Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Two weeks from tomorrow, some 4 million+ Pennsylvania Democrats will have the chance to choose a nominee for president. The polls are showing an expected tightening of the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. No surprise there. Nobody, including the Clinton campaign, ever believed that Pennsylvania would roll over easily for any candidate. We are too ornery, too diverse, too independent, too smart to be taken for granted.
In this edition of my PSF, I examine the current state of the presidential race, along with some other PA races that will be on the April 22 ballot. As always, I welcome your comments and off-the-record tips.
But, first, a personal comment. I have very good friends on both sides of this Democratic battle, and several of them have taken me to task for not adopting their view of political events. That’s fine. I can take it. One of my friends deeply involved with one of the campaigns jokingly opined the other day: “The problem with you, Jon Delano, is that you’re too fair and even-handed.” He meant it as a criticism, but I’ll take it as a compliment. I am scrupulously neutral in political races, but I’m not afraid to tell you exactly what I think. So now, sit back and read on, my politically savvy friends.
ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE THROUGH PENNSYLVANIA
Obama Steps Up His Campaign:
In my last PSF email (March 23), I opined that, despite double digit leads in all the polls at the time for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama could still win the state. (I think I was among the very few PA analysts at the time to say that). But I injected a very big IF – he could only win if he started to take the state seriously and campaign, full-time, on a retail level all across the commonwealth. A few days later, the Obama campaign announced their “Six Day” bus tour through Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvanians want their candidates to care about them, and the challenge is that this is a very big state with different politics depending on which valley, mountain top, or rolling plain you happen to visit. The Clintons know that, and the Clinton campaign has been going non-stop, back and forth, across Pennsylvania, picking up endorsements from countless local elected officials. On the ground, they are running a perfectly solid campaign.
But without the local political connections enjoyed by the Clintons, the Obama campaign seemed to struggle to get started, depending much more on volunteers and with some early campaign missteps, like “dissing” the state in a memorandum and a candidate who seemed to prefer being in other states. All that seems to have changed, and the poll numbers reflect it.
In polls conducted last week, SurveyUSA found the Clinton lead down to 12 points, Quinnipiac puts her lead at 9 points, and Rasmussen gives Clinton a 5 point lead. One poll, Public Policy Polling, calls it a dead heat with Obama ahead of Clinton by 2 points.
Now I’ve been through this polling nonsense for decades, and there are times when I would just toss all polls out the window. I usually suggest averaging all the polls for a better result, and then treating even that number with lots of grains of salt. In this case, the only conclusion is the obvious one: the race for Pennsylvania is not a done deal for anyone.
Clinton Fights Back:
The odds still favor Clinton for whom PA is a must-win state. As I noted in March, if Obama beats her in Pennsylvania, her campaign is over. Dead. Clinton knows that, and she is working this state hard, just like she won over skeptical New York state voters in 2000 when she ran for the U.S. Senate in her adopted state. She never stops. Hardly a day goes by that Hillary, Bill, or Chelsea aren’t stumping for votes here. With the political expertise of Gov. Ed Rendell and much of his political team, she doesn’t seem to miss a beat.
Her “economic summit” in Pittsburgh last Wednesday was classic, a mix of academia, labor, and business leaders exchanging views with her around a table, allowing Clinton to use her obvious intelligence to spin each comment into an observation about government failure in Washington and how her proposals would ameliorate the problem. The more you see Hillary in action, the more you appreciate how sharp this woman really is.
She does seem to have a cash problem, judging by the overwhelming Obama television ads now on the air. It’s not scientific, but I bet I see three or four of his ads to every one of hers. The Obama ads are very good, focusing on his bio, the American dream, and high gasoline prices. The latest Clinton ad is a take-off on her 3 am phone call ad, but this one focuses on the economy. All polls suggest the economy is the number one issue for Pennsylvanians, and it is a strong suit for her, as people think she is better qualified to turn the economy around, no doubt aided by memories of the good economic times presided over by her husband in the 1990s. But unless Clinton gets up on TV in some sort of visible way, she will be drowned out by the classy Obama commercials. That could make a difference.
Gender Gap Growing in PA:
What I have found striking thus far in the PA presidential primary is the growing gender gap between men and women. When Hillary was leading Barack by double-digits, she was winning both males and females. As the race tightens, it is largely because men are switching from Clinton to Obama. In the SurveyUSA poll, Clinton’s 5-point lead among men three weeks ago became a 7-point lead for Obama this week.
But what has kept the New York senator in the overall lead is women voters. The same poll showed a whopping 28-point lead for Clinton among women. Indeed, Clinton’s 62 percent of women voters was unchanged, while Obama just moved two points from 32 percent to 34 percent. In a state where women outvote men, Obama cannot win Pennsylvania unless he convinces more women to back his candidacy.
When I had the chance to interview Michelle Obama last week, I asked her about this gender problem. Her response was that it’s really just a question of women getting to know Barack better. She emphasized that Obama grew up among strong women, like his mother, his grandmother, and (of course) his wife and is comfortable among strong women and very cognizant of women’s needs. To be honest, I was impressed with Michelle and think the Obama campaign could make better use of her obvious talents to address the gender gap. So far, she has campaigned just once in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
In the end, identity politics may be hard to overcome. Just as African Americans have rallied to Obama, despite Clinton’s strong civil rights record, so also women may be inclined to support Clinton, the first woman with a real shot at the White House, no matter how good Obama’s record on women’s issues.
Casey Shows a Risky Side:
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey is the last person one imagines to take a political risk, so his endorsement of Obama last Friday was a bit of a political shocker. In early March, Pennsylvania’s soft-spoken, laid-back, conservative Democratic senator was insistent in both private and public conversations with me that he would not endorse either candidate until after the April 22 primary. So what changed?
Bottom line is pretty simple. Shortly before Easter, while on a family vacation, Casey reached the personal conclusion that he would vote for Obama on April 22. He says he was very impressed by Obama’s race speech in Philadelphia, and he acknowledges that his three daughters are strong Obama fans. But the question of going public with his decision to vote for Obama was a deeply personal one, made without consulting his political supporters.
Casey made the decision on Easter Sunday, called Obama and Clinton, and went public last Friday in Pittsburgh, surprising many in the political community. Will it make a difference for Obama? Hard to tell. Clinton has strong family ties to Northeast PA where Casey lives, and it may not change a lot there. One interesting impact, however, could be among Pennsylvania’s many pro-life Democrats for whom the Casey name is iconic. Now there’s no difference at all between Clinton and Obama on the abortion issue – both are pro-choice – but Casey’s support for Obama could be enough to convince pro-lifers that, if forced to choose between the two, Obama is preferable.
The SurveyUSA poll may offer some substantiation of my theory. Four weeks ago, pro-life Democrats backed Clinton, 53 to 36 percent. After the Casey endorsement, Obama picked up eight points here with Clinton ahead only 50 to 44. Now abortion is hardly an issue in this Democratic primary, but in a close election pro-life Dems could make the difference. This is especially important because Catholic Dems are critical in PA, and the Clintons have always done well among this constituency.
After Pennsylvania, What Happens?
Assuming Clinton wins PA, unless the race is a total blow-out, she is unlikely to end up with more than a 10 to 20 vote delegate advantage over Obama. The proportionality rule guarantees that Obama will get his percentage share of the 158 delegates determined on April 22. The race then 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.
Now some Obama supporters and their media allies are spinning that it’s all over and Clinton should drop out now. That’s preposterous. Why should she drop out when he hasn’t won it yet? It’s not over until all the votes are counted, and besides the states listed above the Democratic Party has to resolve the Michigan and Florida issue, at least if they want every vote to count.
Right now, before PA and the nine others vote, Obama leads among the delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses, 1414 to 1252. Not counting Michigan and Florida, there are 793 super-delegates. Some 221 of them have “endorsed” Obama and 251 have “endorsed” Clinton, giving Obama 1635 to Clinton’s 1503, a lead of just 132 delegates. It now takes 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. More delegates will be chosen in the remaining contests, and there are 331 super-delegates still uncommitted, including most of the PA Democratic members of Congress. Everybody expects these super-delegates to make the final decision, unless Clinton or Obama drop out, and nobody expects that. With the race so close, the appropriate time to call for people to “drop out” is after we know who has won! In the end, neither Obama nor Clinton can become the party nominee without super-delegates!
Pennsylvania will not be the “decider” unless Obama goes all out and defeats Clinton here. Looks like he returns to the state on Thursday (Philadelphia), while Clinton is back here on Wednesday (Pittsburgh), but these schedules could change. And next week, John McCain is planning a PA trip, just to prove he’s not forgotten. (By the way, both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are still on the PA Republican primary ballot). Most polls suggest in November, this state is up for grabs with McCain a strong contender against either Clinton or Obama. In short, this presidential campaign is hardly over.
PENNSYLVANIA’S OTHER RACES
Does Anyone Care about PA Treasurer?
Three statewide offices are on the ballot this year, but two of them won’t really be the focus of this April 22 primary. Two incumbents, Attorney General Tom Corbett, a Republican, and Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Democrat, face no opposition until the fall when Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli takes on Corbett and Lancaster County businessman Chet Beiler takes on Wagner. Primary voters have no choices here.
But the Democratic race for state treasurer has prompted four Dems to compete for the job once held by Bob Casey. In ballot order, Dems choose among John Cordisco, Rob McCord, Dennis Morrison-Wesley, and Jennifer Mann. McCord, a wealthy venture capitalist from Montgomery County, is the most visible candidate so far, running TV ads with the help of $1 million he pumped into his own campaign. Cordisco is a former legislator from Bucks County and an attorney, while Mann is a state legislator from Lehigh County who is vice chair of the House Finance Committee. Morrison-Wesley is an investment advisor from Harrisburg who most recently worked for Comcast.
All four claim qualifications to manage the investment of the state’s $12 billion in revenues, and all four come from “back east” as far as western PA is concerned. Mann is the only woman on the ballot, while Morrison-Wesley is the only African-American. How much this will count, I suppose, depends on how much Clinton and Obama voters engage in identity politics. The Democratic winner will face bond attorney and former Montgomery County commissioner Tom Ellis, a Republican.
Congressional Battles Hard to Find this Spring:
Pennsylvania elects 19 members to the U.S. House of Representatives, but most of the real battles are on November 4. Indeed, two candidates are unopposed even then (U.S. Reps. Jack Murtha of Johnstown and Mike Doyle of Pittsburgh) unless a write-in surfaces on April 22.
Only four of the 19 congressional districts have primary battles and none are against an incumbent. In the 3rd District in northwestern PA (Erie south to Butler County), U.S. Rep. Phil English, a Republican, has no party opposition, but four Dems would like to have at him in November. They include Lake Erie Arboretum director Kathy Dahlkemper, Erie County councilman Kyle Foust, Erie attorney Tom Myers, and Erie lay minister Mike Waltner. Foust is the only candidate with an electoral base, but Dahlkemper has more money (largely her own). Dems have coveted this district for years, but English, who occasionally casts votes against his own party, is a visible and hard-working incumbent. He will be tough to defeat no matter who the Dems nominate.
In the state’s largest geographic congressional district in northwest and north central PA (the 5th District), three Dems and nine Republicans want to take the seat of retiring incumbent, U.S. Rep. John Peterson, a Republican. One candidate, 28-year old Matt Shaner has attracted media attention because he has spent more personal money on this race than any other candidate running for the House in America -- $1.22 million so far. Shaner heads up Shaner Investments in State College (Centre County). His opponents naturally accuse him of trying to “buy” the GOP nomination. Other Republicans include former Centre County commissioner Chris Exarchos, former Pine Creek Township (Clinton) supervisor John Krupa, Elk County coroner Lou Radkowski, Clarion Baptist pastor Keith Richardson, Woodward Township (Lycoming) supervisor Jeff Stroehman, Clarion mayor John Stroup, Centre County Republican chairman Glenn Thompson, and Bigler (Clearfield) financial consultant Derek Walker. Hard to figure out what’s going to happen in this race.
On the Democratic side, the candidates include Centre County native, Iraqi War veteran and former news correspondent Bill Cahir, Clearfield County commissioner Mark McCracken, and Lock Haven Mayor Rick Vilello. This district is solidly Republican, but the Dems think a blood bath on the GOP side gives them an opportunity, particularly if the state trends Democratic this fall.
Besides the 5th District, two Republicans are battling to take on U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, a Democrat, in the 10th District in north central and northeast PA, near Scranton/Wilkes Barre. Carney represents one of those districts nobody thought would go Democratic in 2006 but did, largely because of marital indiscretions of the GOP incumbent. Now the Republicans want it back, and Chris Hackett and Dan Meuser are battling for the privilege of beating Carney. Both are businessmen and both say they are conservatives. Hackett got some press when he had to fire an illegal immigrant who did housekeeping for his family, while the company Meuser owns is under attack for having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for such things as software piracy. In short, both candidates are bruising up each other, which could have benefits for Carney later this year.
The only other congressional primary battle is in the 18th District in suburban Pittsburgh, where U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a Republican, is always thought to be vulnerable until he wins big. This year three Dems are vying to take him on: Steve O’Donnell of Monroeville, Beth Hafer of Mt. Lebanon, and Brien Wall of Upper St. Clair. For residents in the district (yes, I’m one of them), the contest has been largely invisible, although O’Donnell, the party endorsed Dem, has pumped out a mailing or two. Hafer, the daughter of former state treasurer Barbara Hafer, arguably has the greatest name recognition, while Wall says he has the best relationship with selected labor unions. At this stage, the race is probably a toss-up in the primary, although Murphy is clearly favored in the fall unless the ongoing FBI and Ethics Committee investigation into his use of staff for political purposes in 2006 turns up something before Nov. 4.
I’m going to stop here, reserving some comments about a few contested state Senate and state House races until later. As always, I welcome your comments. If you’re thinking ahead to the 2010 governor’s race, I recommend a piece I wrote for the April edition of Pittsburgh Magazine on Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato. It’s mostly biographical about the politician many think is the heir-apparent to Ed Rendell. Check it out. Spring seems to have finally hit western PA, so take a break from politics and enjoy the good weather!
Monday, April 7, 2008
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!
Monday, March 17, 2008
One on One with the Candidates
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
This past week I had the opportunity to meet both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. While I had interviewed Obama last year and the year before, it was my first chance to talk to Clinton. Later this week, I hope to post some reflections on all this -- and where the PA campaign stands right now. In the meantime, I have posted on this page my TV interviews and stories written from these interviews. Take a look at them, and feel free to comment. I'll be back with more later. Right now, it's out the door to cover the Obama event in Beaver County!
This past week I had the opportunity to meet both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. While I had interviewed Obama last year and the year before, it was my first chance to talk to Clinton. Later this week, I hope to post some reflections on all this -- and where the PA campaign stands right now. In the meantime, I have posted on this page my TV interviews and stories written from these interviews. Take a look at them, and feel free to comment. I'll be back with more later. Right now, it's out the door to cover the Obama event in Beaver County!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Pennsylvania? Hillary's Last Stand
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Reproduced below is my op-ed piece written for The Washington Times and published on February 19, 2008. You can link to it at http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/747783494/0/EDITORIAL04.
HILLARY'S LAST STAND
by Jon Delano
The Keystone State of Pennsylvania is increasingly looking like Sen. Hillary Clinton's last stand in her quest for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. And, by all accounts, it should be friendly territory. But as other candidates have learned to their peril, Pennsylvania is politically complicated and never to be taken for granted.
With nearly 3.9 million Democrats and six media markets, Pennsylvania is home to the fourth-largest delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Most of the state's 188 delegates will be elected in the 19 congressional districts or apportioned based on the statewide presidential vote, with the remaining 30 superdelegates comprised of Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Robert Casey, the 11 Democratic members of Congress, state party leaders and 12 members of the Democratic National Committee.
All in all, Pennsylvania is a prize worth fighting over.
But the state is a Pennsylvania Dutch quilt of hues and textures that defy quick characterization or easy campaigning. One-third of the state's Democrats live in the city of Philadelphia and its three bedroom counties, but they are about as different as you can imagine from the Democrats 300 miles away in Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania where just under one million Democrats reside.And that still leaves 40 percent of the state's Democrats who live in Pennsylvania's industrial valleys, rural plains and scenic mountains from Erie to Johnstown to York/Lancaster/Reading to Wilkes Barre/Scranton to Allentown/Bethlehem — and lots of places in between.
But if campaigns don't end in Philadelphia, they usually begin there.The city of brotherly love may not show much sisterly affection to Mrs. Clinton. Philadelphia Democrats are 46 percent African American, a perfect target for Sen. Barack Obama.Mrs. Clinton is helped by support from both Mr. Rendell and the city's popular new African American mayor, Michael Nutter.If she is to carry Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton must cut into the identity voting that has understandably helped Mr. Obama among African Americans, while boosting her own support among women, particularly suburban women.
The Philadelphia suburbs are notoriously schizophrenic, voting for Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore and the re-election of incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum at the same time in 2000. And these same suburbs are never predictable. Despite Mrs. Clinton's appeal there as an intelligent woman and a pro-choice feminist, Mr. Obama will certainly find support among Philadelphia's economically well-off and intellectual elites. He will do better in southeastern Pennsylvania than many expect.
Ironically, Mrs. Clinton's greatest source of electoral support could come from the other end of the state, a region that President Bush nearly carried despite a preponderance of Democrats.Geographically within 30 miles of Ohio, Pittsburgh and its surrounding counties are more Midwestern grit than East Coast chic. Here, the Democrats are socially conservative but often allied with a labor union in the belief that Democrats better understand the challenges of working Americans.
Labor is still important in many parts of the state, and Mrs. Clinton and her husband have enjoyed very strong ties to Pennsylvania's unions, which is why a number of local labor leaders are running as Clinton delegates in the April 22 primary. Over the years, Hillary and husband Bill have been visible throughout the commonwealth, especially Western Pennsylvania.In contrast, Mr. Obama has not yet campaigned here and is still unfamiliar to many. One African American woman in Pittsburgh, who is a superdelegate and supporting Mrs. Clinton, told me she has never had a phone call from Mr. Obama even when he stopped by the city to raise money last year.
A week ago, the Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) Democratic committee people, who are elected in more than 1,300 precincts, voted 837-453 to endorse Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama. It was a nonbinding vote, but a signal nonetheless of Mrs. Clinton's strength among the party faithful.To win on April 22, she must maintain that support by being the more conservative of the two candidates on economic, social and military issues. And, for heaven's sakes, don't utter the words gun control. In all parts of the state, except Philadelphia, every other person has a hunter in the family, making the Second Amendment sacrosanct.
Throughout Pennsylvania, the 60-year old Mrs. Clinton also has a potential advantage because of the age of the voting population. The elderly vote here, and they swing elections. More than half of the voters who never miss an election are 60 years of age and older. I recall a recent Democratic primary in Pittsburgh where 30 percent of the voters who turned out were 70 and older. If the charismatic Illinois senator is making inroads among this older constituency, Pennsylvania will be his true test.
Pennsylvania has a lot of university students, young professionals, anti-war liberals and passionate progressives who admire Mr. Obama, and getting these folks to the polls, as he has had elsewhere, will be key to the Keystone State.
Finally, Pennsylvania likes winners. No Democrat has won the White House since 1948 without carrying the state of Pennsylvania. If one candidate appears to be on a roll to victory by late April, don't look for Pennsylvania to stand in the way. But if it's still a contest, Pennsylvania is up for grabs.
Jon Delano, who teaches at Carnegie Mellon University's H. John Heinz School of Public Policy, has lived in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. He was chief of staff to a Pennsylvania congressman for 14 years.
Copyright 2007 The Washington Times
Reproduced below is my op-ed piece written for The Washington Times and published on February 19, 2008. You can link to it at http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/747783494/0/EDITORIAL04.
HILLARY'S LAST STAND
by Jon Delano
The Keystone State of Pennsylvania is increasingly looking like Sen. Hillary Clinton's last stand in her quest for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. And, by all accounts, it should be friendly territory. But as other candidates have learned to their peril, Pennsylvania is politically complicated and never to be taken for granted.
With nearly 3.9 million Democrats and six media markets, Pennsylvania is home to the fourth-largest delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Most of the state's 188 delegates will be elected in the 19 congressional districts or apportioned based on the statewide presidential vote, with the remaining 30 superdelegates comprised of Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Robert Casey, the 11 Democratic members of Congress, state party leaders and 12 members of the Democratic National Committee.
All in all, Pennsylvania is a prize worth fighting over.
But the state is a Pennsylvania Dutch quilt of hues and textures that defy quick characterization or easy campaigning. One-third of the state's Democrats live in the city of Philadelphia and its three bedroom counties, but they are about as different as you can imagine from the Democrats 300 miles away in Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania where just under one million Democrats reside.And that still leaves 40 percent of the state's Democrats who live in Pennsylvania's industrial valleys, rural plains and scenic mountains from Erie to Johnstown to York/Lancaster/Reading to Wilkes Barre/Scranton to Allentown/Bethlehem — and lots of places in between.
But if campaigns don't end in Philadelphia, they usually begin there.The city of brotherly love may not show much sisterly affection to Mrs. Clinton. Philadelphia Democrats are 46 percent African American, a perfect target for Sen. Barack Obama.Mrs. Clinton is helped by support from both Mr. Rendell and the city's popular new African American mayor, Michael Nutter.If she is to carry Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton must cut into the identity voting that has understandably helped Mr. Obama among African Americans, while boosting her own support among women, particularly suburban women.
The Philadelphia suburbs are notoriously schizophrenic, voting for Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore and the re-election of incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum at the same time in 2000. And these same suburbs are never predictable. Despite Mrs. Clinton's appeal there as an intelligent woman and a pro-choice feminist, Mr. Obama will certainly find support among Philadelphia's economically well-off and intellectual elites. He will do better in southeastern Pennsylvania than many expect.
Ironically, Mrs. Clinton's greatest source of electoral support could come from the other end of the state, a region that President Bush nearly carried despite a preponderance of Democrats.Geographically within 30 miles of Ohio, Pittsburgh and its surrounding counties are more Midwestern grit than East Coast chic. Here, the Democrats are socially conservative but often allied with a labor union in the belief that Democrats better understand the challenges of working Americans.
Labor is still important in many parts of the state, and Mrs. Clinton and her husband have enjoyed very strong ties to Pennsylvania's unions, which is why a number of local labor leaders are running as Clinton delegates in the April 22 primary. Over the years, Hillary and husband Bill have been visible throughout the commonwealth, especially Western Pennsylvania.In contrast, Mr. Obama has not yet campaigned here and is still unfamiliar to many. One African American woman in Pittsburgh, who is a superdelegate and supporting Mrs. Clinton, told me she has never had a phone call from Mr. Obama even when he stopped by the city to raise money last year.
A week ago, the Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) Democratic committee people, who are elected in more than 1,300 precincts, voted 837-453 to endorse Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama. It was a nonbinding vote, but a signal nonetheless of Mrs. Clinton's strength among the party faithful.To win on April 22, she must maintain that support by being the more conservative of the two candidates on economic, social and military issues. And, for heaven's sakes, don't utter the words gun control. In all parts of the state, except Philadelphia, every other person has a hunter in the family, making the Second Amendment sacrosanct.
Throughout Pennsylvania, the 60-year old Mrs. Clinton also has a potential advantage because of the age of the voting population. The elderly vote here, and they swing elections. More than half of the voters who never miss an election are 60 years of age and older. I recall a recent Democratic primary in Pittsburgh where 30 percent of the voters who turned out were 70 and older. If the charismatic Illinois senator is making inroads among this older constituency, Pennsylvania will be his true test.
Pennsylvania has a lot of university students, young professionals, anti-war liberals and passionate progressives who admire Mr. Obama, and getting these folks to the polls, as he has had elsewhere, will be key to the Keystone State.
Finally, Pennsylvania likes winners. No Democrat has won the White House since 1948 without carrying the state of Pennsylvania. If one candidate appears to be on a roll to victory by late April, don't look for Pennsylvania to stand in the way. But if it's still a contest, Pennsylvania is up for grabs.
Jon Delano, who teaches at Carnegie Mellon University's H. John Heinz School of Public Policy, has lived in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. He was chief of staff to a Pennsylvania congressman for 14 years.
Copyright 2007 The Washington Times
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
On to Pennsylvania
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Pennsylvania, here we come.
The morning after Super Duper Tuesday leaves only one conclusion – it’s not over ‘til it’s over – and it ain’t over yet.
That is certainly true for the Democrats, where Barack Obama won the most states but Hillary Clinton won the most delegates and bragging rights to California, where one out of eight Americans live. But neither candidate is even half-way there to the 2,025 delegates needed to nominate, with (depending on whose numbers you use) Clinton at 825 and Obama at 732 and John Edwards still has his 26. One caveat: the delegate numbers are not all in yet from Super Tuesday.
The Republicans seem to have conferred “front runner” status on John McCain, and he now has more than half the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination. He has been helped tremendously by the split between his opponents: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and even Ron Paul. With conservatives deeply divided, the more liberal (on a few things) McCain has taken advantage. Today, McCain has 615 delegates, Romney has 268, Huckabee has 169, and Paul has 16. It takes 1,191 to nominate.
While, arguably, McCain has it in the bag, unless GOP conservatives anoint one of the two main challengers, the Democratic race is wide open – and that increases the likelihood that Pennsylvania with its April primary just might have a seat at the decision-making table.
Here’s what to expect next.
This Saturday, Louisiana, Nevada, and Washington elect a total of 205 delegates followed by Maine on Sunday with 38 delegates. Next Tuesday, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia choose 240 delegates. Hawaii, Washington, and Wisconsin (with a total 121 delegates) vote on Tuesday, February 19.
If one candidate really dominates the other through this process, then it is mathematically possible for the winner to come close to nomination with a sweep on Tuesday, March 4. But don’t count on it. That’s when two biggies, Ohio and Texas, vote along with Rhode Island and Vermont. On that date, 444 delegates will be chosen.
After that, there’s only Wyoming and Misissippi in March before the April 22 Pennsylvania Primary.
Assuming a continued deadlock on the Democratic side, Pennsylvania with the fourth largest number of delegates (188) at the 2008 Democratic Convention will be the decider. If not, in May, voters in Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia will have the last say. And, of course, if neither Obama or Clinton have 2,025 delegates by then, it’s on to a “brokered” convention.
The battle in Pennsylvania will be intense. Earlier polls have had Clinton leading Obama by 20 points, but nobody believes that’s true today. Clinton enjoys strong support from Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a rising African American star, while Obama has support from U.S. Reps. Chaka Fattah and Patrick Murphy (both in the Philadelphia area) and former U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford, a long-time Kennedy protégé. Most of PA’s members of Congress, including U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, have made no endorsement. Last night, Casey told me he was not likely to endorse anyone before the primary.
Like most states, PA has a convoluted way of apportioning its 188 delegates with the majority of delegates determined by the vote in each of the 19 congressional delegates. Rendell, Casey, and the 11 Democratic members of Congress are “super delegates”, along with the state’s members of the Democratic National Committee. After the primary, more delegates will be chosen among other leading elected officials (like mayors, statewide officials, and county executives), as well as others to secure gender and racial balance, but these delegates will be pledged to support Clinton or Obama, depending on their vote in the state. If it sounds complicated, it is.
What is not complicated to understand is that Pennsylvania is up for grabs for the first time since 1976 when Democrats gave Jimmy Carter the edge over Morris Udall. Both candidates have been in this state over the past year, but always to raise money. Clinton has not been in Pittsburgh in more than a year or so, although she was in Philadelphia recently to get endorsed by Rendell and Nutter. Obama’s last trek to this part of the state was last year to raise money when he got some notoriety for meeting with the local press for exactly 120 seconds. All that is likely to change, especially after the March 4 contests.
Pennsylvania, with its six media markets and very diverse population, is not an easy state to traverse. But voters here like retail politics, whether it’s gobbling down a Philly cheesesteak or having an IC light and Primanti’s sandwich here in the ‘Burgh, and the smart candidate (and both Clinton and Obama are smart) does more than just a quick airport media stop.
While one of the two Democrats could “suspend” his or her campaign before the April 22 primary, I’m betting not. The road to the presidential convention in Denver clearly leads through the Keystone State, and Pennsylvania voters are waiting to be courted!
If you have any thoughts or comments, please email me at delano.jon@gmail.com. And let me know what you’re hearing out there on the political trail.
Pennsylvania, here we come.
The morning after Super Duper Tuesday leaves only one conclusion – it’s not over ‘til it’s over – and it ain’t over yet.
That is certainly true for the Democrats, where Barack Obama won the most states but Hillary Clinton won the most delegates and bragging rights to California, where one out of eight Americans live. But neither candidate is even half-way there to the 2,025 delegates needed to nominate, with (depending on whose numbers you use) Clinton at 825 and Obama at 732 and John Edwards still has his 26. One caveat: the delegate numbers are not all in yet from Super Tuesday.
The Republicans seem to have conferred “front runner” status on John McCain, and he now has more than half the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination. He has been helped tremendously by the split between his opponents: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and even Ron Paul. With conservatives deeply divided, the more liberal (on a few things) McCain has taken advantage. Today, McCain has 615 delegates, Romney has 268, Huckabee has 169, and Paul has 16. It takes 1,191 to nominate.
While, arguably, McCain has it in the bag, unless GOP conservatives anoint one of the two main challengers, the Democratic race is wide open – and that increases the likelihood that Pennsylvania with its April primary just might have a seat at the decision-making table.
Here’s what to expect next.
This Saturday, Louisiana, Nevada, and Washington elect a total of 205 delegates followed by Maine on Sunday with 38 delegates. Next Tuesday, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia choose 240 delegates. Hawaii, Washington, and Wisconsin (with a total 121 delegates) vote on Tuesday, February 19.
If one candidate really dominates the other through this process, then it is mathematically possible for the winner to come close to nomination with a sweep on Tuesday, March 4. But don’t count on it. That’s when two biggies, Ohio and Texas, vote along with Rhode Island and Vermont. On that date, 444 delegates will be chosen.
After that, there’s only Wyoming and Misissippi in March before the April 22 Pennsylvania Primary.
Assuming a continued deadlock on the Democratic side, Pennsylvania with the fourth largest number of delegates (188) at the 2008 Democratic Convention will be the decider. If not, in May, voters in Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia will have the last say. And, of course, if neither Obama or Clinton have 2,025 delegates by then, it’s on to a “brokered” convention.
The battle in Pennsylvania will be intense. Earlier polls have had Clinton leading Obama by 20 points, but nobody believes that’s true today. Clinton enjoys strong support from Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a rising African American star, while Obama has support from U.S. Reps. Chaka Fattah and Patrick Murphy (both in the Philadelphia area) and former U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford, a long-time Kennedy protégé. Most of PA’s members of Congress, including U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, have made no endorsement. Last night, Casey told me he was not likely to endorse anyone before the primary.
Like most states, PA has a convoluted way of apportioning its 188 delegates with the majority of delegates determined by the vote in each of the 19 congressional delegates. Rendell, Casey, and the 11 Democratic members of Congress are “super delegates”, along with the state’s members of the Democratic National Committee. After the primary, more delegates will be chosen among other leading elected officials (like mayors, statewide officials, and county executives), as well as others to secure gender and racial balance, but these delegates will be pledged to support Clinton or Obama, depending on their vote in the state. If it sounds complicated, it is.
What is not complicated to understand is that Pennsylvania is up for grabs for the first time since 1976 when Democrats gave Jimmy Carter the edge over Morris Udall. Both candidates have been in this state over the past year, but always to raise money. Clinton has not been in Pittsburgh in more than a year or so, although she was in Philadelphia recently to get endorsed by Rendell and Nutter. Obama’s last trek to this part of the state was last year to raise money when he got some notoriety for meeting with the local press for exactly 120 seconds. All that is likely to change, especially after the March 4 contests.
Pennsylvania, with its six media markets and very diverse population, is not an easy state to traverse. But voters here like retail politics, whether it’s gobbling down a Philly cheesesteak or having an IC light and Primanti’s sandwich here in the ‘Burgh, and the smart candidate (and both Clinton and Obama are smart) does more than just a quick airport media stop.
While one of the two Democrats could “suspend” his or her campaign before the April 22 primary, I’m betting not. The road to the presidential convention in Denver clearly leads through the Keystone State, and Pennsylvania voters are waiting to be courted!
If you have any thoughts or comments, please email me at delano.jon@gmail.com. And let me know what you’re hearing out there on the political trail.
Monday, February 4, 2008
SuperDuperTuesday
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
Next Tuesday, February 5, is Super Duper Tuesday when millions of Americans will go to the polls to pick the Republican and Democratic nominees for president. Unfortunately, millions of others – including those of us in Pennsylvania – will not be part of this “national” primary. And, regrettably again, because of the impact of the earlier caucuses and primaries, those Americans who do get a vote on Tuesday will not get a full selection of candidates. In my view, this is a fundamentally flawed system by which to choose a president.
In an earlier PSF, I reviewed the presidential race as I saw it then. After a brief update, let’s move on to Pennsylvania politics. First, my thanks for so many wonderful comments to my last PSF. I love getting them, and I always treat them as “off-the-record” comments. My apologies if you get some scary automated comment when you hit the “reply” button. I think you can avoid that by initiating a “new” email to me at delano.jon@gmail.com. In any case, don’t be a stranger, especially if you have some new tidbit to share with me or our politically savvy friends. If you feel like commenting publicly, there is a “comment” section on my blog at http://delanosden.blogspot.com/. Just be respectful of all.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
Presidential Update:
And then there were two, sort of.
Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton. Barring the unexpected, the Democratic nominee for president will either be a woman or an African American. In both cases, Americans will be asked to do something never asked before, at least at this level of a campaign. I opined earlier that I think the gender barrier may actually be tougher to break than the racial barrier, but both candidates ask voters to think beyond our traditional prejudices.
One PSFer suggested that for every white who will never vote for a black, there is a man (and in some cases, a woman) who will never support a woman for president. This year we will have a chance to test these anecdotal political theories. I hope that whatever happens America can look back with pride on the 2008 general election campaign. We shall see.
I was disappointed that John Edwards suspended his campaign so unexpectedly, not because of any personal preference or belief that he would win. Rather, Edwards played an important role in the race by keeping the candidates focused on important issues, especially health care and poverty. I have interviewed both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth on a number of occasions, and I have always been impressed with his sincerity and commitment to his causes. As for Elizabeth, given her family roots in western PA – yes, her dad graduated from Brownsville High School in 1938 – how can I not help but be enamored by her grace and passion.
So far, Edwards has shown no desire to endorse anyone, and I would be surprised if he did. The rumor that he could be either Obama’s or Clinton’s attorney general will drive the corporate and defense attorneys crazy, but it is an intriguing notion. At least we know where he stands on waterboarding!
John McCain versus Mitt Romney. Well, not exactly. There’s also Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain seems to be racking up endorsements after his Florida win and he’s peddling the belief that he is the only Republican who can beat the Democratic nominee. McCain does have an appeal beyond traditional GOP lines, and there’s no doubt in my mind he could win the presidency. [See my last PSF posted on my blog at http://delanosden.blogspot.com/ for my view that the Republicans can win the White House in 2008]. But McCain’s strengths outside his party are weaknesses within his party, and both Romney and Huckabee have moved to exploit them. Romney is hurt by Huckabee’s presence on so many ballots, as he does give true conservatives another candidate to support. But the real question is whether this has become a two-person race such that Republicans who dislike McCain’s stands on immigration, taxes, campaign reform, etc., etc. opt for Romney as the only credible alternative. We shall see.
I was taken to task for leaving Ron Paul out of my last PSF. My apologies to the Paul fans, and there are a lot of them. I have not met Ron Paul, but it’s hard not to be impressed with the fervor with which he articulates his views, especially his belief that American foreign policy in Iraq contravenes traditional conservative values. While Paul has not broken into the top tier of candidates – his supporters blame the mainstream media for that – he has consistently attracted from 3 percent (Florida) to 14 percent (Nevada) of the vote. Moreover, his ability to raise money on-line has been awesome. He’s not a factor in this election, but he does give anti-war Republicans a candidate to support.
A Brokered Convention:
Despite all the media play about a brokered convention in Denver and Minneapolis, it now appears much less likely of that occurring. Still, if it’s a very close delegate race between Obama and Clinton and/or McCain and Romney, February 5 will not settle things. That pushes decision-making into the later primaries. Kansas, Louisiana, and Washington votes on February 9, with Maryland and Virginia on February 12. Hawaii and Wisconsin vote later in the month, with March 4 another big delegate day with contests in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Because the state Senate blocked a bill to move the Pennsylvania primary to February 12, this commonwealth will almost certainly not be part of the primary sweepstakes. But, if no one has a majority of the delegates after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22 would be the kingmaker – or queenmaker! I know we’re ready to decide, if the other states can’t make it final!
PENNSYLVANIA
Impacting the Delegate Battle:
Even though PA is not yet a player in the delegate sweepstakes, that hasn’t stopped the state’s most senior politician from making an endorsement. Gov. Ed Rendell told me a few weeks ago that he was not planning to endorse any candidate for president until closer to the April 22 primary. That changed when, sources tell me, the Clintons asked Rendell to endorse Hillary before the South Carolina primary. There was never any real surprise who Rendell would back. He has been close to both Clintons for years, serving as chair of the Democratic National Committee during the presidency of President Clinton. The state’s other senior Democrat, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton, telling me that both of them supported his campaign in 2006 to unseat former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. One former U.S. senator from PA, Harris Wofford, told me last August that he was backing Obama because he found Obama to be inspiring like John F. Kennedy in whose White House Wofford once worked many years ago.
Speaking of Santorum, the state’s most prominent conservative endorsed Romney on Friday, saying true conservatives cannot sit on the sidelines and declaring that Romney “has fought for life, marriage, tax cuts and a stronger national defense. In the coming days, I look forward to working with him as we fight for our party's conservative foundations." McCain has already picked up support from former Gov. Tom Ridge, and just added support from the PA Republican Party chair, Robert Gleason. As far as I know, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter has endorsed no one.
Pennsylvania has the fourth largest concentration of Democratic delegates – 188 – and the fifth largest collection of GOP delegates – 74 – but it may well be over before voters in each of the state’s 19 congressional districts pick the delegates pledged to particular candidates.
State Row Offices Up for Grabs:
This spring and fall, Pennsylvanians will also elect 19 members of Congress, 203 members of the PA House of Representatives, 25 members of the state Senate, and three statewide elected officials – Attorney General, Auditor General, and State Treasurer – offices frequently used as a springboard for other more prominent state office like Governor and U.S. Senator.
Attorney General Tom Corbett, a suburban Pittsburgh Republican, is asking voters for another four years as AG. Corbett, who has deep political roots going back to his days as the local campaign chair for George H. W. Bush (for which he was rewarded by being named U.S. Attorney for Western PA), will be difficult for the Democrats to beat, in my view. He has been a very visible AG, focusing on internet child pornography and drug busts. But his greater notoriety will come later this year as he investigates “Bonusgate” among Democratic and Republican legislators in Harrisburg – see below – with charges expected against some prominent leaders.
Democratic Party leaders have endorsed Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli to challenge Corbett, and Morganelli brings 16 years of DA experience to the task. Morganelli has run for this office before, and is well known among law enforcement officials, having served as president of the state’s DA association and on the state’s Crime Commission. Can Morganelli defeat Corbett? Yes, absolutely, if the stars align correctly during this presidential year. But since the office became elective in 1980, the Republicans have won every contest. Morganelli trumpets an internal campaign poll that shows him at 34 percent, Corbett at 37 percent, and a whopping 29 percent undecided. Morganelli believes he can showcase his tough anti-crime record as a DA, and he calls for an “independent counsel” to investigate Bonusgate, saying a Republican politico like Corbett cannot be trusted to investigate Republican legislators.
Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Pittsburgh Democrat, hopes for an easy cruise to reelection in 2008. He just might get it. Wagner, a former Pittsburgh city councilman and state senator, is no stranger to PA politics. He was picked by then State Treasurer Bob Casey to be his running-mate for Lieutenant Governor in 2002. Both Casey and Wagner lost those nomination battles, but Wagner parlayed that into a statewide run for Auditor General, winning big in 2004. A Vietnam veteran often recognized for his work on behalf of veterans, Wagner has used his office to conduct visible state audits that attract local media attention around the state.
Many Republicans had hoped that David Sanko, chief of staff to former Gov. Mark Schweiker and later Rendell’s PEMA (PA Emergency Management) director, would take on Wagner. But Sanko, who had returned home to Bucks County to be that county’s chief operating officer, announced this week that he would not run for public office, citing bad timing for him personally. That leaves Chet Beiler, the Republican chair of Lancaster County, as the only announced challenger. Beiler is a successful businessman who grew up on family farm in Amish country and built a company called Amish Country Gazebos that was featured on an episode of the TV show “Extreme Makeover Home Edition.” Beiler has sought public office before, like Auditor General and State Senate, but it looks like he now has the GOP nomination to himself. He comes from an increasingly important part of the state, but Beiler will need an infusion of cash to become better known in the populace southeastern and southwestern ends of the state.
When former State Treasurer Bob Casey resigned his office last year to take the oath as a U.S. Senator, the governor appointed a state treasurer, Robin Weissmann, who pledged not to seek office in 2008. That gives both parties a chance to win an “open” statewide seat. On the Democratic side, four candidates are vying for the nomination: John Cordisco, the Democratic chair of Bucks County; State Rep. Jennifer Mann, a Lehigh County legislator; Rob McCord, a venture capitalist from Montgomery County; and Dennis Morrison-Wesley, an African American cable TV salesman in Harrisburg who once worked for Merrill Lynch until, he says, he was fired for supporting Casey over Santorum, charges denied by the company.
Arguably, Mann from Allentown is the best known of the bunch, although she is hardly a statewide figure. She is generally regarded as a pro-business centrist Democrat who supports abortion rights, and, as the only woman (so far) in the race she can capitalize on the absence of any woman running statewide in 2008. McCord is the money candidate. The suburban Philly businessman reportedly has the ability, and the desire, to pump more than a million of his own dollars into the campaign. Cordisco, a former Bucks County state legislator, has already had word battles with his fellow Philadelphian, accusing McCord of taking money from those who want to manage monies handled by the Treasurer. McCord says Cordisco voted for legislative pay raises when he was in the state House and is, therefore, unelectable. Absent from the crowded ballot is any candidate from west of the Susquehanna River. Allegheny County Treasurer John Weinstein has toyed with the idea, but no formal announcement yet from someone who is generally well-known in this region. Another potential candidate with a strong base and lots of money is former Philadelphia mayoral candidate Tom Knox. Stay tuned. This race hasn’t yet jelled.
The Republicans seem to have their candidate for State Treasurer: former Montgomery County commissioner Thomas Jay Ellis. Ellis is a bond attorney, who is now caught up in a politically-charged civil lawsuit involving rival tax collection companies, one of which was hired on a no-bid basis by the Montgomery commissioners to replace the other. While Ellis has not been sued himself, the losing company wants to take his sworn deposition. He has refused, arguing a conflict of interest, but a federal judge appears to think otherwise, especially since Ellis is no longer a commissioner.
State House Could Party Switch:
The Democrats control the State House by just one vote, 102 to 101, and that margin of control could be in great jeopardy this year. [The State Senate is 29 Republican to 21 Democrats, and nobody thinks that will change much in 2008]. Last time I checked, about 24 legislators were retiring this year, including five senators: Gib Armstrong, a Lancaster County Republican; Jerry LaValle, a Beaver County Democrat; Roger Madigan, a Bradford County Republican; Terry Punt, a Franklin County Republican; and Connie Williams, a Montgomery County Democrat. The first four seats are likely to stay in the same party, but the Williams’ seat in suburban Philadelphia could be a real battleground with both parties seeking to field strong candidates.
On the House side, 19 representatives are stepping down, some to run for the state Senate like Sean Ramaley (D/Beaver), Daylin Leach (D/Mongtomery), and Steven Cappelli (R/Lycoming). Democrats think they have a shot at three House seats held by Republicans who are retiring in Bucks (David Steil) and Chester Counties (Arthur Hershey & Carole Rubley), while Republicans think they can retake Leach’s seat and the seat held by Tom Tangretti (D/Westmoreland). After the dust settles on April 22, other seats could be in play as well, including that of the House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D/Greene). Bottom line is that the state House is up for grabs.
The most surprising retirement announcement this last month was that of Lisa Bennington, a 31-year old freshman Democratic legislator from Pittsburgh, who (along with Chelsa Wagner and Deberah Kula) returned women to the House from southwestern PA in 2006. Bennington says she underestimated the wasted time in Harrisburg and, frankly, would just prefer to grow her family law practice. Ironically, the man she beat in the Democratic primary, Frank Pistella, is trying to make a comeback, although lots of other candidates are circulating petitions as well.
By way of comparison, in 2006 some 31 incumbents decided not to seek reelection (compared to 24 this year) and another 24 incumbents were defeated at the polls in the wake of the pay raise controversy. That ushered in 55 new legislators (out of the 253), a better than 20 percent change. Nobody expects that kind of turnover in 2008.
Could “Bonusgate” Alter the Political Equation:
The media is calling it Bonusgate, the use of taxpayer dollars to reward legislative staff for the political work they did on a variety of campaigns in 2006. This, of course, is illegal. While the law back then allowed for bonus dollars to reward legislative work, there is no question that senior legislators could not use these dollars to “thank” staffers for their campaign work. After their successful take-over of the House, House Democratic leaders awarded $1.9 million in bonus money to 717 employees, while the House Republicans gave out $270,000 to 45 staffers. Senate Republicans gave out $180,000 in bonuses to 16 employees, while Senate Democrats gave out $38,000 to 12 staffers.
Did senior House and Senate legislative leaders hand out bonuses to reward staffers for their political work? Nobody knows, but Attorney General Corbett has convened a grand jury to investigate. Corbett says he’s looking at all four caucuses, but some Democrats don’t believe it. They think Corbett will target Democrats to improve his reelection chances and to position himself for a gubernatorial run in 2010. Corbett’s Democratic opponent this year, John Morganelli, says legislative corruption needs to be investigated fully without regard to politics, and he argues that an independent special counsel should be named to conduct such an investigation.
Most of the public attention has been on the House Democrats, who did dole out more than double the cash of their GOP counterparts. House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese has suggested that he was really not in the loop on these bonus awards in 2006. But whether intended or not, that implicitly suggests that it was the work of then second-ranking Democrat, former state Rep. Mike Veon of Beaver County, who was defeated in 2006 and senior staffers. After the public furor broke over the bonuses, DeWeese brought in former Philadelphia assistant DA William Chadwick to review operations, sort through what happened, and cooperate with Corbett and the grand jury on the investigation.
In November, DeWeese fired seven senior Democratic staff people, including Mike Manzo, his chief of staff, and Scott Brubaker, director of staffing and administration, both of whom appear to have been involved in the bonus awards.
Nobody really knows how this will all play out, although speculation is hot in Harrisburg that charges are soon-to-come. For his part, DeWeese says he is running for reelection for a 17th term – and, so far at least, House Democrats have not stripped him of his position as their leader. Republican Greg Hopkins of Greene County, who nearly upended DeWeese in 2006, is running again. Hopkins is a 36-year old assistant football coach for the Los Angeles Avengers, an Arena Football League, where he was star player for a number of years. He was also a football player at Waynesburg Central High School and Slippery Rock University, and got 8,994 votes to DeWeese’s 10,035, the closest race for DeWeese in a long time.
Whether any other Democratic legislators are implicated by Bonusgate remains to be seen. And there is also the possibility that some Republican legislators could be affected as well, if Corbett follows through with his stated intention to let the chips fall where they may. But right now, it’s all just speculation and radio talk show fodder.
Republicans Attempt a Congressional Comeback:
Once upon a time, Melissa Hart was the Republican darling of PA politics. The first GOP woman elected to Congress from the state, Hart always upended her naysayers, winning races when no one expected it. Her GOP colleagues in Washington embraced her, giving her visible leadership positions and coming to her aid when asked. Then in 2006 along came Jason Altmire, a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Bush, anti-war Democrat, who rather suddenly attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars from those smelling blood. In the end, Altmire defeated Hart by 8,500 votes out of 254,000 cast. Now Hart wants a rematch, always difficult to do. But history teaches that Melissa Hart is never to be underestimated.
Pennsylvania was a congressional disaster for Republicans in 2006. Dems targeted five incumbent Republicans and defeated four out of five. Hart, who represented parts of six counties north and west of Pittsburgh, was one of them. The other Democratic winners: Patrick Murphy (who won by 1,500 votes) and Joe Sestak (who won by 33,000 votes) in suburban Philadelphia and Chris Carney (who won by 12,000 votes) in northeast/north central PA.
Republicans dream of retaking these seats, although Altmire-Hart is the only rerun of the last show. Murphy has four GOP challengers looking to take him on: Tom Lingenfelter, Jeff Madden, Tom Manion, and Joseph Montone. A former Marine, Manion, who lost a son in Iraq, is a strong supporter of the war and has the support of the congressman Murphy defeated, former U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. Sestak has two challengers, Wendell Craig Williams and Joe Breslin. Williams has been endorsed by Delaware County GOP leaders and has an impressive resume as an assistant U.S. attorney and Gulf War veteran. Carney has four opponents right now, including Chris Hackett, David Haire, Dan Meuser, and Paul Swiderski. Insiders tell me Meuser and Hackett are the leading challengers at the moment.
Can these four freshman Democrats be defeated? Of course. But they each start the year with big cash advantages over their prospective challengers and the likelihood that more Democrats will turn out to vote during a presidential election year. But we’ll keep our eyes on these seats throughout the year.
Republicans also hope to defeat another incumbent Democratic congressman. Despite at least a public reticence to say he’s running, Republicans are trying to get Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta to run against U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Barletta has attracted national attention for his strong stand against illegal immigrants. Barletta could give Kanjorski a real race. Stay tuned.
The surprise retirement of U.S. Rep. John Peterson, a Republican from one of the largest geographic districts that stretches across northern PA, gives some Democrats hope they can win an open seat. But don’t count on it. Nonetheless, a lot of candidates in both parties have caught the bug. Among the Republicans, seven candidates are in the running: former Centre County commissioner Chris Exarchos, Elk County coroner Lou Radkowski, State College businessman Matt Shaner, Woodward Township (Lycoming) supervisor Jeff Stroehman, Clarion mayor John Stroup, Centre County Republican chairman G. T. Thompson, and Bigler (Clearfield) financial consultant Derek Walker. On the Democratic side, the candidates include Centre County native, Iraqi War veteran and former news correspondent Bill Cahir, Clearfield County commissioner Mark McCracken, and Lock Haven Mayor Rick Vilello.
Democrats are lining up to take on two Republican incumbents who represent Democratic-leaning districts, but at this stage nobody is predicting any upsets. U.S. Rep. Phil English, an Erie Republican, will face one of four Democrats in his northwestern PA district: Lake Erie Arboretum director Kathy Dahlkemper, Erie County councilman Kyle Foust, Erie attorney Tom Myers, and Erie lay minister Mike Waltner. In southwestern PA, U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a suburban Pittsburgh Republican, will end up being challenged by Army Reserve Col. Wayne Dudding of Robinson, Mt. Lebanon consultant and former teacher Beth Hafer (daughter of Barbara Hafer), Monroeville businessman Steve O’Donnell, Penn Hills school director Erin Vecchio, and Upper St. Clair insurance executive Brien Wall. As these and other congressional races shape up – after the February 12 deadline for filing nominating petitions – I’ll have much more on these battles.
There is always much more to write about – politics in Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh, for example – but let’s bring this PSF to an end until another day. It’s almost time for the Super Bowl, which cannot be as super as it might have been had the Steelers been in it. Once again, if you have any comments (off the record) to share with me, please do get back in touch. Enjoy Super Duper Tuesday!
Next Tuesday, February 5, is Super Duper Tuesday when millions of Americans will go to the polls to pick the Republican and Democratic nominees for president. Unfortunately, millions of others – including those of us in Pennsylvania – will not be part of this “national” primary. And, regrettably again, because of the impact of the earlier caucuses and primaries, those Americans who do get a vote on Tuesday will not get a full selection of candidates. In my view, this is a fundamentally flawed system by which to choose a president.
In an earlier PSF, I reviewed the presidential race as I saw it then. After a brief update, let’s move on to Pennsylvania politics. First, my thanks for so many wonderful comments to my last PSF. I love getting them, and I always treat them as “off-the-record” comments. My apologies if you get some scary automated comment when you hit the “reply” button. I think you can avoid that by initiating a “new” email to me at delano.jon@gmail.com. In any case, don’t be a stranger, especially if you have some new tidbit to share with me or our politically savvy friends. If you feel like commenting publicly, there is a “comment” section on my blog at http://delanosden.blogspot.com/. Just be respectful of all.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
Presidential Update:
And then there were two, sort of.
Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton. Barring the unexpected, the Democratic nominee for president will either be a woman or an African American. In both cases, Americans will be asked to do something never asked before, at least at this level of a campaign. I opined earlier that I think the gender barrier may actually be tougher to break than the racial barrier, but both candidates ask voters to think beyond our traditional prejudices.
One PSFer suggested that for every white who will never vote for a black, there is a man (and in some cases, a woman) who will never support a woman for president. This year we will have a chance to test these anecdotal political theories. I hope that whatever happens America can look back with pride on the 2008 general election campaign. We shall see.
I was disappointed that John Edwards suspended his campaign so unexpectedly, not because of any personal preference or belief that he would win. Rather, Edwards played an important role in the race by keeping the candidates focused on important issues, especially health care and poverty. I have interviewed both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth on a number of occasions, and I have always been impressed with his sincerity and commitment to his causes. As for Elizabeth, given her family roots in western PA – yes, her dad graduated from Brownsville High School in 1938 – how can I not help but be enamored by her grace and passion.
So far, Edwards has shown no desire to endorse anyone, and I would be surprised if he did. The rumor that he could be either Obama’s or Clinton’s attorney general will drive the corporate and defense attorneys crazy, but it is an intriguing notion. At least we know where he stands on waterboarding!
John McCain versus Mitt Romney. Well, not exactly. There’s also Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain seems to be racking up endorsements after his Florida win and he’s peddling the belief that he is the only Republican who can beat the Democratic nominee. McCain does have an appeal beyond traditional GOP lines, and there’s no doubt in my mind he could win the presidency. [See my last PSF posted on my blog at http://delanosden.blogspot.com/ for my view that the Republicans can win the White House in 2008]. But McCain’s strengths outside his party are weaknesses within his party, and both Romney and Huckabee have moved to exploit them. Romney is hurt by Huckabee’s presence on so many ballots, as he does give true conservatives another candidate to support. But the real question is whether this has become a two-person race such that Republicans who dislike McCain’s stands on immigration, taxes, campaign reform, etc., etc. opt for Romney as the only credible alternative. We shall see.
I was taken to task for leaving Ron Paul out of my last PSF. My apologies to the Paul fans, and there are a lot of them. I have not met Ron Paul, but it’s hard not to be impressed with the fervor with which he articulates his views, especially his belief that American foreign policy in Iraq contravenes traditional conservative values. While Paul has not broken into the top tier of candidates – his supporters blame the mainstream media for that – he has consistently attracted from 3 percent (Florida) to 14 percent (Nevada) of the vote. Moreover, his ability to raise money on-line has been awesome. He’s not a factor in this election, but he does give anti-war Republicans a candidate to support.
A Brokered Convention:
Despite all the media play about a brokered convention in Denver and Minneapolis, it now appears much less likely of that occurring. Still, if it’s a very close delegate race between Obama and Clinton and/or McCain and Romney, February 5 will not settle things. That pushes decision-making into the later primaries. Kansas, Louisiana, and Washington votes on February 9, with Maryland and Virginia on February 12. Hawaii and Wisconsin vote later in the month, with March 4 another big delegate day with contests in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Because the state Senate blocked a bill to move the Pennsylvania primary to February 12, this commonwealth will almost certainly not be part of the primary sweepstakes. But, if no one has a majority of the delegates after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22 would be the kingmaker – or queenmaker! I know we’re ready to decide, if the other states can’t make it final!
PENNSYLVANIA
Impacting the Delegate Battle:
Even though PA is not yet a player in the delegate sweepstakes, that hasn’t stopped the state’s most senior politician from making an endorsement. Gov. Ed Rendell told me a few weeks ago that he was not planning to endorse any candidate for president until closer to the April 22 primary. That changed when, sources tell me, the Clintons asked Rendell to endorse Hillary before the South Carolina primary. There was never any real surprise who Rendell would back. He has been close to both Clintons for years, serving as chair of the Democratic National Committee during the presidency of President Clinton. The state’s other senior Democrat, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton, telling me that both of them supported his campaign in 2006 to unseat former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. One former U.S. senator from PA, Harris Wofford, told me last August that he was backing Obama because he found Obama to be inspiring like John F. Kennedy in whose White House Wofford once worked many years ago.
Speaking of Santorum, the state’s most prominent conservative endorsed Romney on Friday, saying true conservatives cannot sit on the sidelines and declaring that Romney “has fought for life, marriage, tax cuts and a stronger national defense. In the coming days, I look forward to working with him as we fight for our party's conservative foundations." McCain has already picked up support from former Gov. Tom Ridge, and just added support from the PA Republican Party chair, Robert Gleason. As far as I know, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter has endorsed no one.
Pennsylvania has the fourth largest concentration of Democratic delegates – 188 – and the fifth largest collection of GOP delegates – 74 – but it may well be over before voters in each of the state’s 19 congressional districts pick the delegates pledged to particular candidates.
State Row Offices Up for Grabs:
This spring and fall, Pennsylvanians will also elect 19 members of Congress, 203 members of the PA House of Representatives, 25 members of the state Senate, and three statewide elected officials – Attorney General, Auditor General, and State Treasurer – offices frequently used as a springboard for other more prominent state office like Governor and U.S. Senator.
Attorney General Tom Corbett, a suburban Pittsburgh Republican, is asking voters for another four years as AG. Corbett, who has deep political roots going back to his days as the local campaign chair for George H. W. Bush (for which he was rewarded by being named U.S. Attorney for Western PA), will be difficult for the Democrats to beat, in my view. He has been a very visible AG, focusing on internet child pornography and drug busts. But his greater notoriety will come later this year as he investigates “Bonusgate” among Democratic and Republican legislators in Harrisburg – see below – with charges expected against some prominent leaders.
Democratic Party leaders have endorsed Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli to challenge Corbett, and Morganelli brings 16 years of DA experience to the task. Morganelli has run for this office before, and is well known among law enforcement officials, having served as president of the state’s DA association and on the state’s Crime Commission. Can Morganelli defeat Corbett? Yes, absolutely, if the stars align correctly during this presidential year. But since the office became elective in 1980, the Republicans have won every contest. Morganelli trumpets an internal campaign poll that shows him at 34 percent, Corbett at 37 percent, and a whopping 29 percent undecided. Morganelli believes he can showcase his tough anti-crime record as a DA, and he calls for an “independent counsel” to investigate Bonusgate, saying a Republican politico like Corbett cannot be trusted to investigate Republican legislators.
Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Pittsburgh Democrat, hopes for an easy cruise to reelection in 2008. He just might get it. Wagner, a former Pittsburgh city councilman and state senator, is no stranger to PA politics. He was picked by then State Treasurer Bob Casey to be his running-mate for Lieutenant Governor in 2002. Both Casey and Wagner lost those nomination battles, but Wagner parlayed that into a statewide run for Auditor General, winning big in 2004. A Vietnam veteran often recognized for his work on behalf of veterans, Wagner has used his office to conduct visible state audits that attract local media attention around the state.
Many Republicans had hoped that David Sanko, chief of staff to former Gov. Mark Schweiker and later Rendell’s PEMA (PA Emergency Management) director, would take on Wagner. But Sanko, who had returned home to Bucks County to be that county’s chief operating officer, announced this week that he would not run for public office, citing bad timing for him personally. That leaves Chet Beiler, the Republican chair of Lancaster County, as the only announced challenger. Beiler is a successful businessman who grew up on family farm in Amish country and built a company called Amish Country Gazebos that was featured on an episode of the TV show “Extreme Makeover Home Edition.” Beiler has sought public office before, like Auditor General and State Senate, but it looks like he now has the GOP nomination to himself. He comes from an increasingly important part of the state, but Beiler will need an infusion of cash to become better known in the populace southeastern and southwestern ends of the state.
When former State Treasurer Bob Casey resigned his office last year to take the oath as a U.S. Senator, the governor appointed a state treasurer, Robin Weissmann, who pledged not to seek office in 2008. That gives both parties a chance to win an “open” statewide seat. On the Democratic side, four candidates are vying for the nomination: John Cordisco, the Democratic chair of Bucks County; State Rep. Jennifer Mann, a Lehigh County legislator; Rob McCord, a venture capitalist from Montgomery County; and Dennis Morrison-Wesley, an African American cable TV salesman in Harrisburg who once worked for Merrill Lynch until, he says, he was fired for supporting Casey over Santorum, charges denied by the company.
Arguably, Mann from Allentown is the best known of the bunch, although she is hardly a statewide figure. She is generally regarded as a pro-business centrist Democrat who supports abortion rights, and, as the only woman (so far) in the race she can capitalize on the absence of any woman running statewide in 2008. McCord is the money candidate. The suburban Philly businessman reportedly has the ability, and the desire, to pump more than a million of his own dollars into the campaign. Cordisco, a former Bucks County state legislator, has already had word battles with his fellow Philadelphian, accusing McCord of taking money from those who want to manage monies handled by the Treasurer. McCord says Cordisco voted for legislative pay raises when he was in the state House and is, therefore, unelectable. Absent from the crowded ballot is any candidate from west of the Susquehanna River. Allegheny County Treasurer John Weinstein has toyed with the idea, but no formal announcement yet from someone who is generally well-known in this region. Another potential candidate with a strong base and lots of money is former Philadelphia mayoral candidate Tom Knox. Stay tuned. This race hasn’t yet jelled.
The Republicans seem to have their candidate for State Treasurer: former Montgomery County commissioner Thomas Jay Ellis. Ellis is a bond attorney, who is now caught up in a politically-charged civil lawsuit involving rival tax collection companies, one of which was hired on a no-bid basis by the Montgomery commissioners to replace the other. While Ellis has not been sued himself, the losing company wants to take his sworn deposition. He has refused, arguing a conflict of interest, but a federal judge appears to think otherwise, especially since Ellis is no longer a commissioner.
State House Could Party Switch:
The Democrats control the State House by just one vote, 102 to 101, and that margin of control could be in great jeopardy this year. [The State Senate is 29 Republican to 21 Democrats, and nobody thinks that will change much in 2008]. Last time I checked, about 24 legislators were retiring this year, including five senators: Gib Armstrong, a Lancaster County Republican; Jerry LaValle, a Beaver County Democrat; Roger Madigan, a Bradford County Republican; Terry Punt, a Franklin County Republican; and Connie Williams, a Montgomery County Democrat. The first four seats are likely to stay in the same party, but the Williams’ seat in suburban Philadelphia could be a real battleground with both parties seeking to field strong candidates.
On the House side, 19 representatives are stepping down, some to run for the state Senate like Sean Ramaley (D/Beaver), Daylin Leach (D/Mongtomery), and Steven Cappelli (R/Lycoming). Democrats think they have a shot at three House seats held by Republicans who are retiring in Bucks (David Steil) and Chester Counties (Arthur Hershey & Carole Rubley), while Republicans think they can retake Leach’s seat and the seat held by Tom Tangretti (D/Westmoreland). After the dust settles on April 22, other seats could be in play as well, including that of the House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D/Greene). Bottom line is that the state House is up for grabs.
The most surprising retirement announcement this last month was that of Lisa Bennington, a 31-year old freshman Democratic legislator from Pittsburgh, who (along with Chelsa Wagner and Deberah Kula) returned women to the House from southwestern PA in 2006. Bennington says she underestimated the wasted time in Harrisburg and, frankly, would just prefer to grow her family law practice. Ironically, the man she beat in the Democratic primary, Frank Pistella, is trying to make a comeback, although lots of other candidates are circulating petitions as well.
By way of comparison, in 2006 some 31 incumbents decided not to seek reelection (compared to 24 this year) and another 24 incumbents were defeated at the polls in the wake of the pay raise controversy. That ushered in 55 new legislators (out of the 253), a better than 20 percent change. Nobody expects that kind of turnover in 2008.
Could “Bonusgate” Alter the Political Equation:
The media is calling it Bonusgate, the use of taxpayer dollars to reward legislative staff for the political work they did on a variety of campaigns in 2006. This, of course, is illegal. While the law back then allowed for bonus dollars to reward legislative work, there is no question that senior legislators could not use these dollars to “thank” staffers for their campaign work. After their successful take-over of the House, House Democratic leaders awarded $1.9 million in bonus money to 717 employees, while the House Republicans gave out $270,000 to 45 staffers. Senate Republicans gave out $180,000 in bonuses to 16 employees, while Senate Democrats gave out $38,000 to 12 staffers.
Did senior House and Senate legislative leaders hand out bonuses to reward staffers for their political work? Nobody knows, but Attorney General Corbett has convened a grand jury to investigate. Corbett says he’s looking at all four caucuses, but some Democrats don’t believe it. They think Corbett will target Democrats to improve his reelection chances and to position himself for a gubernatorial run in 2010. Corbett’s Democratic opponent this year, John Morganelli, says legislative corruption needs to be investigated fully without regard to politics, and he argues that an independent special counsel should be named to conduct such an investigation.
Most of the public attention has been on the House Democrats, who did dole out more than double the cash of their GOP counterparts. House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese has suggested that he was really not in the loop on these bonus awards in 2006. But whether intended or not, that implicitly suggests that it was the work of then second-ranking Democrat, former state Rep. Mike Veon of Beaver County, who was defeated in 2006 and senior staffers. After the public furor broke over the bonuses, DeWeese brought in former Philadelphia assistant DA William Chadwick to review operations, sort through what happened, and cooperate with Corbett and the grand jury on the investigation.
In November, DeWeese fired seven senior Democratic staff people, including Mike Manzo, his chief of staff, and Scott Brubaker, director of staffing and administration, both of whom appear to have been involved in the bonus awards.
Nobody really knows how this will all play out, although speculation is hot in Harrisburg that charges are soon-to-come. For his part, DeWeese says he is running for reelection for a 17th term – and, so far at least, House Democrats have not stripped him of his position as their leader. Republican Greg Hopkins of Greene County, who nearly upended DeWeese in 2006, is running again. Hopkins is a 36-year old assistant football coach for the Los Angeles Avengers, an Arena Football League, where he was star player for a number of years. He was also a football player at Waynesburg Central High School and Slippery Rock University, and got 8,994 votes to DeWeese’s 10,035, the closest race for DeWeese in a long time.
Whether any other Democratic legislators are implicated by Bonusgate remains to be seen. And there is also the possibility that some Republican legislators could be affected as well, if Corbett follows through with his stated intention to let the chips fall where they may. But right now, it’s all just speculation and radio talk show fodder.
Republicans Attempt a Congressional Comeback:
Once upon a time, Melissa Hart was the Republican darling of PA politics. The first GOP woman elected to Congress from the state, Hart always upended her naysayers, winning races when no one expected it. Her GOP colleagues in Washington embraced her, giving her visible leadership positions and coming to her aid when asked. Then in 2006 along came Jason Altmire, a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Bush, anti-war Democrat, who rather suddenly attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars from those smelling blood. In the end, Altmire defeated Hart by 8,500 votes out of 254,000 cast. Now Hart wants a rematch, always difficult to do. But history teaches that Melissa Hart is never to be underestimated.
Pennsylvania was a congressional disaster for Republicans in 2006. Dems targeted five incumbent Republicans and defeated four out of five. Hart, who represented parts of six counties north and west of Pittsburgh, was one of them. The other Democratic winners: Patrick Murphy (who won by 1,500 votes) and Joe Sestak (who won by 33,000 votes) in suburban Philadelphia and Chris Carney (who won by 12,000 votes) in northeast/north central PA.
Republicans dream of retaking these seats, although Altmire-Hart is the only rerun of the last show. Murphy has four GOP challengers looking to take him on: Tom Lingenfelter, Jeff Madden, Tom Manion, and Joseph Montone. A former Marine, Manion, who lost a son in Iraq, is a strong supporter of the war and has the support of the congressman Murphy defeated, former U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. Sestak has two challengers, Wendell Craig Williams and Joe Breslin. Williams has been endorsed by Delaware County GOP leaders and has an impressive resume as an assistant U.S. attorney and Gulf War veteran. Carney has four opponents right now, including Chris Hackett, David Haire, Dan Meuser, and Paul Swiderski. Insiders tell me Meuser and Hackett are the leading challengers at the moment.
Can these four freshman Democrats be defeated? Of course. But they each start the year with big cash advantages over their prospective challengers and the likelihood that more Democrats will turn out to vote during a presidential election year. But we’ll keep our eyes on these seats throughout the year.
Republicans also hope to defeat another incumbent Democratic congressman. Despite at least a public reticence to say he’s running, Republicans are trying to get Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta to run against U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Barletta has attracted national attention for his strong stand against illegal immigrants. Barletta could give Kanjorski a real race. Stay tuned.
The surprise retirement of U.S. Rep. John Peterson, a Republican from one of the largest geographic districts that stretches across northern PA, gives some Democrats hope they can win an open seat. But don’t count on it. Nonetheless, a lot of candidates in both parties have caught the bug. Among the Republicans, seven candidates are in the running: former Centre County commissioner Chris Exarchos, Elk County coroner Lou Radkowski, State College businessman Matt Shaner, Woodward Township (Lycoming) supervisor Jeff Stroehman, Clarion mayor John Stroup, Centre County Republican chairman G. T. Thompson, and Bigler (Clearfield) financial consultant Derek Walker. On the Democratic side, the candidates include Centre County native, Iraqi War veteran and former news correspondent Bill Cahir, Clearfield County commissioner Mark McCracken, and Lock Haven Mayor Rick Vilello.
Democrats are lining up to take on two Republican incumbents who represent Democratic-leaning districts, but at this stage nobody is predicting any upsets. U.S. Rep. Phil English, an Erie Republican, will face one of four Democrats in his northwestern PA district: Lake Erie Arboretum director Kathy Dahlkemper, Erie County councilman Kyle Foust, Erie attorney Tom Myers, and Erie lay minister Mike Waltner. In southwestern PA, U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a suburban Pittsburgh Republican, will end up being challenged by Army Reserve Col. Wayne Dudding of Robinson, Mt. Lebanon consultant and former teacher Beth Hafer (daughter of Barbara Hafer), Monroeville businessman Steve O’Donnell, Penn Hills school director Erin Vecchio, and Upper St. Clair insurance executive Brien Wall. As these and other congressional races shape up – after the February 12 deadline for filing nominating petitions – I’ll have much more on these battles.
There is always much more to write about – politics in Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh, for example – but let’s bring this PSF to an end until another day. It’s almost time for the Super Bowl, which cannot be as super as it might have been had the Steelers been in it. Once again, if you have any comments (off the record) to share with me, please do get back in touch. Enjoy Super Duper Tuesday!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
A Presidential Rundown
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
When you were growing up, your parents probably told you that in polite conversation, stay away from three topics: race, religion, and politics. In a campaign for the White House, you expect politics to be front and center, so let's substitute the word gender. I have never seen an election for any office that has been so dominated by race, religion, and gender - and despite all the good words about "rising above" this stuff, the subterranean noise about this threatens to undermine the much more important debate about which candidate is the most qualified to move the United States ahead in the next four years.
In this first PSF ("Politically Savvy Friends") email in many months, I will touch on that subject and more from my "Beyond the Washington DC Beltway" perspective and then comment on this year's upcoming political battles in Pennsylvania. As many of you know, I spent fourteen years on Capitol Hill as chief of staff to a PA congressman - and then I returned home where I have the pleasure of wearing lots of hats in academia, the private sector, and the media. I do a lot of public speaking to organizations throughout the year, and this PSF e-letter helps synthesize my thoughts and hopefully gives you some cocktail talk.
Most of you on this mailing list have received PSFs in the past and (judging by your emails back to me) seem to welcome them, but if you prefer not to get them, use the unsubscribe key below. I don't want to be anyone's SPAM. More importantly, I welcome your comments back - and I especially appreciate a "hot tip" now and then about something "political." Email me at delano.jon@gmail.com. Thanks for being my eyes and ears out there.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY
The Race for the White House:
This has been an extraordinary political season in so many ways, and maybe that's not surprising. This is the first time since 1952 that we don't have a previously nationally elected figure running for president. Despite what some Democrats say, this race is wide open. That's because I don't believe that George W. Bush is really the issue in 2008. Most Americans, regardless of party, are ready to move on - and, if the Republicans play this right, they can retain the White House on November 4. And Democrats are fully capable of self-destructing over the stupidest things - to wit, this picayune tantrum (as seen on CNN's recent debate) by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
In the end, remember this election depends on electoral votes, not the popular vote. We learned that well in 2000 when George Bush became the first president since Benjamin Harrison in 1888 to win without the popular vote -- and it could have been repeated in 2004 when John Kerry would have been president, with a minority of the popular vote, had he just carried the state of Ohio - a switch of 60,000 votes would have made the difference.
As I look at the electoral vote in 2008, it's pretty hard for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, not to be ahead right now of whatever Democrat gets the nod. That's because Republican voting states (the "red" states) outnumber Democratic voting states (the "blue" states). One calculation I saw has the GOP already at 213 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Such a scenario brings the battle back to the states that typically decide these elections: Florida (27 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5). Of course, depending on the nominee, other states could be up for grabs like New Jersey (15) and Missouri (11).
My point is not to predict the winner but to suggest that it's not a done deal for the Democrats by any stretch. This election is just getting started.
The Republican Battle Goes On and On and On:
It's hard to remember the last time when Republican voters had such a wide choice of candidates with no clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign. John McCain has won New Hampshire and South Carolina, giving him 38 delegates, while Mitt Romney has won Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada giving him 66 delegates. Mike Huckabee, the Iowa winner, has 25 delegates. Considering there are 2,380 Republican delegates and only 156 have been chosen, this race is hardly over.
Toss in Rudy Giuliani, who has 1 delegate so far, and you have a foursome that is competing vigorously for delegates in Florida on January 29. By the way, in the delegate battle, some states in the GOP race are winner-take-all, such as Florida. That means the Republican who wins Florida gets all 57 delegates (the state lost half its delegates because it jumped ahead of Super Duper Tuesday, February 5). Other upcoming winner-take-all states include New York, Missouri, Arizona, New Jersey, Utah, Connecticut, etc. (The Democrats forbid winner-take-all, apportioning almost all their delegates).
While the media seems to have blessed McCain as the front-runner, it's pretty hard to draw that conclusion so far. After 21 states vote on February 5, the picture should be a lot clearer, although I still don't think any candidate will have a majority of delegates to win nomination at the end of that evening. By the way, 975 delegates will be chosen that day, about 41 percent of the total.
The Democratic Battle Gets Closer:
The Democratic nomination fight is down to three candidates, although many dismiss John Edwards, preferring a knockdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, while Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada. Michigan, won by Clinton, was stripped of all its delegates for starting early. But the proportionality rules of the Democratic Party (awarding pledged delegates generally through congressional districts) give Obama 57 delegates, Clinton 45 delegates, and Edwards 20 delegates. This does not count "super delegates," Democratic elected officials (like governors and members of Congress) some of whom have already picked their candidates and give Clinton the delegate lead right now. Of course, it takes 2,025 delegates to win nomination, so this is all so early.
South Carolina, with its sizeable African American vote, gave an easy win this Saturday to Obama. That sets up a major battle on Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) when 22 states from New York to California go to the polls. Forget Florida, which lost all its delegates because it jumped the queue. On Feb. 5, some 1,681 delegates are at stake, about 51 percent of all elected delegates. Wow.
Ironically, John Edwards can play a key role in this battle, if he wins enough votes to earn delegates. There's talk of him being a "king maker" at the convention, but that will require him to continue to get around 20 percent of the vote in the battles ahead. Will he? Still, after Super Duper Tuesday, it's very unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will have a majority of the delegate votes. Other big states like Virginia, Ohio, and Texas will vote later in February and early March. Pennsylvania with its 188 delegates does not vote until April 22.
Religion, Race & Gender:
(1) Religion Takes Front Stage
Americans always take religion seriously, or at least we say so. But the common mantra has been that religion should not a barrier to any individual's entry into politics. On the presidential level, however, the White House has almost always been a Protestant enclave, with only one Catholic ever elected president.
When John F. Kennedy campaigned, he had to assure folks that he would not take orders from a foreign pope. This year, Mitt Romney has had to make a similar pledge that the Mormon Church would not dictate his government decisions. Arguably, Romney has had a more difficult challenge than Kennedy. By 1960, Catholics were well accepted as mainstream Christians. For some, that is not yet true of Mormons, a religion difficult for many to understand, in part because of its own secrecy rules, its earlier (and now rejected) views on polygamy, race, and gender, and its peculiar origins (frankly, something one could say about most religions) through founder Joseph Smith's assertion in the 1820s that the angel Moroni led him to tablets of the Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe is Holy Scripture, along with the Bible. Although Mormons call themselves Christians, many Christians do not agree, some even calling it a sect.
Politically, Romney has had to assert that his church leaders will not dictate to him and, at the same time, reaffirm that he is a Christian, even a fundamentalist with whom Christian evangelicals in the Republican Party should feel comfortable. It's a difficult balancing act, but there's some evidence, so far at least, that Romney's religion has not been a barrier to winning primary votes.
The other religious aspect to Campaign 2008 has been Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, who has no problem making references to his strong religious views. Now being a clergyman and a politician is hardly a new thing. When I worked in the Congress, I recall Cong. Robert Drinan (D/MA) was a Catholic priest, Cong. Bob Edgar (D/PA) was a Methodist minister, and Sen. John Danforth (R/MO) was an Episcopal priest. There may have been others, although the Vatican ordered Drinan to quit the House (which he did) so, as far as I know, no Catholic priests now serve in elected public positions.
Politically, Huckabee is the most culturally conservative candidate in the GOP race - and would seem a natural for Christian conservatives. But his populist economic policies, including support for some tax increases when he was governor of Arkansas, are sometimes at odds with "true" conservatives. While a clergyman running for public office troubles some, it's hardly unusual - and I suspect Huckabee will rise and fall on his views and personality, not his religion.
On the Democratic front, Barack Obama has had to fight an email attack that he is really a Muslim based on claims that he attended a Muslim school as a child in Indonesia. I first saw these emails months ago and dismissed them as nonsense. [The charges first surfaced when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2002]. Obama's father was a Luo from Kenya, apparently a non-practicing Muslim who had no real impact on his son's religious upbringing since he separated from Obama's mother when Obama was two, and later returned home to Kenya. Obama's mother then married an Indonesian foreign student, a Muslim, and the family moved to Jakarta when Obama was six. Obama did attend both a Catholic school and a public school there until he was ten, but his campaign insists it was not a Muslim religious school, a so-called madrassa where Muslims are taught to hate non-Muslims as infidels.
More importantly, at age ten, Obama returned home to Hawaii to live with his white maternal grandparents and attend a private, non-sectarian college prep school in Honolulu founded by Christian missionaries. In recent years, Obama has acknowledged that he didn't grow up in any particular religious faith but came to Jesus Christ in his 20s where he was baptized and has remained a congregant at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Politically, Obama and his campaign have shot back at the subterranean internet emails that link him to Islam. That his middle name is Hussein thickens the alleged cover-up of his Muslim roots, but the fact that Obama shares Saddam's name is of no more relevance than that my middle name ("William") is shared by plenty of scurrilous people. [By the way, most of us don't get to name ourselves, so no one should ever be blamed for that]. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Obama is anything but what he says he is - a committed believing Christian. Moreover, even if Obama were a Muslim (which he is not), why would that be a "political issue" any more than Kennedy's Catholicism or Romney's Mormonism? Let's move on.
(2) Race Rears Its Color:
Nothing offends me more than the notion that race motivates voters, but none of us is naove. Almost all Americans take pride that this year an African American - well, actually he's half white and half black - is a major contender for the presidency of the United States. Win or lose, Barack Obama's political success this year is a monumental testament to America's political maturity.
Few things are more divisive than race, and when candidates (black or white) appeal for support on racial lines, it can cause earthquakes in the political groundscape. At the beginning of this campaign, the Democratic candidates did all they could to avoid any references to race. It didn't hurt that Hillary Clinton and her husband has always had strong ties to the black community.
So what changed? Well, some think the increasingly competitive race between Obama and Clinton encouraged both sides to find some advantage in racial politics. For Obama, he wanted to consolidate black voters behind his campaign where, early on, Clinton was beating him overwhelmingly. In a number of states, African Americans are a key to the Democratic nomination, and Obama needs those voters.
The trick for Obama is how to appeal to black voters without losing white voters. South Carolina was the first real test of that where half the Democratic voters were black. Exit polls showed that Obama has accomplished what he wanted - nearly 80 percent of African American voters in that state voted for Obama, but in the process he lost 76 percent of the white votes, something he cannot afford to do in upcoming primaries.
For Clinton, the challenge has been equally difficult. She needs African Americans in the primary for sure, but she needs those voters even more in November. After Obama accused Hillary and Bill Clinton of injecting race into this campaign, the anti-Clinton media has had a field day attacking the Clintons. It's hard to pin-point anything overtly racial in Bill Clinton's comments, but it probably doesn't matter since enough folks were convinced that he was playing a "race card" to win white votes for Hillary that it hurt her among black voters and probably some whites, too.
In my view, both candidates need to step back from this racial precipice. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize Obama for abstaining on votes in the Illinois legislature, or for being anti-war and then pro-war, or for carrying water for a slum landlord, just as it's legitimate to criticize Clinton for being pro-war before she was anti-war, or for being on Wal-Mart's board of directors, or for being cozy with Washington lobbyists. Better still, how about a debate on who's best on the economy, health care, education, and jobs? Yeah, I know. I'm asking too much.
(3) Gender Politics at Work:
For millions of women, including members of my own family, the fact that a woman could be the next president of the United States is decidedly liberating. Just as we should take pride in an African American's progress on this front, so do most Americans welcome the possible breaking of America's most formidable glass ceiling. Of course, just as some ask if Obama is the "right" black candidate, many ask the same of Clinton.
Although women make up a slight majority of the population and an even larger percentage of the voting public, only 13 of 100 senators is female and 61 of 435 members of the House are female. That's about 14 percent when women represent 51 percent of the nation. This, of course, is a huge improvement over twenty years ago, but hardly proportionate to the number of women in the population. In contrast, African Americans are doing much better politically (although not there yet), now numbering 43 in the Congress, about 8 percent of the body when their percentage of the total population is about 13 percent.
For Hillary Clinton, women appear to make up a large percentage of her supporters, although Obama beat her among women voters in both Iowa and South Carolina. Her challenge has been to attract women to her camp, without alienating men. When at an early debate before New Hampshire, Obama and Edwards appeared to team up against her - and then some in the media went ballistic went she appeared "emotional" in response to a town meeting question - many women and some men, too, saw a "double standard" at work.
Some people tell me that it is easier to break a racial barrier than a gender one. I don't know because I cannot speak from experience in either case. But for Clinton to become the first woman president, she is going to have to win women voters just as Obama appears to be winning black voters. The verdict is out on that.
PENNSYLVANIA - to be continued.
This PSF is long enough, so allow me to hold my Pennsylvania political update until the next one, after today's Florida primary and hopefully before Super Tuesday next week.
As always, I welcome your comments, so please do email me (delano.jon@gmail.com) with your take on things. And, again, if you hear something interesting on the political front, drop me a note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
