Keystone Quandary

When they count the votes in Pennsylvania in another twelves days, it might be a good thing to have the handy checklist prepared by commenter swiss473 in Big Tent Democrat's post over at TalkLeft at hand - it rather neatly describes the titanic electoral effort of Barack Obama in the April 22nd primary:

Obama has spent more money and shown more ads in PA than any previous candidate in history.

He has vastly outspent and outadvertised Clinton

He spent a week touring the state, getting the endorsement of the sole Democratic Senator whose name and family is golden in Pennsylvania.

Ever since the Iowa caucuses he has gotten the best media coverage and treatment that any politician has ever received, certainly the best in the last 40 years.

NBC has literally become the National Barackcasting Company and every day and night pundits in the broadcast and print media have annointed him the winner, explained how it's impossible for Hillary to win, have implored her to drop out, and generally praised Obama as the Second Coming.  Even Senators Dodd and Leahy and Speaker Pelosi have pretty much proclaimed Obama the winner.

He has had close to two months since he won 11 straight contests by an average of around 30 pts in states across the country in every region and has broken every single fundraising record there is.

He gave a speech that was praised by the media as a mixture of Lincoln at Gettysburg and King at the Lincoln Memorial with a good measure of Christ at the Mount of the Beatitudes thrown in.

And that list doesn't include the negatives during the same period that have hounded the Clinton campaign. I'm not saying that Barack can't put Hillary away. In fact, I'm gratified that his campaign is actually going for it in Pennsylvania, rather than skipping past it and relying on the delegate math. And given the incredible blitzkrieg of his TV campaign - outspending Hillary five to one, by some estimates - and his personal race across the state, you'd have to give him greater than even odds of beating Clinton; he's the frontrunner, in many circles the de facto nominee, and he has a web-fueled pot of gold in the campaign treasury.

Both campaigns play the expectations game, but it's getting late for that. Given how the table is set, if Obama can't win this blue-leaning swing state against a weakened Clinton, what does it say?

Comments

[jason chervokas]

Nice try on managing expectations, but she's the front runner in PA--has had a continual polling lead of somewhere between 6-12 points in recent weeks. PA has a demo of older voters that sets up well for her. And Obama's outspent her on TV advertising by an order of magnitude in every state pretty much, the ones he's one and the ones he's lost. No history of a one-to-one correlation there are all.

If he wins PA I'll be shocked. If he loses by 6 or 7 points I'll be happy. If he loses by even 10 or 12 it won't say much except that she once again held on to a state where she once had a big advantage and where the demographics were all in her favor.

[james wharton]

You have said it all Mr Watson. If he cannot win PA, what does it say? Tell it to the pundits

[myiq2xu]

Regarding Obama's Great Speech, can you remember any moving quotes or passages?

As soon as he was done speaking his supporters (in and out of the media) proclaimed it the "best speech evah" and then it dropped from sight.

The Gettysburg Address and the "I have a dream" speech on the other hand . . .

[tina oiticica harris]

I found your post through Twitter. And I find it great. It's been so long I stopped reading about Obama or watching him, I will have to seek his speech on YouTube.

[jason chervokas]

Anything less than a 12 point Clinton victory will be a sign of HER weakness.

[got obama fatigue]

Obama might be outspending Clinton, but the LA Times has right up front on its website about how Obama refuses to pay "street money" - the suggestion being that, unlike his sleazier rival, he doesn't have to use money to get votes.

The Chicago South Side politician is above machine politics and petty corruption. Wow. It's so beautiful....

The media will pick our President for us, the stupid will cheer, and somehow I don't think the candidate will be the one supporting universal health care and opposing the privatization of social security.

I almost wish Obama could win just so that the young and the narcissistic could get a good look at what they're really voting for, because all they see is an airbrushed ad.

[George of Palos]

What the MSM will not admit is that Obama can not seal the deal.Despite a fawning press that goes out of its way to distort every comment that Senator Clinton makes and outspending the Clinton campaign almost 5 to 1 he still can not close the deal on the nomination.It was supposed to be over after Iowa,but then he lost to Senator Clinton in New Hampshire. It was supposed to be over after South Carolina,yet he lost in Nevada. Per the pundits and the Obama-ites, he would have it all wrapped up after the first Super Tuesday;except that he barely won enough of the Super Tuesday states to keep it even.It was then that the calls from the Obama camp and his supporters for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race really began to heat up as the reality of Obama's weakness as a candidate to close out an opponent started to emerge. When Clinton beat Obama in Texas and the important swing state of Ohio, the Obama camp dismissed Clinton's victories in these states and racheted up their calls for her to drop out of the race. "It is time to unite the party" was their mantra. The fact was that Obama could not knock Clinton out of the race via the ballot box.And now, with the important swing state of Pennsylvania, where Obama is outspending Clinton by 5 to 1;with a MSM press corp that would rather print gossip and inuendo about Senator Clinton rather then doing the actual leg work required to obtain the facts of a story, Obama is, again,about to lose an important state to Senator Clinton. Again, Obama will not be able to close the deal.With the reality of another Clinton victory upon them,rather than objectively seeing their candidate's inability to defeat Clinton, the Obama-ites and their enablers in the MSM now are saying the even if Clinton defeats Obama in Pennsylvania, if she doesn't defeat him by an amount that they determine, and which the Obama-ites keep increasing as Obama starts to do a major fade out, then although Clinton won, she really lost.The party elites, such as Pelosi, Kennedy,"the party leaders" as Rep. Pelosi self-described herself, have, despite his now glaring inability to defeat an opponent once and for all,decided that Obama is to be the Democratic candidate for President. Once again showing the Democratic Party's inate talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Tom W.]

Hillary's expectations hardly matter now - that's what I'm saying. I want a juggernaut of a nominee and the Democrats don't have one. Obama can run this out on procedure and superdelegates and win the nomination, but it worries me deeply that he cannot win a major swing state against a weakened Clinton, even with the media pushing him as hard as they possibly can.

[Tom K]

"A little late for playing the expectations game"?

You really want to say that in *this* post, which is so obviously doing exactly that? MUST you assume your readers are idiots?

Lynn Swann couldn't push into the low 40's state wide, and I doubt Obama's gonna do much better than that in the D primary. Even if he is engaging in the not-quite-cricket tactics you describe (eg, campaigning).

If he were to win PA, that would probably be fatal to the HRC campaign (though probably not right away). If she wins, then on we go -- and, unless her margin is miniscule, that will herald her eventual victory (after some pretty rough-and-tumble stuff that awaits.)

[Slappy]

OK I get it. The Democratic nominee should look something like this:

1. NOT be the largest fundraiser in history.
2. NOT have the press adore them.
3. NOT get endorsements of prominent Senators in key states
4. NOT outspend their opponents
5. NOT give speeches that are compared with past great ones
6. NOT spend money and resources in red states
7. NOT air more ads than every before

I'm convinced. I'm voting for Nader. I'd vote for Clinton but I'm pretty sure if Obama weren't in it she would not pass this litmus test either.

And I disagree with "...he has gotten the best media coverage and treatment that any politician has ever received, certainly the best in the last 40 years." Reagan holds that honor.

[Tom K]

If Obama is failing to be the juggernaut candidate -- and I agree he is -- and yet he it beating HRC, what does that say about the HRC campaign?

I see her becoming the nominee, but hardly a juggernaut in the sense you seem to be using the term. And I don't see how she can make too much out of Obama's failure to beat her more overwhelmingly (once she has made the essential point that Obama's failure to wrap things us leaves room for the delegates to pick her).

[Tom K]

Slappy:

Reagan looked good in his own commercials, and in the press coverage surrounding his funeral. The press coverage while he was running and governing was a much more mixed bag, and quite critical at the level of the national media where Obama fares best.

I don't pretend that I'm any more neutral on this than you are, but I think an objective analysis would bear me out on this. I think even many liberals would acknowledge that candidate/President Reagan received some fairly critical national press coverage. Some more than "fairly" critical, for that matter. More so than Obama has (though the extent to which he has been given a "free ride" is overstated by many, I think.)

[Tom W.]

You guys are both missing this - it ain't about Clinton, who can only win if Obama somehow stumbles badly over the next two months (btw, anybody with the support of that many delegates and voters would stick around to see what happens - anybody). It's about Obama and my concerns that he can't close the deal in a forceful manner - the fact that our de facto nominee will be beaten in a key swing state after 95% of those watching agree he has it wrapped up - and what that means vs. McCain, what work needs to be done between June and November. What it says about Hillary's campaign is the subject for another post.

[Tom W.]

Let me add: I think the Clinton expectations game is fruitless - if she wins big, it's not going to trigger a run of superdelegates and the pathetic Democratic system basically splits the delegates anyway. No, this is all about Obama and how he sets up, and what will have to be done - and it may well be about his running mate.

[Tom K]

I agree about anyone in HRC's position hanging in there.

Obama doesn't have to stumble for HRC to get the nomination, though, in my view. At least, he doesn't have to commit an affirmative misstep. Just a little more development on the Rev. Wright angle, with the right complementary events, and their relative prospects for electability could look very different, very fast.

And please note -- I am not blinded into believing this by excessive devotion to HRC. But what seems (to me) like cyborgish relentlesness when she's winning seems an almost admirable commitment when she's written off.

Obama has missed at least two chances to put her away and, in such circumstances with a determined opponent, a Kirk Gibson, bottom-of-the-ninth game winner is never out of the question.

[Palomino]

Tom, you wrote: "Obama can run this out on procedure and superdelegates and win the nomination, but it worries me deeply that he cannot win a major swing state against a weakened Clinton, even with the media pushing him as hard as they possibly can."

That's as succinct a summary as I've seen anywhere.

@ George of Palos, you wrote: "Per the pundits and the Obama-ites, he would have it all wrapped up after the first Super Tuesday; except that he barely won enough of the Super Tuesday states to keep it even. It was then that the calls from the Obama camp and his supporters for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race really began to heat up as the reality of Obama's weakness as a candidate to close out an opponent started to emerge."

My recollection, or my impression, is somewhat different. It seemed to me that the clamor began because the MSM decided that Clinton had to sweep ALL of the first Super Tuesday states to remain viable, and that the focus was therefore on Clinton's perceived weakness, not on Obama's. Unless your statement already implies this take from the MSM as background to the WWTSBQ drumbeat?

[Bob]

Tom: sen. Clinton entered this race with the biggest war chest the Democratic Party had ever seen, national name recognition, key party insiders in her hip pocket, and so commanding a lead she didn't bother to plan beyond Super Tuesday and elected to ignore caucuses. Sen. Obama went into this process with all that allied against him, yet here he is the front runner. Now one could look at the present situation and say one of two things: Here’s a big state where he can’t “seal the deal”; or He sure did a great job overtaking a Senator with that big a head start.
Looking at how far he’s come against pretty hefty odds I think the latter interpretation is the more compelling.
As to the other commenter’s who seem to believe Obama has led some sort of “charmed” campaign all I can say you’re right; if history has taught us anything it has taught us this: there is no greater asset for a presidential candidate than black skin with a Muslim-sounding name. Imagine how much worse he'd do if he didn't have that natural asset.

[tdraicer]

The real joke of the Obama campaign is that his worship...um, supporters...are projecting onto this empty suit every quality they want to see (and onto Hillary the reverse) with a shocking lack of evidence, or even concern that evidence ought to be required.

Obama AT BEST will be another Bill Clinton, a competent centrist Democrat, but because he made a statement against Iraq when it cost him nothing to do so, he is the new Bobby Kennedy; and because he is black, the new MLK. Progressives who prided themselves on their attachment to "reality" have turned into teenage girls swooning over a rock star, and speeches that contain not a single line that will be remembered a year from now are treated as historic documents.

Apparently it has been so long since a charismatic leftist has run for the White House, a mediocre simulation is all it takes to make people's hearts beat faster. It's like mistaking Beatlemania for the Beatles.

[Tom W.]

Bob - all that's fine and admirable, but it's the story through February. We're in mid-April, facing a stronger-than-expected Republican nominee. So kudos to Obama, but they're not worth much heading into the summer - right now, he's looking Mondalian to me (ironic, since the Hart wing put him there).

[Bob]

Tom: see the comment from "tdraicer" just above yours. Or for that matter, read Shakesville or Suburban Guerilla or any of a couple dozen other blogs any day of the week. Clinton is going to fight this until the bitter end and the 45+% of the Democrats who support her would rather see McCain in the White House than vote for the "empty suit". I agree the present situation doesn't auger well for the Democrats come November. I disagree entirely that the fault for that lays with Obama.
I don't claim Obama or his supporters would act any better if the roles were reversed. I don't think that matters. What matters is ending 7+ years of this madness. Right now it is Clinton and her supporters making it impossible for the Democratic Party to turn it's attention where it belongs.

[George of Palos]

Bob, the Democratic Party could "turn its attention to where it belongs" except for one problem;the Democratic party does not have a nominee as of yet.And as of this writing neither candiddate will have enough delegates to capture the nomination even after the primaries are completed.Therefore, I do not understand your staement that Senator Clinton and her supporters are stopping the Democratic Party from "turning their attention where it belongs."

[Bob]

George of Palos: I apologize for not having been clearer. I don't believe Sen. Clinton has any obligation to drop out. However, when Clinton supporters offer concern over Obama's inability to seal the deal I feel it only proper to point out it is Clinton and her supporters preventing that from happening. I prefer Obama but will vote for whichever one of the two captures the nomination. Unfortunately there are a lot of "true believers" in both camps. Right now why is Obama unable to "seal the deal"? Because he's a bad politician or because Clinton's supporters have so much vested in her campaign that they can't bring themselves to vote for anyone else?
I wasn't the one placing blame. All I ask is if blame be placed, it be placed properly.
Off topic: Would that be Palos Hills/Heights? As I grew up in Evergreen Park and have many friends who attended Stagg HS it caught my eyes.

[Bob]

George of Palos: I apologize for not having been clearer. I don't believe Sen. Clinton has any obligation to drop out. However, when Clinton supporters offer concern over Obama's inability to seal the deal I feel it only proper to point out it is Clinton and her supporters preventing that from happening. I prefer Obama but will vote for whichever one of the two captures the nomination. Unfortunately there are a lot of "true believers" in both camps. Right now why is Obama unable to "seal the deal"? Because he's a bad politician or because Clinton's supporters have so much vested in her campaign that they can't bring themselves to vote for anyone else?
I wasn't the one placing blame. All I ask is if blame be placed, it be placed properly.
Off topic: Would that be Palos Hills/Heights? As I grew up in Evergreen Park and have many friends who attended Stagg HS it caught my eyes.

[Slappy]

"...he made a statement against Iraq when it cost him nothing to do so..." Such crap. He was running for office. And few national figures came out against the war. Why you give him no credit wen it is due is beyond me. I could just as easily say Clinton supported the war on Iraq because if she didn't it would cost her.

Tom K: Even when Iran Contra was at its height, the media sucked up to the major players allowing them to get away with what they did. Oliver North's name would be dirt today instead of some kind of freedom fighter. Reagan got away with murder. (figuratively of course)

The press loves Obama. Thank goodness they do. They weren't about to back Clinton. Give me me a media darling any day to win an election.

Tom W: The general election campaigning hasn't even started and you almost have McCain as our next president. I see nothign strong about McCain. He's on the losing end of the only two issue that matter: The war and the economy. The only thing that can possibly win this election for McCain is all the Obama/Clinton supporters refusing to vote for the nominee because he/she wasn't their first choice. Most of them are bluffing blow hards anyway. McCain is toast against either of them. And polls at this point are worthless.

[Tom K]

Slappy wrote:

"Even when Iran Contra was at its height, the media sucked up to the major players allowing them to get away with what they did. Oliver North's name would be dirt today instead of some kind of freedom fighter."

I suppose there's enough opinion involved that I can't prove it, but I thought the national media ran very hard with the Iran-contra story, basically covering it like a new Watergate, and it was the people who didn't seem too interested.

I specifically recall hearing and reading how the chief counsel from the Cong. committee was so brilliant and was gonna rip North apart; then I remember North getting the better of him; then I remember a reporter saying: "It seems people around the country think North got the better of him but trust me, if you were here in the room like I was, you would agree that North was exposed."

But hey, that's a long time ago, and the "abuses" of Iran-contra seem rather quaint today. At least the Dems were willing to assert themselves then, to avoid overtures to Iran, more than they will today, to avoid war with Iran.