5.8%.
Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:37:18 PM PDT
Seriously here--let's assess the final results of what Hillary's (expected) win in Pennsylvania accomplished in terms of her campaign. Despite a three-pronged assault on Barack Obama by Hillary Clinton, John McCain and corporate media, Barack Obama closed the gap in Pennsylvania to under 10 percentage points, despite the fact that Pennsylvania's demographics favored Hillary Clinton even more than Ohio did.
Compared to Ohio, Barack Obama gained ground among key demographic groups, including seniors, white voters and working-class voters.
But the biggest factor: in her biggest chance to improve things among the people who actually get to decide this race--the delegates--Clinton ate into Obama's lead by only 5.8%.
More below.
According to Obama's website, Barack has a pledged delegate lead of 171. And according to our best estimates, Clinton's delegate victory in Pennsylvania amounts only to 84-74. That's less than 6% of Obama's total delegate lead.
Let's put this in perspective another way, using a sports metaphor. Let's use basketball, since Philadelphia is playing at Detroit right now in the NBA playoffs.
Let's say that it's the fourth quarter of a basketball game, and the team I'm on is losing by 20 points with 5 minutes left. The game is basically over--in any real game, the starters would be off the floor and the scrubs on the bench would be finishing up the garbage time. Now, let's say that I come off the bench and hit a regular old two-point shot. Well, that doesn't change the outcome of the game that much: the lead is still 18 points, and the other team still gets the ball back with more chances to score.
Well, that's exactly what happened in Pennsylvania. Except the analogy above is a little off, because when you're down 20 and you hit a jumper, you've eliminated a full 10% of your opponent's lead. Hillary couldn't even do that in Pennsylvania, despite all her demographic advantages in the state. She only made up 5.8% of the ground. So really, it's more like hitting a free throw.
Now, let's say you're watching this all-important game on the TV. Normally, the commentators wouldn't be all that excited by the garbage-time jumper--or even free throw--I just hit. Nevertheless, if you were watching the game on TV and I just hit the jumper in question, and the color commentators went wild, and said:
Oh my god, what a huge shot by hekebolos! They've really got a chance in this one now--maybe this shows that the other team doesn't really have what it takes to finish strong in this game!
Well, if you know basketball, you'd think they were nuts, or hopelessby biased. And that's exactly what I think about our media.
I guess I shouldn't complain too much. The massive registration of new voters that has occurred in places like North Carolina and Indiana (where so many voters registered that Barry Welsh just had to be punched in the face) will certainly help our downballot races in the fall. I'm sure candidates like Barry Welsh love the tens of thousands of new voters from all over his district who registered as Democrats to be able to participate in the primary. Same thing with candidates like Larry Kissell in North Carolina.
But it's time to put an end to the idea that the Pennsylvania primary seriously changed the dynamic of this race. Not only because the numbers say so percentage-wise, but because the ball is back in Barack's hands going into contests that favor him.
Permalink | 26 comments