Taking Stock After the PA Primary

After the American Century

It is time to take stock and get the bigger picture in focus after yesterday's primary. The results are in, and Hillary Clinton has won Pennsylvania by roughly 9.5% over Barack Obama. This was a bit more convincing victory than some polls had predicted, but by no means a surprise. It tells us that voters over who are over 45, women, or working class, cannot easily be won over to Obama's side. Clinton successfully portrayed herself as a local girl, whose father came from Scanton. Its citizens responded by voting for her by a margin of 3 to 1.

This means Hillary will continue to run, and that, in her words, she "won't quit" because "the American people don't quit." For the Democratic Party, however, this is the nightmare scenario, in which the primary campaign does not choose a candidate and the convention risks becoming a free-for-all. Since February 5, the campaign has lost its lofty tone and become increasingly negative. All close observers can see that Clinton is primarily responsible for the change. Today the New York Times, which endorsed her, nevertheless editorialized against her tactics, citing in particular an "advertisement" (if one can call it that) that depicted all the worst crises in twentieth century US history, including the Stock Market Crash of 1929, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War, 9/11, and even a cameo role for Osama bin Laden. The powerful imagery has nothing to do with the differences between the candidates, but was marshalled so Hillary could once again suggest that she had more experience. (However, McCain will beat "McClinton" on experience, particularly military experience.)

Meanwhile, what is happening outside the bubble of Democratic Party politics? President Bush has fallen even further in the polls. Now just 28% approve of the job he is doing. But Congress is even less popular, with some polls giving it just 20%, although the average of all polls is 22%. The electorate is not happy because the economy is in recession and hundreds of thousands of home buyers teeter on the edge of foreclosure. Because food prices are rising while incomes are stagnant. Because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. Moreover, many are now making the link between the billions of dollars spent on the war and the weakening economy. Normally, with such dissatisfied voters and such an economy, the Republicans would have no chance in November. But the unresolved race between Obama and Clinton has given them a chance, and McCain is the ideal candidate to make the most of it.

Now step back further, away from the clamor of the election. The dollar has just sunk to a historic low against the Euro. It now costs $1.60 to buy the same Euro that was worth 99 cents on January 1, 2000. This difference will almost certainly get worse, because the US continues to buy more than it sells and because European interest rates are considerably higher than those in the US. America may be in recession, but in much of Europe the problem remains inflation. (Indeed, in Denmark the unemployment rate is less than 2%, foreign workers are streaming in to meet demand, and home loan interest rates are over 5%.) While the downturn in the States will slow growth elsewhere somewhat, the realization is growing that China and India have become large enough to keep the world economy steaming ahead. If the US is only stagnating and not collapsing, the Europeans may have little to worry about. In economics, it's called "decoupling."

The candidates have not talked about this, or what to do about it. While the election preoccupies the US, the nation's economic centrality is fading. The dollar can fall drastically, and the nation can go into recession while the rest of the world as a whole grows at an average annual rate of 3-4% or more. In Pennsylvania, the voters look at their shuttered factories and can sense the problem, but the candidates blame NAFTA. Unfortunately, the reasons for the economic weakening of the US are far more complex and risk becoming more permanent than the next administration. That is why this blog is called After the American Century. The US needs to wake up to the severity of its economic problems.

OBAMA: Guns and religion in Pennsylvania

After the American Century

Obama has closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, and depending on which poll you believe, he is now behind by 4-5%. This will allow him to suffer an "acceptable loss" on April 22 - by which I mean a small loss compared to his initial weakness in the state, where he trailed by more than 10%. Note, too, that he narrowly leads John McCain in Pennsylvania polling, though Hillary leads by considerably more. 

However, Obama has not been having an easy time of it of late, due to some ill chosen words in San Francisco, when trying to explain why he is not winning in the polls in Pennsylvania. To summarize, he said voters were bitter, and that they were clinging to guns and religion. This was a rare mistake in what has generally been an extremely good campaign, and Clinton is riding it for all it is worth, in every campaign appearance.

Pennsylvania is a state I once knew very well. I grew up in the center of the state, in Boalsburg, which is far enough west to make me a Pittsburgh Pirates fan. The town claimed to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, and it was the sort of small town where lots of farm boys were in the schools, and these boys went hunting with their fathers when they were about 11 or 12 years old. Some would come into school on Monday with tales of killing their first deer. Even if all you know about Pennsylvania is the early scenes from The Deer Hunter, then you know that hunting and gun ownership are not about fear. Whatever else might be wrong with the world, the rural Pennsylvanian can still go hunting. The woods will welcome the hunter each fall, and the man will recall when he was there for the first time with his father. Obama simply got that part wrong. Rural white Pennsylvanians love to hunt, and they connect gun ownership to going into the woods after game. No doubt in Chicago, where Obama lives, gun ownership has another meaning, and gun control has considerable appeal. But hunting and gun ownership are simply not debatable for the sort of people I grew up with. He has lost some votes for that mistake.

Unfortunately, Obama managed to drag religion into his remarks as well, as another thing Pennsylvanians cling to. Remember that the state was founded by Quakers, who were extremely tolerant about religion, allowing any sect to immigrate into the state. As a result, the variety of religions in Pennsylvania is greater than just about anywhere in the country. You can find sizable groups of Mennonites, Amish, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Catholics, to make a short list. These groups do not merely persist, they flourish, and it is not because people cling to them due to bad times. The churches as I knew them, through endless suppers, bingo games, small carnivals, bake sales, coffee hours, markets, and strawberry shortcake specials, were the sinews that held communities together. In the small town you might well go to some of the events at another church, which helped them to raise money. We all knew one another, and the church was not so much a matter of doctrine as a matter of cultural identity. I do not think religious doctrine then was or now is quite as central to church-going in Pennsylvania as it might be in Alabama or Chicago. Rather, people were comfortable with their particular church, without being particularly zealous. Obama should get to the chicken dinners, and then have some apple cobbler and coffee.

When I lived in rural Pennsylvania, there were almost no Black people. There were none in my elementary school and only one fellow in seventh grade, as far as I can recall. Hillary will seem a more familiar figure to them than he will. Obama is definitely my candidate, but I wish he had found better local advisers and had practiced his bowling before heading out into the hinterland.  My guess is that for a decent showing in the primary there, he will have to rely on getting out the vote in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the other cities. More generally, he will have to use his ability to learn quickly to understand this part of the electorate a bit better, or McCain will win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the White House.

Obama and Clinton: Dangers of a Long Race

After the American Century

Obama has now won a string of impressive victories. Ahead for the first time in the race, however, he faces new kinds of problems. The front runner never gets a free ride. He has been the media's darling, but now they may begin to play a little rougher. Where before the Republicans were busy with their own race, McCain has now begun to attack him directly, by name. Obama has seen the advantage in that kind of attention, and is responding to McCain. It seems to say that Hillary is history. She is not, and Obama will now need to fight them both.

Clinton will likely have trouble winning in either Wisconsin or Hawaii, but when the battle shifts to Texas and Ohio on March 4, she will be in states where polls show her well ahead. Texas has been a Republican stronghold since at least the 1980 presidential elections, and there is little chance that the Democrats can win there in November. But take away the Republican majority, and the voters left include a large Hispanic population that now votes more than in the past, plus a sizable number of working class southerners who are comfortable with the Clinton name. For Obama, it will be an uphill fight in Texas outside of the Black community and college towns. Since Hispanics greatly outnumber African Americans there, Hillary starts with an advantage. However, Obama has been doing better with the kinds of voters who earlier went for Clinton. In Virginia he drew more women voters and started to attract more Hispanics and older Democrats as well. Still, the game for Obama in Texas is probably not to lose by too much, getting as many delegates as possible so that Hillary does not catch up.

In the crucial state of Ohio, Obama needs a better showing. If he can wrest Ohio from Hillary, such a victory might convince super delegates that he is the best standard-bearer for the party. However, if he looses in both Texas and Ohio, then Hillary has a real chance to raise additional money and rally for a showdown in the Pennsylvania primary. Even more than Ohio, Pennsylvania is a place the Democrats must win in November to ensure safe passage back into the White House. But Pennsylvania has a conservative history. It went for Herbert Hoover in 1932, in what was otherwise a Roosevelt tidal wave. Pennsylvanians also liked Ike in the 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s. In recent times the Democrats have carried it (1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004). With more than 12 million people, it is a crucial state, where polls now show Clinton in the lead. Bread and butter issues will be important there, particularly in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and among the remaining steel workers and coal miners.

In short, Obama has had all the momentum of late, but if Clinton holds on to her current leads in both Ohio and Texas, then it will stretch out the decision at least until at least April 22, and do possible damage to the Democratic Party. The super delegates may even wait it out to see who wins what in May.

Granted that neither candidate can attain the magic total of 2025 delegates through the primary process alone, the hope must be that one of them convinces the super delegates that he or she is the best choice. Ideally, whoever that is ought to have won a plurality of the pledged delegates as well. Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, it might not happen that way at all. Obama has the most delegates, but Clinton has the most super delegates. Roughly 390 of them have not made up their minds, and both candidates are wooing them non-stop.

Ominously, in the long gap between primaries from March 4 until April 22, other than vying for super delegates, the festering question will be: What to do about Florida and Michigan? There are no good choices. Playing strictly by the rules, these states held their primaries too early and were sanctioned for it: neither was to get any delegates. Abiding by this decision, Obama did not even get his name on the Michigan ballot. That made it easy for Clinton to win there, since she essentially ran unopposed. Now that she is behind, her camp has begun to call for giving Michigan delegates again. This seems grossly unfair. But if you are from Michigan, it no doubt seems just as unfair to be kept out of a close election. Florida offers almost the same connundrum, except that Obama at least was on the ballot there, though he did not campaign. Should Clinton win the nomination by getting Michigan and Florida seated - reversing the party's earlier decision - then Obama's camp would rightly feel aggrieved. But if they are not seated, Clinton's supporters will feel that two states where she was strong unjustly were excluded. I happen to side with Obama on this one. Don't change the rules in the middle of the game. But watch for unpleasantness on this issue.

Finally, because it is not likely to end soon, the campaigning, especially from Clinton's side, may get negative. That would also be a danger to the Party, not only because it will make it hard to unify for the fall campaign, but in October the Republicans will gleefully repeat whatever charges have the most destructive force. If it is not over, then, the Democrats will have to conduct themselves with some dignity. If it becomes a dogfight, they risk losing to McCain.

Democratic Deadlock: Expert Confirmation

After the American Century

Today, four political consultants said, in The Boston Globe, the same thing I wrote on 2 February - i.e. before Super Tuesday: that neither Clinton nor Obama is likely to amass enough delegates in the remaining primaries. You read it here first. They also agree with the analysis earlier presented here that Clinton has little chance to break through against Obama during the rest of this month, and that her best chance is to win over super delegates. On the other hand, Obama has an outside chance of defeating her if he can win on March 4 either in Texas, the more difficult challenge for him, or win in Ohio, the swing state that was crucial to Bush's victory i 2004.

If he wins either of these contests, Obama would still need to win Pennsylvania (April 22). That state at present is regarded as likely to go for Clinton. However, Obama has raised more campaign money, with more than 400,000 on-line contributors. He also has proved a powerful and persuasive presence, winning over voters who see or hear him. If he can work this magic again in Ohio and Pennsylvania, then the super delegates may turn away from Hillary. In the national election, the Republicans are likely to win Texas anyway, so her ability to carry it in a primary is ultimately not all that important, even if Texas does have a large block of delegates. In contrast, winning Pennsylvania and Ohio probably means getting the keys to the White House.