What It All Means (Pennsylvania Edition)

You can be sure of one thing, no matter what happens tonight, there will be a ton of spin and a veritable punditry orgy. On top of that you can pretty much be certain that unless Obama wins by a solid margin, Hillary will spin it as "Well Obama should have done better!" She is already saying that he ought to win and that if he can't then that somehow "proves" that he is lacking in some respect. She will cite his cash advantage and outspending her 2-1 on ads. There are many things wrong with this spin:

• Not so long ago Obama was behind by 20-30 points owing to Hillary's huge name recognition advantage - Obama needed to significantly outspend Hillary in advertising to make up the difference. This isn't an advantage for Obama, it is what he had to do to cancel out heradvantage.
• Hillary has the advantage of a former president campaigning for her full time, an advantage that Obama has never had, an advantage that ought to put to rest any claims of Obama having any kind of unfair advantage going into this race.
• It is said that the predominately white, working class demographic makeup of Pennsylvania is custom-made for Hillary, making it an uphill battle for Obama from the start (This isn't to say that Obama has any problem with this demographic, but Hillary has tended to do slightly better with this demographic).
• Hillary has the support of almost all of the Party establishment including Gov. Rendell and lots of mayors.
• Hillary has "roots" in Pennsylvania, and as MSNBC notes, she hasn't shut up about her PA ties for weeks. She can't have it both ways, if she has the home turf advantage she can't dismiss Obama for not being able to beat her there.
• Limbaugh "Democrats" might give an edge to Hillary, for no other reason than to keep her in the race so she can continue to backstab Obama and the Democratic Party for the benefit of John McCain. This has been a factor in recent races, however the media generally refuses to acknowledge it).
• Obama not only has faced an amazingly negative campaign from Hillary, he has also been constantly targeted by John McCain and the Republicans. He is fighting a two-front war.
• This election is late in the game, which makes it harder to change votes. Think about it, these people have been watching this election for months, and during this time 20-30% more Pennsylvanians preferred Hillary to Obama (again, mostly based on name recognition and lack of knowledge about Obama), meaning Obama just had a little over a month to change the long-held opinions of 20-30% of Pennsylvanians. Not an easy task, despite how easy for Obama Hillary suggests this should be.
• Lastly, Hillary generally gets a big boost in every election from a surge of older women voters who flock to the polls in each state to try to keep Hillary from tanking. This saved her in New Hampshire, and she has been able to rely on this failsafe each time her campaign's future was on the line. If this was do-or-die for Obama you can be sure that his supporters would be extra committed to turning out for him as well.

Now that is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list, but it gives you an idea of what Obama was up again, and how ridiculous Hillary's spin is. No one expects Obama to win Pennsylvania, and moreover he doesn't have to. Hillary has said that "a win is a win", but this couldn't be further from the truth. A win is a win in a winner-take-all situation, which this is not. A 1% win will net her no delegates, or next to none. A 5% win will net her barely any. A 10% win will net her barely any. A 20% win still won't even come close to making a meaningful dent in Obama's delegate lead, and he will erase any gains she makes in PA in North Carolina. The math doesn't lie, and it says the same thing it said before Texas and Ohio: Hillary cannot win, period.

Anyway, I'll report on the results, but as they come in, keep these things in mind. No matter what her spinsters say, Obama had an uphill battle, Hillary had every advantage going into this, Hillary fought hard and dirty, Obama doesn't need to win PA, and not winning the more working-class voters does not show he has some problem with that demographic anymore than Hillary could be said to have a problem with younger voters just because Obama is far more popular among them.

They will also bring up the old "big state" argument, you know, the one she refused to explain the logic of when asked by a reporter. The false assertion here is that whomever wins a state in the primary (no matter if it was only by a small margin) is somehow better suited to beat McCain (despite all the polls to the contrary). And I'm sure the media will repeat this ridiculousness, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this magical phenomenon, no logical foundation for its existence, and in fact all of the polls suggest that Obama even does better against McCain in states that Hillary won.