Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Pennsylvania held a primary election on Tuesday, and nobody came. It still counts, of course, but the biggest news was how many people stayed home. This quick post-election edition of my PSF will focus on the results and the set-up for November – but, have no fear, my analysis of the 2010 gubernatorial and senatorial races will be out shortly. Truth be told, nobody cares about 2009 much, but never forget that one election is prelude to another!
By the way, I now tweet – as in twitter. So if you would like quick instant political snippets from me, just go to http://twitter.com/JonDelano and follow me.
Where Were the Voters?
Across the commonwealth, the weather in most areas was picture-perfect for an election. It didn’t matter. Most Democrats and Republicans didn’t bother to vote. After last November’s election, I suppose it’s easy to view a race for statewide judges, county officials, mayors, school directors, and council members as rather ho-hum.
As many of you know, I give lots of talks to organizations around the state and region, and, frankly, the topics of greatest interest lately have been the first 100 days of Barack Obama, the future of Arlen Specter, and the aftermath of Ed Rendell. Nobody seems to care who was elected judge, mayor of Pittsburgh, or district attorney of Philadelphia except the candidates and their fervent supporters.
I don’t have the full statewide figures on voter turn-out yet, but they will not be good. On the Republican side, the “hotly” contested race for Supreme Court drew just over 550,000 votes. That’s about 18% of 3.2 million Republicans. The Democrats did not have a contested race for state Supreme Court, so this measure of turn-out will not be accurate (lots of voters skip uncontested races). Nonetheless, only 530,000 Democrats cast a ballot in this race, about 12% of the state’s 4.4 million Democrats. Both numbers suggest that voter turn-out, statewide, was probably not much better than 20%.
I used to complain about voter turn-out until I realized that every voter who stays home gives my vote more power. Since like most of you, I never miss an election, I look forward to the day when just a few of us will nominate and elect public officials. Just kidding, of course, but it is amazing to me that these socalled “off year” elections seem so unimportant to so many. Who do you think raises Pennsylvania’s ignominious property taxes?
PA Supreme Court Up for Party Grabs
Put bluntly, this year’s election will determine which political party controls the state Supreme Court as we head into the reapportionment of the state’s legislative districts. That’s a subject that always seems to be litigated, and both parties would like to have an edge in any judicial decision that is rendered.
Of course, members of the Court will deny that politics plays any role in their decision-making, and this year’s candidates are likely to eschew that line, at least in public. But behind the scenes, you never know what goes on – and both parties are taking a keen interest in security the seat for their nominee.
The Republican nominee will be Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin of Allegheny County. She just happens to be the sister of the third-ranking GOP senator in the state Senate, Sen. Jane Orie, the majority whip. With 55% of the GOP vote, Orie Melvin, the endorsed candidate for Supreme Court, easily defeated her opponents in the primary, Philadelphia Judge Paul Panepinto and Superior Court Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen.
To give them the 4-3 edge on the Supreme Court, the Democrats have picked Superior Court Judge Jack Panella of Northampton County (the Allentown-Bethlehem area). Panella is well-liked and highly regarded by those who know him, but he hardly has name recognition across the state.
What Panella has going for him this November is a 1.2 million Democratic voter registration edge, if the party can get those Democrats out to vote. But never underestimate the Ories! Orie Melvin will work tenaciously, and remind voters that she was the one judge who tried to turn back that infamous pay raise. You know, the big one that state lawmakers later repealed for everyone but the Supreme Court subsequently ruled could not be repealed for judges! Orie Melvin was on the side of the angels in that debate.
I think the Panella v. Orie Melvin race is going to be a lot closer than some Democrats believe. By the way, both candidates are rated “Highly Recommended” by the PA Bar Association.
Winners & Losers in Other Statewide Races
Voters don’t seem to care much about the Superior Court and Commonwealth Court, but these appellate courts are an important judicial appeal for every citizen who believes their local county courts have screwed up. This November, three new judges to Superior Court and two new judges to Commonwealth Court will be elected.
On Tuesday, Democrats picked Allegheny County Judge Robert Colville, Allegheny County Assistant District Attorney Kevin McCarthy, and Philadelphia Judge Anne Lazarus. They will face off against three Republicans, Allegheny County Judge Judith Olson, Tioga County attorney Sallie Mundy, and Allegheny County attorney Templeton Smith. With the possible exception of Colville, whose father was a highly popular District Attorney and later judge in Allegheny County, the public knows little about these candidates, although Lazarus benefits from having run statewide for Superior Court two years ago. The PA Bar Association rated all the candidates “Recommended” but gave a “Highly Recommended” to Lazarus and Olson. The Allegheny County Bar Association, which ranks judges and lawyers from the county, gave Colville, McCarthy, Olson, and Smith a “Highly Recommended” rating.
The race for Commonwealth Court could be much more interesting than expected. On Tuesday, the Democrats nominate two Pittsburgh attorneys, Barbara Behrend Ernsberger and Linda Judson, while the Republicans chose former Allegheny County Judge Patty McCullough and Dauphin County attorney Kevin Brobson.
The two best known candidates are Ernsberger and McCullough. Ernsberger was the first woman to head the City of Pittsburgh Democratic Committee and is on the Pittsburgh Planning Commission. She is hard-working and frank in her opinions, unafraid of the political old boys. McCullough was Gov. Rendell’s Republican choice for local court in 2005 but could not win election in Allegheny County. Her husband, Chuck, the former county solicitor under Jim Roddey, is a county councilman at-large, who is now on trial for theft from an elderly client. Among other things, Chuck is accused of directing unauthorized sums of his client’s money to political candidates and to Catholic Charities, where Patty served as executive director. Nobody has ever accused former Judge McCullough of any wrongdoing.
To further complicate matters, the PA Bar Association rated McCullough, Judson, and Brobson as “Recommended” for Commonwealth Court, but said Ernsberger was “Not Recommended” because of their concerns about her temperament. The Allegheny County Bar Association rated both McCullough and Judson as “Not Recommended At This Time” and called Ernsberger “Unqualified.” Remains to be seen how the voters sort through all this come November.
Ravenstahl Wins Big but Not as Big as Some Thought
It’s been like a non-stop three-year election campaign for Luke Ravenstahl, the 29-year old mayor of Pittsburgh. Taking office nearly three years ago after the death of the late Mayor Bob O’Connor, Ravenstahl faced voters twice in 2007 and again this Tuesday. If elected in November, he will – finally – get a four-year term to call his own.
From the beginning of this campaign, Ravenstahl had all the advantages, incumbency and money being chief among them. Nobody ever really thought he would lose the Democratic primary. You have to go back to the 1930s to find an incumbent Pittsburgh mayor losing in his own party. So the question all along has been how big a win would he rack up.
On Tuesday, Ravenstahl got 26,848 votes to Councilman Patrick Dowd’s 12,592 and former police sergeant Carmen Robinson’s 5,916. That’s pretty impressive in my book, a better than two-to-one victory over his nearest competitor. But Ravenstahl fell short of walloping his opponents, at least in the percentage department, where some (including yours truly) felt he could win as much as 65% to 70% of the vote. He ultimately got 59% of the Democratic vote.
Ravenstahl may have been hurt by very low voter turnout. Four years ago, Bob O’Connor won 28,812 votes (more than Luke) against much stronger opponents, Councilman Bill Peduto and now City Controller Michael Lamb plus four others. O’Connor beat both his big challengers by two-to-one (Peduto got 14,344 and Lamb got 13,114). The big difference was that 58,843 Democrats voted in the ’05 primary, compared to just 45,356 in the ’09 primary.
None of this should take away from Ravenstahl’s success. Even if 40% of the Democrats would prefer somebody else, you can’t please everyone, and I think he is well on his way to a long tenure as mayor of Pittsburgh. [During the KDKA-TV debate, Luke said he would serve out his full four-year term, if reelected, and not run for County Executive should Dan Onorato be elected governor – all of which suggests that he wisely knows his political home is in the city, not the county].
Patrick Dowd and Carmen Robinson both made names for themselves in this run. Robinson was feisty, assertive, and didn’t hold back in her attacks on the mayor. In a city where there should be more African American elected officials, Robinson opened some doors for herself, and I suspect we’ll see her on the ballot again sometime.
Dowd, of course, returns to city council. For a man who was written off by most and could scarcely raise a dime against the Ravenstahl financial juggernaut, Dowd made a strong impression for his passion, his energy, his independence, and his unfailing urge to call things exactly as he sees them.
This did not endear him to Ravenstahl, or many in established Democratic circles, including some who might have agreed with his ideas. But it is quintessential Dowd. Whether he can move on politically remains to be seen. No doubt Luke will cast about for a strong council challenger to beat Dowd in 2011.
Patrick’s charges of mayoralty corruption, pay-for-play, clearly got under Luke’s not-yet-hardened political skin. On election night, when he could have assumed the role of gracious winner, Ravenstahl never returned Dowd’s concession phone call and then on local TV accused Dowd of crossing the line and asked for his apology. He won’t get it from Dowd. There’s surprising bad blood here that threatens to last for awhile. You can watch the play-by-play on http://tinyurl.com/pc97ap.
I’ll reserve comment on the November election until later. Both Luke and Squirrel Hill native (and a real Republican) Josh Wander staged a write-in for the Republican nomination, but we don’t know who won that yet. Already, two independents have announced: Kevin Acklin and Franco “Dok” Harris. More about them later, but nobody I know (except maybe Acklin and Harris) thinks Ravenstahl will lose this November.
Mayor Loses Some Allies on City Council
While the mayor won big, Pittsburgh city council took a turn towards greater independence and youth when voters nominated Natalia Rudiak and Daniel Lavelle. Rudiak will replace Ravenstahl-stalwart Councilman Jim Motznik, who won a race for district magistrate against friend-turned-foe Michael Diven, in the South Hills council district. Ravenstahl supported Anthony Coghill to replace Motznik, but Rudiak, a 29-year old Carrick native with a Masters degree from CMU’s Heinz College, staged an impressive grassroots campaign to win.
Across town, another Ravenstahl ally, Councilwoman Tonya Payne, went down to defeat to 31-year old Schenley Heights native Daniel Lavelle. Lavelle’s family is well-known and respected in the Hill District for both its real estate and banking work, among the first African American families to break down racial barriers years ago in these key businesses. The Kent State University graduate also has prior government experience, having worked for both former councilman Sala Udin and PA state Rep. Jake Wheatley.
Both Rudiak and Lavelle are not inherently anti-Ravenstahl, even though the mayor did not back them. Both will support the mayor when his actions benefit their neighborhoods, which both believe have gotten short shrift from downtown.
Also renominated on Tuesday were incumbent Councilman Bill Peduto and Councilwoman Theresa Kail Smith. While Peduto works with the mayor when their agendas agree (i.e., certain government reform issues), he has no problem taking on City Hall. Neither do most of the others on council.
As I survey the nine likely members of council come January, Ravenstahl’s most stalwart ally appears to be Councilwoman Darlene Harris from the North Side. All the others – Council President Doug Shields, Councilman Bill Peduto, Patrick Dowd, Ricky Burgess, Bruce Kraus, Theresa Kail Smith, and newcomers Natalia Rudiak and Daniel Lavelle are not automatic Ravenstahl voters on much of anything. The mayor has some fence-mending to do in the years to come.
A Word about the Allegheny County Judges
As an attorney, a one-time member and chair of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Judiciary Committee (that evaluates and rates candidates), and now a member of the ACBA’s board of governors, I really do care about the people we elect to the judiciary. Over the years, the public has elected some very high quality judges – and some real duds.
As voters, most of us lack the information to make informed choices. The ACBA ratings are not always perfect either. I remember years ago when Judge Ron Folino was “not recommended at this time,” and he is now considered one of the best on the bench today. He’s not the only example of lawyers screwing up their evaluations.
Lawyers run for judge for lots of reasons, some good and some pecuniary. The current salary ($158,105) is usually more than a lot (not all) of these candidates make practicing law. I also believe we need greater racial and gender diversity on the bench, and I would also argue for diversity of background. I like to see elected and appointed officials from other branches of government run for judge, along with non-traditional lawyers from the non-profit or corporate world, because these individuals have unique real-world experiences that add to the judiciary.
Unfortunately, much of these qualifications are overwhelmed by gimmicky advertising that now seems the preferred way to win a seat on the bench. I suspect 2009 will set a record locally for the amount of money spent by local judicial candidates on TV, billboards, lawn signs, and mailings.
In the end, three candidates won nominations in both parties: Susan Evashavik Dilucente, Phil Ignelzi, and Arnie Klein. Dilucente had the cleverest ads, Ignelzi spent the most money, and Klein (running for his third time at least) was the most perseverant. All three got good ratings from the ACBA and have the potential to be outstanding jurists. For the remaining two seats, it will be state Rep. Don Walko and appointed Judge Joe Williams (running as Democrats) versus attorneys Alex Bicket and Michele Zappala Peck (running as Republicans). Williams and Bicket were both rated “highly recommended” and Walko and Zappala Peck rated as “not recommended at this time.”
One final note. Did anyone notice the strange configuration of the computer ballot in the judicial races? There were two columns, and it was very easy to miss the second column because the first column did not run down to the bottom of the page. Instead, at least three lines were left blank, giving the impression that the ballot was over before it was. I have no doubt that this hurt all the candidates listed in the second column.
Well, that’s enough election analysis for today. Next week, I’ll be back with a focus on 2010. As always, I welcome your off-the-record comments and suggestions. Finally, this is Memorial Day Weekend. Please fly the American flag in memory of those men and women who have lost their lives to protect our right to vote and to debate what it all means!
Showing posts with label Luke Ravenstahl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke Ravenstahl. Show all posts
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Four Weeks to Go
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
As “Week Four” begins in Pennsylvania – the four week countdown to Primary Election Day -- most analysts seem to think that only an incredible gaffe by Hillary Clinton can cost her the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22. Depending on the poll you prefer, she leads Barack Obama from anywhere from 12 points (Quinnipiac Poll) to 16 points (Keystone Poll) to 19 points (SurveyUSA). Call me whacky, but I’m one of the few political analysts who think Obama can win Pennsylvania, if he plays it right, knowing that Clinton won’t make it easy for him. In this Politically Savvy Friends e-newsletter, let me share a few thoughts after covering this campaign in PA over the last couple of weeks. By the way, if you want to see my video stories or interviews with the candidates, just look for the “Recent News Stories” in the right column on this blog page.
Kicking Off in PA:
On March 11, Obama began his PA campaign in the suburbs of Philadelphia at the Gamesa wind turbine plant, once a U.S. Steel facility, in Bucks County. Unlike his traditional events where he attracts thousands and delivers a rousing, if repetitive, address to the faithful, this “town hall” kick-off was short on rhetoric and long on thoughtful answers to questions from the 150 Gamesa employees. Having seen the “other” Obama at rallies in neighboring Ohio, this Q&A format revealed a highly intelligent, empathetic politician who wasn’t afraid to challenge the assumptions of his questioners. I was impressed. That, of course, was the intended result, as the Obama campaign has felt the need to counteract the Clinton assertion that Obama is all speech and no substance. Town meetings allow Obama to prove otherwise.
While western PA hates when candidates start their campaigns in the east, Obama must win big in southeastern PA to win the state. Right now, all the polls suggest this is the region where he is doing the best, and it makes sense to go to your base of strength for a kick-off event. But an event closed to his supporters probably missed an early opportunity to gin up the faithful.
Clinton chose to start her campaign with a three-prong attack on the northeast, southeast, and southwest. Immediately after the Ohio and Texas victories, Chelsea did a Q&A visit with students at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, with Hillary hitting Scranton the following Monday, March 10, and President Clinton speaking in southwestern PA on Tuesday, the same day as Obama’s event back east. That same Tuesday, Hillary hit Philadelphia for an evening rally, vying with Obama for media coverage in the important Philadelphia media market.
The choice of Scranton for Hillary’s kick-off might strike some as odd, but Clinton has roots in this part of the state where her father grew up and where she visited her grandparents as a child. By the end of this primary campaign, all Pennsylvanians are likely to hear about her favorite ice cream place, along with tales of her father driving across the state from Chicago to Scranton, detouring to show the family important sites in PA.
Heading Westward:
As I opined in an earlier PSF, while PA campaigns often begin in the Philadelphia region, they don’t end there. Indeed, only one-third of the Democrats live in southeastern PA, which means a smart candidate better look elsewhere for votes in a tight contest. Some 25 percent of the Dems live in the Greater Pittsburgh area, with the remaining 40 percent scattered across hundreds of miles of mountains and valleys in this state. The candidate who thinks Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are all that counts will surely lose. Nonetheless, southwestern PA is important, and right now the general perception is that Clinton cares a lot more about this region than Obama.
In truth, Obama was scheduled to hit Pittsburgh before Clinton on March 13, but Senate votes on the budget required all three presidential contenders to be in Washington and Obama canceled his Pittsburgh trip. That allowed Clinton to capitalize. She scheduled a two-day swing in Pittsburgh on Friday, March 14, with first a press conference at a gas station in the Bloomfield section of Pittsburgh to decry high gasoline prices and then held a rally at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial where some 2,000 supporters cheered her enthusiastically as she delivered her typical stump speech. Gov. Ed Rendell, her biggest cheerleader, was at her side (as he seems to be everywhere in PA), along with two new supporters, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. Clinton spent the night in Pittsburgh so she could march the next morning in the nation’s second largest St. Patrick’s Day Parade, where she walked the route shaking lots of hands to a reportedly positive response from the quarter million residents in attendance, after which she flew out in time to march in a smaller parade in Scranton.
Obama’s campaign quickly rescheduled his visit to the Pittsburgh region, where this past Monday he spoke to about 1,800 people at the Community College of Beaver County in Monaca before flying to Scranton for dinner with the Society of Irish Ladies. Once again, this Pittsburgh area event was not a rally, but a town meeting, although Obama did give an abbreviated version of his stump speech, followed by six questions about health care, veterans, abortion, crime, and the like. The event was well-covered, aided by interest in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story. The Obama visit to western PA was important even if his mind was on his growing pastor problem, an issue that ultimately forced him back to Philadelphia for one of his most compelling campaign speeches delivered last Tuesday.
Obama’s Pastor Problem:
I don’t know Jeremiah Wright, and probably never will, although I would love the chance to sit down with him. People whom I respect who do know him say he’s not like he’s being portrayed and that he is a good Christian who does not harbor racist, anti-white, anti-American feelings. But that’s certainly NOT the impression you get when you hear him preach on Youtube his version of the Gospel. This guy’s rants against whites, the government, and the Clintons were flawed and offensive and so contrary to the message of Barack Obama that you cannot help wonder what in the world Obama has in common with Wright.
And, fundamentally, that’s the problem. The disconnect. While Obama has tried to transcend race, bridging white and black (because he, himself, is both half-white and half-black), Wright appeared to use race as a wedge between whites and blacks. While Obama has preached personal responsibility (indeed, his life reflects that), Wright seemed to excuse bad behavior like drug abuse by blaming the government. While Obama’s very candidacy is the epitome of the potential of the American dream of racial inclusion, Wright’s sermons (as revealed in those selective tapes) reminded many voters of a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton diatribe where everything wrong in the black community is the fault of evil white people.
Given all that, how could Obama have anything to do with someone like Wright for twenty years and still claim to be the one candidate who can unify both the Democratic Party and the United States of America?
That was the question Obama had to answer in powerful and well-written speech last Tuesday. I watched and then re-read the speech carefully. It was an excellent address on race, always a difficult subject for Americans to imbibe. Sure, you can quibble with parts of it, but, fundamentally, Obama reasserted his own view that the America that Jeremiah Wright portrayed was not his own America. To me, the most significant part of the speech was where Obama decried Wright for being mired in the past, for not recognizing that even a member of his own congregation could reach the presidency. Here is my favorite passage: “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”
I don’t know whether Obama has fully answered the question of his connection to Wright to the satisfaction of Americans. His refusal, while understandable in his context, to “disown” Wright will no doubt be seen by many as unfortunate, a political compromise to keep the African American community on board his candidacy. Of course, had he disowned the pastor, others would have claimed he was just doing what a typical politician does in a time of crisis – toss someone overboard. It’s a no-win situation.
The real question is whether his speech allows him to move on, beyond racial issues to the other more resonating points of his campaign. To some extent, that will depend on Obama. His description the next day on radio of his grandmother as a “typical white” was very jarring and off-message. What is a typical white? What is a typical black? I suspect he regrets his choice of words, but it shows how deep within us we harbor racial stereotypes. There is not a black person or white person alive who doesn’t conjure something in the mind when we think of the “typical” member of another race. Beyond Obama’s own subsequent words, it remains to be seen whether race is going to be a “hot topic” for the remainder of the primary season. I doubt that “the speech” is going to change a whole lot of opinions of voters who have already made up their minds, but if it puts the Wright controversy behind, then it has clearly accomplished its intended purpose.
PA a Must-Win State for Whom?
Conventional wisdom is that Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Clinton. It is. And she intends to win with a double digit popular vote that, the campaign hopes, will translate into a pick-up of delegates that closes the current gap with Obama. On April 22, 103 delegates will be elected in 19 congressional districts with some Democratic districts getting more delegates than others. Another 35 at-large delegates and 20 pledged party leaders and elected officials will be allocated to the Obama and Clinton campaign based on their percentage vote in the primary. That means 158 delegates are at stake on that Tuesday. [Just FYI, Pennsylvania has 30 unpledged super delegates].
Using CNN’s delegate count, Obama now has 1,622 delegates (which includes 209 super delegates), 403 delegates short of the nomination. Clinton has 1,485 delegates (which includes 243 super delegates), 540 delegates short of the nomination. Only 137 delegates separate the two candidates. Because of the proportionality rule that guarantees at least some delegates to the losing candidate, mathematical experts say that there is no way for either Obama or Clinton to win the nomination through delegates elected in Pennsylvania on April 21, 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.
In other words, both candidates have fallen short in winning the nomination through the elected delegate process. That means one of two things: either one of the two candidates is going to “drop out” of the race willingly or, ultimately, the votes of the super delegates will put one candidate over the top to the nomination.
As long as only 150 votes or so separate the candidates, I doubt very much that anyone will drop out, and why should they? After all, from the beginning, everyone knew the rules that super delegates (who are the Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, and elected members of the Democratic National Committee) would get a vote at the convention. There is nothing sinister about this. It’s been this way for decades. And the votes are public, not behind some closed doors. Both sides are trying to spin arguments to woo these super delegates. Obama supporters are saying super delegates should vote the candidate who has the most popular vote and/or the most elected delegates even if short of the majority. Clinton supporters are saying super delegates should vote for the candidate who has won the “must-win” states (like California, Ohio, Florida, etc.) important for victory in November and support the candidate who can beat John McCain. Both these arguments are credible, and allow both Clinton and Obama to soldier on until one of them gets the magic 2,025 delegates.
But if Obama really wants to secure the nomination quickly, then he ought to go all out to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania. If Clinton loses this state, her candidacy is over. So to avoid a protracted super delegate battle, I would argue that Pennsylvania is also a must-win state for Obama. By winning PA, he not only locks Clinton out of the nomination, but he also proves that he, too, can carry a must-win state. Perhaps he and his senior campaign advisors don’t see it this way, but to me it’s obvious. If he wants to unite the party and get on with the battle against McCain, he must defeat Clinton in the state that she has staked out as her own.
Yes, Obama Can Beat Clinton in Pennsylvania:
As I proffered at the beginning of this epistle, I am one of the few who believe Obama can win Pennsylvania. It will not be easy, and it will take more of a candidate commitment than he has given to Pennsylvania to date. I begin with the assumption that no matter how hard Hillary Clinton works this state – and, believe me, she is working PA very hard indeed (back in Philly and the Pittsburgh area this Monday and Tuesday), Obama is likely to get a minimum of 38 to 40 percent of the vote by doing hardly anything at all.
But to hit 50.1 percent, Obama must win Philadelphia and its suburbs big-time. Right now, most polls show him even or slightly ahead of Clinton in southeastern PA. That’s not enough. He must run up the numbers over 60 to 65 percent, all quite do-able in a nearly African American city and suburban counties with the kinds of white elites that have flocked to his campaign in other states. A big win in that region is essential but not sufficient. Obama must camp out in western PA, not only in Pittsburgh where he has the potential to win with the help of the universities here but also in the suburbs where, again, his kind of Dems reside. Finally, I would argue that the 40 percent of Dems who live outside the state’s two big regions are not automatically Hillary voters. PA has not been kind to women candidates, and race may trump gender as the lesser political “disability” in many quarters. While I wish voters would cast a ballot without regard to race and gender, I think it’s naïve to think otherwise. As I have written before, women candidates have a tougher time here than African American candidates.
Having said all this, Clinton is campaigning in PA like this is the only state left on the ballot. Obama needs to demonstrate the same drive and desire for PA votes as she has. When his campaign suggests in a memo that PA is “only one of 10 contests” left, that is true but inapt. Minimizing PA publicly only adds to the perception that Obama doesn’t care about PA. I think he does care, but only he can show it. Absent his visible presence here, Clinton wins PA, just as the polls predict.
First Person Reflections:
I have had the pleasure of meeting both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the first two weeks of the PA primary campaign, and I am looking forward to meeting John McCain (hopefully) when he comes to Pittsburgh in April. I say “pleasure” because I always enjoy meeting politicians of whatever stripes seeking whatever office. Call it an addiction, an affliction, a hang-up, but I like seeing them up close and personal (well, as personal as they allow). In the last 25 years and especially in the last 10, I have met hundreds of political leaders and candidates for public office. I try hard not to form snap judgments about them, and I am always open to modifying my perceptions based on subsequent meetings.
The Democrats are fortunate to have two very talented candidates for president. [I’ll hold comments on McCain until I meet him]. I’ve interviewed Obama twice in the last two weeks, and he is affable, sharp, intelligent, and engaging. In conversation, his speaking style is a bit deliberative, as he ponders his answers, not the oratorical flourishes that characterize his stump speeches. He has an incredible smile, and laughs easily. He is also all business, which may be why some people think he is a bit aloof or reserved. And he is so tightly scheduled that you don’t feel he is as relaxed as he could be. I would enjoy the chance to just sit down and talk policy with him sometime, as I sense that there’s a lot more expertise from this Harvard lawyer than gets revealed in a sound-bite. All in all, I found Obama to be absolutely genuine, not some phony politician taken with himself, but the real deal and someone I hope to get to know better in the weeks ahead.
The most surprising thing about Hillary Clinton is how nice she is in person. I don’t mean that disrespectfully. It’s just that the camera does not do her justice. On TV, Clinton sometimes comes across as argumentative, perhaps shrill, although clearly knowledgeable. In person, she laughs and jokes and seems to be having fun despite a grueling schedule. She comes across as someone you would enjoy being around more. Just as you expect from a Yale lawyer, she gives intelligent answers to questions and, like Obama, knows how to tailor answers to a PA audience. You also know she’s in charge, allowing me more time to chat with her than her campaign expected. So far, I’ve only interviewed Clinton once, so I want to be careful in drawing too many conclusions. But my first impressions were absolutely positive – again, like Obama, nothing struck me as phony or artificial about her. And, clearly, I hope to have more time to spend with her as the campaign unfolds.
Well, that’s enough for this PSF. As always, I welcome your personal, off-the-record comments. I am writing this over Easter weekend, so let me wish my Christian friends a very Happy & Blessed Easter! Despite the cold weather this early Easter, this is the season for renewal and rebirth. As we celebrate the Resurrection in our churches and our belief in life after death through faith, I am struck that it is faith that also drives our politics in America.
Politics requires constant affirmation, perhaps because our political leaders so often disappoint us. But most of us have faith that, for better or worse, this political system works better than most, and we keep coming back for more. Optimist that I am, I want to believe that every new generation of political leaders will be better than the ones they succeed and that can only mean good things for this country.
Happy Easter! Happy Spring! Happy Election Year!
As “Week Four” begins in Pennsylvania – the four week countdown to Primary Election Day -- most analysts seem to think that only an incredible gaffe by Hillary Clinton can cost her the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22. Depending on the poll you prefer, she leads Barack Obama from anywhere from 12 points (Quinnipiac Poll) to 16 points (Keystone Poll) to 19 points (SurveyUSA). Call me whacky, but I’m one of the few political analysts who think Obama can win Pennsylvania, if he plays it right, knowing that Clinton won’t make it easy for him. In this Politically Savvy Friends e-newsletter, let me share a few thoughts after covering this campaign in PA over the last couple of weeks. By the way, if you want to see my video stories or interviews with the candidates, just look for the “Recent News Stories” in the right column on this blog page.
Kicking Off in PA:
On March 11, Obama began his PA campaign in the suburbs of Philadelphia at the Gamesa wind turbine plant, once a U.S. Steel facility, in Bucks County. Unlike his traditional events where he attracts thousands and delivers a rousing, if repetitive, address to the faithful, this “town hall” kick-off was short on rhetoric and long on thoughtful answers to questions from the 150 Gamesa employees. Having seen the “other” Obama at rallies in neighboring Ohio, this Q&A format revealed a highly intelligent, empathetic politician who wasn’t afraid to challenge the assumptions of his questioners. I was impressed. That, of course, was the intended result, as the Obama campaign has felt the need to counteract the Clinton assertion that Obama is all speech and no substance. Town meetings allow Obama to prove otherwise.
While western PA hates when candidates start their campaigns in the east, Obama must win big in southeastern PA to win the state. Right now, all the polls suggest this is the region where he is doing the best, and it makes sense to go to your base of strength for a kick-off event. But an event closed to his supporters probably missed an early opportunity to gin up the faithful.
Clinton chose to start her campaign with a three-prong attack on the northeast, southeast, and southwest. Immediately after the Ohio and Texas victories, Chelsea did a Q&A visit with students at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, with Hillary hitting Scranton the following Monday, March 10, and President Clinton speaking in southwestern PA on Tuesday, the same day as Obama’s event back east. That same Tuesday, Hillary hit Philadelphia for an evening rally, vying with Obama for media coverage in the important Philadelphia media market.
The choice of Scranton for Hillary’s kick-off might strike some as odd, but Clinton has roots in this part of the state where her father grew up and where she visited her grandparents as a child. By the end of this primary campaign, all Pennsylvanians are likely to hear about her favorite ice cream place, along with tales of her father driving across the state from Chicago to Scranton, detouring to show the family important sites in PA.
Heading Westward:
As I opined in an earlier PSF, while PA campaigns often begin in the Philadelphia region, they don’t end there. Indeed, only one-third of the Democrats live in southeastern PA, which means a smart candidate better look elsewhere for votes in a tight contest. Some 25 percent of the Dems live in the Greater Pittsburgh area, with the remaining 40 percent scattered across hundreds of miles of mountains and valleys in this state. The candidate who thinks Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are all that counts will surely lose. Nonetheless, southwestern PA is important, and right now the general perception is that Clinton cares a lot more about this region than Obama.
In truth, Obama was scheduled to hit Pittsburgh before Clinton on March 13, but Senate votes on the budget required all three presidential contenders to be in Washington and Obama canceled his Pittsburgh trip. That allowed Clinton to capitalize. She scheduled a two-day swing in Pittsburgh on Friday, March 14, with first a press conference at a gas station in the Bloomfield section of Pittsburgh to decry high gasoline prices and then held a rally at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial where some 2,000 supporters cheered her enthusiastically as she delivered her typical stump speech. Gov. Ed Rendell, her biggest cheerleader, was at her side (as he seems to be everywhere in PA), along with two new supporters, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. Clinton spent the night in Pittsburgh so she could march the next morning in the nation’s second largest St. Patrick’s Day Parade, where she walked the route shaking lots of hands to a reportedly positive response from the quarter million residents in attendance, after which she flew out in time to march in a smaller parade in Scranton.
Obama’s campaign quickly rescheduled his visit to the Pittsburgh region, where this past Monday he spoke to about 1,800 people at the Community College of Beaver County in Monaca before flying to Scranton for dinner with the Society of Irish Ladies. Once again, this Pittsburgh area event was not a rally, but a town meeting, although Obama did give an abbreviated version of his stump speech, followed by six questions about health care, veterans, abortion, crime, and the like. The event was well-covered, aided by interest in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story. The Obama visit to western PA was important even if his mind was on his growing pastor problem, an issue that ultimately forced him back to Philadelphia for one of his most compelling campaign speeches delivered last Tuesday.
Obama’s Pastor Problem:
I don’t know Jeremiah Wright, and probably never will, although I would love the chance to sit down with him. People whom I respect who do know him say he’s not like he’s being portrayed and that he is a good Christian who does not harbor racist, anti-white, anti-American feelings. But that’s certainly NOT the impression you get when you hear him preach on Youtube his version of the Gospel. This guy’s rants against whites, the government, and the Clintons were flawed and offensive and so contrary to the message of Barack Obama that you cannot help wonder what in the world Obama has in common with Wright.
And, fundamentally, that’s the problem. The disconnect. While Obama has tried to transcend race, bridging white and black (because he, himself, is both half-white and half-black), Wright appeared to use race as a wedge between whites and blacks. While Obama has preached personal responsibility (indeed, his life reflects that), Wright seemed to excuse bad behavior like drug abuse by blaming the government. While Obama’s very candidacy is the epitome of the potential of the American dream of racial inclusion, Wright’s sermons (as revealed in those selective tapes) reminded many voters of a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton diatribe where everything wrong in the black community is the fault of evil white people.
Given all that, how could Obama have anything to do with someone like Wright for twenty years and still claim to be the one candidate who can unify both the Democratic Party and the United States of America?
That was the question Obama had to answer in powerful and well-written speech last Tuesday. I watched and then re-read the speech carefully. It was an excellent address on race, always a difficult subject for Americans to imbibe. Sure, you can quibble with parts of it, but, fundamentally, Obama reasserted his own view that the America that Jeremiah Wright portrayed was not his own America. To me, the most significant part of the speech was where Obama decried Wright for being mired in the past, for not recognizing that even a member of his own congregation could reach the presidency. Here is my favorite passage: “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”
I don’t know whether Obama has fully answered the question of his connection to Wright to the satisfaction of Americans. His refusal, while understandable in his context, to “disown” Wright will no doubt be seen by many as unfortunate, a political compromise to keep the African American community on board his candidacy. Of course, had he disowned the pastor, others would have claimed he was just doing what a typical politician does in a time of crisis – toss someone overboard. It’s a no-win situation.
The real question is whether his speech allows him to move on, beyond racial issues to the other more resonating points of his campaign. To some extent, that will depend on Obama. His description the next day on radio of his grandmother as a “typical white” was very jarring and off-message. What is a typical white? What is a typical black? I suspect he regrets his choice of words, but it shows how deep within us we harbor racial stereotypes. There is not a black person or white person alive who doesn’t conjure something in the mind when we think of the “typical” member of another race. Beyond Obama’s own subsequent words, it remains to be seen whether race is going to be a “hot topic” for the remainder of the primary season. I doubt that “the speech” is going to change a whole lot of opinions of voters who have already made up their minds, but if it puts the Wright controversy behind, then it has clearly accomplished its intended purpose.
PA a Must-Win State for Whom?
Conventional wisdom is that Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Clinton. It is. And she intends to win with a double digit popular vote that, the campaign hopes, will translate into a pick-up of delegates that closes the current gap with Obama. On April 22, 103 delegates will be elected in 19 congressional districts with some Democratic districts getting more delegates than others. Another 35 at-large delegates and 20 pledged party leaders and elected officials will be allocated to the Obama and Clinton campaign based on their percentage vote in the primary. That means 158 delegates are at stake on that Tuesday. [Just FYI, Pennsylvania has 30 unpledged super delegates].
Using CNN’s delegate count, Obama now has 1,622 delegates (which includes 209 super delegates), 403 delegates short of the nomination. Clinton has 1,485 delegates (which includes 243 super delegates), 540 delegates short of the nomination. Only 137 delegates separate the two candidates. Because of the proportionality rule that guarantees at least some delegates to the losing candidate, mathematical experts say that there is no way for either Obama or Clinton to win the nomination through delegates elected in Pennsylvania on April 21, 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.
In other words, both candidates have fallen short in winning the nomination through the elected delegate process. That means one of two things: either one of the two candidates is going to “drop out” of the race willingly or, ultimately, the votes of the super delegates will put one candidate over the top to the nomination.
As long as only 150 votes or so separate the candidates, I doubt very much that anyone will drop out, and why should they? After all, from the beginning, everyone knew the rules that super delegates (who are the Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, and elected members of the Democratic National Committee) would get a vote at the convention. There is nothing sinister about this. It’s been this way for decades. And the votes are public, not behind some closed doors. Both sides are trying to spin arguments to woo these super delegates. Obama supporters are saying super delegates should vote the candidate who has the most popular vote and/or the most elected delegates even if short of the majority. Clinton supporters are saying super delegates should vote for the candidate who has won the “must-win” states (like California, Ohio, Florida, etc.) important for victory in November and support the candidate who can beat John McCain. Both these arguments are credible, and allow both Clinton and Obama to soldier on until one of them gets the magic 2,025 delegates.
But if Obama really wants to secure the nomination quickly, then he ought to go all out to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania. If Clinton loses this state, her candidacy is over. So to avoid a protracted super delegate battle, I would argue that Pennsylvania is also a must-win state for Obama. By winning PA, he not only locks Clinton out of the nomination, but he also proves that he, too, can carry a must-win state. Perhaps he and his senior campaign advisors don’t see it this way, but to me it’s obvious. If he wants to unite the party and get on with the battle against McCain, he must defeat Clinton in the state that she has staked out as her own.
Yes, Obama Can Beat Clinton in Pennsylvania:
As I proffered at the beginning of this epistle, I am one of the few who believe Obama can win Pennsylvania. It will not be easy, and it will take more of a candidate commitment than he has given to Pennsylvania to date. I begin with the assumption that no matter how hard Hillary Clinton works this state – and, believe me, she is working PA very hard indeed (back in Philly and the Pittsburgh area this Monday and Tuesday), Obama is likely to get a minimum of 38 to 40 percent of the vote by doing hardly anything at all.
But to hit 50.1 percent, Obama must win Philadelphia and its suburbs big-time. Right now, most polls show him even or slightly ahead of Clinton in southeastern PA. That’s not enough. He must run up the numbers over 60 to 65 percent, all quite do-able in a nearly African American city and suburban counties with the kinds of white elites that have flocked to his campaign in other states. A big win in that region is essential but not sufficient. Obama must camp out in western PA, not only in Pittsburgh where he has the potential to win with the help of the universities here but also in the suburbs where, again, his kind of Dems reside. Finally, I would argue that the 40 percent of Dems who live outside the state’s two big regions are not automatically Hillary voters. PA has not been kind to women candidates, and race may trump gender as the lesser political “disability” in many quarters. While I wish voters would cast a ballot without regard to race and gender, I think it’s naïve to think otherwise. As I have written before, women candidates have a tougher time here than African American candidates.
Having said all this, Clinton is campaigning in PA like this is the only state left on the ballot. Obama needs to demonstrate the same drive and desire for PA votes as she has. When his campaign suggests in a memo that PA is “only one of 10 contests” left, that is true but inapt. Minimizing PA publicly only adds to the perception that Obama doesn’t care about PA. I think he does care, but only he can show it. Absent his visible presence here, Clinton wins PA, just as the polls predict.
First Person Reflections:
I have had the pleasure of meeting both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the first two weeks of the PA primary campaign, and I am looking forward to meeting John McCain (hopefully) when he comes to Pittsburgh in April. I say “pleasure” because I always enjoy meeting politicians of whatever stripes seeking whatever office. Call it an addiction, an affliction, a hang-up, but I like seeing them up close and personal (well, as personal as they allow). In the last 25 years and especially in the last 10, I have met hundreds of political leaders and candidates for public office. I try hard not to form snap judgments about them, and I am always open to modifying my perceptions based on subsequent meetings.
The Democrats are fortunate to have two very talented candidates for president. [I’ll hold comments on McCain until I meet him]. I’ve interviewed Obama twice in the last two weeks, and he is affable, sharp, intelligent, and engaging. In conversation, his speaking style is a bit deliberative, as he ponders his answers, not the oratorical flourishes that characterize his stump speeches. He has an incredible smile, and laughs easily. He is also all business, which may be why some people think he is a bit aloof or reserved. And he is so tightly scheduled that you don’t feel he is as relaxed as he could be. I would enjoy the chance to just sit down and talk policy with him sometime, as I sense that there’s a lot more expertise from this Harvard lawyer than gets revealed in a sound-bite. All in all, I found Obama to be absolutely genuine, not some phony politician taken with himself, but the real deal and someone I hope to get to know better in the weeks ahead.
The most surprising thing about Hillary Clinton is how nice she is in person. I don’t mean that disrespectfully. It’s just that the camera does not do her justice. On TV, Clinton sometimes comes across as argumentative, perhaps shrill, although clearly knowledgeable. In person, she laughs and jokes and seems to be having fun despite a grueling schedule. She comes across as someone you would enjoy being around more. Just as you expect from a Yale lawyer, she gives intelligent answers to questions and, like Obama, knows how to tailor answers to a PA audience. You also know she’s in charge, allowing me more time to chat with her than her campaign expected. So far, I’ve only interviewed Clinton once, so I want to be careful in drawing too many conclusions. But my first impressions were absolutely positive – again, like Obama, nothing struck me as phony or artificial about her. And, clearly, I hope to have more time to spend with her as the campaign unfolds.
Well, that’s enough for this PSF. As always, I welcome your personal, off-the-record comments. I am writing this over Easter weekend, so let me wish my Christian friends a very Happy & Blessed Easter! Despite the cold weather this early Easter, this is the season for renewal and rebirth. As we celebrate the Resurrection in our churches and our belief in life after death through faith, I am struck that it is faith that also drives our politics in America.
Politics requires constant affirmation, perhaps because our political leaders so often disappoint us. But most of us have faith that, for better or worse, this political system works better than most, and we keep coming back for more. Optimist that I am, I want to believe that every new generation of political leaders will be better than the ones they succeed and that can only mean good things for this country.
Happy Easter! Happy Spring! Happy Election Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
