The polls show HRC comfortably ahead, but Senator Bob Casey just endorsed Obama. Any chance he can win it?
Given all the time left, I’d say there is. The Casey family is highly respected in the state, and Obama seems to have had a better operation. He closed a lot of ground starting in Iowa. No one thought that PA would be in play three months ago, but Obama has made it happen. I will go out on a limb and say that Obama squeaks it out.
By most accounts, Hillary is at something of a nadir right now. Obama is beating her in the Gallup poll by the largest margin in months, she has her worst favorability rating since the early 90’s according to Pew and others, and the state-by-state polling suggests Obama is a much better candidate against McCain (Hillary might actually have to fight to win California!). This is all just a snapshot, of course, and has a lot to do with Tuzla. But it puts Obama in a much better position than he was as recently as a week ago.
That said, PA is and always was a foregone conclusion. It has more old people than Florida and more white working-class angst. A “win” is getting within 5 points, I think. Even that will be a struggle and will depend in large part on what happens with the Tuzla story. I think the Obama ground game will neutralize the Republican influx to support Hillary, and we’ll end up with a result that is slightly better than Ohio.
I would expect a final result somewhere around 54-46.
What Richard Parker said, more or less.
The terms of comparison I’d use are between (a) Hillary’s margin of victory in PA, and (b) whether PA’s a Hillary win in the context of the overall campaign.
IMHO, Hillary has to win big - 15 points or more - for her PA win to be a win in the larger context. If Obama holds her to 7 or less, it’s really a win for him. In between (Hillary wins by 8-14%), it’s a draw.
Why Obama can’t win Pennsylvania.
And why winning Pennsylvania won’t be enough for Clinton.
But if he manages to keep things within single-digits, the writing will be on the wall (not that the inevitable isn’t being torturously delayed as it is).
I like to look at things as spherically as I can, and by most accounts it appears Clinton is hanging on my sinuous tendons. The Casey endorsement was huge, bigger than we can see just yet, as a lot of old dems from PA really, really like the guy and respect his opinions. And I’ll surmise he will carry some of them to say: Well, he believes in the man so will I. Or make them take a second look at Barack and with that second look he’ll entice a bunch of them.
That is a vaguely disturbing mental image . . . in any case, I don’t think “sinuous” is the word you want in that sentence (maybe “sinewy”?).
Right, scratch that…sinewy - much better. 
The combined endorsements of the last Democratic nominee John Kerry and the legendary Kennedy didn’t prevent Obama from being beaten hands down in that state.
Speaking of which, I assume Kerry, Kennedy, and Richardson will all be voting for HRC as supers if they’re sticking with this theory of voting the way their states went.
I say she wins PA by double digits.
I’m going to assume that “my” is supposed to be “by”, “sinuous” is supposed to be “tenuous”, and “tendons” is supposed to be…“talons”? The whole phrase is strange, actually…I’m guessing Phlosphr’s fingers got ahead of his brain there.
Clinton’s people are pulling this, too, but I’ve never actually seen the Obama campaign say “superdelegates should vote according to how their states voted.”
I’d make a snide remark about that phenomenon being common especially at polling booths among Obama voters…but I like Phlosphr 
I believe Obama’s position on the supers has been clear: they should vote the way their states went in terms of pledged delegates.
Maybe that’s not his position. I do know he said “The superdelegates aren’t supposed to leap over the wiill of the people in a single bound.”
One can assess whether the “will of the people” referred to in that statement refers to votes or delegates I suppose.
It will be interesting to see how he defines it if HRC goes to the convention with a lead in the popular vote.
I believe that’s a tortured reading of a statement that makes no reference to state borders. I think his campaign is saying “if the majority of people go for one candidate, the superdelegates should vote the same way.”
It won’t happen.
**Phlosphr’s ** had a rough day…ANYWAY!
The phrase should go: Holding on by sinewy tendons…think Stephen King meets a Vampire Puppeteer. Clinton is the puppeteer her campaign is the marionette.
Odd phrases and talking in the third person means I’ve had a rough day. Sorry guys. 
Well, that’s how it should be, isn’t it? In any campaign.
I am VERY interested to see what happens with the popular vote, and if the folks that weeped and wailed about it when it was Bush/Gore, will also weep and wail when Hillary get put over the top by Superdelegates.
Could you spell out the potential inconsistency you have in mind here?
I don’t know that Bob Casey’s endorsement means all that much. As a PA Democrat, I’ve not been very pleased with what he’s done so far, and I only really find out about what he’s done by reading roll call vote listings. In fact, given his voting record, I expected he would be more supportive of Clinton or McCain than Obama.
We just don’t hear anything about him at all.
Obama was in town yesterday, speaking a few blocks away from my office. The crowds were somewhat underwhelming.
Do you know if Clinton has cleared up failing to file a full delegate slate in PA? I know back when she filed she didn’t put in a full slate because she didn’t think it would go this far.