Pennsylvania as Hillary's big "firewall"

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

If anyone wants to dispute this go ahead but Hillary hacks like Phil and J. J. should be warned ahead of time I'm not listening to them.

3 delegate districts:

PA-9. It's a strong Hillary district, but margin doesn't matter in a 3 delegate one. 2-1 Hillary.

4 delegate districts:

PA-5, PA-10, PA-16, PA-17 and PA-19. PA-5 can only split, too much rural areas and college kids to go either way. I'll be generous to Hillary and give her 3-1 in PA-10, 16 should split, the black vote in Harrisburg, Reading and the more affluent areas make PA-17 a split and PA-19 probably splits due to the affluent parts of the outer York area (most of the working class whites are Republicans anyway). 11-9 Hillary.

5 delegate districts:

PA-3, PA-4, PA-11, PA-12, PA-15 and PA-18. Hillary probably wins all these, the only possibility otherwise is PA-15 if the college kids and yuppie professionals can outvote the blue collar people. But I'll be generous and assume that doesn't happen. 18-12 Hillary.

6 delegate districts:

PA-6. Can Obama break 58% here and gt 4 delegates? I won't rule it out but I'll be kind and assume it splits.

7 delegate districts:

PA-1, PA-7, PA-8, PA-13 and PA-14. Obama is basically guaranteed victory in PA-1 but the white vote is probably enough to keep it 4-3 though 5-2 isn't out of the range of possibility. The rest all go 4-3 for Obama except PA-14 which is still a possibility but I'm being kind to Hillary. 19-16 Obama.

9 delegate districts:

PA-2. As brutal for Hillary as it gets. Obama needs about 72% to get 7 delegates which in this district is probably more likely than not (especially since he also wins the white vote here too.) 7-2 Obama

That's 52 Hillary, 48 Obama. 55 at large delegates, I'll give Hillary a 10 point victory which I think is a little generous but oh well. That gives her 30 delegates, resulting in 82 Hillary, 73 Obama. A 9 delegate lead. Not exactly the world's best stronghold but go ahead and critique.

[Keystone Phil]

If anyone wants to dispute this go ahead but Hillary hacks like Phil and J. J. should be warned ahead of time I'm not listening to them.

Mature!

[Keystone Phil]

6 delegate districts:

PA-6. Can Obama break 58% here and gt 4 delegates?

No.

[Torie]

Ohio is a better firewall for Hillary than Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has more bourgoise Dems hanging around somewhere not too far from the City of Brotherly Love, than Ohio, where economic class still really matters, and those with the dough don't vote Dem. 

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Ohio is a better firewall for Hillary than Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has more bourgoise Dems hanging around somewhere not too far from the City of Brotherly Love, than Ohio, where economic class still really matters, and those with the dough don't vote Dem. 

We'll see. My initial projection in Ohio also gave her a 9 delegate advantage.

[Sam Spade]

Ohio is a better firewall for Hillary than Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has more bourgoise Dems hanging around somewhere not too far from the City of Brotherly Love, than Ohio, where economic class still really matters, and those with the dough don't vote Dem. 

The question is, of course, how many of those "Dems" are actually Arlen Specters.

[exopolitician]

Pennsylvania could be her chance to catch up...though I dont know if she can now.

[Gustaf]

I'm not knowledgeable enough on Pennsylvania to comment, but this seems fully possible. Clinton's best chance is probably that the American public and media are not used to thinking in terms of total number of votes, etc but in state wins. If she can point to wins in all the big states except her opponent's home state and marginalize Obama as winning only those western states that no one care about and the black vote (I know this would be untruthful) she may be able to sell herself to the remaining super delegates and eek it out. But it seems like a stretch, especially given what we've seen so far.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I read something from one of Hillary's strategists that they were going to argue she was the more electable candidate because she won big states the Democrats need like California and New York while Obama won mostly states the Democrats have no chance in. It's very stupid but oh well, no much else she could use to argue being more electable.

[Gustaf]

I read something from one of Hillary's strategists that they were going to argue she was the more electable candidate because she won big states the Democrats need like California and New York while Obama won mostly states the Democrats have no chance in. It's very stupid but oh well, no much else she could use to argue being more electable.

Yeah, I've seen that too. Still, a large part of the media seems to reason that way too. I saw the CNN analyst saying about the GOP Missouri race that "Huckabee won the places Republicans need to win in order to win the general election" and that this was a case for making Huckabee VP, etc. So the idea that winning the base makes you a good GE candidate may be more widespread than it should.

[8 out of 11 is not deserved]

Yes, the party that screamed the votes with Al Gore in 2000 (which was ok) is now going to throw out the votes and select Hillary overturning the primaries because she won the big states.

Based upon this logic, just get rid of the smaller states from the primaries, you are going to discount them anyway.

Hypocrites

[Klippa]

Clinton has won the big states, but not by big margins. I think CA and NJ were 55% and the best she's managed was 58% in MA and NY. (That's from memory, but it must be close to right.)

In contrast Obama won his big state (IL) with 68%, and won many small and medium-sized by big margins. He's surely going to continue to do that in the south and the west.

Clinton should win KY and WV, but the only way forward is to win OH, TX, PA and PR and win big. If she can't get 65% to 70% in all of them, she has to manufacture upsets in OR and IN, limit Obama's win in NC, change the trend among super-delegates. And it still won't be enough unless she can get MI and FL counted.

It is obviously a desperate tactic to suggest that you should choose the candidate who wins CA and NY because the party can't afford to lose them in the general election. Those states are very unlikely to vote Republican.

In fact it may be more valid to say you should choose the candidate who wins swing states that you have a chance to take from the other side in the general election (MO, IA, NM, NV, CO, AR). Clinton won AR, but the rest were Obama.

By the way does your district-by-district analysis take account of the fact that PA doesn't allow Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary? I assume this would be worth about 4% to Clinton over statewide.

[Democratic Hawk]

Clinton has won the big states, but not by big margins. I think CA and NJ were 55% and the best she's managed was 58% in MA and NY. (That's from memory, but it must be close to right.)

In contrast Obama won his big state (IL) with 68%, and won many small and medium-sized by big margins. He's surely going to continue to do that in the south and the west.

Clinton should win KY and WV, but the only way forward is to win OH, TX, PA and PR and win big. If she can't get 65% to 70% in all of them, she has to manufacture upsets in OR and IN, limit Obama's win in NC, change the trend among super-delegates. And it still won't be enough unless she can get MI and FL counted.

It is obviously a desperate tactic to suggest that you should choose the candidate who wins CA and NY because the party can't afford to lose them in the general election. Those states are very unlikely to vote Republican.

In fact it may be more valid to say you should choose the candidate who wins swing states that you have a chance to take from the other side in the general election (MO, IA, NM, NV, CO, AR). Clinton won AR, but the rest were Obama.

By the way does your district-by-district analysis take account of the fact that PA doesn't allow Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary? I assume this would be worth about 4% to Clinton over statewide.

In other words, even if Clinton edges Obama in delegates today, she still has the steeper hill to climb to the nomination

As far as November goes, it's imperative that the Democrats nominate the candidate who has the stronger appeal among Independents, who will decide who is the next president, as well to cross-over Republican voters

Clinton might have the advantage among partisan Democrats but the base can't win a general - and McCain, relative to Clinton, runs much stronger among Independent voters. Obama has the better chance to offset that

That said, I'd like to think that the Democratic nominee, be it Obama or Clinton, can retain >90%, at least, of each others core vote moving forward; yet there are risks

Possible risks include suppressed turnout or McCain defection among Clinton supporting Latinos, Obama supporting African-Americans; Clinton supporting seniors and Obama supporting younger voters, among others

The Democratic Party must come together, united behind its eventual nominee, which may, given the acrimonity between the two campaigns, be easier said than done

Dave

[MODU]

Just remember, she doesn't have to win PA.  She just needs to win enough delegates to keep Obama from gaining enough pledged delegates to win the nomination out-right.

[Franzl]

Clinton has won the big states, but not by big margins. I think CA and NJ were 55% and the best she's managed was 58% in MA and NY. (That's from memory, but it must be close to right.)

In contrast Obama won his big state (IL) with 68%, and won many small and medium-sized by big margins. He's surely going to continue to do that in the south and the west.

Clinton should win KY and WV, but the only way forward is to win OH, TX, PA and PR and win big. If she can't get 65% to 70% in all of them, she has to manufacture upsets in OR and IN, limit Obama's win in NC, change the trend among super-delegates. And it still won't be enough unless she can get MI and FL counted.

It is obviously a desperate tactic to suggest that you should choose the candidate who wins CA and NY because the party can't afford to lose them in the general election. Those states are very unlikely to vote Republican.

In fact it may be more valid to say you should choose the candidate who wins swing states that you have a chance to take from the other side in the general election (MO, IA, NM, NV, CO, AR). Clinton won AR, but the rest were Obama.

By the way does your district-by-district analysis take account of the fact that PA doesn't allow Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary? I assume this would be worth about 4% to Clinton over statewide.

ummmm, what about NM and NV?

[Democratic Hawk]

Just remember, she doesn't have to win PA.  She just needs to win enough delegates to keep Obama from gaining enough pledged delegates to win the nomination out-right.

Realistically speaking, I don't think either can obtain enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. Psychologically, it's important, that irrespective of how well Clinton does today, Obama retains 1) his advantage among pledged delegates and 2) a nationwide edge in the primary popular vote

If Clinton wins Texas, it will be spun as a win; though, given it's nature, Obama may well best her among pledged delegates. It's important that he runs her as close as he can in Ohio. I've zero confidence that Obama can win Ohio; while his strenth in Vermont should offset hers in Rhode Island

Of course, if it tightens dramatically between the two, expect Clinton to clamor even more intensely for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. That's but another example of Clinton shifting the lines in the sand to suit ... CLINTON

Dave

[MODU]

Of course, if it tightens dramatically between the two, expect Clinton to clamor even more intensely for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. That's but another example of Clinton shifting the lines in the sand to suit ... CLINTON

Dave

hahaha . . . and for some reason half the democrats still love her.

[Democratic Hawk]

Of course, if it tightens dramatically between the two, expect Clinton to clamor even more intensely for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. That's but another example of Clinton shifting the lines in the sand to suit ... CLINTON

Dave

hahaha . . . and for some reason half the democrats still love her.

There's an ABC poll which suggests that if she loses today, that Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin want her to stay in

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4378906&page=1

Good grief . I'd have thought it  better to get the nomination sorted sooner rather than later. Both Obama and Clinton are thrashing staid, tired, old 'more of the same' McCain - has a nice ring to that , in the money stakes, though it will tighten

I'd have thought retaining money raised rather than spending it in one great longdrawn out slugfest, makes more sense. Seemingly, not

Dave

[MODU]

Don't worry.  8 more months to go. 

[TomC]

Of course, if it tightens dramatically between the two, expect Clinton to clamor even more intensely for Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. That's but another example of Clinton shifting the lines in the sand to suit ... CLINTON

Dave

hahaha . . . and for some reason half the democrats still love her.

There's an ABC poll which suggests that if she loses today, that Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin want her to stay in

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4378906&page=1

What I read was that 2-1 want her to stay in if she loses one of the two biggies, but less than half if she loses both.

[J. J.]

I doubt if PA will serve as a firewall.  If Obama has a net gain of delegates today, it is over.  If he doesn't PA will not settle anything.

This is the third chance Obama has had to clear the field; I frankly don't know if he will get a fourth chance.

[Franzl]

I doubt if PA will serve as a firewall.  If Obama has a net gain of delegates today, it is over.  If he doesn't PA will not settle anything.

This is the third chance Obama has had to clear the field; I frankly don't know if he will get a fourth chance.

Not quite sure how you figure.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Not much of a firewall when there's destined to be a gigantic blaze on both sides of it no matter what she does, eh?

[bullmoose88]

Ohio is a better firewall for Hillary than Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has more bourgoise Dems hanging around somewhere not too far from the City of Brotherly Love, than Ohio, where economic class still really matters, and those with the dough don't vote Dem. 

The question is, of course, how many of those "Dems" are actually Arlen Specters.

Spade makes a very good point here.  Shame no one else really got to it.  And its a shame I didn't think about it before now.

You look at Bucks, Montogomery, Delaware and Chester counties...3 of the 4 Dems have done well in since 1992 for presidential elections.  I think all 4 either have GOP pluralities in registration or even majorities...I think Bucks breaks down like 45-40-15 or something in favor of the GOP.  

A big reason dems have carried those counties is that the Arlen Specter types (moderate-liberal Republicans) of which there are a great deal, have been voting for national democrats mainly on social issues (ie abortion/privacy etc) and maybe the environment.  The core democratic vote in the suburbs...and by that I mean the registered democratic vote may be less bourgeosis and less Obama friendly than we all thought...sure some wealthy NYC area democratic leaning transplants may have moved down here, but so have more middle class but blue collar workers from Philadelphia.

Many of us stay registered as Republicans because thats who controls most of the townships, the county apparatus (though that's changing) etc...and i think many of us...like me, still hope for the GOP to regain its sanity, at least on the social issues (fiscal issues i think are still attractive for most suburbanites, but with the dems until recently running fairly close on them, social issues became bigger), but I think the vast majority of us 1) like Obama, 2) Would love to vote for Obama against Hillary [we like Bill, but Hillary...not so much, don't like the bad cop to bill's good cop], but 3) most of us won't switch our voter regs, at least right now, to vote for Obama given that he has a decent shot of putting hillary away before hand and if he does, we'll have him as an option in November.

[Sam Spade]

Moose, when's the latest day you can switch your registration for the April primary?