Just because Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island and appears also to have won Texas after a spasm of negative campaigning, we shouldn't conclude, as Kos appears on the verge of doing, that Obama will have to go negative to win. This conclusion is based on another of a long string of misinterpretations of primary and caucus results, from tactical concerns and prejudicial demographics. Despite appearances, Obama's approach has worked for him; he did as well as he could have been expected to do in yesterday's contests, considering the social geography of the contested states.
In two earlier diaries, I looked at the presidential race through the filter of David Hackett Fischer's book Albion's Seed, and I made the following predictions about March 4:
- Clinton was favored in Texas, but whoever won would not win by much.
- Clinton would win Ohio by 5 to 10 percentage points.
- Rhode Island was up in the air. My theory, based on Fischer's work, suggested a solid Clinton win, but I hedged because of Obama's win in Connecticut. I should have trusted the theory.
- Obama would win Vermont, only because all the polls said he would. The theory would have predicted a Clinton win.
As it turned out, I got three out of four right (Texas, Ohio, Vermont) and should have trusted my theory on the fourth. Clinton won Texas by only 3 percentage points and came in a little behind in the caucuses. She won Ohio by 10 percentage points and Rhode Island by 18. Obama cleaned up in Vermont, with a 22 percentage point win. (I'm not sure what it is about Vermont that's causing it to revolt against the Puritan tendencies of the rest of New England . . . perhaps a native Vermonter can explain?)
With my bona fides established, let me reiterate my predictions for the remaining contests:
Wyoming, a Great Basin state, will absolutely go for Obama, as will Mississippi. Pennsylvania will be closer, but Obama will win. Indiana and North Carolina will go to Obama; Indiana will be close, North Carolina won't. West Virginia and Kentucky will absolutely go to Clinton. Oregon, Montana and South Dakota are all Obama's.
Looking at the map of speech regions, it might not appear that Ohio should have gone to Clinton. However, I lived in Ohio for several years and was aware of a large Appalachian (i.e., Borderer) population that the map didn't show, which gave Clinton a large boost in the southern parts of the state. Pennsylvania has a similarly large Appalachian population in the central part of the state, which is why I think Clinton will be competitive there. Also, a fact that slipped my mind before is that Clinton's father is from Scranton, possibly giving her a further boost. However, I maintain that Obama's Quaker-like campaigning style will bear him along with most of the state's voters and that he will win, though probably by a razor-thin margin.
But the basis of his connection to the Quaker tradition is in his inclusive, inspirational, spiritually tinged and positive approach. If he abandons this tradition and goes negative, he'll lose his connection with this sociocultural group and will be defeated not only in Pennsylvania but possibly in all the remaining states as well (except in North Carolina, which I don't see going for Clinton under any circumstances).
Obama can win if he remains true to himself. If he panics and goes negative, he may well end up throwing the race.