Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Thanks for all the kind comments to my last PSF, the first e-newsletter I have penned in quite awhile. I really do appreciate the feedback, especially if you have an inside political 'scoop' or comment to share, always off-the-record. From your comments, I gather some of you may have had difficulty emailing me back. In the future, just use delano.jon@gmail.com, and your communication should get to me.
Curiously, my little rant about Washington's Birthday, the legal and official name for what some misguided marketers, media, and presidents incorrectly call "Presidents Day," elicited some interesting comments. A number of you thought the 1968 change that moved the federal holiday from Washington's birth date, February 22, and made it the third Monday in the month was designed to consolidate two federal holidays, one for George Washington and one for Abraham Lincoln. Nope. Believe it or not, there never has been a federal holiday for Lincoln, as southern congressmen blocked that long ago. While some northern states celebrated Lincoln's birthday as a state holiday on February 12, the reason for moving Washington's Birthday was solely to create a 3-day weekend. While some purists might dislike that move, my 'bitch' is with what we call the day and the fact that so many sheep so blindly followed Richard Nixon's silly attempt to rename the holiday so he could be included.
Your other comments were much more policy-directed, and I really welcome those. I am truly a "flaming moderate" and that often means that both those on the hard left and hard right will take issue with my characterization of events. That's fine. My goal is mostly to provide information that you may miss in the mainstream media, provoke some conversation, and have some fun in the process!
If you want to scroll around, you'll see I've touched on everything from Obama to Rooney, from Specter & Toomey to Onorato & Cunningham, and Luke-Patrick-Franco. As always, I welcome your comments. Of course, if you think this is spam, there's a button below to get off my Politically Savvy Friends' list!
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
Obama Tries to Deliver on Campaign Promises:
Forty days and forty nights in the White House is hardly enough to draw many conclusions about President Obama, but one thing seems crystal clear to me - this guy intends to shake up the status quo in Washington, just as he promised during his campaign. Unlike his Inaugural Address, which I thought was uninspired, Obama's speech to the Congress and nation last month was a home run. In an address that even got Republicans to their feet on many occasions, the president made it clear that he was in charge and that he had a plan to not only revive the economy but also to restore America's superiority in energy independence, health care delivery, and educational opportunity.
Right after that address, the CNN/Opinion Research Poll found 88% of Americans believe Obama's policies will move the country in the "right direction," up from 71% the week before. And an astounding 85% of Americans said they are "optimistic" about the future of the country under this president. Gallup found that the president's speech boosted his job approval from 59% to 67%, near his high point of 69% during his first couple days of office.
In my view, a lot of this support was wishful thinking from an electorate that is yearning for better times, likes the strength and good talk of this president, but really doesn't understand exactly what he is proposing as part of the "change" he was elected to deliver.
The most recent early March polls show some slippage. Obama's favorability is down to 57% in the Cook/RT Strategies poll, 58% in the most recent Newsweek poll, and 59% in the Quinnipiac poll.
The president's release of a $3.6 trillion 2010 federal budget has given opponents plenty of grist with which to attack him, but I was impressed with how the president is using his popularity to deliver on many of his campaign themes. Some commentators have noted that this budget, if enacted, would end the generally laissez-faire approach to national problems that characterized much of the Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush era in American politics. No doubt the belief that lower taxes on the wealthy and a government hands-off approach would "solve" problems is obviously being cast aside as a failure.
Instead, President Obama intends to spend dramatically to move the country to energy independence, to deliver health care insurance to every American, and to increase both the quality of and access to American education. And he will pay for some of it by raising taxes on the top 5% of Americans, while cutting the taxes of everyone else. It's an ambitious agenda that will require Democrats in Congress, and perhaps a Republican or two, to buy into the program.
In the end, the president is not going to get everything he wants. But he has laid down a very high marker and is essentially daring everyone to come up with something better. Because so many special interests are affected, you can be sure that lobbyists are swarming Capitol Hill, where they enjoy incredible clout among both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Even when it comes to a popular president versus powerful special interests that fund congressional campaigns, I suspect we know who wins out in the fine print of public policy.
Republicans Search for a Response:
For a party that seems remarkably united in its opposition to President Obama's plans to stimulate the economy, the Republican Party is having a hard time finding a singular message that resonates with the public. Certainly Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was, by almost all accounts, unable to deliver a formal response to the president's speech that anyone took seriously.
And the recent brouhaha between GOP chairman Michael Steele and conservative talk radio entrepreneur Rush Limbaugh over who really speaks for Republicans gave Democrats a perfect chance to sow more division. Obviously, Steele is the elected leader of the National Republican Party and obviously Limbaugh is a clever entertainer who knows how to keep his name out there. But Steele's rather bold attack on Limbaugh for saying he hopes Obama fails (he meant Obama's policies fail) and then quick apology and suck-up to the powerful conservative voice left one wondering who really was in charge.
Fundamentally, the problem for Republicans, as Gov. Mitt Romney said cogently at the convention of the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, is that it's not enough to just oppose something - you need concrete plans on how you would do things better. While Republican credibility on the Wall Street mess and the economy in general is about as low as it can go, Republicans need to start thinking creatively about how they would get health insurance to every American, how they would get America off its energy dependence on foreign oil, and how they would improve American schools and make higher education affordable to everyone. Whether his plans are good ones or not, Obama at least has ideas, and it's not clear - certainly it wasn't from Jindal - what the G.O.P. alternatives are.
Accusing the president of being a "socialist" or ranting on about "class warfare" will be no more effective against Obama than it was against Franklin D. Roosevelt 75 years ago. Indeed, income disparities seem just as bad today as they were in the 1930s, and reports of bankers and other corporate high-rollers giving themselves million dollar bonuses (and more) while their company's stock plummets and workers are laid off only helps Obama against such puerile attacks. When the president said, "I get it," he was speaking to the 95% of Americans who don't want another dime going to overpaid executives. The question for Republicans who voted against Obama's stimulus plan and oppose his budget is, do they "get it" too?
Don't Tax Me, Tax the Guy Behind That Tree:
Right after the election, I commented on how, in Pennsylvania, Obama won every income category (according to exit polls) except one. Those with family incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 voted for John McCain. But some 57% of those with incomes between $150,000 and $200,000 voted for Obama over McCain, and 58% of those with incomes over $200,000 voted for Obama. Given candidate Obama's frequently repeated message that those in the latter category could expect higher taxes, nobody can be surprised by his 2010 tax proposals.
In a nutshell, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the two highest tax brackets in 2011, reinstating the Clinton tax rates of the 1990s. That means that for individuals who earn more than $200,000 and couples with more than $250,000 tax rates will go up from 33% to 36%, while taxes for those with incomes over $357,000 will rise from 35% to 39.6%. To be absolutely clear, taxes on the wealthy will not go up in 2009 or 2010, but be put off until 2011 when, presumably, the economy will have recovered.
For those who make less than $200,000 ($250,000 a couple), the president will make permanent the lower Bush tax rates, and he wants to make permanent the additional tax reductions ($400 per worker, $800 per couple) that are part of the stimulus bill for 2009 & 2010. In other words, for most Americans, Obama cuts income taxes.
Ironically, this is not some radical tax-the-rich scheme, as some conservative commentators charge. For the well-off, this just restores tax rates to where they were before George W. Bush came along, and the top rate is well below the 70% top tax rate in effect with Ronald Reagan became president. However, Obama has proposed a more controversial limiting of tax deductions for those in these high income brackets. Instead of getting the full value of these deductions, deductions would be capped as if they were at a 28% tax level.
Charities that depend on philanthropic giving from the wealthy are already expressing some concern about the impact of these limits on deductions, fearing the wealthy won't donate as much. I suspect this is one proposal that will see some modification in Congress.
The administration also wants to correct one tax loophole that the Wall Street high rollers enjoyed in recent years. Instead of paying normal income taxes like the rest of us, many executives at hedge funds and other venture capital and equity firms got to treat their portion of the firm's profit as if it were a capital gain and not ordinary income. That meant paying taxes at a 15% tax rate, instead of what normal people of their income would pay.
On the capital gains tax itself, Obama will keep it the same reduced rate introduced by his predecessor, but he proposes raising it from 15% to 20% for those in the highest two income brackets. That actually is still below what it was during the Clinton years.
On the federal estate tax, the president sounds somewhat Republican. In 2011, the amount of an estate subject to federal tax was supposed to drop back down to $1 million. In other words, the heirs of anyone with an estate over $1 million would pay federal taxes on the amount above that dollar level. Obama proposes freezing the current $3.5 million exemption, allowing a lot more (but not all) wealthy families to escape this tax. Most Americans don't worry about this kind of stuff - are you leaving more than $3.5 million to your kids? - but some Republicans denounce even these high exclusions, saying there should be no "death taxes at all" on multi-million or multi-billion dollar estates.
"There will be overwhelming opposition from the American people" to these tax changes, the third-ranking House Republican, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana predicted last month. Somehow I doubt it. Those under $200,000 ($250,000 a couple) will actually see their taxes go down under Obama, so opponents are going to have to make middle class Americans care that the wealthy are going to pay what they did under Clinton. It will be interesting to see who wins the "spin" in this important battle. Stay tuned.
Rooney Hopes for the Luck of the Irish:
Over the last couple of months, I have done several stories on Pittsburgh Steelers chairman Dan Rooney's special relationship with President Obama and the possibility that Rooney could become the U.S. Ambassador to Ireland. While there is no official word from the White House, the speculation is growing that Rooney is number one on a short list of candidates for this job. Traditionally, this appointment is announced around St. Patrick's Day and, coincidentally, Rooney will be in Washington next Monday to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Ireland Fund (which he co-founded decades ago). On Tuesday, Rooney will be at the White House for a special St. Patrick's Day reception with Obama and the Irish Prime Minister.
Last April, Rooney broke ranks with members of his own family and the political establishment of both the region and state to endorse Barack Obama. At the time, no one of his stature had embraced Obama from Pennsylvania. (U.S. Sen. Bob Casey endorsed Obama shortly thereafter). After that, Rooney campaigned hard for Obama, raised money for him, and hosted Michelle Obama at his North Side home. Talk to the president, you quickly learn that this is a mutual admiration society.
In my view (and, admittedly I'm biased because I am a big Rooney fan), Dan has not only earned the ambassadorship the traditional political way, but he is also uniquely qualified to be ambassador because of the work he has done for so many years to promote peace and reconciliation in Ireland. If you want to learn more, check out these stories, including a Jan. 17 interview I did with Dan wherein he said he would serve in any position the President wants. http://kdka.com/video/?id=54536@kdka.dayport.com ; uncut interview http://kdka.com/video/?id=51971@kdka.dayport.com
PENNSYLVANIA:
Can Anyone Stop Onorato for Governor?
It's still more than a year until the 2010 Pennsylvania primary when voters pick the nominees for Pennsylvania's highest office. But everyone knows that these campaigns for governor cannot wait until 2010 to get started. On the Democratic side, Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato, who has a whopping $4 million in his war chest already, would like everyone to believe that he is the strongest Democrat in the field to succeed Gov. Ed Rendell, a term-limited Philadelphia Democrat.
Truth is Onorato is right. At this stage, he has got to be considered the front-runner. Even if he didn't have all this money, he has a bigger political base than any of the other candidates, and the conservative Pittsburgh Democrat arguably may be best placed to break the 50 year jinx that dictates the Republicans win the governor's mansion after eight years of Rendell.
But don't tell that to Lehigh County executive Don Cunningham, who thinks he can give Onorato a run for all that money. I had the chance to sit down with Cunningham not long ago, and he makes a case that he can raise the money and has the issues to out-flank Onorato within the more liberal Democratic Party.
Ironically, on many levels, Onorato and Cunningham are similar - both 40-somethings come from working class backgrounds, an Italian Catholic versus an Irish Catholic. Cunningham was a young mayor of Bethlehem when Bethlehem Steel shut its doors, and he says now his region is the fastest-growing part of Pennsylvania. Both are committed to practical approaches to economic development, and can point to examples of success. Indeed, they sound a lot alike when they talk about growth.
But on one social issue, there's a big difference. While Onorato is pro-life, Cunningham is pro-choice, and within the Democratic Party that could be a defining issue for some. However, Cunningham is not about to change Pennsylvania's already tough anti-abortion law (neither did pro-choice Rendell) while Onorato is hardly pushing to make the law tougher.
If that issue neutralizes for Onorato, Cunningham has no problem going after Onorato on the drink tax, the ten percent (now seven percent) levy on poured alcohol in Allegheny County. Onorato backed that tax to give public transit a dedicated source of revenue, necessary to receive federal matching dollars. The tax is unpopular among many, and Cunningham took aim at it during a recent visit to Pittsburgh, calling the tax "one of the highest, if not the highest, in Allegheny County history." No surprise, the anti-drink tax folks hosted a fund-raiser for Cunningham.
Here's my quick story on his visit: http://kdka.com/video/?id=53616@kdka.dayport.com and if you want to watch the full 18-minute interview, just click on this: http://kdka.com/video/?id=53604@kdka.dayport.com
Can Cunningham really give Onorato a run? Of course, he can, if - and it's a big if - he is able to raise enough money to get an alternative message out there. Right now, Cunningham is up for reelection as county executive in Lehigh County, and that could drain some resources. Still, in my view, it won't hurt Onorato to have some competition next spring. Many political analysts believe that's what helped Ed Rendell the most in 2002 - running against Bob Casey in the Democratic primary and forcing Rendell to campaign all over the state. By the end of that primary, everyone knew Rendell, while his Republican opponent, Attorney General Mike Fisher, was still a relatively unknown state official.
Can Anyone Beat Arlen?
After U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter voted to enact the Obama stimulus plan, Specter's arch-enemies on the right promised to take him out, politically speaking, in next spring's primary. Their biggest challenge was finding a candidate to do that, and they just might have done that.
As I opined in my last PSF, former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, the conservative Republican who nearly took Specter down in 2004, has always been the most popular choice among the conservative party faithful. The cum laude graduate of Harvard is now president of the Club for Growth, a conservative economic think tank that opposes President Obama's economic policies. Toomey, at first, was not inclined to take Specter on again, preferring a run for governor instead. But that seems to have changed, in part, because the outcry against Specter for supporting President Obama's recovery plan has reached pandemic proportions nationwide among Republican conservatives and their talk show allies (yes, Rush).
Toomey has some advantages in 2010 that he did not enjoy in 2004, not the least of which is Specter himself. While I've never seen a 79-year old with as much vigor and political acuity as Arlen Specter, particularly given what life has thrown at him, time has taken a toll on him, as it has on all of us. Still, Pennsylvania is an "older" state, and like our neighbors in West Virginia (who will never not reelect Robert Byrd) Specter's 80-something age next year won't be a negative as long as he keeps up that feisty campaign style that belies his age.
No, what Specter's greatest problem among Republicans is not his age but the wide-spread perception that he is not a "reliable" Republican - that he "blows with the wind" on issues important to many Republicans. What the general public sees as Specter's independent voting style, many GOPers see as a betrayal of core party principles. The senator's support for Obama's recovery plan, while certainly popular in Pennsylvania as a whole, has become a political lightening rod for the base of Specter's party.
And, arguably, it's a base that has become more conservative over the years, even in this state where moderate Republicans like Scranton, Thornburgh, and Ridge held court for so many years. Some pundits have talked about the loss moderate Rs to Ds in 2008 in order to vote in the Democratic presidential primary, and certainly that happened. It's also true that Limbaugh and others encouraged conservative Rs to do the same to play havoc with the Democrats. My guess is all this party-switching stuff is over-stated. Most voters don't think this strategically when they join a political party.
A bigger problem for Specter is that he will no longer have two powerful incumbent politicians on his side - President Bush and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Many believe, and I am one of them, that Bush and Santorum's support for Specter delivered the 17,000 votes that made the difference in the 2004 primary. I can't tell you the number of people I met that year who told me they were "holding their noses and voting for Specter" because Rick told them to do that. Today, Santorum has politely declined to indicate whether he still backs Specter over Toomey, but it wouldn't matter much if Rick still likes Arlen. Out of office for more than two years, Santorum no longer lives in Pennsylvania and his cadre of fervent supporters are not going to listen to him a second time anyways.
Now none of this means it's hopeless for Specter to win renomination. He should have plenty of money, and he still gets plaudits for "bringing home the bacon" to key constituencies in the state. And Specter knows how to go on offense, like his charge yesterday that Toomey was partially responsible for the Wall Street mess. In his very early years, Toomey worked for investment firms in New York City and Hong Kong.
"He's been totally in favor of deregulation, letting Wall Street run its own affairs, which has been a tremendous factor in bringing us into this current mess," Specter charged on a radio talk show in Wilkes-Barre. "So, on the basis of what he did in Congress, I think he's part of the problem." Zing. Zap.
And for some Republicans, Specter is their only hope of keeping Pennsylvania in the Republican column. With 1.1 million more Democrats than Republicans, the conservative Toomey will have to leapfrog to the middle to win a general election in the state. Of course, it's hard to handicap the 2010 general without knowing the Democrat. A Philadelphia liberal as the Dem nominee might give Toomey a fighting chance to win statewide.
But first he'll have to defeat Specter and that could get a little more complicated with the entry of Peg Luksik, the conservative pro-life activist who says she's also going to run in the Republican primary next year. The 53-year old Johnstown native, fresh off a stint as campaign manager for William Russell who lost to U.S. Rep. John Murtha, made political history in 1990 when she got 45% of the vote against then Republican state treasurer Barbara Hafer in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Four years later, she ran as an Independent for governor, garnering 13% of the vote which still stands as a record for an independent candidate.
All in all, the 2010 Senate race will be as much fun as the governor's race to watch.
Statewide Elections Are All Black Robes:
It's only natural to zoom ahead to 2010 because the 2009 off-year election, at least statewide, strikes many as boring. Voters this year will elect one member of the state Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created when Chief Justice Ralph Cappy retired, three members of the state Superior Court, and one member of the Commonwealth Court.
I daresay most voters will not have a clue who to vote for in either the May primary or the November general election. But in Pennsylvania, where judges are elected and run under the party label, which party controls the courts, particularly the highest court, can matter, particularly in redistricting and election-related matters. Right now, the state Supreme Court is controlled by the Democrats, 4-to-3. The Superior Court is controlled by the Republicans, 10-to-5, and the Republicans also control the Commonwealth Court, 5-to-4.
With the deadline for filing nominating petitions on March 10, we are beginning to get a picture of who's running for what. On the Democratic side, only one candidate appears to be running for the state Supreme Court - Superior Court Judge Jack Panella. Panella has been on this state court for five years, after serving 12 years on the Northampton Court of Common Pleas.
While the Dems seem to have united behind Panella, it looks like a true free-for-all on the Republican side. At least four candidates have filed for the Republican nomination, including three Superior Court colleagues, all women, and all from Allegheny County: Superior Court Judges Cheryl Allen, Joan Orie Melvin, and Jacqueline Shogan. The only male on the ballot is Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Paul Panepinto.
Melvin was endorsed by the state Republican Party, which comes as no surprise since her sister is Senate Majority Whip Jane Orie. Melvin has the longest judicial service, serving more than 20 years as a municipal, county, and statewide judge. But that has hardly deterred Allen, the first African American elected to the Superior Court, or Shogan, a nurse of 12 years who went back to law school (Duke) and graduated with high honors. Panepinto has served 19 years on the Philadelphia court, where the Widener law grad is in charge of complex litigation cases.
Feel Free to Buy Your Judge:
In Pennsylvania, judicial candidates can accept contributions of any amount from individuals or political committees. In addition, outside organizations have been known to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to defeat or elect their preferred candidates. This is all quite legal, which is why the case of Caperton v. Massey Coal, argued recently before the U.S. Supreme Court, is so important. When a candidate is elected judge, at what point must he recuse himself from the cases involving those who have contributed to his campaign? Right now, it is left entirely up to the judge, some of whom appear to have no problem sitting on cases that involve their contributors.
To his credit, former Chief Justice John P. Flaherty of Pennsylvania joined 27 former chief justices and justices of 19 state supreme courts in filing a "friend of the court" brief in the Caperton case. They argued, correctly, that "substantial financial support of a judicial candidate - whether contributions to the judge's campaign committee or independent expenditures - can influence a judge's future decisions, both consciously and unconsciously." The solution is automatic recusal to protect the due process rights of the litigants who did not contribute to the judge and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. It seems obvious to me. Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court makes the right decision.
PITTSBURGH
Luke Ravenstahl Asks for Four More Years:
If it sometimes seems like Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is in one perpetual election cycle, you can be forgiven. He has been. Propelled into office at the untimely death of the late Mayor Bob O'Connor on September 1, 2006, Ravenstahl had a primary election in May 2007 (that's the race that Councilman Bill Peduto withdrew from) and a competitive general election in 2007 (against Republican challenger Mark DeSantis). Having won that special election, Ravenstahl is now running for a full four-year term as Pittsburgh's mayor.
Now age 29, Ravenstahl ought to be a shoo-in for reelection. He has amassed a sizeable campaign war chest. He is one of the most recognized political figures in the area, and, after some stupid mistakes early on, he seems to have settled down. While he is the master of the photo op [yesterday it was "Miss Smiling Irish Eyes" & today it's "Fixing Pittsburgh's Potholes"] like most mayors, he has learned to be substantive, too.
I have known Luke since he first ran for city council - just months after graduating from Washington & Jefferson College in December 2002. I think I was the first, or at least one of the first, reporters to put him on TV right after he defeated incumbent Councilwoman Barbara Burns in May 2003 enroute to election to city council that November. I have always been intrigued and admired his political acumen in a man so young and, frankly, I have always liked Luke on a personal level, although I won't let that interfere with reporting and analyzing his actions in an honest, objective manner.
The biggest knock on Ravenstahl, it seems to me, is that he often appears to be a "caretaker" - not a vision maker for a city that is rapidly losing its population and its tax base. Feel good national news stories that rank Pittsburgh positively on some levels do not solve the city's underlying financial woes or reverse some long-term trends that began long before Ravenstahl was born in 1980. To his credit, the mayor and his aides now appear more on top of some of these issues than they did a year ago, but the failure of the first couple years - aided and abetted by youth, inexperience, and the stupid stuff - has left an opening for Ravenstahl's critics.
Patrick Dowd Tries to Shake Up the Democrats:
Enter Councilman Patrick Dowd, a 40-year old Highland Park resident, who thinks he can defeat Ravenstahl in the May 19 Democratic primary. None of the political punditocracy thinks he can do that, but Dowd has always upended expectations, defeating incumbents first for the School Board and then for City Council. [He lost his first race against PA Rep. Joe Preston].
Dowd is a quintessential outsider, and he has won elections through a grassroots campaign, rather than the political clout of a Democratic organization. With less than 10 weeks to go, Dowd's challenge is whether he has enough time to reach thousands of city Democrats who have no clue who he is.
With both a Masters degree and Ph.D. in history from the University of Pittsburgh, Dowd can be sharp, analytical, and direct. Even some of his colleagues on city council who would be his natural allies against Ravenstahl are not likely to endorse him because he's too much of a loner and not a team player, they say.
In this campaign, Dowd has attacked Ravenstahl for both lacking vision for the future and for being, as some have described the mayor, the youngest old-school machine politician in America. When he announced his candidacy, Dowd compared himself to the late Mayor Pete Flaherty, who also ran - and beat - the Democratic machine forty years ago by characterizing himself as "Nobody's Boy." But Flaherty was much better known as a council member when he ran than Dowd is today, in part because back then members of council were elected at-large, not by district.
Right now, I think Dowd will be lucky to get 40% of the Democratic primary vote and could get much less because of the entry of attorney Carmen Robinson, a former city police sergeant, into the race. Still, his candidacy forces Ravenstahl to deal with the "vision thing" - to wit, the mayor's effort to create a Renaissance III plan on Monday. And that's good for the city.
Could Dowd upset Ravenstahl in May? Of course, everything's possible in politics. But in early March, time is on the mayor's side. As the campaign develops, I'd welcome the insights of any city dwellers. To get a better glimpse of Dowd, you can check out these stories on his candidacy: http://kdka.com/video/?id=53626@kdka.dayport.com; http://kdka.com/video/?id=53425@kdka.dayport.com; http://kdka.com/video/?id=53429@kdka.dayport.com.
Franco Harris for Mayor?
Rumors have swirled for months that Franco Harris, the great Steelers Hall of Famer from yesteryear, was interested in running for office. After all, the 59-year old has been a staple on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates over the years, including Barack Obama.
But it was not this Franco Harris who tossed his hat in the ring for mayor on Monday, but rather 29-year old Franco Harris Jr., who goes by "Dok," a shortened version of his mother's maiden name. Dok Harris says he will run as an Independent against Ravenstahl, or whoever wins the Democratic and Republican primaries, this November.
I sat down with Harris this week, and besides that incredible resemblance to his dad (helped by the beard) Dok was impressive for someone who does not have political experience. He's obviously bright, a graduate of Shadyside Academy and Princeton University with a Masters Degree from Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business and a Law Degree from the University of Pittsburgh. He speaks well and repeats some of Dowd's arguments against the mayor, although in softer language and with occasional compliments to Luke. But the one-time Republican, then Democrat, and now Independent knows he will have to develop and articulate a clear message for his candidacy to get off the ground.
Harris says his father's famous name will get the voters to take a look at him, but he himself must close the deal by convincing voters that he can run the city better than Ravenstahl and that he has a better prescription for the future.
In my view, if Harris can raise money, he could make things interesting this fall, but this is quite a long-shot. Pittsburgh is a five-to-one Democratic town. Four years ago, Republican Joe Weinroth (spending practically nothing) got 27% of the vote against Bob O'Connor. Two years ago, Republican Mark DeSantis (spending more than a quarter million dollars on TV) got 35% of the vote against Ravenstahl. Harris would need every Republican vote plus a whole lot of Democrats to make this competitive.
To get a better feel for this newcomer to politics, check out the story on his announcement (http://kdka.com/video/?id=54494@kdka.dayport.com) and my uncut interview with him (http://kdka.com/video/?id=54468@kdka.dayport.com).
That's more than enough for today's PSF. As always, I welcome your off-the-record comments and insights. Remember to use delano.jon@gmail.com to reach me. And for those of you in the Northeast/Midwest plagued with this never-ending winter, take solace. Spring is coming!
Showing posts with label Dan Rooney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dan Rooney. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Monday, November 3, 2008
Just One Day to Go
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Happy Election Day! One day to go – can you imagine? This interminable, never-ending campaign for president is just about over. Millions have already cast their ballots in the 31 states that allow “early voting,” but most of us will go to the polls on Tuesday – and later that night we shall know who the 44th president of the United States will be. No, I do not believe the vote-counting will drag on to December, and, no, this will not be another 1888 or 2000 where the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral college. Thankfully, this election will produce a clear-cut winner, one way or the other.
So, in these last minutes of Campaign ’08, let me offer some final thoughts to my politically savvy friends along with some observations of sorts. Since my last PSF a week ago, I had the chance to do one-on-one interviews with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and a satellite interview with Joe Biden. John McCain is back in Pittsburgh this morning (Monday), but so far no word on whether he will chat with me. (I’ve talked to him twice this fall). While I am aggressive in seeking out these interviews – and scrupulously fair to all candidates – I know the reason they talk to me has very little to do with me and a great deal to do with the importance of western Pennsylvania in this campaign. Never has a region been so eagerly sought by candidates enroute to the White House! Read on for more.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
Why Pennsylvania is So Important:
With the magic number of electoral votes being 270, RealClearPolitics now puts 238“solid” electoral votes in Obama’s column with 118 solid votes for McCain. Four states are leaning to Obama: Colorado (9 electoral votes), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and Pennsylvania (21). If he wins the first three, but not Pennsylvania, he does not hit the magic 270. Could it really all come down to Pennsylvania? John McCain & Sarah Palin seem to think so. They have invested an incredible amount of time and resources throughout this state, and the latest SurveyUSA poll out on Sunday shows they have made some inroads: a 12-point lead for Obama last week is down to 7 points this week.
But Obama does have other options. He could become the first Democratic president since Harry Truman in 1948 to win the White House without PA. You see, RealClearPolitics now has an unbelievable 128 electoral votes still up for grabs, including Florida (27 electoral votes), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Arizona (10), Montana (3), and North Dakota (3). Obama can clinch the presidency with a win in Florida and Ohio without Pennsylvania.
The numbers are much more difficult for McCain. He must win all the toss-up states and then take Pennsylvania. Since Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to carry PA back in 1860, only two Republicans have made it to the White House without the Keystone State: Richard Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000 & 2004. If McCain loses Pennsylvania, it’s hard to see how he wins the presidency.
The Battle for Pennsylvania:
McCain and his strategists know the history lesson, which explains why he and Palin have been campaigning non-stop in this commonwealth. Since the end of the GOP Convention, McCain has made 17 campaign stops throughout the commonwealth, including one today (Monday) in Pittsburgh. For her part, Palin has made 23 campaign visits, including last Friday’s stops in Latrobe and York. That’s a lot of love from two Republicans for a state that has a million more Democrats than Republicans!
While the McCain-Palin events are smaller in crowd size than Obama-Biden, the supporters can be just as enthusiastic. This past week, it was all about Joe the Plumber, spreading the wealth, socialism, higher taxes – familiar messages on the GOP trail. And both candidates insisted that Pennsylvania was going to surprise a lot of folks on Tuesday. As I’ve opined before in earlier PSFs, PA is winnable for the Republicans if – and it’s a big if – things break for them. What are those things? First, a low turn-out in Philadelphia and a margin of victory for Obama that is under 400,000 votes in the city. Second, a break-even in the Philly suburbs, where both John Kerry & Al Gore beat George W. Bush. Third, a win or break-even in Northeast PA. Fourth, a solid victory over Obama in the center part of the state, including Democratic areas that stretch from Johnstown to York to Lancaster to Reading. Fifth, a loss in Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) of under 80,000 votes – Kerry won here by 97,000. And, finally, a big GOP win in Westmoreland County (by more than 30,000 votes) and consistent wins in all the conservative-voting Democratic counties that surround Pittsburgh and swing north to Erie. Under this scenario, McCain could eke out a victory in PA.
Palin Hits Latrobe:
Dressed in jeans, a Republican “cloth” coat (anyone remember Nixon’s speech?), and a orange Halloween scarf, Sarah Palin hit the make-shift stage (festooned with pumpkins on bales of hay) at a hangar at the small Arnold Palmer Airport in Latrobe (Westmoreland County) on Friday. About 2,500 supporters welcomed her on a frigid cold morning. She was accompanied by former Gov. Tom Ridge and another western PA football Hall of Famer – Coach Mike Ditka. Ditka who told the audience he was both a Republican and a conservative, introduced Palin. Pittsburgh football fans know that Ditka, born in Carnegie and raised in Aliquippa, was a local high school player before joining the University of Pittsburgh Panthers. The rest is history. Palin’s speech was not much different than the one she delivered in Beaver County a week earlier. It didn’t have to be – her supporters love her and she gets cheers just for showing up. Anybody think “Palin in 2012”?
This was my first chance to meet the Alaskan governor in person, and I admit I like her. She’s warm, down-to-earth, and (yes, guys) easy to look at! She answered my questions without hesitation – which, admittedly, were not tough ones – and was friendly and funny. And, yes, she talks just like Tina Fey, dropping her “g’s” as in fishin’ and huntin’ and the like. Is she qualified to be Vice President or President? Well, that’s a question for you to answer. I talked to her about Ditka’s endorsement, whether she thought western PA was like Alaska, and her iconic political role. She thought it was bizarre that people were dressing up as her for Halloween, but cracked that she was going out as Tina Fey. In her speech, she called on “Casey Democrats” to vote for McCain, so I asked her who those Casey Democrats were. I also gave her the chance to tell me how she would have run the campaign differently if she was in charged. No surprise, she ducked the question. You can watch the full uncut interview here: http://kdka.com/video/?id=48238@kdka.dayport.com.
In my view, the McCain campaign did a disservice to Palin when they hid her from the local media in the early fall. She does just fine, and by refusing to let her talk, they only created the impression that she was too dumb to answer questions and needed to be protected in some way. Moreover, I tend to think that local media are more fair than the national media, or at least less likely to have an axe to grind. Palin has been a great asset to McCain in exciting the Christian evangelical base, but it’s also true that she has hurt McCain among plenty of other voters, particularly some suburban women. We’ll know Tuesday night whether Palin helped more than she hurt.
Obama Hits the ‘Burgh:
Pittsburgh supporters of Barack Obama are nothing if not passionate about their candidate. At 7 am on a very cold day last Monday (Oct. 27), they started to line up to get into the Mellon Arena – home of the Pittsburgh Penguins – when the doors were not going to open until 3 pm and the candidate wouldn’t speak until 5:30 pm. This was Obama’s last visit to western PA, and at least 16,000 (a near capacity crowd) showed up to hear his “closing speech.” He brought out the typical political entourage: Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Bob Casey, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato, and Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl. But the introduction was reserved for a man whose popularity exceeds all the politicians combined: Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Rooney is one of the nicest guys around, and his early endorsement of Obama last spring has had an impact. [A couple weeks ago, when Michelle Obama was in Pittsburgh, she stopped by the Rooney home on the Northside for a private fundraiser]. The crowd clearly loved it all, and I saw more than a few terrible towels being swirled around, albeit this came the day after the beloved Steelers fell to the Giants.
Before the end of Obama’s remarks, I had the chance to go back stage where I would interview Obama right after his speech. While I always enjoy interviewing the candidates, it’s a special treat to chat with some of the campaign operatives. I have talked to David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist, on several occasions, and this time we had a bit more time together as Obama worked the rope line before exiting the Arena. I consider these conversations very much off-the-record, although I doubt Axelrod told me anything he hasn’t told others publicly. I like Axelrod, not only because he is a former political reporter (so he understands what it likes to be on this side of the camera), but because he is a soft-spoken, intelligent man who does not rant or rage or spin his words. In this business, that’s often rare.
Following his rousing reception, Obama was obviously revved up, if understandably a little bit tired. When I interviewed him behind a barn in Ohio in September, we had more time for chit-chat before the interview. This time it was pretty much all business. As the first reporter to talk to him since the story broke shortly before his Pittsburgh speech about those Nazi skinheads in Tennessee plotting an assassination, I had to ask him about that news item – but my general rule is to keep things Pennsylvania-focused and that’s what I did. I asked Obama about his reception in Pittsburgh, the state of the contest, the impact of racism, the skinheads, and his own safety – all in the mere two minutes I was allotted! You can check it out here: http://kdka.com/video/?id=48006@kdka.dayport.com.
While this was the Obama’s last visit to the region, both President Clinton and Senator Clinton were dispatched here for the late campaign hours. President Clinton spoke at Washington & Jefferson College on Thursday, while Senator Clinton is returning here today (Monday) after being here just a week ago Friday. Given the support the Clintons have always received in this region, it’s probably smart politics.
Intermission:
Did you miss Saturday Night Live this weekend? Check out John McCain’s great performance with Tina Fey right here: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/
For you “Irish rednecks” in Pennsylvania, check out this tune that acclaims Obama’s Irish ancestry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek
And for those who (like me) love the musical Les Miserables, enjoy this parody of the Obama’s campaign last day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0
PENNSYLVANIA
Statewide Battles Unchanged:
Last week, I reviewed the three major statewide contests on the ballot tomorrow. For attorney general: incumbent Republican Tom Corbett versus Democrat John Morganelli; for state auditor general, incumbent Democrat Jack Wagner versus Republican Chet Beiler; for state treasurer, Republican Tom Ellis versus Democrat Rob McCord. The odds favor Corbett, Wagner, and McCord, but clearly Corbett is worried that a Democratic tide in PA could sink his Republican ship. He has assailed Morganelli on television and in direct mailers, although the Northampton district attorney has fought back. Voters in this state often “split” their tickets on Election Day, and my gut still gives it to Corbett. The appearance of a partisan, one-sided attack on House Democrats over “Bonusgate” – wherein both parties allegedly paid out legislative bonuses with taxpayer dollars for political campaign work done by legislative aides in the House and Senate – has hurt Corbett. But whether it’s enough to sink the political fortunes of this visible attorney general seems doubtful. I think it would take a Democratic tsunami for Morganelli to win.
PA Congressional Races Reviewed:
Most pundits think the four Democratic freshmen elected in 2006 will be returned to Congress tomorrow: U.S. Reps. Jason Altmire (4th CD), Joe Sestak (7th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), and Chris Carney (10th CD). The most interesting contest of the four is former U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart’s comeback try against Altmire, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is so confident of Altmire’s victory that it has pulled out of the race. Nonetheless, Hart has a creative television ad (blowing up a house) that seek to blame Altmire and Nancy Pelosi for failing to take action in the current economic crisis. It’s a dramatic ad, but probably comes too late to affect the outcome. The Dems think Altmire could win by double digits.
If any Democratic incumbents are to fall tomorrow, the most likely is U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Nanticoke (11th CD). My impression from afar is that Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta, the Republican, has the 24-year incumbent Democrat on the ropes over a variety of issues, and that Kanjorski could be one of the few Democratic House incumbents to lose this year. Still, the district is Democratic and that could count for a lot in a Democratic year. And in a last-minute effort to help, President Bill Clinton will campaign for Kanjorski tonight (Monday) at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre. Kanjorski can still win this, but Barletta could pull an upset.
Most of the attention over the last week has been on U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown (12th CD). Murtha’s opponent is William Russell, a retired lieutenant colonel who recently moved to Pennsylvania from Virginia to take on Murtha. Nobody thought Murtha was in trouble a month ago – then Murtha put his foot in his mouth with comments about racism in western PA. Although he has apologized, Russell has hammered Murtha in TV ads on the “insult.” This week, Murtha responded with a blitzkrieg of his own, attacking Russell by name as a carpetbagger and highlighting his own success at bringing millions of dollars to western PA. And the DCCC has rushed in to help Murtha. Later today, President Clinton will campaign for Murtha. Both Russell and Murtha are social conservatives – Murtha is pro-life and has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association – but Russell has attacked Murtha for being the king of earmarks, something Murtha is proud of. The question for voters in the 12th CD is whether they are so unhappy over Murtha’s mouth that they are willing to toss him out with all his seniority and the money it brings this region. It may be close, but I think Murtha can pull this out.
The DCCC is salivating over the 3rd CD where incumbent U.S. Rep. Phil English, an Erie Republican, may lose to Kathy Dahlkemper, an Erie Democrat. English is a reasonably moderate Republican – he touts a support record of 50% for George W. Bush last year – but Dahlkemper has gone after English on trade, tax, and economic issues. The 3rd CD stretches from Erie south into some outlying counties just north of Pittsburgh: Armstrong, Butler, and Venango Counties. Both English and Dahlkemper think it may come down to these Pittsburgh-oriented counties, so the Pittsburgh media market has been flooded with television ads, mostly DCCC ads attacking English. The last time English had a close race, it was the Republican-voting Butler County that bailed him out. If it’s really close, that could happen again.
Steve O’Donnell, a Monroeville Democrat, has been attacked relentlessly by U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (18th CD), an Upper St. Clair Republican, in television ads this past week. Citing articles from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Murphy says O’Donnell essentially ran a non-profit mental health group into bankruptcy, rewarding himself and his family in the process. O’Donnell denies the charges, but does not have the resources to defend himself on TV. In an interview with me this week, O’Donnell said one shot in the TV ad where O’Donnell raises his hand up in front of a camera – just like most criminal defendants do when confronted by TV news cameras – is a fake. He was never the subject of a TV news story, but rather raised his hand to protect himself when one of Murphy’s people shoved a camera in his face. Murphy’s campaign has released some raw video tape, suggesting O’Donnell actually approached the camera. Whatever the truth really is, the real question is why is an incumbent congressman engaged in what some think is political overkill when he ought to be a safe bet for reelection? Two years ago, Murphy won over an unknown Democrat by 16 points. Sure, the 18th CD has 70,000 more Dems than Republicans, but the hard-working Murphy has attracted Democratic, and labor, support over the years. So is 2008 different? Well, again, unless Dems do something this year they haven’t done before, Murphy should win another double-digit victory.
A Pet Peeve – It’s Democratic Party, not Democrat Party:
A number of years ago, I was assailed by both pro-life and pro-choice folks because I refused to accept their characterization of their opponents. Pro-lifers want me to call their opponents pro-abortion, while pro-choice people want me to call their opponents anti-choice. My rule is fairly simple: I will call you whatever you want, but you can’t impose a name on others. The official names of our two major parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Over the last decade or so, some narrow-minded Republicans and their allies in the media have tried, unilaterally, to change the name of the Democratic Party to the Democrat Party. They have no right to do that, any more than Democrats can rename their opponents as the Repub Party. When you hear someone do that, it tells you a lot about their political idealogy.
Congrats to Luke & Erin:
Finally, I’m sure all my politically savvy friends join me in congratulating Pittsburgh’s 28-year old mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, and his wife Erin on the birth of their first child, son Cooper, on Friday. It’s a great reminder that amidst all the politics some things are more important – our families are really the reason that we need to elect quality individuals to public office. Little Cooper Ravenstahl cannot cast a vote until 2026, but his parents can – and you can – and it will never hurt us to think about which of the many candidates on the ballot can advance the interests of all our families in this state and nation.
This is obviously my last PSF before America votes on Tuesday. Over the next few days, I welcome your accounts of what is happening – and your own post-election analysis. I’ll share my thoughts on what happened at the end of the week. In the meantime, enjoy this most important aspect of American democracy – the right to vote in and vote out our government leaders. Good luck!
Happy Election Day! One day to go – can you imagine? This interminable, never-ending campaign for president is just about over. Millions have already cast their ballots in the 31 states that allow “early voting,” but most of us will go to the polls on Tuesday – and later that night we shall know who the 44th president of the United States will be. No, I do not believe the vote-counting will drag on to December, and, no, this will not be another 1888 or 2000 where the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral college. Thankfully, this election will produce a clear-cut winner, one way or the other.
So, in these last minutes of Campaign ’08, let me offer some final thoughts to my politically savvy friends along with some observations of sorts. Since my last PSF a week ago, I had the chance to do one-on-one interviews with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and a satellite interview with Joe Biden. John McCain is back in Pittsburgh this morning (Monday), but so far no word on whether he will chat with me. (I’ve talked to him twice this fall). While I am aggressive in seeking out these interviews – and scrupulously fair to all candidates – I know the reason they talk to me has very little to do with me and a great deal to do with the importance of western Pennsylvania in this campaign. Never has a region been so eagerly sought by candidates enroute to the White House! Read on for more.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
Why Pennsylvania is So Important:
With the magic number of electoral votes being 270, RealClearPolitics now puts 238“solid” electoral votes in Obama’s column with 118 solid votes for McCain. Four states are leaning to Obama: Colorado (9 electoral votes), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and Pennsylvania (21). If he wins the first three, but not Pennsylvania, he does not hit the magic 270. Could it really all come down to Pennsylvania? John McCain & Sarah Palin seem to think so. They have invested an incredible amount of time and resources throughout this state, and the latest SurveyUSA poll out on Sunday shows they have made some inroads: a 12-point lead for Obama last week is down to 7 points this week.
But Obama does have other options. He could become the first Democratic president since Harry Truman in 1948 to win the White House without PA. You see, RealClearPolitics now has an unbelievable 128 electoral votes still up for grabs, including Florida (27 electoral votes), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Arizona (10), Montana (3), and North Dakota (3). Obama can clinch the presidency with a win in Florida and Ohio without Pennsylvania.
The numbers are much more difficult for McCain. He must win all the toss-up states and then take Pennsylvania. Since Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to carry PA back in 1860, only two Republicans have made it to the White House without the Keystone State: Richard Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000 & 2004. If McCain loses Pennsylvania, it’s hard to see how he wins the presidency.
The Battle for Pennsylvania:
McCain and his strategists know the history lesson, which explains why he and Palin have been campaigning non-stop in this commonwealth. Since the end of the GOP Convention, McCain has made 17 campaign stops throughout the commonwealth, including one today (Monday) in Pittsburgh. For her part, Palin has made 23 campaign visits, including last Friday’s stops in Latrobe and York. That’s a lot of love from two Republicans for a state that has a million more Democrats than Republicans!
While the McCain-Palin events are smaller in crowd size than Obama-Biden, the supporters can be just as enthusiastic. This past week, it was all about Joe the Plumber, spreading the wealth, socialism, higher taxes – familiar messages on the GOP trail. And both candidates insisted that Pennsylvania was going to surprise a lot of folks on Tuesday. As I’ve opined before in earlier PSFs, PA is winnable for the Republicans if – and it’s a big if – things break for them. What are those things? First, a low turn-out in Philadelphia and a margin of victory for Obama that is under 400,000 votes in the city. Second, a break-even in the Philly suburbs, where both John Kerry & Al Gore beat George W. Bush. Third, a win or break-even in Northeast PA. Fourth, a solid victory over Obama in the center part of the state, including Democratic areas that stretch from Johnstown to York to Lancaster to Reading. Fifth, a loss in Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) of under 80,000 votes – Kerry won here by 97,000. And, finally, a big GOP win in Westmoreland County (by more than 30,000 votes) and consistent wins in all the conservative-voting Democratic counties that surround Pittsburgh and swing north to Erie. Under this scenario, McCain could eke out a victory in PA.
Palin Hits Latrobe:
Dressed in jeans, a Republican “cloth” coat (anyone remember Nixon’s speech?), and a orange Halloween scarf, Sarah Palin hit the make-shift stage (festooned with pumpkins on bales of hay) at a hangar at the small Arnold Palmer Airport in Latrobe (Westmoreland County) on Friday. About 2,500 supporters welcomed her on a frigid cold morning. She was accompanied by former Gov. Tom Ridge and another western PA football Hall of Famer – Coach Mike Ditka. Ditka who told the audience he was both a Republican and a conservative, introduced Palin. Pittsburgh football fans know that Ditka, born in Carnegie and raised in Aliquippa, was a local high school player before joining the University of Pittsburgh Panthers. The rest is history. Palin’s speech was not much different than the one she delivered in Beaver County a week earlier. It didn’t have to be – her supporters love her and she gets cheers just for showing up. Anybody think “Palin in 2012”?
This was my first chance to meet the Alaskan governor in person, and I admit I like her. She’s warm, down-to-earth, and (yes, guys) easy to look at! She answered my questions without hesitation – which, admittedly, were not tough ones – and was friendly and funny. And, yes, she talks just like Tina Fey, dropping her “g’s” as in fishin’ and huntin’ and the like. Is she qualified to be Vice President or President? Well, that’s a question for you to answer. I talked to her about Ditka’s endorsement, whether she thought western PA was like Alaska, and her iconic political role. She thought it was bizarre that people were dressing up as her for Halloween, but cracked that she was going out as Tina Fey. In her speech, she called on “Casey Democrats” to vote for McCain, so I asked her who those Casey Democrats were. I also gave her the chance to tell me how she would have run the campaign differently if she was in charged. No surprise, she ducked the question. You can watch the full uncut interview here: http://kdka.com/video/?id=48238@kdka.dayport.com.
In my view, the McCain campaign did a disservice to Palin when they hid her from the local media in the early fall. She does just fine, and by refusing to let her talk, they only created the impression that she was too dumb to answer questions and needed to be protected in some way. Moreover, I tend to think that local media are more fair than the national media, or at least less likely to have an axe to grind. Palin has been a great asset to McCain in exciting the Christian evangelical base, but it’s also true that she has hurt McCain among plenty of other voters, particularly some suburban women. We’ll know Tuesday night whether Palin helped more than she hurt.
Obama Hits the ‘Burgh:
Pittsburgh supporters of Barack Obama are nothing if not passionate about their candidate. At 7 am on a very cold day last Monday (Oct. 27), they started to line up to get into the Mellon Arena – home of the Pittsburgh Penguins – when the doors were not going to open until 3 pm and the candidate wouldn’t speak until 5:30 pm. This was Obama’s last visit to western PA, and at least 16,000 (a near capacity crowd) showed up to hear his “closing speech.” He brought out the typical political entourage: Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Bob Casey, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato, and Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl. But the introduction was reserved for a man whose popularity exceeds all the politicians combined: Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Rooney is one of the nicest guys around, and his early endorsement of Obama last spring has had an impact. [A couple weeks ago, when Michelle Obama was in Pittsburgh, she stopped by the Rooney home on the Northside for a private fundraiser]. The crowd clearly loved it all, and I saw more than a few terrible towels being swirled around, albeit this came the day after the beloved Steelers fell to the Giants.
Before the end of Obama’s remarks, I had the chance to go back stage where I would interview Obama right after his speech. While I always enjoy interviewing the candidates, it’s a special treat to chat with some of the campaign operatives. I have talked to David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist, on several occasions, and this time we had a bit more time together as Obama worked the rope line before exiting the Arena. I consider these conversations very much off-the-record, although I doubt Axelrod told me anything he hasn’t told others publicly. I like Axelrod, not only because he is a former political reporter (so he understands what it likes to be on this side of the camera), but because he is a soft-spoken, intelligent man who does not rant or rage or spin his words. In this business, that’s often rare.
Following his rousing reception, Obama was obviously revved up, if understandably a little bit tired. When I interviewed him behind a barn in Ohio in September, we had more time for chit-chat before the interview. This time it was pretty much all business. As the first reporter to talk to him since the story broke shortly before his Pittsburgh speech about those Nazi skinheads in Tennessee plotting an assassination, I had to ask him about that news item – but my general rule is to keep things Pennsylvania-focused and that’s what I did. I asked Obama about his reception in Pittsburgh, the state of the contest, the impact of racism, the skinheads, and his own safety – all in the mere two minutes I was allotted! You can check it out here: http://kdka.com/video/?id=48006@kdka.dayport.com.
While this was the Obama’s last visit to the region, both President Clinton and Senator Clinton were dispatched here for the late campaign hours. President Clinton spoke at Washington & Jefferson College on Thursday, while Senator Clinton is returning here today (Monday) after being here just a week ago Friday. Given the support the Clintons have always received in this region, it’s probably smart politics.
Intermission:
Did you miss Saturday Night Live this weekend? Check out John McCain’s great performance with Tina Fey right here: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/
For you “Irish rednecks” in Pennsylvania, check out this tune that acclaims Obama’s Irish ancestry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek
And for those who (like me) love the musical Les Miserables, enjoy this parody of the Obama’s campaign last day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0
PENNSYLVANIA
Statewide Battles Unchanged:
Last week, I reviewed the three major statewide contests on the ballot tomorrow. For attorney general: incumbent Republican Tom Corbett versus Democrat John Morganelli; for state auditor general, incumbent Democrat Jack Wagner versus Republican Chet Beiler; for state treasurer, Republican Tom Ellis versus Democrat Rob McCord. The odds favor Corbett, Wagner, and McCord, but clearly Corbett is worried that a Democratic tide in PA could sink his Republican ship. He has assailed Morganelli on television and in direct mailers, although the Northampton district attorney has fought back. Voters in this state often “split” their tickets on Election Day, and my gut still gives it to Corbett. The appearance of a partisan, one-sided attack on House Democrats over “Bonusgate” – wherein both parties allegedly paid out legislative bonuses with taxpayer dollars for political campaign work done by legislative aides in the House and Senate – has hurt Corbett. But whether it’s enough to sink the political fortunes of this visible attorney general seems doubtful. I think it would take a Democratic tsunami for Morganelli to win.
PA Congressional Races Reviewed:
Most pundits think the four Democratic freshmen elected in 2006 will be returned to Congress tomorrow: U.S. Reps. Jason Altmire (4th CD), Joe Sestak (7th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), and Chris Carney (10th CD). The most interesting contest of the four is former U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart’s comeback try against Altmire, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is so confident of Altmire’s victory that it has pulled out of the race. Nonetheless, Hart has a creative television ad (blowing up a house) that seek to blame Altmire and Nancy Pelosi for failing to take action in the current economic crisis. It’s a dramatic ad, but probably comes too late to affect the outcome. The Dems think Altmire could win by double digits.
If any Democratic incumbents are to fall tomorrow, the most likely is U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Nanticoke (11th CD). My impression from afar is that Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta, the Republican, has the 24-year incumbent Democrat on the ropes over a variety of issues, and that Kanjorski could be one of the few Democratic House incumbents to lose this year. Still, the district is Democratic and that could count for a lot in a Democratic year. And in a last-minute effort to help, President Bill Clinton will campaign for Kanjorski tonight (Monday) at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre. Kanjorski can still win this, but Barletta could pull an upset.
Most of the attention over the last week has been on U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown (12th CD). Murtha’s opponent is William Russell, a retired lieutenant colonel who recently moved to Pennsylvania from Virginia to take on Murtha. Nobody thought Murtha was in trouble a month ago – then Murtha put his foot in his mouth with comments about racism in western PA. Although he has apologized, Russell has hammered Murtha in TV ads on the “insult.” This week, Murtha responded with a blitzkrieg of his own, attacking Russell by name as a carpetbagger and highlighting his own success at bringing millions of dollars to western PA. And the DCCC has rushed in to help Murtha. Later today, President Clinton will campaign for Murtha. Both Russell and Murtha are social conservatives – Murtha is pro-life and has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association – but Russell has attacked Murtha for being the king of earmarks, something Murtha is proud of. The question for voters in the 12th CD is whether they are so unhappy over Murtha’s mouth that they are willing to toss him out with all his seniority and the money it brings this region. It may be close, but I think Murtha can pull this out.
The DCCC is salivating over the 3rd CD where incumbent U.S. Rep. Phil English, an Erie Republican, may lose to Kathy Dahlkemper, an Erie Democrat. English is a reasonably moderate Republican – he touts a support record of 50% for George W. Bush last year – but Dahlkemper has gone after English on trade, tax, and economic issues. The 3rd CD stretches from Erie south into some outlying counties just north of Pittsburgh: Armstrong, Butler, and Venango Counties. Both English and Dahlkemper think it may come down to these Pittsburgh-oriented counties, so the Pittsburgh media market has been flooded with television ads, mostly DCCC ads attacking English. The last time English had a close race, it was the Republican-voting Butler County that bailed him out. If it’s really close, that could happen again.
Steve O’Donnell, a Monroeville Democrat, has been attacked relentlessly by U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (18th CD), an Upper St. Clair Republican, in television ads this past week. Citing articles from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Murphy says O’Donnell essentially ran a non-profit mental health group into bankruptcy, rewarding himself and his family in the process. O’Donnell denies the charges, but does not have the resources to defend himself on TV. In an interview with me this week, O’Donnell said one shot in the TV ad where O’Donnell raises his hand up in front of a camera – just like most criminal defendants do when confronted by TV news cameras – is a fake. He was never the subject of a TV news story, but rather raised his hand to protect himself when one of Murphy’s people shoved a camera in his face. Murphy’s campaign has released some raw video tape, suggesting O’Donnell actually approached the camera. Whatever the truth really is, the real question is why is an incumbent congressman engaged in what some think is political overkill when he ought to be a safe bet for reelection? Two years ago, Murphy won over an unknown Democrat by 16 points. Sure, the 18th CD has 70,000 more Dems than Republicans, but the hard-working Murphy has attracted Democratic, and labor, support over the years. So is 2008 different? Well, again, unless Dems do something this year they haven’t done before, Murphy should win another double-digit victory.
A Pet Peeve – It’s Democratic Party, not Democrat Party:
A number of years ago, I was assailed by both pro-life and pro-choice folks because I refused to accept their characterization of their opponents. Pro-lifers want me to call their opponents pro-abortion, while pro-choice people want me to call their opponents anti-choice. My rule is fairly simple: I will call you whatever you want, but you can’t impose a name on others. The official names of our two major parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Over the last decade or so, some narrow-minded Republicans and their allies in the media have tried, unilaterally, to change the name of the Democratic Party to the Democrat Party. They have no right to do that, any more than Democrats can rename their opponents as the Repub Party. When you hear someone do that, it tells you a lot about their political idealogy.
Congrats to Luke & Erin:
Finally, I’m sure all my politically savvy friends join me in congratulating Pittsburgh’s 28-year old mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, and his wife Erin on the birth of their first child, son Cooper, on Friday. It’s a great reminder that amidst all the politics some things are more important – our families are really the reason that we need to elect quality individuals to public office. Little Cooper Ravenstahl cannot cast a vote until 2026, but his parents can – and you can – and it will never hurt us to think about which of the many candidates on the ballot can advance the interests of all our families in this state and nation.
This is obviously my last PSF before America votes on Tuesday. Over the next few days, I welcome your accounts of what is happening – and your own post-election analysis. I’ll share my thoughts on what happened at the end of the week. In the meantime, enjoy this most important aspect of American democracy – the right to vote in and vote out our government leaders. Good luck!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Just Hours to Go
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
It all comes down to this. In just a few hours, the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania will "make or break" Hillary Clinton. A win by Barack Obama ends her campaign, virtually guaranteeing that Obama will become the Democratic nominee to face the putative Republican nominee, John McCain. But a win by Clinton of any size allows her to move forward to the remaining nine contests through June 3. And a "big" win in Pennsylvania by Clinton significantly improves her chance to be the Democratic nominee because of the message it sends to super delegates about her own electoral strengths and Obama's perceived weaknesses in an important general election state like Pennsylvania.
In this PSF, I'll share some last-minute thoughts about this presidential contest. Feel free to comment, and you can watch the news reports (scroll down on the right hand column of this blog) I have filed throughout this campaign.
PENNSYLVANIA
The Final Campaign Hours:
When you look at the schedule of the candidates over the last 48 hours, you know it takes a particularly driven individual to run for president of the United States. No reasonably thinking person would subject themselves to the brutal pace of criss-crossing a state like Pennsylvania at the pace of these candidates. As best as I can figure, from Sunday through Monday night, Hillary will hit Bethlehem, Johnstown, State College, Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. President Clinton will join Hillary at a Market Square rally in Pittsburgh on Monday afternoon, while both Bill & Chelsea will join Hillary at UPenn's Palestra in Philadelphia tomorrow night. Barack is no different, hitting Lebanon, Reading, Scranton, Philadelphia, McKeesport, and Pittsburgh. Two Obama rallies in the Pittsburgh area on Monday, McKeesport Penn State at dinner and Pitt's Petersen Event Center later that evening, culminate the PA campaign for the Illinois senator.
A couple months ago I blogged that Pennsylvanians like candidates to engage in retail politics. They want to courted, wooed, and praised. And they don't like to be taken for granted by anyone. This state is so big, however, and so different, depending on the mountain or valley you're visiting, that statewide campaigning in a few short weeks is a challenge. James Carville once described PA as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. It was a clever line but wrong. PA is really Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with 50 states in between, each jealous of its own identity and prerogatives.
Early on, Clinton was all over the state, and Obama was not. He has tried to make up for that in the last days of the campaign with a creative "whistle stop" tour through parts of the state. But the general impression lingers among some that Clinton wants Pennsylvania's vote more than Obama, at least if you judge by physical presence in the state. Others will say that Obama has been more visible because he has outspent Clinton 5 to 1, 4 to 1, 3 to 1 on television, depending on the week and the media market. My view is that there has been no shortage of the candidates and their surrogates, with most voters ready to cast a ballot and be left alone!
Where Are the Votes?
This contest has certainly attracted interest among voters, as much as some now wish it would just be over. The latest registration figures show 4.2 million Democrats to 3.186 million Republicans, a one million person registration advantage for Dems in the state. How many of those will switch back to the GOP the day after the election remains to be seen, but the Dems will still enjoy one of their strongest registration advantages in recent history. Both camps engaged in active voter registration drives, but the political spin is that most of these new voters are Obama recruits. We will see on Election Day.
Of the state's 67 counties, 11 counties now boast more than 100,000+ Democrats, including Philadelphia County with 799,663; Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) with 567,420; Montgomery (suburban Philly) with 247,881; Bucks County (suburban Philly) with 185,407; Delaware County (suburban Philly) with 157,301; Westmoreland County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 134,122; Berks County (Reading & environs) with 114,304; Chester County (suburban Philly) with 113,315; Luzerne County (Wilkes-Barre, Hazelton & environs) with 106,816; York County (south central PA) with 104,816; and Lehigh County (Allentown & environs) with 101,763.
The next five counties with lots of Dems are just as courted by candidates, including Lackawanna County (Scranton & environs) with 98,992; Northampton County (Bethlehem & environs) with 97,002; Erie County (northwest PA) with 96,290; Lancaster County (south central PA) with 94,954; Washington County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 86,645; and Dauphin County (Harrisburg & environs) with 79,665. The remaining 51 counties have fewer than 50,000 Democrats, except for Beaver County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 68,644; Fayette County (southwest PA) with 61,935; and Cambria County (Johnstown & environs) with 55,876.
Add it all up, and one-third of the Democratic vote is in southeastern PA (Philadelphia & environs) and one-quarter of the vote is in southwestern PA (Pittsburgh & environs). That leaves a critical 40% of the vote spread across the state from Erie to Bethlehem, from Scranton to York -- Democrats that neither Clinton nor Obama can take for granted.
The Closing Arguments:
The last week is such a blur, that it's hard to know where to begin. The week began with Obama's unfortunate comments at a San Francisco fundraiser about "bitter" Pennsylvanians "clinging" to their guns, their religion, their anti-immigrant views, etc., and those words certainly gave Clinton the opening she needed to bring home her point that Obama is an "elitist" who does not "understand" working Pennsylvanians. She also sought to use the incident to validate her point that Obama is not really ready for prime-time presidential politics. Clinton rushed a commercial onto the air on the subject, driving home a not-so-subtle message that Obama had "offended" the very Democrats so needed to win both a primary and general election in this state.
My own take is that Obama is right that many Pennsylvanians are unhappy about the economy and the inability of Washington to make lives easier for average citizens. But to suggest that this is why people turn to guns and religion is nonsense. (He said later that this is not what he meant but that got lost in the political spin). Both religious faith and guns for hunting and sport are essential elements of life for many in western PA and, indeed, many areas outside the Philadelphia metro. Obama's comments clearly hurt him with some voters, but it's not clear to me that this did anything more than solidify some Clinton voters in their original view. In retrospect, it may be more of a campaign distraction that a vote-changer.
If Obama blew the guns and religion talisman of politics, he scored a coup on the holy grail of sports. In this region, the endorsement of Obama by Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, was a clear positive for the senator, even as the Steelers "officially" assured their Clinton & McCain fans that the team does not "officially" endorse anyone. Still, Rooney is a beloved icon in this region, as are the Steelers, so his endorsement along with that of former Steelers Franco Harris, Dwight White, J.T. Thomas, Robin Cole, Edmund Nelson and Larry Brown made for nice headlines. Nonetheless, it probably won't change many votes.
The great debate in Philadelphia attracted viewers all across the state, but not everyone. Here in this region, more people tuned in to watch the Pittsburgh Penguins win their first hockey playoff series - 175,000 households - than watched the presidential debate - 118,000 households, according to Neilsen. No surprise. We love our sports.
I was at the Wednesday night debate and found the crowd outside the National Constitution Center to be the best part of the occasion. Wonderfully passionate supporters of Clinton and Obama mixed with those hawking their goods, yielding a cacophony of loud yelling and shouting that Joe Torsella, the CEO of the Constitution Center told me was "the music of democracy."
Inside the Center, the yelling was a bit different.
I will not pile on ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulus for their first round of questions, first, because everyone else has already done so and, second, because I have asked lots of questions at candidate debates and appreciate the challenge of asking both relevant and entertaining questions. Candidates always get asked questions they don't like, and the sign of a good candidate is the ability to deflect the question. Both Obama and Clinton should have expected questions about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, sniper fire in Bosnia, and the "bitter in PA" comments. These were legitimate questions. The lapel pin question struck me as bizarre, although a question on the Flag Amendment might have been in order. Fundamentally, if I had been asking questions, I would have mixed up the serious policy questions about the economy, the war, and trade (nobody asked about that) with these other topics. Going 45 or 55 minutes into a two-hour debate without a "substantive" policy question made the debate appear rather petty.
After the debate, spin alley was full of surrogates spinning away. Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, objected to the debate questions, saying essentially that PA voters were cheated of a debate on important issues to the state. U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, an Obama supporter, echoed Rendell's comments. In short, both camps seemed unhappy about the first questions, but, predictably, both thought their candidates out-performed the other. My own sense was that there were no knock-outs, Clinton was on her game, Obama seemed taken aback by the ABC assault, and nothing really changed.
In the waning days of this PA primary, both candidates have returned to their basic message, while attacking each other relentlessly. For Obama, it's all about change, while for Clinton, it's action not words. She stresses her life-time of experience and qualifications and her ability to get things done - while he focuses on changing the culture in Washington and a future that brings people together. Nothing new in these messages, but sometimes I think these themes have gotten lost in all the attacks each have inflicted on the other.
So Who Wins PA?
Predicting this election is like grabbing a handful of jello - it changes almost instantly. You can find a poll to suit your fancy. The common consensus is that Clinton is ahead by a few points, perhaps more, but nobody really knows. The Obama team has elevated lower expectations to an art form, suggesting privately that they expect a double digit loss and that if they come within 10 points of Hillary it will be a major upset. When I sat down a week ago with David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, he strenuously avoided predicting any kind of victory in PA, but had no problem setting a very high "victory" threshold for Clinton. The Clinton team says a win is a win, but knows that an Ohio-style victory (a 10.4% margin) is what the New York senator needs to gain any kind of momentum for the remaining contests.
On election night, I will be looking at both ends of the state. If women in suburban Philadelphia vote gender, Hillary can hit double digits, assuming a strong performance elsewhere. If those same women identify with Obama (as many well-off, educated folks have been doing in other states), then this race will be close. Similarly, western PA has been Clinton country from the beginning of this campaign, but Obama is making a strong close here. I will watch to see if students and younger voters show up in greater numbers than normal around here, and will look to see if Obama takes some of the more affluent suburbs (North Hills and South Hills) away from Clinton.
The desire for change is real, and that is Obama's true strength. But some PA Dems are not convinced that he brings the same skills and experience to the top job as Clinton does. She has worked hard to make that argument, obviously, and I will watch to see if it's resonating, especially among the Dems who live outside our urban centers. Early on, Rendell opined that African Americans running statewide lose 7 points because of their race, citing his own battle against Lynn Swann. PA has its fair share of racists, of all races, who will vote for or against a candidate based on the color of his/her skin. While I have heard comments from white males that they could never vote for a black, I have also heard from other males who will never vote for a woman. In the privacy of the secret ballot, all prejudices are allowed even if we would never sanction them in public.
In the end, gender and race may make the difference. While African Americans are expected to vote for Obama, will Pennsylvania women do the same for Clinton? On the answer to that question rests this election.
Pennsylvania Won't Be the Decider:
Absent a victory by Obama over Clinton, something the Obama people are not predicting, this race goes on. Assuming Clinton wins PA, unless the race is a total blow-out, she is unlikely to end up with more than a 10 to 15 vote delegate advantage over Obama. The proportionality rule guarantees that Obama will get his percentage share of the 158 delegates determined on April 22. Greg Giroux and Jonathan Allen at Congressional Quarterly did an interesting analysis
of the delegate battle, and they predict of the 103 delegates elected in the 19 congressional districts Clinton will get 53 to Obama's 50. Of course, a double-digit landslaide by Clinton changes that. Another 55 delegates will be apportioned based on the statewide percentage the winner gets. If Clinton gets 55% of the statewide vote, for example, she would get 30 of those 55 delegates, leaving 25 for Obama. In short, whatever happens in the popular vote, the delegate contest is likely to remain close.
Here's something most people don't know. Not every congressional district elects the same number of delegates, since delegates are awarded based on Democratic registration and Democratic performance. One district -- the 2nd (Philadelphia) -- gets 9 delegates. Five districts get 7 delegates - the 1st (Philadelphia), the 7th (Delaware County), the 8th (Bucks County), the 13th (Northeast Philly), and the 14th (Pittsburgh). One district - the 6th (Southeast PA) - gets 6 delegates. Six districts get 5 delegates - the 3rd (Northwest PA), the 4th (Pittsburgh suburbs), the 11th (Northeast PA), the 12th (Southwest PA), the 15th (Allentown/Bethlehem), and the 18th (Pittsburgh suburbs). The remaining congressional districts get just four delegates each.
After all is said and done, this race moves on to Guam on May 3, Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky and Oregon on May 20, Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.
When it's all over on June 3, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will have a majority of pledged delegates to get the nomination. Until all the uncommitted super delegates make up their minds - and local super delegates think that will happen before the Fourth of July - the Democratic Party will not have a presidential nominee.
Just some quick thoughts on a Sunday night. As you know, I welcome yours. Have a Happy Election Day!
It all comes down to this. In just a few hours, the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania will "make or break" Hillary Clinton. A win by Barack Obama ends her campaign, virtually guaranteeing that Obama will become the Democratic nominee to face the putative Republican nominee, John McCain. But a win by Clinton of any size allows her to move forward to the remaining nine contests through June 3. And a "big" win in Pennsylvania by Clinton significantly improves her chance to be the Democratic nominee because of the message it sends to super delegates about her own electoral strengths and Obama's perceived weaknesses in an important general election state like Pennsylvania.
In this PSF, I'll share some last-minute thoughts about this presidential contest. Feel free to comment, and you can watch the news reports (scroll down on the right hand column of this blog) I have filed throughout this campaign.
PENNSYLVANIA
The Final Campaign Hours:
When you look at the schedule of the candidates over the last 48 hours, you know it takes a particularly driven individual to run for president of the United States. No reasonably thinking person would subject themselves to the brutal pace of criss-crossing a state like Pennsylvania at the pace of these candidates. As best as I can figure, from Sunday through Monday night, Hillary will hit Bethlehem, Johnstown, State College, Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. President Clinton will join Hillary at a Market Square rally in Pittsburgh on Monday afternoon, while both Bill & Chelsea will join Hillary at UPenn's Palestra in Philadelphia tomorrow night. Barack is no different, hitting Lebanon, Reading, Scranton, Philadelphia, McKeesport, and Pittsburgh. Two Obama rallies in the Pittsburgh area on Monday, McKeesport Penn State at dinner and Pitt's Petersen Event Center later that evening, culminate the PA campaign for the Illinois senator.
A couple months ago I blogged that Pennsylvanians like candidates to engage in retail politics. They want to courted, wooed, and praised. And they don't like to be taken for granted by anyone. This state is so big, however, and so different, depending on the mountain or valley you're visiting, that statewide campaigning in a few short weeks is a challenge. James Carville once described PA as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. It was a clever line but wrong. PA is really Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with 50 states in between, each jealous of its own identity and prerogatives.
Early on, Clinton was all over the state, and Obama was not. He has tried to make up for that in the last days of the campaign with a creative "whistle stop" tour through parts of the state. But the general impression lingers among some that Clinton wants Pennsylvania's vote more than Obama, at least if you judge by physical presence in the state. Others will say that Obama has been more visible because he has outspent Clinton 5 to 1, 4 to 1, 3 to 1 on television, depending on the week and the media market. My view is that there has been no shortage of the candidates and their surrogates, with most voters ready to cast a ballot and be left alone!
Where Are the Votes?
This contest has certainly attracted interest among voters, as much as some now wish it would just be over. The latest registration figures show 4.2 million Democrats to 3.186 million Republicans, a one million person registration advantage for Dems in the state. How many of those will switch back to the GOP the day after the election remains to be seen, but the Dems will still enjoy one of their strongest registration advantages in recent history. Both camps engaged in active voter registration drives, but the political spin is that most of these new voters are Obama recruits. We will see on Election Day.
Of the state's 67 counties, 11 counties now boast more than 100,000+ Democrats, including Philadelphia County with 799,663; Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) with 567,420; Montgomery (suburban Philly) with 247,881; Bucks County (suburban Philly) with 185,407; Delaware County (suburban Philly) with 157,301; Westmoreland County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 134,122; Berks County (Reading & environs) with 114,304; Chester County (suburban Philly) with 113,315; Luzerne County (Wilkes-Barre, Hazelton & environs) with 106,816; York County (south central PA) with 104,816; and Lehigh County (Allentown & environs) with 101,763.
The next five counties with lots of Dems are just as courted by candidates, including Lackawanna County (Scranton & environs) with 98,992; Northampton County (Bethlehem & environs) with 97,002; Erie County (northwest PA) with 96,290; Lancaster County (south central PA) with 94,954; Washington County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 86,645; and Dauphin County (Harrisburg & environs) with 79,665. The remaining 51 counties have fewer than 50,000 Democrats, except for Beaver County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 68,644; Fayette County (southwest PA) with 61,935; and Cambria County (Johnstown & environs) with 55,876.
Add it all up, and one-third of the Democratic vote is in southeastern PA (Philadelphia & environs) and one-quarter of the vote is in southwestern PA (Pittsburgh & environs). That leaves a critical 40% of the vote spread across the state from Erie to Bethlehem, from Scranton to York -- Democrats that neither Clinton nor Obama can take for granted.
The Closing Arguments:
The last week is such a blur, that it's hard to know where to begin. The week began with Obama's unfortunate comments at a San Francisco fundraiser about "bitter" Pennsylvanians "clinging" to their guns, their religion, their anti-immigrant views, etc., and those words certainly gave Clinton the opening she needed to bring home her point that Obama is an "elitist" who does not "understand" working Pennsylvanians. She also sought to use the incident to validate her point that Obama is not really ready for prime-time presidential politics. Clinton rushed a commercial onto the air on the subject, driving home a not-so-subtle message that Obama had "offended" the very Democrats so needed to win both a primary and general election in this state.
My own take is that Obama is right that many Pennsylvanians are unhappy about the economy and the inability of Washington to make lives easier for average citizens. But to suggest that this is why people turn to guns and religion is nonsense. (He said later that this is not what he meant but that got lost in the political spin). Both religious faith and guns for hunting and sport are essential elements of life for many in western PA and, indeed, many areas outside the Philadelphia metro. Obama's comments clearly hurt him with some voters, but it's not clear to me that this did anything more than solidify some Clinton voters in their original view. In retrospect, it may be more of a campaign distraction that a vote-changer.
If Obama blew the guns and religion talisman of politics, he scored a coup on the holy grail of sports. In this region, the endorsement of Obama by Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, was a clear positive for the senator, even as the Steelers "officially" assured their Clinton & McCain fans that the team does not "officially" endorse anyone. Still, Rooney is a beloved icon in this region, as are the Steelers, so his endorsement along with that of former Steelers Franco Harris, Dwight White, J.T. Thomas, Robin Cole, Edmund Nelson and Larry Brown made for nice headlines. Nonetheless, it probably won't change many votes.
The great debate in Philadelphia attracted viewers all across the state, but not everyone. Here in this region, more people tuned in to watch the Pittsburgh Penguins win their first hockey playoff series - 175,000 households - than watched the presidential debate - 118,000 households, according to Neilsen. No surprise. We love our sports.
I was at the Wednesday night debate and found the crowd outside the National Constitution Center to be the best part of the occasion. Wonderfully passionate supporters of Clinton and Obama mixed with those hawking their goods, yielding a cacophony of loud yelling and shouting that Joe Torsella, the CEO of the Constitution Center told me was "the music of democracy."
Inside the Center, the yelling was a bit different.
I will not pile on ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulus for their first round of questions, first, because everyone else has already done so and, second, because I have asked lots of questions at candidate debates and appreciate the challenge of asking both relevant and entertaining questions. Candidates always get asked questions they don't like, and the sign of a good candidate is the ability to deflect the question. Both Obama and Clinton should have expected questions about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, sniper fire in Bosnia, and the "bitter in PA" comments. These were legitimate questions. The lapel pin question struck me as bizarre, although a question on the Flag Amendment might have been in order. Fundamentally, if I had been asking questions, I would have mixed up the serious policy questions about the economy, the war, and trade (nobody asked about that) with these other topics. Going 45 or 55 minutes into a two-hour debate without a "substantive" policy question made the debate appear rather petty.
After the debate, spin alley was full of surrogates spinning away. Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, objected to the debate questions, saying essentially that PA voters were cheated of a debate on important issues to the state. U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, an Obama supporter, echoed Rendell's comments. In short, both camps seemed unhappy about the first questions, but, predictably, both thought their candidates out-performed the other. My own sense was that there were no knock-outs, Clinton was on her game, Obama seemed taken aback by the ABC assault, and nothing really changed.
In the waning days of this PA primary, both candidates have returned to their basic message, while attacking each other relentlessly. For Obama, it's all about change, while for Clinton, it's action not words. She stresses her life-time of experience and qualifications and her ability to get things done - while he focuses on changing the culture in Washington and a future that brings people together. Nothing new in these messages, but sometimes I think these themes have gotten lost in all the attacks each have inflicted on the other.
So Who Wins PA?
Predicting this election is like grabbing a handful of jello - it changes almost instantly. You can find a poll to suit your fancy. The common consensus is that Clinton is ahead by a few points, perhaps more, but nobody really knows. The Obama team has elevated lower expectations to an art form, suggesting privately that they expect a double digit loss and that if they come within 10 points of Hillary it will be a major upset. When I sat down a week ago with David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, he strenuously avoided predicting any kind of victory in PA, but had no problem setting a very high "victory" threshold for Clinton. The Clinton team says a win is a win, but knows that an Ohio-style victory (a 10.4% margin) is what the New York senator needs to gain any kind of momentum for the remaining contests.
On election night, I will be looking at both ends of the state. If women in suburban Philadelphia vote gender, Hillary can hit double digits, assuming a strong performance elsewhere. If those same women identify with Obama (as many well-off, educated folks have been doing in other states), then this race will be close. Similarly, western PA has been Clinton country from the beginning of this campaign, but Obama is making a strong close here. I will watch to see if students and younger voters show up in greater numbers than normal around here, and will look to see if Obama takes some of the more affluent suburbs (North Hills and South Hills) away from Clinton.
The desire for change is real, and that is Obama's true strength. But some PA Dems are not convinced that he brings the same skills and experience to the top job as Clinton does. She has worked hard to make that argument, obviously, and I will watch to see if it's resonating, especially among the Dems who live outside our urban centers. Early on, Rendell opined that African Americans running statewide lose 7 points because of their race, citing his own battle against Lynn Swann. PA has its fair share of racists, of all races, who will vote for or against a candidate based on the color of his/her skin. While I have heard comments from white males that they could never vote for a black, I have also heard from other males who will never vote for a woman. In the privacy of the secret ballot, all prejudices are allowed even if we would never sanction them in public.
In the end, gender and race may make the difference. While African Americans are expected to vote for Obama, will Pennsylvania women do the same for Clinton? On the answer to that question rests this election.
Pennsylvania Won't Be the Decider:
Absent a victory by Obama over Clinton, something the Obama people are not predicting, this race goes on. Assuming Clinton wins PA, unless the race is a total blow-out, she is unlikely to end up with more than a 10 to 15 vote delegate advantage over Obama. The proportionality rule guarantees that Obama will get his percentage share of the 158 delegates determined on April 22. Greg Giroux and Jonathan Allen at Congressional Quarterly did an interesting analysis
of the delegate battle, and they predict of the 103 delegates elected in the 19 congressional districts Clinton will get 53 to Obama's 50. Of course, a double-digit landslaide by Clinton changes that. Another 55 delegates will be apportioned based on the statewide percentage the winner gets. If Clinton gets 55% of the statewide vote, for example, she would get 30 of those 55 delegates, leaving 25 for Obama. In short, whatever happens in the popular vote, the delegate contest is likely to remain close.
Here's something most people don't know. Not every congressional district elects the same number of delegates, since delegates are awarded based on Democratic registration and Democratic performance. One district -- the 2nd (Philadelphia) -- gets 9 delegates. Five districts get 7 delegates - the 1st (Philadelphia), the 7th (Delaware County), the 8th (Bucks County), the 13th (Northeast Philly), and the 14th (Pittsburgh). One district - the 6th (Southeast PA) - gets 6 delegates. Six districts get 5 delegates - the 3rd (Northwest PA), the 4th (Pittsburgh suburbs), the 11th (Northeast PA), the 12th (Southwest PA), the 15th (Allentown/Bethlehem), and the 18th (Pittsburgh suburbs). The remaining congressional districts get just four delegates each.
After all is said and done, this race moves on to Guam on May 3, Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky and Oregon on May 20, Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.
When it's all over on June 3, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will have a majority of pledged delegates to get the nomination. Until all the uncommitted super delegates make up their minds - and local super delegates think that will happen before the Fourth of July - the Democratic Party will not have a presidential nominee.
Just some quick thoughts on a Sunday night. As you know, I welcome yours. Have a Happy Election Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
