buying this. Obama may not have been 'vetted', but Clinton had the name recognition going into this primary, so I don't see how she can complain about him building an early lead.

For that matter, Obama may cancel Clinton's Tuesday delegate gains in Wyoming and Miss. And unless Clinton really wins big in Penn (bigger than in Ohio) he could actually build his delegate lead over the course of the remainder of the primary. If that happens Obama is looking at a 150+ delegate lead, and I'm pretty sure this thing is over. Clinton is not going to get a 375-225 super advantage. If Clinton does slightly better over the coming months and closes the delegate lead to 110-125 delegates and manages to pull out the nomination, I think that would destroy the Dem party for a couple of election cycles. And that outcome scares me. If Clinton kicks Obama's ass for the next few months and closes that delegate lead to less than 100 and pulls it out, there will be a lot of bitter Obama supporters, but I won't be too upset about the result. But as long as Obama can show he can continue to campaign effectively, that shouldn't happen.

Posted by mpowell | March 5, 2008 12:18 PM

Pennsylvanians are, among other things, quite old. That is a pretty decent predictor of a Clinton victory here, though on what scale I can't say.

Posted by Rich | March 5, 2008 12:25 PM

I must say the media is making it pretty difficult for us unwashed masses to actually discover the racial demographics of the votes in Ohio and Texas, but as near as I can estimate, Obama lost the non-black vote by about 25 points in Texas and 30 points in Ohio. Not so good.

In fact, if we restrict ourselves to Democrats only---filtering out the Bloombergian Obamabots who crossed party lines to vote for their second-best choice since the Great Michael Himself wasn't on the ballot---I think the margins might have been closer to 30 and (maybe) 40 points respectively.

Now Texas is solidly Republican, so it really isn't that important in November, but Ohio is arguably America's most important swing state. I'd be the first to admit that Hillary is a pretty unappetizing candidate, but what does it say about Saint Barack if he massively outspent her in Ohio, had lots of important endorsements, but still lost the Democratic non-black vote to her by maybe 40(!) points?

As I indicated, my democraphic estimates are extremely crude, so anyone who wants to humiliate me by digging up better data and producing much more accurate estimates is welcome to do so...

Based on pure demographics and the closed Democratic primary, I think Hillary could easily carry PA by 15 points, giving her a huge boost for the nomination...

Posted by RKU | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM

Obama's obviously going to loose Pennsyltucky (the middle part of the state). He shouldn't even bother there.

Philadelphia proper is his, he has to win over a lot of white suburbs and make big inroads in the rust-belty northeast part of the state (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, Easton, etc.) and win over white ethnic men in greater Pittsburgh.

He should certainly bother with Pennsyltucky, because he's got to minimize the damage there - because of congressional district delegates, making sure you do reasonably well throughout the state is as important as running up big totals in the favorable parts. He needs to at least prevent Clinton from getting three delegates in the four delegate districts there, and the like.

Posted by John | March 5, 2008 12:40 PM

Why are we assuming the burden's on Obama? After Clinton didn't do her job last night, and once Mississippi and Wyoming are counted, she has to win PA by about 50 points to have a shot at the nom.

How can Clinton win Pennsylvania by 2:1 is the issue. Here is how: Obama promises to make T. Milton Street his vice president. Short of that, Pennsylvania does not affect the outcome of the race. 40 states have voted. It's over.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 12:49 PM

I am really not buying this. Obama may not have been 'vetted', but Clinton had the name recognition going into this primary, so I don't see how she can complain about him building an early lead.

You're not buying it in the sense that you just aren't convinced? Or you're not buying it in the sense that you don't even recognize that as a plausible argument on which Clinton could get the nomination.

I personally might not be convinced that the above would be a sound reason on which to reject Obama who at that point would still have something like a 100 to 150 delegate lead. But I could perfectly understand why others - namely superdelegates - would be justified in picking Clinton (even though she'd be losing in the pledged delegate count by 100 - 150 - as the party's nominee.

After all, that's why the Democratic Party has superdelegates.

That said, I do think the superdelegate function should go away. But am not that exercised by the whole thing.

Also, as an old white male, Joe Strummer might have very well supported Clinton. But we'll never know, will we.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 5, 2008 1:02 PM

I was born and bred in the Philly suburbs and I have family in the NE and SW parts of the state.

There are three main democratic strongholds in the state (1) Greater Philly, (2) Greater Pittsburgh, and (3) NE Pennsylvania.

Greater Philly favors Obama. He'll be able to pick up the black vote in the city as well as his other core of up-scale, culturally liberal voters in the suburbs. On the other hand, Hillary will be able to cut into his margin in the heavily Catholic working-class parts of the region. Obama will need to rack up a huge lead in SE PA to carry the state.

NE Pennsylvania is ideal for Hillary. It is older, heavily Catholic, and has a large number of culturally conservative working-class Dems. (There's a reason why anti-abortion Dems carry the state). If that wasn't enough, Hillary's father was from Scranton.

Greater Pittsburgh is also likely favor Hillary, since it is more similar to rust-belt Ohio than it is to Philly. Finally, the Dems that remain in the many small towns of Western Pennsylvania are also going to be disproportionately older.

Finally, everyone loves to bash Rendell for getting off message, but he is extremely popular among the Democratic half of the state. He was without question the best mayor Philadelphia had in decades, and he is loved in the Philly 'burbs even more than the city itself for turning the city around.

If Obama can somehow pull off a victory in PA, he certainly deserves the nomination, but he has his work cut out for him.

And while I'd love for the Dems to have a ticket already, I'm glad that the Keystone State is finally getting the attention it deserves.

Posted by mhp | March 5, 2008 1:03 PM

One other quick note that makes Philly more complicated for Obama -- the big, municipal employees' union is AFSCME, which has of course endorsed Clinton. And the two big, blue collar locals (DC 33 and 1199C) have huge African-American memberships and are led by African-American presidents. 1199C in particular still has pretty significant political clout.

The other big Philly city union is the AFT, another Clinton endorser, which also has a substantial African-American membership.

Posted by Pesto | March 5, 2008 1:24 PM

Strummer'd only support Clinton if Mick Jones supported Obama. Which probably would happen. I stand corrected.

Posted by David B. | March 5, 2008 1:24 PM

Obama has only been really competitive in states where blacks constitute over 25 percent of the population, or states known to buck national trends by being to the left of the Democratic center.

Like Idaho? Or Kansas? Or do those not count because they are caucuses? I was under the impression that the trend showed Obama did well in states that either had few blacks or many.

Interestingly enough, I think Obama stands a much better chance of Clinton of carrying Pennsylvania in the fall, even though he is unlikely to win in April

There's a lot of white working class types in South Philly and the Northeast. And that 20% that voted for Bush? At least half of them are probably registered as Democrats, because there's no point being a registered Republican in Pennsylvania.

There's plenty of reasons to be a registered Republican in Pennsylvania (they control the state house most of the time, and the current speaker of the state legislature is a Republican despite a Democratic majority). If you mean "there's no point in being a registered Republican in Philadelphia," there's always the opportunity to get a patronage job at the Parking Authority.

Posted by MG | March 5, 2008 1:49 PM

One of life's interesting questions is WHO exactly make up the Democratic and Republican Committees who control our voting choices in this "Democracy". In some respects, it like asking who is the senior cadre in Al Qaeda.

The answer for Democrats is here:
http://www.democratictalkradio.com/pdf/DNCRoster041108.pdf

Note that Philly has two DNC reps -- one of whom is Afro-American Carol Ann Campbell. MS Campbell , who is a superdelegate , decided to endorse Obama a few weeks ago.

A tiny peek into Philly politics is given in this local 2006 article about Ms Campbell:
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2006-09-21/cover.shtml

Posted by Don Williams | March 5, 2008 1:52 PM

the big, municipal employees' union is AFSCME, which has of course endorsed Clinton. And the two big, blue collar locals (DC 33 and 1199C) have huge African-American memberships and are led by African-American presidents. 1199C in particular still has pretty significant political clout.

Well, national AFSCME endorsed Clinton, and DC 33 has about 12,000 members, but that doesn't mean you can slot in 12,000 votes for Clinton on that basis. The value of union endorsements is more for the GOTV operation than for the votes of the members, and neither DC 33 nor 1199C (nor DC 47, of which I'm a member) does as much of that as, say, SEIU.

Posted by Hogan | March 5, 2008 2:14 PM

Hogan,

Absolutely, the AFSCME endorsement certainly doesn't mean that Clinton will just get the votes of Philly city workers, not by a long shot. And given the generally crappy relations between Henry Nicholas and Gerry McEntee, I'd be sorta surprised if 1199C spent tons of resources on this, unless Henry also really favors Hillary strongly. DC 33 hasn't made its name as a publicly active political union, either, and they've got their own contract coming up this summer (as you do, too!).

Still, these are powerful organizations which are overwhelmingly African-American, and they're not going to be spending any resources to help Obama. Despite the demographics, Philly might be a hard slog for him.

Posted by Pesto | March 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Obama has won African Americans with 85% or so of the vote just about everywhere. That a couple of major unions haven't endorsed him seems irrelevant to the pretty strong demographic facts here. The question is whether Obama gets +4 delegates out of Philly or +8, not whether he wins it. The organizational issues do suggest that the lower range may be more likely, though.

Posted by John | March 5, 2008 3:02 PM

North Carolina has 134 delegates. PA 188.
Obama has to fight to win PA, but he also has to prepare for May because far more delegates will be at stake in May than in April.

If Obama wins WY and MS 55-45, Hillary could win PA in a 60-40 rout but that would only net her a 20 delegate gain from today. Current AP projections show that yesterday netted Clinton a 12 delegate gain.

I agree that Obama focusing on the math in public isn't a winning strategy. But the math remains daunting, PA is not the end all be all, and Obama should not let Clinton and the media frame it as such just because it is next. At this point, there is no decisive moment to be.

Posted by ScottS | March 5, 2008 4:00 PM

I have a strong feeling that if Clinton continues to tear down Obama through lies and insunuations, and she manages to win the nomination, sne will lose very badly because her lies and negative/evil insunuations will cause significant number of democrats toeither stay at home in November or vote republican.

Mr. Barack Obama is actually stronger in national security, economy, healthcare, and some of the other issues than either Hillary or McCain. America is at a stage in her life that she needs overhaul. The agent of that overhaul is Obama for such a time as this. His middle name does not matter. He did not give himself the name. He loves everyone, including Israel. What people do not know is that Obama attends one of the strictest Christian denominations that commit very seriously to serving Jesus Christ. Church of Christ is STRICT! A weak Christian cannot attend such a denomination. It is seriously Pentecostal. It is also becoming very clear that Hillary can do or say anything to win while Obama, on the other hand, being a strong Christian, simply does not want to attack Hillary negatively, although he and everyone else knows how to do it. right now, Hillary is striving to mess up the chances of the democratic party in the general election.

NOW Catch this: America cannot be resurrected into vitality and prosperity until significant number of her citizens become energized by the inspiration, wakening, and motivating spirit that God has embedded in Obama for the benefit of America AT THIS TIME. When people are aroused and awake again, then they can work hard and participate together toward believing and making everything work toward strengthening the economy, family, political system, national security, and building healthy and trusting relationships within America and between America and the rest of the world. That's NATIONAL SECURITY! THAT'S ECONOMIC STRENGTH! THAT'S PEOPLE TRUSTING AND BELIEVING IN AMERICA AGAIN! I am a Professof of Business Administration and strategic management for a long time. Obama is what America needs at this time. World leaders will actually respect him much more than others due to his humble spirit but also quiet inner strength! In fact, terrorists will think much-more than twice before they try to attack any American interests with Obama as President. they already have it in their heads that this man cannot play with them. Obama is more humble than Reagan, but he has a tough demeanor similar to Reagan (if not better) that outside world will fear and respect! He will not make many mistakes and he relatively will not waste resources as many American Presidents have done. He will appropriate resources wisely and monitor their use and who uses them, especially in relations to other nations. Many nations trick the United States into sending the dollars; but the dollars have usually been used to accomplish very little. Most dollars are wasted in highly corrupt foreign leaders who claim to be assisting their nations. Such leaders will find it difficult to try to play Obama. There is so much to write, but I will stop here! Feel free to get the Obama campaign to contact me. I will advise them on how to win the general election. Well, one more thing: I strongly advise the Obam campaign to run this ad in Texas. I am writing it for them right now---

"..... Shouldn't the President be the one, the only one that is capable of uniting people and solve problems without letting any problem turn into crises? The inspiration, my ability to relate to people instead of using intimidation or fight-posture, and my ability to manage or analyze contingencies and draw necessary conclusions and judgments define domestic and national security for America. Such qualification leads to getting problems solved without heading into crises that will bruise and drain America and wound our economy and every other thing! That's REAL security! That's the REAL experience you need! That's Barack Obama! We don't have to use force when we don't have to use force! If experience leads to consistently bad judgments, then what is that experience? You be the judge! Make me your President and let us deliver Change We Can Believe In. YES WE CAN!"

I wrote this ad based on my analysis of Obama. It is almost a perfect ad for him! Obama: go ahead and run this ad! God bless you, and God bless our America.

Posted by strongblood1 | March 6, 2008 12:06 AM

"He should certainly bother with Pennsyltucky, because he's got to minimize the damage there - because of congressional district delegates, making sure you do reasonably well throughout the state is as important as running up big totals in the favorable parts. He needs to at least prevent Clinton from getting three delegates in the four delegate districts there, and the like."

Indeed...such as PA-5, which includes State College but also a gigantic chunk of the northwestern and northcentral part of the state -- it is geographically the largest in the east. With State College presumably in the bag for him, with a little effort at picking up the surprising number of Ds in the other small, Iowa-like cities of the district (in my precinct in one of these in 2004, Bush carried by less than 2%), he could carry it. And there are others.

Posted by ERM | March 6, 2008 9:24 AM

The truth is Obama will probably downplay PA comes primary time because it's gonna suck for him. The Dem establishment, the majority blue collar workers, women, older population, conservative Democrats in a Closed Primary, are all heading Clinton, and Rendell will see to that. As for Goosbee, Obama is not gonna let him go because Obama knows jack about economics, and Goosbee is the architect for his economic agenda (like how Rumsfeld was to Bush on foreign policy). Besides, the cat is out of the bag, Obama can fire Goosbee, but he can't make people to forget what has been said. By the way, what else have not been said but are also political rhetorics by Obama.

Posted by California Love | March 6, 2008 4:31 PM

I just finished reading “How about a government that works?” in the March issue of AARP, which states that the most important issue to voters over 50 years old is government competence (a polite way of saying “incompetence?”) as a result of partisanship issues.

To put it bluntly, this country is on a countdown to disaster. We don’t have time to bicker over who is more experienced to answer the red phone at 3am when human lives continue to be placed at risk in an unjustifiable war, when families are crippled by unemployment, foreclosure, and health care costs, when elderly are duped out of their last dollar for over-priced prescriptions, and when all of us are being forced into greater debt to heat our homes. Our nation is deteriorating as Washington stands by, shrugs, and says “we can’t do anything because of partisan issues.” So what should we do? Add party loyalty to the garbage pile that includes racism, gender inequality, and all the other formats that divide us as a nation?

The truth is, Washington is incompetent because it lacks responsible leadership that can transcend party lines and focus with unified purpose on public policy issues. Washington is incompetent because no one has the charisma, courage, or foresight to effectively coordinate the attention of policymakers and to set priorities with diplomacy, morality, transparency, and with highest regard for the wellbeing of its citizens. Washington is counter-productive because, among other things, it wastes precious resources on war, wire tapping, a self-defeating bureaucracy, a bloated defense system, spy satellites, and photos of avalanches on Mars. Washington would like us to think that they are doing everything they can to protect the American people, but the truth is that Washington is stuck is its own gridlock of disarray and hopelessness, and needs a trustworthy leader with vision and purposefulness to get us back on track, and back in balance as a nation.

Barack Obama offers us his extraordinary ability as an inspiring leader, a swift analytical mind, a fresh sophisticated perspective on unification across all groups, and an astute moral and ethical legal and political background. It is time for a change, and there is only one chance for this to happen. Obama is the only person who can make it happen, and for that reason, he has my vote.

Posted by IntegrityAmerica | March 8, 2008 1:47 AM

I've been active in local politics in PA for about 10 years. Here's my view of the Dem primary.

Someone posted these numbers:

70% white
23% black
7% hispanic

I think that is the D registration breakdown, not some detailed analysis of the likely voters, but I'm not sure because I couldn't find it on the webpage cited. African Americans are 10.7% of the PA population. Democrats are 43% of total registered voters. Virtually 100% of AA's are registered D. Thus, they constitute 23% of the D registration.

I expect African Americans to have much, much higher turnout in this primary than whites, and relatively high turnout among young Hispanics. Obama owns both those groups in PA, despite the Philadelphia mayor's commitment to Clinton. I expect Rendell to pay some lip service to Clinton, but not to campaign too hard for her behind the scenes because he risks losing his most loyal constituency, the black population which gave him the governership and Philly mayor's seat before that. Even if he wanted to campaign hard for her, he can't change the landscape.

My estimate of black turnout as a percent of total D voters in this primary is 40%, maybe higher. Obama will get close to 100% of that. Add in younger Hispanics and white college students and you get around 50%. A few older white males (older than college students I mean) and I can see an Obama upset win in PA.

Hillary won in NY despite the racial makeup of that state because it's her home state (technically) and she has a very well established campaign organization there.

Posted by Dan | March 11, 2008 5:57 AM

I have to correct one statistic in my comment. The African American population of PA was 10.7% in the 2000 census, but estimated to have grown to 11.2% in 2005.

And just to clarify, to get to AA turnout equaling 40% of total D turnout in the primary, I assumed 70% to 75% among blacks and 40% among all others. The 40% would be higher than many primaries, and I just don't know how excited voters will be to come out to vote for Hillary.

Posted by Dan | March 11, 2008 6:07 AM

I'd like to comment on some of the population numbers quoted by others. First, of the large Catholic population, there are substantial numbers of black Catholics in PA, and many of the white Catholics are Republicans, at least in the central and western parts of the state. I'm not saying the majority of white Catholics are R's, but that huge percentage is deceptive.

I'm from Pittsburgh and I'll tell you it is no longer "rust belt". Pittsburgh and surrounding areas have developed a significant amount of business activity in technology and the medical sectors. The steel industry half died years ago. I think the labor union vote out here will be split between Clinton and Obama.

I'm not saying that he'll crush her in PA, but I just dont see her having a crushing victory either. More likely the state will be very close, and it won't allow her to catch up with his lead in delegates.

Posted by Dan | March 11, 2008 6:28 AM