There’s this presumption out there, it seems to me, as if it’s just a CRAZY notion that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, would be able to win the Keystone State, like the idea is INSANE, just unfathomable, as if the state consists of Bill, Chelsea, and les freres Rodham.
I don’t begrudge the Obama campaign for successfully setting Sen. Clinton’s bar so high — that’s its job — and of course I understand that in order for Clinton to have a real shot, she needs a big W so as to eat away at Obama’s 800,000 popular vote lead, and to make the argument to super-Ds that states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida are a problem for him.
But what’s so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner — flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings — should be able to win a blue state primary?
Just because Clinton has the support of the governor and the mayors of the two largest cities? So what? This isn’t about Ed Rendell.
After Obama swept Wisconsin, doing well if not winning in key traditionally Clinton-backing constituencies — labor voters, seniors, white women, Jews — his campaign put forth the notion that he was about to put this thing to bed. But then the dynamics returned to what they had been — seniors, women, whites, and blue-collar voters for her; educated voters, blacks, young voters and men for him.
Why can’t the frontrunner win working class voters?
The Obama campaign may likely spin tonight’s outcome as a W for him as long as she doesn’t win by 25 points. I, for one, ain’t buying it.
* If Obama wins Pennsylvania, despite all public polls and predictions by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, I apologize in advance for this posting.