APRIL 25, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
John Judis has an eminently reasonable post responding to my item about Obama and the Philly suburbs, in which he points out that Obama did much worse among voters with college and graduate degrees than he did in a number of earlier states.
I agree, but I don't think the evidence of slippage here is dispositive (and, in fairness, John doesn't claim it is). My argument for why Obama fared poorly in the 'burbs was twofold: 1.) They're not as demographically favorable to Obama as we'd assumed going in. 2.) Demographics aside, Clinton benefited from the support of Governor Ed Rendell, a popular former mayor of Philadelphia, who swept that city's sprawling metro area in his 2002 primary with Bob Casey. John demonstrates that 1.) wasn't the entire story. But, then, I didn't think it was the entire story either.
Having said that, it's certainly possible that Obama did worse among college-educated voters because of the gaffes and unseemly associations that have plagued him lately, as John alleges. I don't have any hard evidence to refute it. But it's also possible that Rendell, who's popular among theses same voters, proved to be the difference here. I cite several pieces of circumstantial evidence for that in my previous post. I'd just add one more: Montgomery County, a fairly affluent, educated area that John expected Obama to carry but actually split down the middle between him and Hillary, was Rendell's geographic base in that 2002 primary. Rendell did better there--beating Casey 88-12--than any other county in the state, including Philadelphia.
Anyway, John and I have agreed that we can't shed much more light on this question till the night of May 6. So stay tuned for Act II of our exciting debate: "Charlotte, NC and the Research Triangle."
--Noam Scheiber
7 comments
why should rendell's endorsement have made such a huge difference in primary voting, where there is little evidence that other endorsements have proved especially effective in driving voters in areas where they would ostensibly help?
- sprechs
April 25, 2008 at 1:34pm
Please understand: it was not just the endorsement. It was the organizational effort led by the Rendell team that made a big difference. From what I read, Obama has had an organizational advantage in many of the contests. In this one, he was up against what I might guess to be the best Clinton team in any area outside her home states.
- pennaguy
April 25, 2008 at 2:56pm
Does anyone know the religious demographics of the Philly suburbs? If heavily Catholic and/or Jewish those are two religious groups he does far less well with than with Protestants.... except in Illinois of course where those that know him up close support him pretty much across the board, except less in the heavily Irish Catholic wards of Chicago... but he did beautifully in the Northern suburbs, heavily Republican. Except that was centuries ago... February 5...
- Annabella2
April 26, 2008 at 1:19am
Thank you for answering my question on the Judis post. Everyone else there ignored it.
- scdrawe
April 26, 2008 at 9:13am
I was certainly well organized. Rendell was able to deliver for Hillary in Pennsylvania. Western PA has gotten unprecedented attention and funding from the Rendell administration, and the party bosses around here all lined-up behind Hillary to pay him back. I'm sure there were similar political debts Rendell was able to collect on in the East.
- matthawk
April 27, 2008 at 12:59am
A couple of random thoughts heading into the May 6 primaries: 1.) There are four polls out today that
- Anonymous
May 5, 2008 at 6:36pm
Looks like Obama has reclaimed his commanding lead among college grads tonight. If the exit polls are
- Anonymous
May 6, 2008 at 10:06pm