It is usually best to analyze events once a certain amount of time has passed, so that one can fully take in what has happened and process it. You know, gain some perspective. Of course, this flies in the face of the mantra of Cable News and Media Punditry, who thrive in the world of Insta-Analysis and Whiplash Judgments, so the idea of "perspective" may seem crazy to some of you. But here at WDR, we thrive on the crazy, so we're bringing you analysis...two weeks later. When everyone is concerned about two other states.
The immediate story that everyone picked up on was the fact that with a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton had proven that Barack Obama is an intrinsically weak candidate who was destined for failure, and that she had the keys to victory in November. The momentum was now moving in her direction, and we had a new game on our hands. Of course, this was a narrative that while interesting, didn't really mesh with what happened in reality.
First off, Clinton did not win by double digits. Since the media doesn't seem to understand the principles of rounding numbers, most didn't realize that by rounding Hillary's numbers up and by rounding Obama's numbers down, they artificially inflated the distance between their numbers--turning a 9.2% victory into a magical double-digit 10& victory. There's a huge psychological difference between winning by double digits versus single, and Hillary shouldn't have been able to play that up in the days after the primary.
Clinton also loved to play up the underdog angle in Pennsylvania, and the media was willing to eat it up. While in terms of national numbers (and in the progress of the entirety of the campaign) this may be true, that was definitely not the case in the state itself. Nearly two months before the primary, Hillary's lead in the state was mammoth, somewhere in the range of 25%. The fact that Obama was able to chip it all the way down to 9%, during a time in which he was hammered from all sides on various controversies, says more about the failings of Clinton than it does of Obama.
The other overlooked aspect of Clinton's initial advantage in the state was the support that she had by all the top party brass in the state. She had the support of Governor Ed "Eddie Rendazzo" Rendell, an incredibly popular figure in the state, and the support of the Mayor of Philadelphia, among others. This built-in advantage was a key factor in her win, and was too much for Obama to potentially overcome.
The other big story was the issue of capturing the "white working-class vote". Who knew that White Men held any power in the United States? That sure caught me by surprise, boy howdy. Why couldn't Obama latch onto these voters? This of course overlooks the fact that Obama did well in such locales known for their diversity, like Idaho and Maine. The reality is that Obama does not generally have a problem with whites per se. It is just that Hillary Clinton is like the Andromeda Strain of race politics--she only can work within a narrow range of minority populations. The real problem demographic that Obama has had trouble with is voters over 65--if you look at the results across the nation, he consistently loses by huge margins to this group. Of course, when he actually brought this fact up, it was dismissed. Nothing like letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
But perception is often reality, and Hillary was able to use Pennsylvania as a jumpstart to her Quixotic campaign, at least in the media's eyes. We now had to see what the problem was with Obama, pushing the story that "he can't close this one out". Of course, this discounts the fact that Obama's opponent is an incredibly able politician with millions of people who support her--it's difficult to turn off a faucet that powerful, in other words.
In the end, we'll forget all about Pennsylvania and these two weeks leading up to Indiana and North Carolina, as we realize that all along Hillary only had Joementum, not momentum. And Joementum is no way to win a campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment