APRIL 24, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
There’s been a decent amount of head-scratching since the results rolled in Tuesday night about why Obama didn’t do better in the Philly suburbs, where he was expected to rack up healthy margins. The thinking was that these are relatively affluent, educated, politically-moderate areas—the kinds of places Obama has carried in pretty much every state so far. If, suddenly, he’s started slipping among these voters, it raises real concerns about his viability. NBC’s “First Read” called this development “the first evidence in weeks that Clinton has finally cut into Obama's coalition.” Looking at the same results, my colleague John Judis wondered if “the electoral premise of Obama's campaign--that he can attract middle class Republicans and Independents--is being undermined.”
So, is it? What exactly happened in suburban Philly? And what does it say about Obama’s coalition?
I can’t really answer any of these questions definitively; really getting to the bottom of them would require the sort of granular Pennsylvania political knowledge I don’t come close to having. (Pennsylvania residents should feel free to weigh in.) But, after looking over a decent amount of publicly-available data--organized neatly in the (graphically crude) chart below--I’d offer the following speculations:
1.) The biggest reason Obama didn’t perform as well as we’d have expected in the affluent, educated, politically-moderate Philadelphia suburbs is that they’re not nearly as affluent and educated as we’d assumed. (Well, definitely not as educated; I couldn’t find income data so easily.)
Judis writes that “Obama won my own Montgomery County, Maryland by 55 to 43 percent but he lost suburban Philadelphia's very similar Montgomery County by 51 to 49 percent to Clinton.” Actually, the two Montgomery counties aren’t really so similar. The Judis ancestral home sits in a county that’s about 17 percent black, and where, as of 2000, 55 percent of people 25 and over had bachelor’s degrees. The Montgomery County Obama lost Tuesday night is only 8.4 percent black, and only 39 percent of people 25 and up had bachelor’s degrees there as of 2000. That’s a big difference, and probably accounts for much of the 14-point swing against Obama. (In fairness, Judis’s Montgomery County does have a lot more Hispanics, a group Obama has struggled with in other states. But he only lost them 55-45 in Maryland, so they probably weren’t much of a drag there.)
The same goes for most of the other counties in suburban Philly. Of the eight suburban counties that mayor-turned-governor Ed Rendell won in his 2002 statewide primary against current Senator Bob Casey, there’s only one (Chester) where more than 40 percent of 25-and-overs had a bachelor’s degree, and Obama won it by a respectable 55-45 margin. Likewise, in only one of these eight counties (Delaware) do African Americans make up more than 15 percent of the population, and Obama won it by the same 10-point margin.
Conversely, college grads account for less than 30 percent of the 25-and-up population in five of the counties (basically half the proportion of college grads as Judis’s Montgomery County), and African Americans accounted for 6.5 percent or less of the population in six of the eight counties. Lehigh and Northampton, two counties where Hillary throttled Obama, are heavily white working-class areas--only about 5 percent black and under 25 percent college-educated. Simply put, this wasn’t really Obama country.
2.) The second key factor here was probably Rendell himself. One way to see this is to look at the difference between two of the suburban counties, Lancaster and Berks, both of which Rendell carried comfortably in the 2002 primary against Casey, but only one of which (Lancaster) Obama carried this week. Moreover, Obama didn’t just lose Berks, he got pounded there.
What’s interesting about the two counties is that their raw demographic data are pretty similar: Only around 20 percent of adults are college-educated in each; African-Americans account for less than five percent of the population in both places. My guess is that Democrats in these places look pretty similar (though they may be slightly more affluent and liberal in Lancaster).
So what explains the difference? I’d guess it’s that Lancaster is a much, much more Republican county than Berks. In 2004, George Bush killed John Kerry in the former (66-34), but only narrowly beat him in the latter (53-47). Likewise, Lancaster was the only suburban-Philadelphia county Rendell lost to Republican Mike Fisher in the 2002 gubernatorial election. (And he lost it by a 2-1 margin). To me, that suggests Berks has a decent Democratic Party infrastructure, while Lancaster has little to speak of.
Being the popular mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell was going to win both of these counties in his 2002 primary against Casey—he wasn’t dependent on a local machine. By contrast, the presence or absence of a local party apparatus had huge implications in this race, since it that apparatus was thoroughly behind Hillary Clinton. In Berks, the place where there’s presumably a strong Democratic Party which presumably defers to Rendell, Hillary won 58-42. In Lancaster, where the party doesn’t have much of a presence, Obama won 55-45.
3.) Putting this all together, you notice a rough U-shaped pattern across the Philly metro area. Obama tends to win the counties that are either strongly Republican (like Lancaster) or strongly Democratic (like Delaware, or Philadelphia itself), while Hillary tends to do better in counties that are either narrowly Republican or narrowly Democratic—and, within that band, the more Democratic the better. Which makes sense. The narrowly Democratic counties have strong Democratic parties and are therefore places where Rendell’s help would have really mattered. But, by definition, they’re not *so* demographically favorable to Democrats—meaning they don’t have the huge numbers of college grads and African Americans that strongly favor Obama—which is why Republicans still have a chance there.
As with Pennsylvania generally, winning these places might have been a sign of the growth Obama's supporters would like to see. But that doesn't mean losing them was a step back.
--Noam Scheiber
38 comments
Interesting that Lancaster is even considered "Philadelphia Area" for purposes of this analysis. Generally, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester are considered part of the Philly metro area (SEPTA transit serves these four plus Philly but doesn't go further out into Lancaster. I live in Chester and didn't realize our education level was higher - I'll have to start bragging on that! Bur, realistically, the other three counties, Bucks, Montgomery, and Delaware all border on Philly and have edge urban neighborhoods that are pretty much white working class. Hillary country, like Northeast Philly. Chester is further out and just doesn't have the same demographics. Lancaster is almost a different world, VERY agricultural, the heart of Amish country.
All of that noted, I think another reason that Hillary would do better than expected in these burbs is Ed Rendell. He was the most popular Philly mayor ever to suburban dwellers and when he ran for governor, LOTS of suburban Republicans switched parties to vote for him in the primary and lots more voted for him in the general both times. He's pretty well loved out here (although I expect we Obama supporters will stay mad at him for another month or two after the nomination is settled. And he was putting a lot of energy into working for Hillary. So Ed was probably worth a couple of points or more in these counties by himself.
I have not empirical basis for this. Just a gut feel, but I'd bet a small amount of money on it.
- ramboorider
April 24, 2008 at 7:53pm
Not a bad analysis (for an out-of-stater) -- I should point out one thing though: Of the counties you are talking about, only four -- Bucks, Chester, Montgomery, and Delaware Counties -- are truly considered the "Philly suburbs".
Lehigh and Northampton, anchored by the cities of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton, are considered their own region (the "Lehigh Valley"), which, you are correct in pointing out, are traditionally blue-collar areas (remember Billy Joel's song "Allentown"?) Berks and Lancaster are, at best, considered "exurbs".
The mistake that people made in analyzing Bucks County, in particular, was that they saw the cutesy upscale boroughs like Doylestown and New Hope, and assumed that the whole county was like that. Now, for sure, these areas in Central Bucks have tended to vote Democratic in national elections over the past several years, but many of these Rockefeller Republicans -- who used to support moderate GOP Congressman Jim Greenwood and who came out strongly for Democrat Patrick Murphy for Congress in '06 -- were still registered Republican, and though they may vote for the D ticket in November, couldn't vote for Obama in the primary. The fact is that the bulk of the Democratic PRIMARY electorate is centered in blue collar Lower Bucks County -- places like Levittown and Fairless Hills -- and these folks are much more demographically predisposed to vote for Hillary Clinton; perhaps not as strongly as in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties (Scranton and Wilkes-Barre), but strongly nonetheless.
- flynnb_az
April 24, 2008 at 8:06pm
I have to laugh at the constant use of the word "educated" in describing voters who favor Obama.
Clearly the word ought to be "indoctrinated". It would seem that a college education now adds up to a Left Wing brainwashing for the malleable children of the affluent.
Probably not the outcome many of those parents would have desired for their money.
- ChanRobt
April 24, 2008 at 8:14pm
Noam:
My thinking is that this is partly due to social pressures. At this point in the primary season, the demographic coalitions are pretty much set. They account for 95% of the voters in each state. The remaining 5% is up for completely up for grabs. Candidates can also change the results through turnout efforts (of their favored democrats) and making marginal inroads with another candidates' coalition.
The easiest areas to make inroads in your opponents coaltion is in areas/regions where members of their coalition are surrounded by supermajorities of your coaltion (for example: the Virginia exurbs include tons of wealthy whites and minorities surrounding working class whites). But these groups interact, and social pressures push Hillary's usual coaltion towards Obama (Wisconsin is another good example).
In Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton had absurdly huge supermajorities (sometimes over 75%) of support in the rural areas just beyond exurban fringe. These people know folks in the exurbs (they live near them) and interact with them socially. some of their attitudes rub off. I think that surrogates like Ed Rendell helped reinforce this message.
I dunno - this theory is a bit unformed....but these sorts of social pressures are what may push affluent Republicans and young Republicans to support Obama in the fall.
- virginiacentrist
April 24, 2008 at 8:39pm
Channy -
That's a pretty sad generalization. I joke about Hillary's supporters using outhouses, but at least I know that's not exactly true. In fact - when we make these generalizations about demographic groups, we forget that Hillary actually wins 40-45% of college educated voters...and 35% of college students. Obama does better, but does that really make her the candidate of ignoramuses or Obama the candidate of the college elites?
- virginiacentrist
April 24, 2008 at 8:41pm
How about a simpler explanation? Suburban Philly is in commuting distance to New York City. The New York Times ran a story on the front page of its Real Estate section a couple years ago with the headline, "Philadelphia: The Sixth Borough," or something along those lines. I know because I looked into moving there. I have yet to see any post-primary analysis acknowledge that Philly's suburbs are more vulnerable to Manhattan's demographic tractor beam than similar suburbs in other states. And although I am both a Manhattano and an Obama-supporter, Manhattan leans acutely toward Clinton.
- Nippers
April 24, 2008 at 9:05pm
John King had flynnb's analysis and correction of Noam nicely presented last evening as the returns were coming in.
- pccostello
April 24, 2008 at 9:39pm
Here's a real simple explanation -- the Pennsylvania primary is a CLOSED primary. Republicans and Independents need not apply unless they change their Party ID at least a month before the primary.
Yes, the Democrats gained about 300,000 new registrants in PA this cycle and a chunk of those were former GOPers and Indies but the majority were new voters.
The bottom line is that it is much simpler to pull a significant number of Republican and Independent votes in a Dem primary if they don't need to change their party ID (and remember to mail the card in a month before). Remember, remaining Republican can be crucial for certain voters in the heavily GOP parts of the Philly Burbs if they want to participate in the primary for local races (which is tantamount to the general election).
I think Obama will do much better in the general with these voters.
- tomsperanza
April 24, 2008 at 9:40pm
The only counties noted in the analysis that would have any real pull from the New York City orbit would be Bucks and the extreme upper portion of Bucks at that. Maybe a small sliver of outer Montgomery too, but I doubt it. There's more up in the Lehigh Valley, but that's another region altogether. So I don't buy that proximity to New York City has anything statistically discernible to do with the vote in the Philly burbs.
- ramboorider
April 24, 2008 at 9:50pm
ramboorider,
Okay, what about television? How far does the influence of the New York media extend? And I also expect that New York's influence isn't limited to commuting and local media. There's a web of association and identification, one that includes familial relationships. Do those in suburban Philly think of themselves--consciously or unconsciously--as coastal, northeastern, and metropolitan? You can see the New York influence in the New Jersey vote. Why not a less intense reverberation in Philly? Imagine HRC as a stone (not too difficult) dropped into a pond. Imagine rings of influence emanating outwards from Manhattan. Compare, say, suburban Minneapolis or even suburban Cleveland with suburban Philly. Doesn't HRC have a geographical advantage in suburban Philly? My understanding was that Obama did better in suburban Cleveland than suburban Philly even though he on the whole did better in PA than in OH. Or am I mistaken?
- Nippers
April 24, 2008 at 10:15pm
Maybe I'm basing this on the time I've spent in New Hope, but does Bucks COunty have an unusually high "married" (older) lesbian population? I'm guessing they're more Hillary supporters.
- stgla
April 24, 2008 at 10:29pm
stgla - hard to tell the Bucks from the Does in that county
- teplukhin2you
April 25, 2008 at 2:40am
My esteemed colleague Noam Scheiber has suggested that Barack Obama’s results in the Philadelphia suburbs
- Anonymous
April 25, 2008 at 3:12am
Your well-reasoned analysis easily refute Judis' unsupported assertions. Your reporting for this whole election has been spot-on, and for that I must say thank you. Amazing work.
- rotramel
April 25, 2008 at 4:34am
"Okay, what about television? How far does the influence of the New York media extend? And I also expect that New York's influence isn't limited to commuting and local media. There's a web of association and identification, one that includes familial relationships. Do those in suburban Philly think of themselves--consciously or unconsciously--as coastal, northeastern, and metropolitan? You can see the New York influence in the New Jersey vote. Why not a less intense reverberation in Philly?"
They are two separate orbits, one obviously larger, but separate. Philly's primary relationship with New York is a competitive one and it leads to a bit of an inferiority complex on our part. But there's not a lot of identification. North Jersey is heavily influenced by New York because it's part of the New York metro area and is saturated by New York media. South Jersey identifies much more with Philly, is part of the Philly metro area, and gets Philly media. The accents follow too. I think most in the Philly burbs think of ourselves as part of the Mid-Atlantic, as related to Baltimore and DC as New York. Which is, not a lot. Philly is its own place. Provincial, slightly inbred, pretty funky in its way. But it has its own identity. Just go to a Phillies-Mets game. You'll realize pretty quickly that there's not a lot of identification between the two cities.
- ramboorider
April 25, 2008 at 6:14am
Which just goes to show that her 10 percentage point victory has no real meaning in the larger scope of the race. For all her grandstanding, Hillary only picked up 10 more delagates (83-73 according to real clear politics). A likely strong victory for Barack in NC will net him 13 -15 delegates if not more (some polls have him winning by 20 points).
It's all spin, spin, spin (more people have "voted" for me than any other canidate thanks to FL and MI)for her, because the real numbers show that she will lose the nomination. Sit down with Slates delegate counter and plug in reasonbale margins of victory for the remaining contests and you will see that Obama gains through the end of the primary's. Since he continues to get Supers and endorsements at a greater rate than Hillary, Hillary will not be able to "close the deal" on the nomination.
- bmalin
April 25, 2008 at 8:18am
I agree on the NYC thing. The only "bedroom" suburbs of NYC are up in the northeast corner of the state, where development is exploding. But not Philly...
- virginiacentrist
April 25, 2008 at 9:39am
I'm in Centre County, PA (which went for Obama), but am a former New Yorker. Therefore, many of my friends voted months before me, and they voted for Clinton. But as things were heating up here in PA, several were madly writing me to do my bit for Obama. They've switched allegiances, and a couple even came to PA to help the Obama campaign. Completely anecdotal, but I wonder if there has been any examination of this possible trend? I suppose voter regret is only useful to examine in this case if rolled into the general electability question. But this was post-Jeremiah Wright, post bitterness (not that New Yorkers would care about the bitter small town folks - "screw 'em!", to quote their senator). Still, though the votes have been cast, I would be interested in seeing a Clinton-fatigue poll now that the campaign has been dragged out to everyone's exhaustion. Perhaps only for my personal satisfaction. Should it lean my way. So fatigued.
- katsnovak
April 25, 2008 at 10:53am
virginiacentrist, I was making a more general observation about the supposed (apparently true) correlation between education and leaning Left.
I would think that by the time you grow up, get out of college, and aren't trying to get soft-headed girls to sleep with you anymore, you wouldn't still succumb to the peer pressure and need to seem cool that is the basic underpinning of college "liberalism".
"Liberal" being an oxymoron for a movement that now enforces speech rules on campus.
- ChanRobt
April 25, 2008 at 11:50am
Flynnb_az has it right so far as Bucks County. I live in "cutesy" Doylestown. Reporters who want to know how Bucks County as a whole should vote have to go to the Lower End: Bensalem, Bristol, Falls, Tulleytown, Humeville and Morrisville. The connty goes the way they do, because that's wheremost of the county lives. Doylestown (the county seat) and New Hope are where you want to have an evening out, but not a place to learn the politics of BUcks Conty.
- Shane Fergessen
April 25, 2008 at 12:04pm
Chan,
It's only you conservatives who have to try to get "soft-headed girls" to sleep with you. We liberals don't have any such problems getting girls to sleep with us. Never have. I can see though why a young woman would have to be a bit daft to want to sleep with a conservative. What fun could that be?
- roidubouloi
April 25, 2008 at 12:20pm
John Judis has an eminently reasonable post responding to my item about Obama and the Philly suburbs
- Anonymous
April 25, 2008 at 12:25pm
By the way chan, that business about "liberals" being more or less coextensive with academia is typical Republican demagoguery. Some of us our liberals for no better reason than we do not believe, as you conservatives do, that the federal government should be run as a giant criminal enterprise whose purpose is to steal a trillion or so for your rich pals before you get kicked out of office.
I will say this much for the Republican party since Reagan-Bush. It has learned that there is no point in stealing modestly. Since it is going to get thrown out anyway, might as well grab as much loot as possible in as short a time as possible -- of course doing its best to extend that time by going to war and flogging national security to keep the public quiescent.
In the era of "conservative" borrowing and spending, not like drunken sailors but like a whole drunken navy, what would "conservative" be an oxymoron for? Cosa Nostra?
- roidubouloi
April 25, 2008 at 12:26pm
Well, roid, I've tended to sleep with hard-headed women. The smart-ass kind who are more entertaining.
But, to each his own.
- ChanRobt
April 25, 2008 at 1:31pm
roid, Bush overspent when he did dumbass liberal things. Like his pharmaceutical bill.
I think Bush is in many respects a faux conservative, certainly on large segments of his fiscal policy. So there is no reason for me to argue against the part of your comment that is correct about Bush. Only the part that is incorrect in characterizing him as a fiscal conservative.
As to all the alleged monumental stealing, you haven't cited any scandals that would support that. Certainly with a Dem congress in there for nearly two years, they would be stirring that pot if there were the least evidence.
Cunningham stole. At least he took bribes. And he's in jail. Democrats are more famous for keeping cash in their freezers. I don't recall if that guy has been indicted yet or not.
But being as congress attracts a certain number of wastrels and losers on both sides (get a job!) not much use in ticking off the respective felons.
It would be worth ticking off the evidence of historic looting of the treasury you allege.
- ChanRobt
April 25, 2008 at 1:38pm
"I have to laugh at the constant use of the word "educated" in describing voters who favor Obama.
Clearly the word ought to be "indoctrinated". It would seem that a college education now adds up to a Left Wing brainwashing for the malleable children of the affluent."
Chan and his fellow conservatives are of course, bitter and frustrated that the educated classes are, by and large left-leaning. It is all due to "brainwashing." Never mind that liberals in this country would be center-right moderates in most other developed countries. That's because there is even more "brainwashing" in those countries. It's just "brainwashing" for as far as the eye can see, with only Channy and his dwindling band of truth guardians immune from the evil beams put out by left-wing academics that flush, rinse and blow-dry the brains of their victims.
- naomi88
April 25, 2008 at 1:51pm
I can always tell when a TNR article has been linked over at Real Clear Politics. A flood of posts arrive, and most contain arguments that amount to little more than "Thank you, what you wrote is what I think" or "That's not how I see it at all, you're an Idiot."
Try a little harder, people. Dig into the data and come up with arguments that are more than just hot-headed expressions of personal opinion. Check out this thread as an example of how to do it right.
blogs.tnr.com/.../explaining-obama-s-dropoff-in-the-philly-burbs.aspx
- naomi88
April 25, 2008 at 3:12pm
Okay, the preceding post was supposed to be a comment over at the Abramowitz article. Sorry for any confusion.
- naomi88
April 25, 2008 at 3:18pm
Well, naomi88, we'll see which of our deluded bands are dwindling.
Truth is politics is pretty much ebb and flow. And one strong personality on either side can change everything.
So, as long as we have a democracy, I don't over-worry. This obviously isn't high tide for the Right in America. But, it's not the end of tides either.
- ChanRobt
April 25, 2008 at 3:34pm
I think the telling point in this article (as far as the November election goes) comes down to one of the final sentences: "Obama tends to win the counties that are either strongly Republican (like Lancaster) or strongly Democratic (like Delaware, or Philadelphia itself), while Hillary tends to do better in counties that are either narrowly Republican or narrowly Democratic." (In short, the "swing counties.")
This is bad news for Obama fans. Okay, so Obama will clean up in strongly Democratic districts in November; big whoop. And he runs better in Republican districts than Hillary does, but can you really believe that the Republican majority in those districts (who didn't vote in this Democratic primary) are going to go gaa-gaa for Obama and vote against McCain? Fat chance! The Republican majority in those districts will overwhelm the lonely Obamaphiles, and McCain will carry them easily.
Which gets us down to the crucial "contested districts," where Hillary is more popular than Obama, showing that she is a stronger candidate with the crucial swing voters that will actually decide the November election. Think about it...
- dlrocdoc
April 25, 2008 at 5:53pm
dlrocdoc, I am inferring from your analysis that those Democrats living in largely Republican enclaves, feel besieged.
Or feel the need to assert the "Democratness" strongly. Hence they vote for Obama as the unambiguously Left Democrat.
Conversely, people living in overwhelmingly Democratic districts, sought out each others company, don't want to be near the "other" type. And are unapologetically Liberal. Hence Obama gets them.
Correct?
- ChanRobt
April 25, 2008 at 6:47pm
Chan, over the years I've come to appreciate the ability of people to play-act at political theater as long as there seem to be no direct consequences which could affect them personally. Liberals and conservatives always seem freer to talk and vote a more extreme line when deep down they don't think they might individually influence the outcome, or God forbid, actually be held accountable for the results. Republicans in San Franciso are free to demand eliminating all public welfare programs---never gonna happen. Democrats in Wyoming feel free to demand banning all guns---never gonna happen. They get cred as individuals; free-thinking, iconoclastic supercool dudes and dudettes who aren't beholden to the local status quo.
So yes, I think that Democrats in heavily Republican areas act more lefty than they really are. In that setting, talking and voting extreme is a way of being cool without having to pay a price. As far as Democrats living in heavily Democratic enclaves: just go along with the echo chamber; why take flak otherwise? Voting against the war in Hyde Park or Berkeley is the simple, safe---dare I even say "conventional"----thing to do.
But when a vote might actually matter or they could be be held accountable, adults typically act more responsibly---kind of like Joe Lieberman or Hillary voting for the Iraq war in the US Senate. Opposing it at crunch time was just too hard for Hill when 70% of the American public was in favor, and she and her hubby were on the record multiple times claiming they knew that Saddam had WMD. Her vote COUNTED. In contrast, Obama had a free pass to courageously oppose going to war from his seat in the august and influential Illinois state legislature. The difference between his vote in the state legislature and her vote in the Senate is like the difference between college kids who vote to raise income taxes while they're in school---and do the opposite four years later when they have a job, kids, and mortgage.
Finally, about the swing voters in contested districts----I think that deep down, they believe they make choices that actually count, just like sitting US Senators and Presidents making foreign policy, and they vote accordingly. This time around in PA, that group said "No" to Obama. I think he has a real problem with these people come November.
- dlrocdoc
April 25, 2008 at 9:22pm
nice little essay there, dlrocdoc. You oughta post here more often and longer.
- ChanRobt
April 26, 2008 at 1:18am
Has anyone noticed the extent of over-analysis and parsing via demographics that these "what went wrong" analyses are taking? Have we not taken the politics of "groups" to an absurd extreme? Does this trouble no one?
You could read this question as" "What went wrong, there are so many high-income, high educated people there--why didn't they vote for Obama like they are supposed to? --Oops, maybe there are more from the anti-Obama, low college educated group than we thought."
Couldn't we step back from all of this just a little and say something a bit more "classical" in American politics: You bring your message to the voters and you put your GOTV troops out in the field. If the voters like your message and you have your GOTV troops out, you maximize your vote.
Isn't it possible that the Obama campaign has thought for too long that it can defy gravity and not carry out the fundamental things you must do in politics.
The purpose of politices is, yes, to offer hope and vision. But along with hope and vision, you must make a believable case that you are going to govern wisely, serve the people, care about the needs of people and communities and, importantly, carry out what you say. On this level, Obama is not "connecting" with voters.
Isn't it just possible that Senator Clinton's message and ideas resonated with the needs of real people in the Philadelphia suburbs more so than Senator Obama's did--and that is why he did not win them? She connected.
We are over-parsing, over analyzing, focusing so narrowly on pledged delegate counts and demographics that we forget the first principles of politics itself: that it is about people--and governing to meet their needs.
- TULLIUS
April 26, 2008 at 4:49pm
I grew up in the Philly Suburbs - Chester County. Dems in Chesco are significantly different from Dems in, say, Bucks county. They come from two fields: young professionals and "switchers".
Up until the past 20 years or so, the County was the *end* of the suburbs, with the end of the "Main Line" in Paoli and the County becoming very rural once you passed Exton. Over the past 20 years, Chesco has been flooded with huge corporate parks with a significant tech/biotech contingent in the Great Valley area, causing much of the county to more or less be suburbs of this.
The upshot of this is a large number of young professional families setting up camp in the area. These voters trend obama.
In addition, Chesco has been heavily Republican until about the past 10 years or so with frustration with the Bush-republicans causing a good number of switchers, especially in the Main-Line end of things.
Comparing Chesco to say Bucks County, with Cheltenham or Montgomery County, with Norristown paints an entirely different picture.
- jwarasin
April 26, 2008 at 9:04pm
I don't think that Philadelphia is overly influenced by New York City -- however, I can say that there's a fair number of people in Bucks County who do commute to New York -- and not just in the upper part of the county (like Quakertown). Many people who live in the community of Yardley/Lower Makefield commute up to the city. I've even known people living in Far Northeast Philadelphia to commute up to New York (via Amtrak).
- flynnb_az
April 27, 2008 at 12:01pm
You know, there is a lot of talk lately comparing Barack Obama to George McGovern and Michael Dukakis; both of whom I have a great deal of respect for – in fact, I think if the Democratic Party had persisted in promoting McGovernism in the same way that Republicans persisted in promoting Goldwaterism until it was finally manifested as “Reaganism” we would be in a much stronger position than we are in today. But these comparisons miss the essential point: Obama has charisma and the organizational skills to mobilize a grassroots movement; the other two candidates did not.
The American people don’t just vote on the basis of “the issues” and policy wonkery; they are much more inclined to vote on who inspires them and who seems to embody their hopes and aspirations.
Hillary is unable to inspire, so she tries to gin up the voting public’s fears, and she plays on resentment among older women and the white working class. McCain is too closely tied to the current administration’s economic and military policies to make the claim that he represents transitional politics in this election. Upwards of 80% of Americans are recently polled to believe that the country is currently headed in wrong direction on the very policies that McCain is associated with.
All of this speculation about Obama being “too liberal” misses the point: at the end of the day Americans prefer a candidate they feel they understand and can relate to, and one who seems to understand and relate to their aspirations and problems. That will not be Hillary Clinton and it will not be John McCain; but it may very well be Barack Obama.
- matthawk
April 27, 2008 at 5:15pm
Mike listens to right-wing talk radio on his long-haul overnight truck routes. I listen to NPR during
- Anonymous
April 28, 2008 at 9:48am