|
Lehigh Valley, Southeast could help Obama win
By G. Terry Madonna and Michael Young
March 25, 2008
David Plouffe, campaign manager for Barack Obama, recently called the Hillary Clinton campaign ''the prohibitive favorite'' in the April 22 Pennsylvania Primary. ''We'll try and get as many votes and delegates as we can,'' he said, ''but our campaign will not be defined by Pennsylvania.''
Translation: The Obama campaign believes Pennsylvania belongs to Clinton, and they aren't going to seriously contest it. They may want to rethink that hasty conclusion. Doing so may determine the remaining course of the nomination battle.
Clinton's advantages in Pennsylvania are substantial. Many of the state's demographics (seniors, Catholics, working class, conservatives and ethnics) fit well into the coalition she has pasted together in earlier states. Moreover, Clinton has personal ties and family roots in the state that will reinforce her favorable political fundamentals.
Nevertheless, a strong case can be made for the scenario in which Obama wins the state outright or at least holds down her margins so that a nominal win for her will be perceived as a virtual loss.
Ironically Obama's keys to victory were first fashioned by electoral locksmith and current Gov. Ed Rendell, chief Clinton's chief surrogate in Pennsylvania, during his own 2002 primary fight for the governorship. That 2002 gubernatorial primary with then state Auditor General Bob Casey presents a blueprint for Obama to run against Clinton.
The 2002 gubernatorial slugfest pitted the son and heir apparent of the former Gov. Casey against the liberal, urban, upstart Rendell. Casey (Clinton) was the prohibitive favorite with deep roots in state politics, a political brand name second to none in Pennsylvania with widespread party establishment support. Rendell (Obama) was a politician of uncertain outline to a majority of voters, a brash upstart from a city many Pennsylvanians regarded as the citadel of sin and corruption.
Contrary to expectations, Rendell won impressively, beating Casey by some 150,000 votes. If Obama is going to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania, he must follow closely the three keys of the Rendell's 2002 electoral roadmap:
1. Massive concentration of effort: Pennsylvania has 67 counties, and Rendell managed to lose 57 of them. But the counties he won were the big counties, and he won them big. Key was the impressive percentages he recorded in Philadelphia and the four suburban counties. He rolled up 75 percent in Philadelphia and more than 80 percent in the suburbs. Rendell ended with 300,000 votes in the Southeast, twice his statewide margin.
2. Iron control of the swing vote: Rendell topped off Philly and the suburbs by winning the Lehigh Valley and much of the southcentral part of the state, capturing 60 percent or more in many of those counties. Rendell's regional dominance in eastern Pennsylvania was critical. Nine of the 10 counties he won were east of the Susquehanna.
3. Managed statewide turnout: Finally Rendell also was able to turnout a higher percentage of Democratic voters in the Southeast than voted in the Southwest. This was accomplished in part by increasing Democratic registration, including luring some Republicans across party lines, but mostly by exciting the voters in the Philadelphia TV market that overwhelmingly favored his candidacy.
Measured against Rendell's 2002 template, Obama's chances aren't unpromising. He is positioned to emulate Rendell to a greater extent than is generally recognized. Essentially he must win the same 10 counties Rendell won in 2002, while reducing Clinton's margins in her strongholds. Currently he leads in Philly and will likely win there decisively, making the suburbs a major battleground. The Democratic voters there largely mirror the upscale, affluent voters Obama has been attracting nationally: They are the most liberal in the state, strongly oppose the Iraq War, with a low regard for President Bush. For insurance Obama needs to join the Philadelphia suburbs to the two pivotal swing areas, the Lehigh Valley and Southcentral, where the Democrats are moderate to liberal and where he currently polls well against Sen. Clinton. Beyond this, managing turnout will be crucial for him.
Rendell in 2002 was able to turnout a higher percentage of Democratic voters in the Southeast than voted in the Southwest. This is central to any Obama victory. He must do the same. Here enthusiasm and Obama volunteers could make a big difference. The Obama campaign has already begun a major voter registration drive to add Democrats to the roles. The current Democratic pickup is 65,000, most of whom will be Obama voters.
The stakes in Pennsylvania are high for both candidates -- but perhaps highest for Obama. A Pennsylvania victory virtually assures him the nomination. It also would help inoculate him against an unfavorable resolution to the sputtering messes in Michigan and Florida. And a Pennsylvania victory gives the lie to the argument Obama can't win in an Electoral College battleground state.
Few people in 2002 thought Rendell could lose half the state and more than 85 percent of all counties, run against a political icon, and still win. Few think Obama can do it. But many otherwise astute politicians in 2002 ended up scrubbing abundant amounts of Pennsylvania egg off their faces when Rendell won. It could happen again.
Terry Madonna, Ph.D., is professor of public affairs at Franklin and Marshall College. Michael Young, Ph.D., is managing partner of Michael Young Strategic Research in Harrisburg.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
