Karl Rove: Money Couldn't Buy Pennsylvania
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
Comments
I think it is wonderful that Rove, the RNC and others are attacking Obama and are planning campaign propaganda that even McCain is opposing. It just means that, obviously, Obama is not their choice for the Democratic candidate and will do anything the can to thwart his nomination.
“suburbs are traditionally Republican — I can attest to this having lived in one”
You lived in one suburb and therefore you know that suburbs are all–not just the one you lived in, but all– traditionally Republican?
I live in the Philly burbs—trust me–I thought I was the only Republican living here! You can’t generalize all burbs by one neighborhood.
So your overall point is that we should be listening to Karl Rove?
Or is it that we should take the nomination path (leaving the decision until the convention) that most guarantees Republican victory in November?
Honestly, this idea doesn’t make much strategic sense to at least me.
(1) Hi, Gina:
I don’t see how facts about investment in advertising dollars is propaganda. Are you challenging the 3-to-1 spending citing in Rove’s column?
(2) Hi, Terrie:
Voting patterns historically show inner cities as Democratic and suburbs as Republicans. Yes, this is a generality, but I did not say that all suburbs are Republican (because they aren’t). If you can show me data that contradicts this pattern — please do. Your anecdote that your suburb isn’t R doesn’t mean that most suburbs are.
(3) Hi, Deborah:
No, I am not saying we should be listening to Karl Rove.
I am, however, saying that post-election analyses should have included this incredible disparity in advertising expenditures — especially since most of them talked about the fact that Clinton has less money in the bank than Obama has.
I am also arguing that super-delegates should not “declare” their intentions before the convention but instead do what the party envisioned — which is act in the best interests of selecting a nominee who is *electable* in November. That said, I am not convinced that either Clinton or Obama is electable — even given the current state of the economy.
Why isn’t anyone talking about the implications of a fractured populace on the stability of the parties?
One of the reasons that the parties have been able to be monolithic (if you can apply that term to 2 orgs) is because of the transaction costs associated with organization and funding. Those transaction costs are now approaching zero, as the Ron Paul campaign has demonstrated (perhaps even more effectively than Howard Dean in 2004).
The rest of society is fragmenting/changing as a result of new technology (its use, not its existence). Why should politics be any different?
We are the only major democracy operating with a two-party system. Why are we so different? And is it the best thing for engagement and civic involvement?
“It’s interesting that I did not see any any news story”
You should listen to more O’Reilly if you want to be more informed.
Seems that since our country is the leader of the world, the two party system must be the best?
C
Hi, Chuck - welcome back. I’ve missed you.
I don’t find your argument persuasive although it’s certainly provocative: if a country wants to be the dominant military force in the world, it should limit political participation to two main parties…. or if a country wants to watch its currency tank as it becomes a debtor nation, it should limit political participation to two main parties…. if a country wants to be the be in hock to foreign oil interests, it should limit political participation to two main parties….
I’m pretty certain that this isn’t want you meant, but you didn’t define “leader” — so I gave three scenarios were we “lead”
Hi everyone,
Nice to see that I am not the only one to comment anymore. lol. By the way:
@Chuck: please define “leader” and in which way do you consider the USA a world leader? China has a one party system and leads the world in terms of population, production means and economic growth. Would you suggest to switch to a one party rule? France leads the world in terms of health care (according to the WHO) and (arguably) lifestyle, and we have a full multi party system. The Netherlands has the strongest economy in the world and has a very unstable but extremely representative multi party system too.
@Kathy: I tend to agree that the lack of representativity and variability in the US political system tends to make the primaries (especially these ones) more polarized. On the other hand, it gives very stable policies on the long term. So it might be a bit less democratic but it is also rather efficient. Now, of course, it can be efficient in a very destructive and negative way if the policies are bad (the past 7 years) or very positive when they are good (the 8 years before).
Kathy,
Being in hock to foreigners for oil is a necessary evil and is shared by most countries of the world. Being the biggest(leader) consumer it only makes sense we would probably lead in this area but I don’t consider it a negative as you do.
You’ll have to make the connection between tanked currency and the two party system? I’m all ears. I doubt you can find a causality there? Guilty by association maybe yes but remember, it wasn’t always that way and we’ve had a two party system for as long as I’ve been around.
Again, I don’t see the connection to two party systems and the military? Americans cherish their freedoms more than most other countries and do not wish to bow to commies, Islamic fanatics or petty despots, so having the strongest military seems like a good idea. Don’t you think?
IMO-U.S. leads in military might, healthcare, technology, foreign aid, entertainment and the business center of the world. Just to name a few. When the world wants to move in a particular direction the world looks to the U.S. to lead. I’m sure you can find exceptions but in the grand scheme of things, we are truly the only world super power.
Alphast, the WHO is not a credible source. Maybe for big lefty socialists it is but I’ve read that report and it’s skewed so far to the left it can’t be taken seriously. I hear of no one flying to France to get neuro-surgery or relying on your physicians for expert advice. I hear that your system is full of middle eastern physicians since they work for less than real doctors. That’s what I’m hearing?
Economies go up and down. Right now the U.S. economy is lagging a little but will recover. It will get better and then it will falter once again. That’s what happens to economies. They go in cycles.
I can’t comment on your lifestyles as I’ve only heard about them and I don’t like what I hear. Driving around in little cars and living in small caves just doesn’t sound like a good time to me.
C
Perhaps it was the way the money was spent. Obama outspent Clinton by 3:1, but denounced “walking around money”, a Democratic Party tradition. It seems there may be a lesson in the importance of bribery when it comes to Democrats and elections.
@Chuck: I am happy to see that you have no source or figure to back your claims. Saying that a report is “socialist” is not a valid argument, I am sorry. The fact is that people in the UK and the Netherlands (for instance) do go en masse to France (and Belgium) to get treatment. It is a well known issue.
comment deleted - personal attack