Karl Rove: Money Couldn't Buy Pennsylvania

Money's important in American politics (too important, in my opinion), but it can't buy an election; just ask Mitt Romney. Yet I had to read the Wall Street Journal today to learn that Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton three-to-one in Pennsylvania. But he still lost. Maybe by not as much as initially expected, but it was a loss.

Despite what some call media misogyny, despite media pundits (almost exclusively male) who keep writing her political obituary, Clinton won this key general election state.

Karl Rove -- Karl Rove! -- provides the money point in an op-ed that foreshadows Republican strategy should Obama be the Democratic nominee. It's interesting that I did not see any any news story or "analysis" (pre- or post-Pennsylvania) that highlighted this key fact. (Shout if you did; give them a link in the comments.)

I also learned that Clinton won two Philadelphia suburbs (suburbs are traditionally Republican -- I can attest to this having lived in one -- and where Obama has done well in other states) as well as the rural county where Obama's state chair lives. Rove writes:

In the small town and rural "bitter" precincts, she clobbered him. Mr. Obama's state chair was Sen. Bob Casey, who hails from Lackawanna County in northeast Pennsylvania. She carried that county 74%-25%. In the state's 61 less-populous counties, she won 63% – and by 278,266 votes. Her margin of victory statewide was 208,024 votes.

As others have noted, Clinton now leads the popular vote by 113,000 out of 29,914,356 cast, if you include Florida (where Obama also ouspent Clinton) and Michigan (which Obama chose to ignore).

I also think Pennsylvania was important because Clinton consistently outperforms Obama in primary states -- states where the voter's schedule doesn't have to be flexible enough to afford participation in a caucus. States where your schedule doesn't have to be flexible enough to leave two hours before the caucus, just to get there and find a place to park (my experience in Washington).

Primary nomination voting more closely replicates the general election than caucus voting. It's synchronous voting (caucus) versus asynchronous voting (primary, which may also include absentee ballots). Maybe that's why both parties have shifted nomination methods over time. I still favor closed caucus selection, if the goal is to empower the party base. If the nomination contest is to be a proxy for the general election, then it should be open primaries.

This brings me to two points.

First, I think super-delegates should resist calls to make a decision before the August convention. I also think they should remain mum about who they are supporting, because their role is to be arbiter. Moreover, that's what conventions are for, never mind that it's been several election cycles since the convention process actually came into play. (Flashback to our previous unpopular war, Vietnam.)

Second, if the Republican nomination process were more like the Democratic one, with proportional allocation of delegates, it's likely that they'd be in a similar position. It's very doubtful that McCain could have sewn up the nomination early. I don't know if this means that primary campaign rhetoric has become more polarizing ... or if we, Americans, are more divided. In either case, an argument could be made that our two-party system no longer serves the needs of the populace. What do you think?

Learn why the Democratic Party created the super-delegate system. (Hint: it was for cases like this this election.)

^{Related:
States At A Glance: Pennsylvania
All Eyes On Pennsylvania}