Post-Pennsylvania Analysis

Posted by Jeff Fecke, Shakesville at 9:39 AM on April 23, 2008.

So we're finally, mercifully, thankfully past Pennsylvania. Hill's the big winner, Barry's the big loser, Johnny Mac is still angry. But where do the candidates fall if one were to, say, rank them in order of power based on completely arbitrary criteria? Good question!
1. Sen. Barack Obama (Last Rank: 1) ⇓

The fundamentals of the race remain favorable to Obama. He's got the lead in delegates, and a 200,000 popular vote margin even with Florida factored in.* Yes, that's about 200,000 fewer popular votes than he led by yesterday, but Pennsylvania was the last chance for Clinton to significantly narrow the gap; Obama will likely gain a good chunk of that vote back in North Carolina.

Obama is still the front-runner. But.

But Obama hasn't been able to close the deal. He hasn't been able to effectively end the race. He didn't have to win Pennsylvania to do so -- even a narrow loss would have made it tough for Clinton to go on. But if he didn't get blown out in Pennsylvania, it was close -- and that has exposed a possible weakness.

Obama is now in the precarious position of needing to win Indiana to quell doubts about his campaign. If he loses there, especially if he loses big, it will feed into the Clinton camp's argument that he can't win white, working-class Democrats, and therefore can't win in November. Now, I find that argument somewhat unpersuasive, for the same reason I'd find an argument that Hillary Clinton can't win among African-American voters in November unpersuasive.

But the argument isn't going to be met with as much skepticism today as it was last week, and if Clinton can win in Indiana, and then go on to win West Virginia and Kentucky (as she should)...well, it's going to give that argument more and more credence. Enough to topple Obama? I doubt it -- as I said, the fundamentals are in his favor. But the longer this goes on, the more people are going to question whether he can actually win, and the more compelling Clinton's argument becomes. If Obama wins Indiana, I suspect the momentum of the argument will stall, and Obama will get the nomination. But if he loses...well, he'll still be the favorite. But he won't be inevitable.

2. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. (LR: 3) ⇑

Clinton got her big Pennsylvania win, and she's got a bit of momentum going onward. But now comes the hard part.

Clinton's campaign is cash-poor right now, and that's going to be a problem. She got outspent better than two-to-one in Pennsylvania, and will likely face similar spending discrepancies in Indiana and North Carolina. Now, Pennsylvania fundamentally was Clinton territory, and Obama probably could have outspent her 50-to-one and still lost. But Indiana is a toss-up, and North Carolina is Obama territory. If Clinton wants this win to start the kind of snowball effect that ends with her winning in Denver, she's going to have to figure out how to overcome that difference.

To that end, may I make a suggestion? If I were running the Clinton campaign, right after I exiled Mark Penn to Siberia, I'd suggest to the candidate that we focus our attention on Indiana, and cede North Carolina, in fact if not officially.

I don't think that's rocket science: indeed, I'd expect that's what Clinton will do. Almost any size loss in North Carolina can be explained away as Obama doing well in the South, while a Clinton win in Indiana will help her build on Pennsylvania. That lets her go on to get inevitable wins in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico, and at the very least allows her to stay in the race, free and clear, all the way to June and beyond.

Mind you, it could all come crashing down with a loss in Indiana. But Clinton's most certainly in it to win it right now. And while we'll no doubt revisit this after Indiana, for now she's still got a chance, and that's pretty darn good, all things considered.

3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (LR: 2) ⇓

So, funny story. John McCain, as you may know, has kinda-sorta-opted back into federal funding of his campaign, given that the headlines about McCain cheating the FEC system really hurt his ability to pretend he's a straight-shootin' grill-master. As you may also know, the FEC currently is short a quorum, due to the ongoing attempts of the Bush administration to appoint patently unqualified buffoons to key positions, and the Senate Democrats' shocking decision not to confirm them. What you may not know is that for John McCain to get his federal money, the FEC has to vote to authorize the release of the $80+ million his campaign needs. And, well, you see, the FEC doesn't have a quorum, so they can't vote to release the funds.

Ironic, ain't it?

4. Former Rep. Bob Barr, LP-Ga. (LR: 4) ⇑

Of the two apostate Libertarian party candidates, Bob Barr appears to be getting the lion's share of the buzz, probably because Mike Gravel talks often about returning America to the halcyon days of the FDR administration, whereas most Libertarians pine for the days of the robber barons. Barr also benefits from those few Republicans with consciences, who may vote for him rather than four more years of Bushism.

Barr also has the advantage of having actually been a Libertarian before he decided to seek the presidency, as opposed to Gravel, who decided to seek the presidency as a wacky liberal, then suddenly changed to the Libertarian party when it became apparent that he wasn't going to get a single delegate in the Democratic primary.

Do I think Barr has a ghost of a chance in November? Does the Pope shit in the woods? Still, he could siphon a few thousand Republican votes in, say, Florida. And that could make a difference, you know.

5. Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Green-Ga. (LR: 5) ⇑

McKinney has been winning some Green state caucuses/conventions/whatevers, and appears to be finally emerging as the Greens' nominee for the fall. To which I can only say: thank you, Green Party! No, McKinney won't win, but she's not Ralph Nader, and I think I speak for everyone when I say that alone would make me support her for the Green nomination.

That's not to say McKinney won't be a good candidate for the Greens. I wouldn't be shocked to see her get into the one percent range nationally. Maybe even two percent. For a third party candidate, that's pretty good. And she'll make the third party debates more exciting than Nader, who would just start talking and zzzzzzz.....

6. Fmr. Ambassador Alan Keyes, CP-Md. (LR: 7) ⇔

Alan Keyes made his departure from the Republican party official, and...well, I love the Los Angeles Times' take:

Alan Keyes, the former Republican who came within about 1,200 convention delegates of thumping Sen. Bob Dole for the GOP presidential nomination in 1996 and then came just as close to dismantling Gov. George W. Bush in 2000 for the party's White House nod, is seriously considering trying to embarrass another political party.

Keyes announced Tuesday night that he was officially leaving the Republican Party, which was relieved to hear it.

Keyes is best known recently as the former Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate singlehandedly responsible for halting the rise of a Democratic state senator there named Barack Obama. In their fabled statewide 2004 contest, Keyes came within 43 percentage points of tying Obama.

In what Keyes' website billed as a "major announcement," the outspoken abortion opponent said he was considering joining the Constitution Party.

"They're considering me, I'm considering them," Keyes told a conference call of several people Tuesday night. "We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won't be able to work out a common basis for working together."

What do the Constitution party and Keyes have in common? Mostly electoral failure, plus a heapin' helpin' of hatred for women. They're a perfect fit, and I'm thrilled we're going to have Keyes to kick around a bit more.

7. Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel, LP-Alaska (LR: 6) ⇓

Gravel continues his one-man performance art piece, now moving on to a Libertarian bid, which appears destined to go about as well as his bid for the Democratic nomination. Not to worry, Mike. Though many think you're running for president, those of us with artistic souls know darn well that you're trying to communicate the futility of life, and the meaninglessness of existence. When the history of this campaign is written, the art community will revere you as a God. You will be remembered as a true visionary, an artistic genius like Picasso, or Rembrandt, or that guy who first drew "Mary Worth."

Not that this will translate into votes, mind you. But you wouldn't want the votes even if people wanted to vote for you. The failure of your campaign to succeed is itself proof of the success of your campaign. Well played, Mike. Well played.

8. Ralph Nader, Green-USPIRG (LR: 9) ⇓

I am so happy that the Greens appear to be rejecting Nader, I could just burst. Maybe, without a presidential campaign to consider, Nader could get back to doing what he used to do before he ran for president. I've heard it's good stuff, though frankly, I can't remember much before 2000.

Nevertheless, Ralph, you could actually take losing the Green party's nomination as a sign that it may be time to do something other than run vanity campaigns for the presidency. Maybe you could, I don't know, get involved in political activism or something. It's a thought, isn't it?

Who am I kidding? Nader will get himself onto the ballot in Alabama as an independent, and he'll claim he's running, and the media will buy it. We aren't getting rid of Nader. Not that easily.

Falling Out: Some Crazy Libertarian Douchebag (LR: 8)

--
*This does not count Michigan, because Clinton got votes in Michigan and Obama didn't (since he wasn't on the ballot), meaning there's no fair way to apportion votes. If one assigned "Uncommitted" to Obama, he would lead by roughly 160,000 votes.

Tagged as: republicans, democrats, election

Jeff Fecke is a regular blogger for Shakesville.