Pennsylvania: The Afterthought

The Kos himself hacks through the spin:

"He was up against the machine. It's my theory that no endorsement matters except those that deliver a machine. Senators have no machine, so they're pretty worthless (like Bob Casey). Mayors and machine-state governors, like Nutter and Rendell, matter. Gavin Newsom in San Francisco, who has no machine, didn't matter, but Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, who has one of the biggest machines in the planet, delivered strong for Clinton. Obama won Connecticut in large part thanks to New Haven's mayor John Destefano's efforts. In Pennsylvania, Clinton had the state's machine working on her behalf, and it clearly helped cut Obama's margins in the Philly metro area.


Demographics. Arguing that Obama's failure to win Pennsylvania points to inherent weaknesses is as silly as claiming the same for Clinton in North Carolina, or Idaho, or Wisconsin, or Maine, or Minnesota, or Mississippi, or Alabama, or Washington, or wherever else. Fact is, we have two fairly different candidates who appeal to different demographics. They both have paths to the nomination, but they happen to be different paths. Clinton runs the same old path that has served us poorly in the last two elections. Obama's is different, putting the Mountain West, North Carolina and Virginia in play.

Fact is, Obama does terrible in Appalachian regions, and that has been death to him in states that share that region. Just watch him get crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky. In the same vein, Clinton does terribly in regions that are overwhelmingly white -- like Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, and so on, and she does poorly with large creative classes (Washington, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina), and of course she does terrible with African Americans. She's also had trouble with younger voters, independents, non-malicious Republicans, and so on.

To claim that Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered when its demographics (Appalachia, older, more blue collar, etc) were heavily slanted toward Clinton is absurd as would claiming that North Carolina is the tie-breaker for everything, given that it's solid Obama territory. Ultimately, Obama won because he won more contests all around the country, not just some single, randomly chosen state.


Home state advantage. Clinton has roots in the state, and local ties matter in politics a great deal. That's why Obama crushed in Kansas, Hawaii, and Illinois, and why Clinton crushed in New York and Arkansas.


Initial deficit. Obama came back from around 20 points back, and cut the deficit to 9 points in six weeks.


Name ID. Clinton isn't just a senator, she's a former First Lady. She isn't some scrub.


Multiple targets. Hillary Clinton has the advantage of running against a single candidate -- Barack Obama. Obama, on the other hand, is running against Hillary, against the former President of the Untied States Bill Clinton, and against a Republican machine (McCain included) that has focused its firepower on the frontrunner.


Rhetorical constraints. Clinton has nothing to lose, so she's thrown the kitchen sink and then some at Obama. Her path to the nomination necessarily requires her sundering the party in civil war, so if she pisses a few people off? Who cares! It's all part of the plan!

Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics."

Update: The Popular Vote Spin.