Michael Leon blogs at http://malcontends.blogspot.com. Michael is a writer living in Madison, Wisconsin. His writing has appeared nationally in The Progressive, In These Times, OpEdNews.com, and CounterPunch.
Wisconsin Primary Bigger than Pennsylvania Machine-State
Posted April 24th, 2008 by mal contends
in
Updated - An afterthought on Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania is a quasi-Democratic machine state. Thus one expected the machine-backed candidate, Hillary Clinton, to do well with the most established demographics there: Whites and older citizens.
No doubt then that Hillary's expected win on Tuesday (nine points) and her turning-the-tide spin generated a round of media ridicule and explicit reference to the Pennsylvania machine-state status, minimizing the significance of the Clinton victory. Not what happened.
As Chuck Todd: (Hardball, April 7) had put it, "...Pennsylvania is a machine state. You know it‘s a machine democratic state. It is an old school machine state and she has the entire machine behind her, other than the Casey family. She‘s got the state party officially behind her."
The media's reaction, including Chris Matthews and Norah O‘Donnell, who know better, is to exclaim that Hillary did well with whites and older citizens, from which is extrapolated "huge" significance and alarm about how well Obama can perform with whites in a general election.
So why is Pennsylvania, which votes reliably Democratic in general elections in part owing to the effectiveness of the Democratic machine, more significant than Wisconsin (Feb. 19), which votes narrowly Democratic in general elections? It's not.
In Wisconsin, Obama brought out 10,000s of politically casual voters who didn't even show up at the polls six weeks later in a historic, high-profile Supreme Court race; and Obama clobbered Hillary in February, prevailing "by a wide margin among men, 67-31 percent. (His win among white men, 63-34 percent, was surpassed only in Utah)." (ABC News)
See also For Obama, a Struggle to Win Over Key Blocs (NYT, April 26) in which Adam Nagourney asks ,"Why has (Obama) been unable to win over enough working-class and white voters to wrap up the Democratic nomination?"
Like Obama did in Wisconsin and the other 29 states in which he won, Nagourney could have added, though that would have had the effect of killing his story.
Hillary is desperate to pretend the race is still on; and the corporate talking heads and political media are desperate to engage Hillary's pretension.
One last note on the exit polling from Pennsylvania, pertaining to Hillary and blacks.
Blacks: 92-Obama - 8-Hillary.
Questions worth pursuing: Why is Hillary doing so horribly among blacks? And using the same primary-general election demographic logic applied to Obama, what does this mean for a prospective Hillary nomination and her performance in the general election? Can Hillary win without black support?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
![[]](/sites/all/modules/ecommerce/cart/images/cart_empty.png "View your cart items"){kind=spacer}
It's a crock
The whole Clinton conundrum is a joke. She cheats and she lies and its been very well established. Polls can be skewed. Check this out.
"“But wait, as they say on late-night tv, there’s more: Remember the age breakdown of that first EP (10% 18-29, 17% 30-44, 73% 45+)? That is an older electorate than I have ever seen, even in FL or AZ; and of course older skews toward Clinton, so even that first exit poll looks as if it probably heavily oversampled Clinton voters. (Actually, what they did was, however they actually sampled, they just weighted the responses to those bizarre age demographics, which has the effect of boosting the apparent Clinton vote in the process.)
“So what happened to all those young and first-time voters that we were told were turning out in droves? Do we really believe that three out of every four voters was 45 or older??”
http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/
There are all types of indiscrepancies involving this...this ...this... oh how did Eugene Robinson put it...oh yeah..., "I know it’s inappropriate to compare a talented and accomplished woman such as Hillary Clinton with a homicidal cyborg from the future. But it’s hard to come up with a better image for the woman’s sheer relentlessness. If she ever says “I’ll be back” while I’m in earshot, I’m getting out of Dodge."
The day before the primary in PA, the Huffington Post ran this story:
“All the polls this weekend show Hillary Clinton leading in Pennsylvania, but Obama’s the one drawing the crowds. On Friday, he spoke to the largest group on the campaign so far-- 35,000, assembled in Independence Park, spilling onto the street-- and Sunday in Reading he drew about 2600. Clinton’s drew an estimated 1500 at a high school a few miles away the day before.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-nuxoll/in-pa-its-p oll-numbers-ve_b_97699.html
Now they want us to BELIEVE that Obama is attracting crowds in the TENS of thousands, while Clinton attracts a measly 1500 yet she won the primary..?! This is so inane it’s pathetic.
I'll say it again and I've said it before, I call foul. And I'd like to add, a big Thank You to PA voters who did their part to save America from the crooks and liars. In my mind, you were cheated. It's that simple.
Post new comment