I Seek Unanimous Consent to Revise and Extend My Remarks

The "revise and extend" phrasing in my subject borrows from a standard parliamentary request in the U.S. Senate whenever a senator speaks on a topic. If approved, and it always is (senatorial courtesy and all), the request allows the Senator to submit in writing any technical corrections to what he or she says on the floor, as well as to add additional text (such as if he or she only delivers part of his or her statement on the floor, and wants to put the whole thing in the Congressional Record).

Now, to the substance of my statement, for which I techinically don't need unanimous consent since it's my blog, but which I have politely asked for nonetheless. In the tradition of the Senate, most all statements are phrased with good manners, even if the substance is hardly polite. Think something with the essence of "I would ask my very good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, if he would be so kind as to shove his amendment up his ass," only without the profanity, since that would be uncouth.

But I digress. In my first post concerning political predictions for the Democratic presidential race, I made brief reference to the likely outcome of Pennsylvania's primary, in the context of a larger discussion of all remaining states in play. A second assessment of the prevailing opinions among certain demographic groups in the state has led me to modestly revise my predictions for Pennsylvania, and to expand my discussion of the particular dynamics at play in this state.

There are certain resentments that exist within broad swaths of the lower to middle income blue collar population about a number of things, which are very likely to be inflamed by the demagoguery being peddled over the offensive statements by Senator Obama's former minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but which are unlikely to be as powerfully impacted by Senator Obama's recent discourse on race in America, as Obama's eloquent discussion of a very nuanced issue does not lend itself to the same kind of "soundbiting" coverage that our rabid 24-hour media culture has perpetuated for too long.

That being said, I am now not as convinced that Pennsylvania will look very different from Ohio for the above reasons. However, there are two other elements of the equation that may come into play, which could have some positive impact on the Pennsylvania race from Obama's perspective.

The first issue centers on a documented body of evidence that shows Obama's performance in states with purportedly "hostile" demographics (lower income, blue collar, traditional white Democrats) improving when he has the opportunity to spend an extended amount of time in a state speaking with as many voters as possible. His vision, intellect, and reasoned approach to politics and governing has moved many people--of all races--throughout the nation thus far. Is there a ceiling to his performance in Pennsylvania, particularly in light of the issues raised in a very unfavorable media-cycle in the past week? Perhaps. But there are still nearly 5 weeks left until April 22. Speaking of performance among Demographic groups, I find it a bit frustrating that the mainstream media consistently harps on perceived deficiencies when it comes to Obama, but pays scant attention to the fact that Hillary Clinton's performance among other important demographic groups (as far as Democrats are concerned) has been abysmal--chiefly, African American voters and highly educated, progressive voters.

In fairness, the media has covered the race-baiting tactics of the Clinton campaign in a critical way, rightly calling out disgraceful and divisive actions. But the issue is then mostly left alone as somehow unconnected to her purported strength as a general election candidate. Her fundamental weakness among African Americans is not something that will automatically evaporate as a major issue if she were to become the nominee. And what does it say about the Clinton campaign that a group of educated, financially well-off people who are basically in agreement with her ideologically on policy issues nonetheless are decisively backing Obama?

The second issue concerns a recently renewed effort by Obama to illustrate to all voters, particularly those at the lower end of the income scale, how our terrible economic situation is directly tied to the disasterous management of the Iraq War and the staggering federal spending on it and on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. The war is an incredibly unpopular issue among Democrats (and most Americans), and Obama is the better candidate on this issue, since Hillary Clinton enabled Bush's march to war voting to authorize military force, and has yet to take responsibility for it, offering a panoply of excuses and distortions. If Obama can make "economic distress" and "Iraq War" become consciously linked in the minds of enough voters, he can persuade them to follow his lead and his plans for handling both.

I know Obama will make some inroads on the strength of his campaigning skills, but it is not clear whether he will make enough progress to at least make Pennsylvania a narrow Clinton win. Whether he can make a breakthrough on the question of more powerfully linking the economy with the disaster in Iraq is an open question at this point. Thus, it remains to be seen whether Obama can outperform what are now very low expectations for him in the state. A silver lining for Senator Obama--as Hillary has demonstrated more than once during this campaign, if you set yourself up with low expectations that become accepted wisdom, you can "win" even by losing if you can then exceed those expectations.

In closing, I wish to reinforce the essential point of my inaugural post. Senator Obama will end the primary season with a clear lead in both pledged delegates and in overall delegates (incorporating superdelegates who have already declared their support for one of the candidates). The superdelegates will not move en masse to Clinton and deny Obama the nomination, or they will absolutely fracture the Democratic Party and guarantee the election of John McCain. This is the nightmare scenario, and Democratic officials with superdelegate votes are simply not kamikaze pilots.