When bittergate was breaking Friday night, I wrote a diary about how I thought the controversy was a huge opportunity for Obama to make a powerful economic argument to low info, small town PA voters tuning in to see what the fuss is all about.
Not only could the controversy end up being a net positive for Obama, I am starting to wonder weather this story counterintuitively has the potential to propel Obama to an upset, race-ending victory in PA. Why?
The Clintons are nauseatingly overplaying their hand - will there be a backlash, especially in the socially progressive Philadelphia suburbs?
Obama's forceful response on Sunday night, pushing a strong economic populist message, mocking gun-praising Hillary as Annie Oakley, and hitting her on trade, bankruptcy, lobbyists, and use of republican talking points. Will it resonate in small town PA?
Obama's superior performance at the CNN Compassion Forum talking about faith in a genuine way.
Yes, we're playing the expectation game to lose, but maybe in the next 8 days we should (quietly) go for the knockout...can we do it?
As much as the media has presumed bittergate will doom Obama in PA and beyond, I think we have to keep in mind that this is a closed Democratic primary.
Why is this important?
It limits the ability for those most likely to be offended by Obama's comments - small town Republicans - to come out and vote against Obama either because they were truly offended (less likely) or because of Rush's orders (more likely).
Obama is strong in urban PA, Hillary in rural/small town PA, but the suburbs, especially in Philadelphia could be a huge determinitive battleground. Big margins in the Philly suburbs helped Rendell beat Casey in 2002.
Those Philly suburbs skew socially progressive. Voters tend to be pro-choice and that's part of the reason that Gore and Kerry won PA in the general elections. These traditionally Republican counties have had a surge in Dem registration and so there will be more votes to mine here than Rendell had in 2002.
Check out this recent Philadelphia Inquirer article about how PA Republican state legislators representing the Philly suburbs are breaking ranks with their party to support a gun control bill.
Nine Philadelphia-area Republicans signaled last week they would break ranks with their caucus today and support handgun-control legislation when the state House of Representatives resumes debate on a controversial proposal.
The measure, which would require reporting handguns that are lost or stolen, has been vigorously pushed by Democrats in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as a "common sense" restriction that would reduce gun violence.
...
"There has been an evolution in the Philadelphia suburbs in the last 15 to 20 years away from a strict no-gun-control policy," said Terry Madonna, a political science professor and pollster at Franklin and Marshall College. "It fits with what we're seeing in cultural changes, such as positions on abortion and gay rights. Voters are electing a different kind of legislator."
So I am wondering, how will Hillary's laughable gun toting rhetoric play among the social progressives in those Philly suburbs? Could Obama actually increase his margins in the Philly suburbs as a result of Hillary miming republican talking points on Guns?
Obama was going to run strong in these suburbs anyway, which have a lot of educated folks...but if he can push up the margins, could he repeat the Rendell 2002 path to victory even if he loses in rural PA?
In particular, I think that suburban college educated middle-aged and older white women might be a key swing group. Their education makes them lean Obama, but their age and gender make them lean Hillary. I think they could be looking at Hillary attacking Obama on guns and swing away from her.
Of course, this assumes that Obama does not lose even more votes in rural areas because of the comments.
But I am thinking that the people in rural areas who are registered as dems are less likely to be offended by what Obama said than the folks in those counties who are republicans or independents. Some of them might agree with the assessement of why most of their neighbors vote Republican instead of Democrat like they do.
Moreover, the controversy could get them to tune in and listen to an Obama economic argument that they might not have otherwise heard and some of them might actually be convinced.
Take a look at how Obama responded last night:
Pretty damn convincing, no?
So I am thinking the gun-toting dems in PA are now going to be laughing at Hillary as Annie Oakley poser while Obama acknowledges their very real economic frustrations which Hillary pooh-poohs in a Pollyanish way.
On the religion issue, the CNN compassion forum may have really helped Obama.
He was very fluent and comfortable talking about faith and was very well received by the audience. Not only was Hillary much less comfortable and fluent, but she used a forum on compassion to attack Obama over his comments - a strategy that was neither compassionate nor forgiving. How would a devout Christian PA voter watching that forum react to HIllary going on the attack? I am wondering if it might turn them off a bit, and more likely to support Obama who was both classy and fluent in matters of faith. Certainly the audience at Messiah College liked Obama better.
Obama is now getting more press coverage of him talking about his faith. Maybe a few more rural folks will tune in, realize he's not a muslim and consider voting for him.
I think Obama will still lose the rural counties in PA, but by how much? I wonder if a backlash to Hillary's Annie Oakley schtick, her Pollyannish views on bitterness, and her unseemly Compassion Forum attacks could cancel out any gains she makes by pandering to the gun toters and bible thumpers.
Combined with the resonance of Obama's argument about economic frustration, could a backlash cause Hillary to lose more votes than she gains in the small town areas, narrowing her margins while Obama piles on in the cities, college towns, and suburbs?
It's possible. I don't think we can say anything for sure right now. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves or take anything for granted. A lot will happen in the next 8 days. The Clintons always have more dirt up their sleeves and the media love to beat up on Obama in the days immediately preceding big primaries to push undecideds to Hillary. So, I think the Obama people should continue to downplay expectations. But I think the Obama people should (quietly) go for a knockout.
Here's what I think would help:
Stay on offense. By counterpunching Hillary's attack, Obama gets a free pass to harsly attack Hillary on trade, honesty, etc with little blowback or opportunity for Hillary to claim victimhood since he is defending himself against attacks she made on him. On the heels of Hillary's Tuzla comments, her $109 million income, and Penn/Bill on Columbia, Obama's counterpunches could land some real blows. I think Obama should not be afraid to go a little negative, especially in small town media markets. The aim should be to depress her base. Especially aim to discredit her in the eyes of small town working class men.
In the small towns, make the primary a referendum on whether Obama is right that small town PA voters are frustrated or that Hillary is right that people are happy and optimistic.
Bombard small town-town media markets with Bob Casey's new direct-to-camera TV ad vouching for Obama.
Drive home the populist messages at the debate on Wednesday. Define Hillary as out-of-touch on the economy while she continues to look like a fool talking about how she is better on guns and religion.
Turnout, turnout, turnout in Obama's base areas.
Anyways, these are just some of my thoughts. Please let me know what you think. Could the bittergate aftermath actually provide Obama an opening to win PA? What do you think he should do in the next 8 days?
Permalink | 62 comments