With polls fluctuating with Obama in an upward spiral--but still likely to fall below his eventual peak polling performances as a result of last minute Clinton attacks--the question remains whether Obama can win Pennsylvania.
Yes. He. Can.
Pennsylvania is really not one state, but many states. Sections of Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Erie are like the District of Columbia. Sections of Western Pennsylvania are like Ohio. Parts of Southwestern Pennsylvania are an extension of West Virginia, while parts of Northwestern and Northeastern Pennsylvania are an extension of New York. Much of rural Pennsylvania is similar to rural areas in Iowa and other states that Obama won.
Obama is methodically campaigning among the different Pennsylvanias.
He has scored a major coup with the endorsement of Senator Bob Casey, whose core strength lies in rural and Northeastern Pennsylvania, a key part of Clinton's core strength as well. Republican nominee Lynn Swann, a football Hall of Famer who was the first African-American to head a major party ticket for Governor in 2006, held onto the vast majority of Republican strength in rural Pennsylvania.
Obama is picking up the support of many rural Pennsylvania state legislators. They are impressed at his support among young people, and thrilled at his driving up of Democratic registration in their areas.
Clinton's core support in Pennsylvania appears to be urban and suburban middle aged to elderly white women. This is a good base to have, but it is a not a sufficient base to win.
Clinton is trying to sell her greater decisiveness on some issues as a strong point. But I remember admiring Howard Dean for his greater decisiveness on issues. Decisiveness is a positive, but people also want the sense that they will be listened to and the views of opponents will also be taken into account. People often want flexibility and responsiveness more than decisiveness.
Obama envelops competing realities in his answers to many questions, and sets forth nuanced near-consensus views that have broad appeal. He embraces a very large center far better than John Kerry because of his rhetorical simplicity; Kerry often spoke above people's heads while Obama's messages are understandable to many more people, even if those closely following the issues get more meaning out of his answers.
When Casey ran for Governor unsuccessfuly in 2002 and Senator successfully in 2006, I saw him as a potential transformational bridge builder who could link the concerns of rural and small town Pennsylvania to the concerns of urban and suburban Pennsylvania. Certainly, his endorsement of Obama is getting many people to take a second look at his candidacy that they otherwise would not have taken.
Casey's views are of relevance because of his intense knowledge of both his Senate colleague Obama and the state in which he has won as many statewide elections--four--as any other Democrat in Pennsylvania history while being still in his forties. His late father also won four statewide elections, and he played a major role in the last two.
He has experience with the power of a relevant testimonial--running the endorsement of an articulate African American former student of his while serving as Catholic school teacher; his numbers in the Philadelphia area shot way up against Rick Santorum with that commercial.
Whether Obama will win Pennsylvania or not remains to be seen. The obstancles are formidable. But he almost certainly will carry Rendell's core base in Philadelphia and the inner suburbs by a strong margin. If Casey can deliver his base too, it's over.