What Does the Future Hold for Democrats?

---

---

We don't yet know the outcome in Tuesday's special election in Pennsylvania.

Well, OK, we do know — probably — that Democrat Conor Lamb beat Republican Rick Saccone for an open House seat — but it is so close that, even after the mail–in ballots are counted, there will probably be a recount. Recounts usually confirm the initial results — but not always so there is still no winner.

But the question will remain — what does this victory mean for Democrats in a political environment that appears to favor them?

Lamb did not run as a far–left Democrat. Indeed he took more centrist positions on issues like guns, and he disavowed Nancy Pelosi, which was the prudent approach in Western Pennsylvania. Other positions would have meant almost certain defeat.

But centrists are a vanishing breed in American politics.

From the days of Jimmy Carter to the days of Bill Clinton, the area was fairly reliable territory for Democrats, and that was frequently seen in its House representation as well, although two future Republican senators represented the district in the '70s and '90s, but it has been trending Republican since the turn of the millennium.

Much was made of the fact that Donald Trump won the district by 20 percentage points in 2016 even though Trump's share of the vote in that district was the same as Mitt Romney's four years earlier. Barack Obama fared slightly better in 2012 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 only because Libertarian Gary Johnson siphoned off 3% of the vote in 2016. John McCain received 55% of the district's vote in 2008, and George W. Bush carried 54% of the district's ballots in 2004.

An extreme–left stance probably would have resulted in Lamb's defeat, which leads us to the question of what the immediate future holds for Democrats. The assumption is that this will be the Democrats' year, and extreme positions will work in some places like San Francisco and New York, but they won't work in places like Pittsburgh.

Midterm election years are quite different from presidential election years. It is easier to nationalize campaigns when there is a presidential race on the ballot. In midterms everything is more localized. Yes, to a degree, midterms are referendums on the president, but they are more about issues that concern the voters in specific states and districts.

Obviously, what works in one place won't necessarily work in another, but the midterms will be crucial for Democrats to establish their identity for the 2020 election, when the presidency will be on the ballot. Now is when the Democrats need to decide if they are going to take a more moderate approach or veer farther to the left.

If they want to take a more inclusive approach in the hope of luring disaffected Democrats who abandoned the party in recent years, they may risk a rebellion from the radical fringe.

It will be interesting to see which direction they choose.

Cruz's Gambit

---

---

We have a Republican presidential primary coming up on Tuesday along with two caucuses (Utah and American Samoa) — then two weeks until the next time voters go to the polls. Time is short — almost two–thirds of the states have been heard from now.

I hear a lot of talk of a contested convention, but there has only been one convention in my lifetime — the 1976 Republican convention — that went down to the wire. I have my doubts that this year's convention will be the second almost–contested convention in my lifetime.

See, the thing is that Donald Trump's candidacy is the kind of phenomenon that political observers have rarely seen. They function in a world of conventional wisdom, but what is happening is spinning conventional wisdom on its ear. In 1976 conventional wisdom eventually won out, and President Gerald Ford defeated challenger (outsider?) Ronald Reagan.

Trump reminds me more of Ross Perot in 1992 — a wealthy man who promised to run government efficiently, like a well–run business. Trump has gone far beyond where Perot ever did, perhaps because he has pursued the presidency through an established party rather than seeking the office as an independent.

Trump also reminds me, in a way, of Barack Obama eight years ago. Trump is not the first outsider businessman to seek the presidency, just as Obama was not the first black man to seek the presidency. But Obama capitalized on and exceeded the achievements of his predecessors, and Trump appears poised to exceed Perot's achievements as well.

It's easy to forget from the perspective of 2016 what Perot achieved in the general election of 1992. He didn't carry any states, but he received nearly 19% of the national popular vote.

On the Republican side it is, essentially, down to two candidates, Trump and Ted Cruz. There is a third candidate, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, but he is already mathematically eliminated from a first–ballot nomination even if he runs the table the rest of the way in this new winner–take–all delegate environment. He is no longer focused on winning the nomination on the first ballot, when most delegates are committed to certain candidates by the voters of their states. He is looking beyond that.

However, with Marco Rubio out of the picture, Cruz appears to believe he has a chance to inflict some damage on Trump and, if not secure enough delegates going into the convention to assure himself of the nomination, have enough delegates committed to him to prevent Trump from winning the nomination on the first ballot.

Cruz has been talking about how well he has performed in closed primaries — primaries held in states where voters are required to declare their party affiliation upon registering and vote in only that party's primaries. And that's true.

But there are two sides to this coin.

Cruz contends he is the best choice to be a standard bearer for Republicans because he has outperformed Trump in primaries in which only registered Republicans can participate.

Trump has performed better in the open primaries where voters can declare in which party's primary they want to participate, and he has been drawing support from Democrats and independents. Some have been motivated by a desire to throw a wrench into the works, but others have been motivated by genuine support for Trump. Consequently, Trump can argue — with at least some validity — that his victories in the open primaries demonstrate his appeal for the broader electorate in the general election.

This phase of the electoral calendar may tell us who is right — or, at least, whose case makes the most sense to Republican voters.

The primary on Tuesday is being held in Arizona; it's a closed primary that will award all 58 of its delegates to whoever finishes first. Based on Cruz's logic, he should do well there, right? Well, the latest Merrill Poll, released just a few days ago, found the winner is likely to be Trump.

Kasich's strategy is different. He knows he can't win the nomination on the first ballot so his objective is to prevent Trump from reaching the magic number and force the Republican nominating process to a second ballot for the first time since 1948. If Cruz can win in the West, Kasich will be trying to win in the East — in places like Pennsylvania and New York.

Call it a triangulation theory. It's also a longshot, at least at this stage of the race. Trump is more than halfway to the number of committed delegates he needs to win the nomination on the first ballot.

The New York primary is a closed primary that will be held on April 19. According to the Emerson Poll that was released Friday, Trump has a decisive lead over Cruz there. Kasich is no help; he barely drew 1% in the poll. New York is a winner–take–most primary, which most likely means Trump will win about 80 or 85 of the state's 95 delegates.

Pennsylvania's winner–take–all primary is a week later — on April 26. The most recent survey I have seen from Pennsylvania was published about a week and a half ago. It was Harper Polling's survey, and it showed Trump with a 2–to–1 lead over Marco Rubio, who suspended his campaign after losing in Florida about a week after Harper's poll results were published. Unless something dramatic happens, Trump seems well on his way to winning Pennsylvania's 71 delegates.

There will be other primaries, too, but the ones I have just mentioned are the ones that are likely to get the most attention in the next five weeks. Anyway, for Cruz and Kasich, the news doesn't get much better in those lesser primaries.

On April 5, Wisconsin holds a winner–take–all primary. It will be an open primary, too, so Democrats and independents can participate if they wish, and Wisconsin is the only state doing anything that day. Whoever finishes first wins 42 delegates. I haven't seen any polls from there so I don't know who is leading, but I can say that Wisconsin was one of those Rust Belt states that was hurt by trade agreements in recent years. That seems to have benefited Trump in Michigan and Illinois.

New York also will have the political spotlight to itself, but Pennsylvania will be one of five states holding primaries on April 26. Those states are mostly in the Northeast, which will be a test for Kasich's appeal to a presumably more centrist electorate.

The other four states to vote on April 26 are Connecticut (26 delegates), Delaware (16 delegates), Maryland (38 delegates) and Rhode Island (19 delegates). All but one of those April 26 primaries will be closed. Rhode Island's primary is "semi–closed" — whatever that means.

And most of the primaries being held that day will be winner–take–all contests. Connecticut is winner–take–most and Rhode Island is proportional. Since most of the primaries that day are closed, that should favor Cruz, based on his own assessment, but the region of the country should be more favorable to a moderate like Kasich. Polls indicate, however, that Trump is leading and may improve on his lead in the weeks ahead.

And, of course, looming out there on the Western horizon is California with its winner–take–all prize of 172 delegates. California Republicans won't vote until June 7, but in the latest poll I have seen 38% of likely voters favored Trump. It is worth noting that the poll results were released the day of the Florida and Ohio primaries. Rubio was still in the race, and Kasich had not yet won his home state, but both were included in the poll with Trump and Cruz. Rubio polled 10%, which by itself would not be enough for Cruz to overtake Trump. Neither would the 9% who said they were undecided.

Together, though, they would be enough — as long as not too many of those voters broke for Trump. That is how sizable Trump's lead is in California.

Clearly, it's a pretty steep mountain Cruz and Kasich must climb if they are to prevent Trump from claiming the nomination in Cleveland this July.

The Polarization of America

In 2009, Barack Obama made numerous, very public attempts to reach across the aisle and enlist the support of Republicans for his initiatives. His attempts at appeasement were fruitless.

At the very least, I think we are seeing that, even if Obama and the Democrats are successful in holding slim majorities in Congress this year, bipartisanship is not going to be a realistic goal for them to pursue in 2011 or 2012. That canyon the parties have created between them is too far for either to reach across.

America has been growing more and more polarized over the years. And, in spite of the protestations from Obama's supporters that he has been uniting the nation, I believe the opposite is true.

It isn't Obama's fault. The polarization of America did not begin with him. But I believe the situation has grown worse since he took office.

It isn't really surprising, I suppose. I mean, if one is a member of a political party, it is because that person has a very definite world view, and there seems to be less and less room for competing views in either party. It was not always this way. There was a time — a fairly lengthy time, actually — when there was a "liberal wing" of the Republican Party and a "conservative wing" of the Democratic Party.

Laugh if you will, but it's true.

In fact, the liberal Republicans exerted considerable influence in their party, as did the conservative Democrats. And each party had quite a few centrists as well.

But the Republicans ran off most of the liberals, and the Democrats ran off most of the conservatives.

Now, centrists are becoming an endangered species in both parties. One left the Republican Party because he believed he would be more welcome with the Democrats, but he lost the primary yesterday. Another has been forced into a runoff against a liberal, apparently MoveOn.org type — who probably will beat her in three weeks but then seems likely to lose in the general election.

Many centrists, including myself, have concluded that there is no place for them in either party today so the ones who wish to remain active in the political discourse are choosing to become independents.

But some centrists have insisted on sticking it out in their parties. I wish them well because I really believe that both parties need to move to the middle if they are to be acceptable to mainstream Americans. As things are now, both parties are positioned too far to either extreme to make consensus–building a genuine possibility.

And Tuesday's primaries just provided more proof (to me) that I am right:

• In Pennsylvania, for example, 30–year Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties last year (apparently, at least in part, due to speculation that he could not win a Republican nomination battle this year), lost the Democratic primary to Rep. Joe Sestak.
  
  Some of Sestak's supporters have characterized him as a centrist, but Specter was the real centrist in the race. In 2008, the ACLU gave Sestak a 91% rating. The American Conservative Union gave him a 0% rating. Meanwhile, Specter got a 43% rating from the ACLU and a 42% rating from the ACU.
  
  Ratings from other liberal and conservative groups were similar.
  
  So ideology trumped anything else that Specter brought to the table — seniority, for example — and now Pennsylvanians must choose between an extremely liberal Democrat and an extremely conservative Republican in November. Recent polls have shown the Republican, Pat Toomey, leading by a few points but still short of a clear majority.
  
  I guess, with Democrats and Republicans tending to favor their own by wide margins in polls, the independents will have to decide the winner — but which side will they choose? They've been gravitating to the center — but there's no one there.
  
  One thing that seemed clear from the results in Pennsylvania was that Obama's coattails are very short — if they exist at all. Actually, "coattails" probably isn't applicable in a midterm election since that is a term that generally refers to a president's influence on other races when he, too, is on the ballot. Technically, Obama won't have "coattails" until 2012.
  
  But the concept does seem applicable to a president's influence on races in which he becomes an active participant — although it seems to need a different name. And, when Specter switched parties, Obama pledged to support him this year in gratitude for Specter's support for Obama's agenda. Specter counted on Obama's influence with the Pennsylvania electorate to smooth over his transition.
  
  Apparently, though, Obama didn't help Specter any more than he helped Martha Coakley in Massachusetts four months ago — or the Democrats who sought the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia last November.
  
  I guess the big difference is that Coakley and the unsuccessful candidates in New Jersey and Virginia lost to Republicans, which is bad enough for a Democratic president. But Specter lost to a fellow Democrat, which raises questions about Obama's ability to influence the voters in his own party.
  
  Or does it?
  
  I suspect that the reasons for Specter's defeat are more complicated. He spent most of the last three decades in the Senate as a Republican — during which time he never really seemed to build a base of support in either party — and 2010 doesn't look like a good year for a Washington insider like Specter to try to reinvent himself in a different party.
  
  I'm guessing that any efforts he made to persuade lifelong, activist Democrats that he was one of them proved to be a mountain too high.
  
  Because of Specter's many years in the Republican Party, Obama's support for his unsuccessful campaign in a Democratic primary doesn't seem to be as politically devastating as was his support for a Democrat who lost Ted Kennedy's seat in a Massachusetts special election.
  
  But winning a party's nomination in Pennsylvania is not the same thing as winning the general election. When I was growing up in Arkansas, winning the Democratic nomination was tantamount to victory most of the time — but not anymore. I don't know if it was ever true in Pennsylvania.
  
  Anyway, for Sestak there is more work to be done. He is not a senator–elect yet. So, if I were Obama, I think I would have a chat with the vice president and tell him to cool it on that Sestak "will make ... a wonderful United States senator" talk.
  
  Meanwhile ...


• Remember Ron Paul, the Libertarian who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? He is said to have the most conservative voting record in Congress in the last 73 years.
  
  Well, yesterday, the Republicans in Kentucky nominated Paul's son, Rand Paul, a noted Tea Partier, to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Jim Bunning.
  
  Given Obama's recent track record, it doesn't surprise me that Paul told CNN today that he and his supporters are "licking their chops" at the thought of running against Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, particularly if Obama comes to the Bluegrass State to campaign for him.


• Finally, my home state of Arkansas, where Sen. Blanche Lincoln was hoping to avoid a runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.
  
  Lincoln was widely regarded as the centrist in the race while Halter was seen as the liberal. But, instead of taking a majority of the votes, Lincoln narrowly finished ahead of Halter and must defeat him in a runoff in June. A conservative businessman also was in the race, but he finished third with about 14% of the vote.
  
  Last night, I observed the Facebook exchanges between my friends in Arkansas, many of whom are Democrats who support Halter. They rejoiced that there would be a runoff and gleefully anticipated that most of the third–place candidate's votes would go to Halter. The momentum, they all said, was with him.
  
  Actually, that brings me to something I wrote on Saturday. I theorized, in essence, that any voter who votes against an incumbent in a primary is more likely to oppose than support that incumbent in a runoff.
  
  And, if most of the third candidate's voters do vote for Halter on June 8, he will win the runoff. It's simple mathematics.
  
  Except it isn't so simple. I'm not completely sure about that momentum thing. And I know that participating in a primary does not compel someone to participate in a runoff as well.
  
  In fact, I know from my own experience of covering Arkansas primaries and runoffs that voter participation typically drops in a runoff.
  
  But this will be a good test for my theory, as I said the other day, because:

1. we don't know how many of the third candidate's supporters will be motivated to return to the polls;


2. we don't know if his supporters — who, it can be logically assumed, are conservatives — are particularly anti–Lincoln; and


3. if the third candidate's supporters are angry at Lincoln, are they angry enough to vote for a liberal instead of a centrist?

Well, anyway, there are a lot of factors at play here.

And I'm sure there will be a lot of attention paid to the Arkansas runoff in the next three weeks.

I don't know what will happen in Arkansas in June, but I think the centrist would have a better chance of beating the conservative there in November than the liberal would. The problem for centrists is that most don't seem to have a base in their own party.

Like Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, who got kicked out by a bunch of extremist delegates to the state's Republican convention. He's a conservative, but apparently not enough of one for Utah's red–meat right–wingers. Remember those ACLU and ACU ratings I mentioned earlier? In 2008, Bennett got a 14% from the ACLU and a 64% from the ACU (by comparison, his colleague, Orrin Hatch, got a 21% from the ACLU and an 80% from the ACU).

By Utah's Republican standards, I guess that makes him a centrist.

All of which leads me to conclude that incumbency isn't really the problem in 2010 — centrism is.

John Murtha Dies

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., died at the age of 77 today of complications from gall bladder surgery.

He was a former Marine and the first combat veteran from the Vietnam War who was elected to Congress. He is probably best known for opposing the continuation of the war in Iraq, much to the consternation of many in the Bush administration.

I suppose you could call Murtha a "Watergate baby." He was really the first Democrat who was swept into office in the anti–Republican tide of 1974, winning a special election in February 1974 to replace the incumbent Republican who died in late 1973. His margin of victory was only 242 votes, but it was the first clear indication that America really wanted to be rid of Richard Nixon.

Later that year, Murtha was joined in the House by two other Vietnam veterans, Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa and Republican Larry Pressler of South Dakota. Both went on to serve in the Senate. Harkin is still there.

Pressler and Murtha both were offered bribes by undercover FBI agents in the 1980 ABSCAM investigations. They both turned down the bribes, but Pressler reported the offer to the FBI. Murtha, on the other hand, indicated that he was interested in future offers.

He supported Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination in 2008, then supported Barack Obama in the general election campaign.

The western Pennsylvania district that Murtha represented in the House for 36 years was represented by Republicans for more than 30 years before Murtha was elected; it tended to be more Democratic than the rest of the country in presidential elections after he became its congressman, but it had the distinction of voting for Democrat John Kerry in 2004 and then supporting Republican John McCain four years later, both times by relatively narrow margins.

It will be interesting now to see which way the district goes with a vacancy to fill. After winning the special election, Murtha never received less than 58% of the popular vote and usually got more than 60%.

Was that due to his personal popularity or did it reflect a genuine shift to the left in his constituents?

A Look at 'The Map'

During the weekend, I wrote about the Electoral College and how it works (read: how it really elects the president), and I made my first assessment of Barack Obama and John McCain in their head-to-head matchup in the Electoral College about a month ago.

Today, Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics weighed in.

"[E]xcept for the guessing game about the vice presidential nominations," Sabato writes, "there's no greater fun to be had in July."

And he affirms some of the points I've been making.

For example ...

Sabato concedes that "[i]t is highly likely that a half-dozen or more states will flip sides," but he confirms my point, which has been that past election results are a pretty good way to assess the chances that a party's nominee has of winning a given state.

If, as Sabato says, "a half-dozen or more" states switch party allegiances this fall, "that suggests that around 40 states may keep the same color scheme."

And, Sabato writes, "If November unexpectedly becomes a landslide for one party, then many states may temporarily defect from their usual allegiances."

The key word in that sentence, whether you're Obama or McCain, is "temporarily." The winner of such a state can't count on its support when the next presidential election campaign rolls around.

For example, if Obama carries Colorado, as many people are suggesting that he might, that would be a significant shift in voting behavior. Colorado has voted for every Republican since 1968 — with the solitary exception of voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 (but the voters there resumed their Republican pattern when Clinton ran for re-election).

At this stage of the campaign — nearly four months before Election Day without knowing the identities of either running mate or what may happen in the world before the voters go to the polls — Sabato says it is necessary "to assume that the election will be basically competitive, let's say with the winner receiving 52% or less of the two-party vote."

A lot can happen in four months, and Sabato says "If one candidate's proportion of the vote climbs above 52%, then virtually all the swing states will move in his direction."

In Sabato's current scenario, there are eight states worth a total of 99 electoral votes that qualify as "swing states" — Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. It's a mix of small states (New Hampshire and Nevada), mid-sized states (Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin) and large states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).

If these states are still the swing states by the middle of October, states like New Hampshire and Nevada can expect to get as much attention from both parties as Ohio and Pennsylvania.

If this race is as close as it was in 2000, every electoral vote will matter.

Which leads me to another interesting point that Sabato makes.

"History also suggests that the Electoral College system is only critical when the popular vote is reasonably close or disputed. That is, the College can potentially or actually upend the popular vote just in elections where the major-party candidates are within a point or two of one another."

---

---

So where does Sabato think things stand on July 10?

Well, he starts with the states that appear to be "solid" for one party or another.

Obama has 13 states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and D.C. in that column, worth 183 electoral votes.

McCain has 17 "solid" states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming) worth 144 electoral votes.

Sabato thinks it would be futile for either candidate to make much of an effort to win any of the "solid" states from the other, and I'm inclined to agree.

I think Sabato is right when he says McCain "will end up wasting a lot of money" if he tries to win a state like California. And I also think Sabato is right when he says he "will be surprised" if Obama is successful at capturing any of McCain's "solid" states — although he acknowledges the possibility that Obama could win Indiana if he puts Sen. Evan Bayh on his ticket.

From the "solid" states, we move on to the ones where the candidates are "likely" to win. These are also states where the chances are better for the opponent to pull off an upset.

Sabato lists only two "likely" states for Obama — Oregon and Minnesota — worth 17 votes (that gives Obama a total of 200 electoral votes from 15 states and D.C.). He lists five "likely" states — Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Montana and North Dakota — worth 30 electoral votes for McCain (and that gives him 174 electoral votes from 22 states).

From Obama's list, Sabato says McCain's best shot at an upset is in Oregon. "The only way McCain could steal Minnesota is by picking Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate," Sabato says. "However, even a McCain-Pawlenty ticket would have a 50-50 chance, at best, of carrying Minnesota."

Sabato rates Obama's chances of winning some of McCain's "likely" states as better than his opponent's chances, but he's skeptical about the claim that Obama can produce enough of a turnout among blacks to reverse voting patterns of four decades in the South.

"If Libertarian nominee and former Georgia GOP Congressman Bob Barr wins his projected 6 to 8% in the Peach State, or if Obama chooses former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia, Obama could have a shot at a plurality victory," Sabato says, "but for now we'll bet on McCain ... A giant African-American turnout might shift Mississippi (38% black) to Obama, but that is not our gamble."

That leaves the states that are "leaning" in one direction or another.

Again, there are two states in Obama's column — Iowa and New Mexico — worth 12 electoral votes. If those two states, along with the "likely" states and the "solid" states that Sabato has identified, do indeed vote for Obama, that gives him 212 electoral votes from 17 states and D.C.

McCain has three states "leaning" in his favor — Florida, Missouri, North Carolina — worth 53 electoral votes. If McCain sweeps all the states in his column, he will receive 227 electoral votes from 25 states.

Of the leaners, Sabato seems confident that Obama can hold both Iowa and New Mexico, especially if he puts New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on his ticket.

In McCain's case, Sabato says, "If he loses even one of them, he will be up against the Electoral College wall."

So then it's up to the states that are too close to call.

"If Obama carries Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, he's already at 269 (one vote short), and would need just one of the following states: Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia," Sabato writes.

"Of course, if McCain managed to secure Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Virginia, we'd be at that fabled 269-269 tie."

And, Sabato continues, "If McCain can grab Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, while holding Ohio, he's back in the hunt, with smaller toss-up states proving decisive."

Actually, Sabato's prediction isn't that much different from my own. He allowed himself the luxury of putting the troublesome states in the "toss-up" column. But, excluding the "toss-ups," our predictions were identical.

In my prediction, I gave McCain six of the eight states Sabato lists as "toss-ups" — and, in my scenario, that gave him a 295-243 victory in the Electoral College.

It's all a guessing game right now.

Will the running mates make a difference?

What will happen in the world between now and November 4?

The House Races in Pennsylvania

Democrats enjoyed a lot of success in the midterm elections of 2006, and Pennsylvania may have been the location of their greatest triumphs. They picked up four House seats and a Senate seat in the Keystone State.

The Senate seat, formerly held by Rick Santorum, won't be up for re-election until 2012, but the House seats, of course, are up this year.

With their gains, the Democrats hold the lead in the Pennsylvania House delegation, 11-8, but James O'Toole reports in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that, even with seats in swing districts that Democrats must defend in this election cycle, the state's Democrats "still hope to pick off one or two more GOP veterans" in 2008.

Political analyst Larry Sabato is keeping an eye on six House races in Pennsylvania. Only two are currently held by the GOP (including one that's on the Democrats' wish list, according to the Post-Gazette), and Sabato is inclined to predict that both will remain in the Republican column.

But that's what he's saying right now — in June. We're still a little more than four months away from the election.

It's possible that, in the next couple of months, the state's governor, Ed Rendell, could be chosen to run with Barack Obama, which would shift the emphasis of the media attention.

Right now, a lot of the attention in Pennsylvania seems to be focused on the rematch in the 4th District in the western steel country of the state, where Democrat Jason Altmire defeated incumbent Republican Melissa Hart in 2006.

Hart, who held the seat for three terms, is running against Altmire again in 2008. Although the district is traditionally Democratic, Altmire's victory over Hart two years ago was considered something of an upset.

Lately, Altmire has been devoting his time and energy to the health care issue. He's been looking for a solution for high health care costs for nonprofit organizations. Sounds like a challenge in this economy.

We'll see how Altmire fares as the incumbent.

Who Is the Best Choice for Democrats?

As the backdrop to the compromise on the Michigan and Florida delegations, Democrats heard talk about "electability" and threats from some Democrats that they will abandon their party if their candidate isn't nominated.

The compromise didn't resolve the matter of which candidate will be nominated -- so it now appears that the decision will be left to the superdelegates.

Who's it going to be, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

When all is said and done, the Democrats can say that it was a virtual split. Obama has a slight edge in popular vote and delegate support, but timing is everything, as the saying goes.

And that leads, inevitably, to "What if ... ?" questions.

What if Texas and Ohio had voted with most of the other states in early February instead of early March?

What if voters in West Virginia and Kentucky had held their primaries in February instead of May? Would Obama have been able to build his remarkable primary/caucus winning streak?

Obama withdrew his membership from his church yesterday. If he had done that earlier, would it have changed the outcome in some of the states that followed? Would he have been able to secure the nomination by leaving his church?

What's the situation in states that will clearly be battleground states in the fall?

Here's a peek at a few of them.

• Clinton appears to give John McCain a tougher fight for Florida's 27 electoral votes than Obama.
  
  Quinnipiac University says Clinton leads McCain in Florida (48% to 41%) but it says McCain leads Obama (45% to 41%). Rasmussen Reports has different margins but identical outcomes -- Clinton over McCain (47% to 41%) and McCain over Obama (50% to 40%).
  
  
• The race for Michigan's 17 electoral votes seems to be favoring McCain, although polls suggest Clinton might be more competitive there than Obama.
  
  Neither Democrat has been leading in recent head-to-head polls.
  
  EPIC-MRA's latest surveys for WXYZ-Action News report that McCain leads both Democratic challengers (44-40 over Obama, 46-37 over Clinton).
  
  According to those results, Obama is more competitive against McCain than Clinton. But it's worth mentioning that EPIC-MRA's survey on McCain-Clinton was completed April 8 and I have found no surveys on that question that are more recent. The survey on McCain-Obama was completed May 22.
  
  But Clinton is tied with McCain (44-44) in the latest Rasmussen Reports while Obama trails by 4 points (41-37).
  
  
• It seems likely to me that California (55 electoral votes) will remain in the Democratic column, where it's been since 1992.
  
  Both Clinton and Obama have been leading in every California survey I've seen. The numbers are similar for both candidates -- one may lead McCain by a slightly higher margin than the other, but the polls consistently show the Democrat winning in California.
  
  At this point, I can't see anything changing the outcome in that state.
  
  
• In Ohio, there are 20 electoral votes available. Polls are mixed on Obama vs. McCain, with Obama leading the latest Survey USA poll (48% to 39%) and McCain in front in the latest Quinnipiac University survey (44% to 40%) and Rasmussen Reports (45% to 44%).
  
  Against McCain, Clinton leads Ohio by 7 percentage points in Rasmussen (50% to 43%) and Quinnipiac (48% to 41%).
  
  Survey USA apparently is only asking respondents about Obama-McCain, because I have seen almost no results of a Clinton-McCain inquiry since early April (the exceptions to this are Missouri and North Carolina -- see below).
  
  The advantage in Ohio appears to belong to Clinton.
  
  
• Pennsylvania, with its 21 electoral votes, appears to be favoring the Democrat, whichever one that is.
  
  Obama's lead in the polls is pretty consistent, generally between 6 and 8 points (46-40 in Quinnipiac, 48-40 in Survey USA, 46-39 in Susquehanna Polling), a little narrower in Rasmussen Reports (45-43).
  
  Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is consistent as well. It's also consistently a little higher than Obama's -- 11 points each in Rasmussen Reports (50-39) and Susquehanna Polling (49-38), 13 points in Quinnipiac (50-37).
  
  I'd say Democrats can expect to carry Pennsylvania for the fifth straight time.
  
  
• Georgia (15 electoral votes) is one of those Southern states in which Obama is expected to benefit from a large black turnout. (Blacks acccount for just under 30% of Georgia's population.)
  
  But the latest surveys of likely voters indicate McCain leads both Democrats by margins in double digits. Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading Clinton, 48% to 37%, and leading Obama, 53% to 39%.
  
  Strategic Vision's latest survey seems to confirm Rasmussen. It has McCain leading Obama, 54% to 40%. Apparently, it didn't ask respondents about McCain vs. Clinton.
  
  
• North Carolina (15 electoral votes) is another Southern state where Obama's race is expected to work in his favor. (About 21% of North Carolina's residents are black.)
  
  And the conservative Washington Times says Sen. Elizabeth Dole faces a tough battle for re-election this year.
  
  But, even though the climate for Republicans isn't good in North Carolina, McCain has been leading in most of the recent polls I've seen. And the only exception has been in Clinton's favor, not Obama's.
  
  Survey USA has McCain leading Obama in North Carolina, 51% to 43%, but it has Clinton leading McCain, 49% to 43%.
  
  Rasmussen Reports has McCain leading both Democrats by 3 points in North Carolina -- 48-45 over Obama and 43-40 over Clinton.
  
  And Public Policy Polling reports that McCain leads both Democrats as well. McCain leads Clinton in that survey, 48% to 40%, and he leads Obama, 49% to 42%.
  
  
• I've heard talk suggesting that Obama should pick Virginia Sen. Jim Webb or Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate.
  
  The thinking is that a traditionally Republican state like Virginia (13 electoral votes) is a viable Democratic target in the presidential election -- if only because Virginia rejected incumbent Republican Senator George Allen in 2006 and put Webb in the Senate in his place.
  
  That logic may be correct, but the polls aren't all that favorable.
  
  Obama does run closer to McCain than Clinton in Virginia, but the polls still lean Republican in that state.
  
  Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Obama 47-44 and he leads Clinton 47-41. The latest VCU Communications and Public Relations survey finds McCain leading Obama 44-36 and leading Clinton 47-38.
  
  In the interest of fairness, Obama led McCain in Survey USA 49-42.
  
  
• Missouri (11 electoral votes) is a bellwether state, having voted for the winner of almost every presidential election for a century.
  
  When polls ask voters in that state to choose between Obama and McCain, McCain leads in every survey. Sometimes the lead is slim (48-45 in Survey USA), sometimes it's wider (47-41 in Rasmussen Reports).
  
  But the last time I saw a poll that showed Obama leading McCain head-to-head in Missouri was in a survey from December. That was before the Iowa caucus, which gave Obama the early momentum he needed to overtake then-front runner Clinton.
  
  The results are more mixed when the choice is between Clinton and McCain.
  
  Survey USA apparently asked Missouri voters about Clinton vs. McCain and came up with Clinton 48%, McCain 46%. Rasmussen Reports says McCain leads Clinton, 45% to 43%.
  
  
• Historically, New Mexico (5 electoral votes) is another bellwether state.
  
  Rasmussen Reports found that Clinton leads McCain in his neighboring state, 47% to 41%. Rasmussen says Obama's lead is even higher, 50% to 41%, but Survey USA says Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico, 44% to 44%.

And, Now, It's On to Indiana and North Carolina

Barack Obama can't close the deal.

That's what Maureen Dowd says in the New York Times.

"Now that Hillary has won Pennsylvania, it will take a village to help Obama escape from the suffocating embrace of his rival," writes Dowd. "Certainly Howard Dean will be of no use steering her to the exit. It’s like Micronesia telling Russia to denuke."

Dowd seems frustrated and impatient that Clinton won't get out of the way.

But she did win the Pennsylvania primary yesterday -- fair and square. And she did (apparently) get just about enough votes to claim the double-digit victory in percentage points that the "experts" said she needed to keep her campaign for the nomination alive.

Perhaps the temptation was just too great to resist.

But Chuck Raasch, political writer for Gannett News Service, called the outcome in the Keystone State a "bitter ending" for Obama.

"Bitter?" Perhaps. But an "ending?" I don't know if I would say that.

I mean, what has really changed since they counted the votes in Pennsylvania?

Obama still leads Clinton in delegates. We have one less primary remaining on the political calendar -- and all of the largest states have been heard from now.

Unless Clinton can win all the remaining primaries by margins that are much larger than her strongest showings so far, she can't win the nomination without the help of the superdelegates. But Obama probably can't win enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to clinch the nomination, either.

Tuesday's victory prevented a predicted stampede of the superdelegates to Obama's side -- but that may be only a temporary reprieve.

We'll be seeing more of an attempt from both sides to woo the superdelegates in the coming weeks -- what John Podhoretz calls, in Commentary, the "big superdelegate suck-up."

Superdelegates know that neither Obama nor Clinton can win the nomination simply through the primaries and caucuses and pledged delegates. Superdelegates know that the decision will come down to them. And superdelegates also know that it is to their advantage for the campaign to continue and for the barrels of pork they're being offered to get bigger and bigger.

According to Pew Research Center, "electability" is an important factor in the hunt for superdelegates, but "neither candidate has a demonstrable advantage to tout."

So I wouldn't expect a stampede of superdelegates until either Clinton or Obama actually wraps up the nomination. Once that's a done deal, everyone will want to be with the winner.

But, until we know who the winner is, accumulating offers of goodies for their votes makes the superdelegates the real winners.

Judgment Day Draws Nigh

In less than 48 hours, Pennsylvanians will be going to the polls. They'll be the first voters to cast ballots in the presidential race in more than a month.

And what a month it's been.

Although the most damaging issues that have been raised about Barack Obama have originated, interestingly, from his own camp, the Hillary Clinton camp has been ready to pounce on them when raised.

But being reactive instead of proactive lacks presidential assertiveness. Clinton's camp also has been trying to bring up some questions about Obama on its own, but those issues haven't had the staying power of Rev. Wright or "bitter" blue-collar workers looking to guns and religion as surrogates for financial security -- or the latest, his acquaintance with an anarchist from the Weather Underground.

As an observer of the campaign for The Sunday Times, Sarah Baxter notes, "If it is too late for Clinton, 60, to turn the race around, she has only herself to blame, according to Karl Rove, the architect of George W. Bush’s two presidential election victories. Democrats regard him as the master of the art of negative campaigning.

"'Her problem is not the attack on Obama, it is the timing,' he told The Sunday Times. 'She was complacent at the beginning and took him for granted.'”

Rove is correct. Clinton is paying the price for not acting more boldly, more decisively earlier in the campaign.

But, when you're trailing, as Clinton is, late is better than never.

"Clinton feels her rival is finally being properly vetted after last week’s televised debate," writes Baxter. "The debate went extremely badly for the thin-skinned Obama, who was irritated by questions he regarded as personal trivia. Voters are more likely to perceive them as important matters of character and judgment."

Of course, when such vetting is done late in the process, it opens the door for other problems down the road. The survivor is deprived of time to dispose of troublesome issues.

"The danger is that she will ultimately bequeath the Democrats a wounded candidate," says Baxter, "not the new John F. Kennedy, but an effete liberal known as 'Snobama,' the 2008 version of John Kerry, the last election loser. If so, his image will have been defined not by Republicans but by a Democrat."

I disagree with the suggestion that it would be Clinton's fault if Obama is unable to overcome these problems -- or others yet to come. Whether it is the Clinton campaign or John McCain's campaign or the media that raises the question, the point is that the question has been raised. And voters will want to hear his answer to the question.

Obama has claimed repeatedly in the campaign that he has better judgment than Clinton, and that would make him a better president, even though he admits that Clinton has more experience. If he is unable to deal with issues of his character and judgment, then he is unprepared for the rough-and-tumble nature of presidential politics.

Rove appears to agree with me.

"Rove argues that it is 'superficial' to blame Clinton for behaving like a Republican towards Obama," Baxter says. "(Rove says) 'He’s been countering it as best he can by saying it is unimportant and a distraction, but Americans don’t care if she’s doing the Republicans’ dirty work for them. They just want to know more about Senator Obama.'”

I disagree, however, with Kirsten Powers of the New York Post, who says that an "endless family feud" in the Democratic Party will translate into a Republican victory in the fall.

McCain has issues of his own. He's wrapped up his nomination, but he still has some unhappy elements of his base to bring around.

But that's a topic for another day.

Endorsements

I haven't seen very many endorsements in Pennsylvania -- possibly more will be published on the eve of the primary or even the day of the primary -- but all the ones I've seen support Obama.

Allentown Morning Call: "[O]n the issues, the differences between the Obama and Clinton platforms are thin or non-existent. He has set himself apart by enunciating a vision of a different America, one that people recognize as resting on the nation's founding principles. His vision calls upon 'the better angels of our nature' just as Abraham Lincoln did."

Bucks County Courier Times: "[T]he professional way he's conducted his campaign and the deft organization he's put together, which has outmaneuvered Clinton, is impressive. We believe Obama would bring the same professionalism to the executive branch of government since he isn't tied into lobbyists and special interests."

Philadelphia Inquirer: "Obama has demonstrated the resilience to bounce back from challenges in this long campaign. His speech in Philadelphia on race relations quelled the immediate political furor over his former pastor's anti-white rhetoric. But Obama's address did more than serve his own political needs. It called on blacks and whites to consider each other's legitimate motives, and to move beyond conflicting perspectives. Turning a tempest into an opportunity for national reflection and action is a sign of leadership."

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it."

Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter: "[T]he realities of sitting in the White House are always quite different from what they say on the campaign trail. Between the two, we prefer to look to the future with Obama rather than to the past."

By The Numbers

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's speech on race -- and the followup interview in which he referred to his white grandmother as a "typical white person" -- it may be helpful to review some of the numbers.

First of all, the thing that is of the most immediate interest to political observers is how things are shaping up in Pennsylvania, site of the next presidential primary on April 22.

According to a Public Policy Polling survey, which was completed a couple of days before Obama's speech, Hillary Clinton was leading Obama in Pennsylvania, 56% to 30%.

The margin was closer in a poll conducted jointly by Franklin & Marshall College/Philadelphia Daily News/WGAL TV/Pittsburgh Tribune Review/WTAE TV/Times Shamrock Newspapers, which was also completed a couple of days before the speech, but Clinton was the leader in that one as well, 51% to 35%.

Quinnipiac University reported an even closer margin, 53% to 41% -- still in Clinton's favor. Once again, that survey was completed before Obama's speech.

I have found no survey results from polls that were conducted after the speech or the interview -- yet. We'll probably start seeing those numbers this week.

To put things into a more appropriate context, Pennsylvania's racial makeup is about 84% white, just under 10% black.

That racial deficit didn't necessarily work against Obama in previous primaries -- but all of the previous primaries were held before the airing of clips of his pastor's hate-filled remarks, Obama's speech or his followup interview. One can only speculate about what sort of impact they might have had on earlier contests.

On average, Clinton has been receiving 53% of white votes, Obama has been receiving 39%.

In case you're interested, Obama also has been losing the Hispanic vote to Clinton in most states, 58% to 39%. Hispanics are the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, but Hispanics historically do not vote in large numbers, even in places where they represent a fairly large portion of the population. Many have been participating in the primaries this year, but it remains to be seen if that activism continues into the general election.

In some of the states with larger ethnic populations (i.e., California), Obama has more than made up for lost white votes by receiving huge majorities among black voters. His advantage among black voters has been consistently high, 80% to 17% on average.

But if he starts losing white votes by the same margin -- or close to it -- with which he has been winning black votes, the simple math suggests that his campaign could be in trouble.

We've been hearing for weeks that the only way Clinton can capture the nomination is to start winning primaries with the support of more than two-thirds of the voters.

We're about a month away from the Pennsylvania primary. In that time, Obama has to assess the damage that's been done to his image in the white community and find a way to correct it.

If he succeeds, the nomination will be his for the taking. But that doesn't necessarily mean he will win the general election.