by Josh Drobnyk
The Democratic presidential campaigns close out an unprecedented six-week primary contest in Pennsylvania on Tuesday with two separate goals: Win the popular vote and drive up the delegate count.
One doesn't necessarily come with the other. Only a third of the 158 pledged delegates that are up for grabs on Tuesday are divvied up according to the statewide vote. Because it's not a winner-takes-all race, the rest get divided depending on the margin of votes in each of the state's congressional districts.
That quirk has the campaigns pinpointing districts with the best opportunities to poach -- and hold onto -- an additional delegate or two, even as they aim for the more important symbolic victory in the popular vote.
''It is a three-dimensional chess game,'' said Tony Podesta, who ran John Kerry's campaign in Pennsylvania in 2004 and is a supporter of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. ''You are trying to play two games at once.''
Clinton trails Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by more than 700,000 in the overall popular vote and observers say she must emerge from the primary campaign in June within striking distance. But she must also close Obama's 141-delegate lead. And no state remaining offers a bigger chunk of pledged delegates than Pennsylvania.
See the rest of the story in today's Morning Call:
Fifty-five of the state's 158 pledged delegates are awarded proportionally to the candidates based on the state's popular vote. The remaining 103 are apportioned by the vote in each congressional district. Districts that lean Democratic get a disproportionate share. Pennsylvania also has 29 so-called superdelegates, with Clinton holding a 15-5 edge. Nine are undecided.
For both Clinton and Obama, it begins and ends in Philadelphia and its outer suburbs, a region responsible for 43 delegates alone, not counting the area's impact on the popular vote. Pittsburgh also looms large, with 22 delegates coming from the congressional districts in the city and surrounding suburbs.
By comparison, the 15th Congressional District, made up mostly of Lehigh and Northampton counties, has five delegates. Under the party's arcane rules, it is unlikely either candidate will do better than a 3-2 split among local delegates -- a big factor in the paucity of personal visits to the valley by Clinton and Obama.
By the time the race is over, both candidates will have spent about 20 days in the state over the past six weeks, each having made more than a half-dozen stops in Philadelphia. Clinton has spent almost an equal amount of time in Pittsburgh, where she has held a lead throughout the campaign.
To date, only Obama has made an appearance in the Lehigh Valley. Clinton is expected in Bethlehem today.
The airwaves have been dominated by Obama, who has pumped nearly $10 million in television advertising into the state since mid-March, compared with about $4 million for Clinton, according to The Campaign Group, which monitors media buys.
Throughout, both candidates have pitched a populist message to state voters, promising to fight for American workers and inject billions of dollars into infrastructure improvements and energy investments that would bring thousands of jobs to the state.
''When the nation is going through tough times both with the economy and mortgage crisis and the Bush presidency -- those eight years tee up perfectly for a populist message,'' Gov. Ed Rendell said in an interview.
Neither side doubts the importance of carrying the popular vote in Pennsylvania. Huge emphasis has been placed on poll numbers and the margin of victory Clinton needs to make a strong argument to superdelegates that she is the better candidate.
''My advice to her is driven by the popular vote,'' Rendell said of Clinton. ''If she does as well as I think she can do here, it might make a sea change in the race.''
The margin that might produce that sea change is debatable. Rendell said ''anywhere from 7 to 13 points is pretty impressive,'' given that she has been outspent in Pennsylvania.
Obama supporters, though, point to Clinton's large lead coming into the state and inherent advantages: She has strong ties to Scranton, where her father was raised and where she vacationed as a child. She has support from the Democratic Party establishment. And she encounters demographics in Pennsylvania that have lined up well for her in previous contests, including an older, working-class population.
The latest statewide polls have shown Clinton leading, but by smaller margins than Rendell suggested.
Working in Obama's favor are a strong grass-roots operation and support from Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania's freshman Democrat, who surprised many when he endorsed Obama in March. Casey, who lost to Rendell in the 2002 gubernatorial primary campaign, said he sees potential advantages for Obama in smaller cities, including Bethlehem and Easton.
''I think there are little mini urban areas that might play a bigger role than they would if it was just a sleepy primary that did not have a lot of attention,'' he said in an interview.
Among the great unknowns is whether the state's tens of thousands of college students will turn out to vote on Tuesday -- and how one-sided in favor of Obama they could be, as polls suggest. ''That number will be, by proportion, higher than it has ever been,'' Casey said.
Obama has built his overall lead in part by taking advantage of states' quirky systems of handing out delegates. His strong ground operation has helped him drive turnout in states that hold caucuses. In Texas, which apportioned its delegates based on both a popular vote and caucus system, Obama won more delegates than Clinton despite Clinton's 100,000-vote advantage in the popular vote.
''There has been a laser-like focus on winning delegates,'' said U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia, an Obama backer. Fattah's urban 2nd District, with nine delegates at stake, represents the best opportunity for Obama. He could grab seven of the nine delegates at stake should he emerge with 72.2 percent of the vote, a strong possibility. ''There is an opportunity for us to do very, very well in this 2nd District,'' Fattah said. ''The question is, can we win by a high enough percentage?''
State Democrats' apportionment system appears to put Clinton at a disadvantage. Because Obama's strongest support comes from the more Democratic strongholds of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh -- which get a disproportionate share of delegates -- Clinton could emerge Tuesday with a smaller share of delegates than her share of the popular vote.
An analysis of the race last week by Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan Washington publication, projected Clinton would take 53 of the 103 delegates to be apportioned based on the votes in the congressional districts. In Philadelphia and suburban districts, Obama is projected to win 23 of the 43 delegates, whereas Clinton is expected to take 12 of the 22 delegates from Pittsburgh and its suburbs. In the 15th District, which covers much of the Lehigh Valley, Clinton is projected to win three of the five delegates. A candidate would have to surpass 70 percent of the vote to grab four. For that reason, neither candidate has spent much time campaigning in the Valley.
Both campaigns publicly insist they are waging a fight for the entire state. ''For this election, the way you have to run it is you have to run all over equally strong,'' said Mark Aronchick, a state finance director for the Clinton campaign.
Still, they need only look at Rendell's 13-point win over Casey in the 2002 primary for evidence of southeastern Pennsylvania's significance. Rendell won just 10 of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania, but he won by 5-to-1 margins in Philadelphia and Bucks County and 9-to-1 in Montgomery County. He won Lehigh and Northampton counties each by more than 30 points.
The 10-county region that stretches from the suburbs of Philadelphia into the Lehigh Valley accounts for about four in 10 state Democratic voters.
''The Clinton campaign knows how important it is to reach out to the broad suburbs of Philadelphia,'' said U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, whose 13th District has seven delegates at stake.
With three days remaining in the contest, the campaigns concede that reaching out to any part of the state now is unlikely to make a significant difference.
''At this point, there will be some parts of the state where persuasion won't matter anymore,'' said Obama spokesman Sean Smith. ''We just need to turn people out.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Who is really a stronger advocate for Hunters?
Obama voted FOR the Vitter amendment which PREVENTS the government from confiscating guns from law abiding citizens during emergencies or martial law. HIllary voted AGAINST it.
Obama was recently fully ENDORSED by the Amnerican Hunters and Shooters Association. Hillary has NOT been endorsed by any such organization.
So who is really for the rights of hunters and legal gun owners?
Obama is for hunters and sportsman as evidenced by his actions and Hillary is just lying to get votes.
Posted by: E Nelson | April 20, 2008 11:41 AM
For Change Vote Obama!
John Mellencamp Small Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8
Bruce Springsteen Radio Nowhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q
Supporting Barack Obama 08!
Posted by: Tongassberry | April 20, 2008 11:43 AM
Remember that Swamp post about how Obama wasn't going to pay "street money" to local organizers in Philadelphia? Remember how supposedly noble the Obama campaign was made to look for not engaging in the practice?
Well, it's just the latest in a long line of campaign lies from the Obama camp.
"Then she let me in on a fact of political life. The Obama people are asking for names of people they can pay to canvass for the candidate. "Any way you look at it, they are paying people." So no street money, but a little canvassing money.http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/17841154.html
I can't wait to watch the reality of what Obama's doing NOT get its own Swamp post like his original lie did.
Posted by: Jeff | April 20, 2008 12:28 PM
This video shows the Pandering of the Clintons ; first they are pushing War with Iraq , back in the late 1990s and now they are Pandering to for the Popular vote !!!!!!!! Obama has not pandered , but, Says it like it is !!!!!!
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Barack Obama was right with his analogy ,
They all were wrong , so why should they, " The Clintons " , have another shot at the Highest Office in the Land ??
And while we are at it , lets get some changes made to that Import Policy to include some FEE Deductions from all the Importers goods that get stuff manufactured in Countries like China , that Currencies are Lower Valued than The USAs currency Value , So to balance out this Loss of deduction from USA wages if these Products we consumer were made in the USA , so these fees go to Our SS and Medicare Systems to make them solvent again and counter this Loss , For crying out Loud , would it hurt these Multi-Billion dollar Greedy bunch of folks that are bleeding the Americans over their Food , Money , my God think about it you Greedy Uncaring Importers of the Tariff Free Clinton trade Policy Era !!!!!
the Trade policies of the USA need to be retooled to balance out these inequalities in the way the wealth of these trades are redistributing , and higher taxes won't work , because of the Loop holes that can be bought in our Government through the Lobbyists and Special Interests . Its time for Change before its too late ... All Products traded between nations should carry with them a Fee paid to every country's SS and Medicare systems , at the same rate as the deductions that are taken from a wage in that country , then a trade balance would begin to form , we all need to push for this type of reform .
http://www.columbia.edu/~ram15/grash.html , in the teaching of Gresham's law of the 14th Century , which can be argued , it is worth debating , about the way we Interpret the way the Concept is possibly Integrated into the present Trade Policies we are Involved in , the one thing thats clear lower valued Currency manipulation will always out compete the high valued , and devalue it , like is the case with our biggest trade deficit holders China and India . http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib137
High Cost of the China-WTO Deal
Posted by: AJ Mesa , AZ | April 20, 2008 12:34 PM
Why isn't anyone writing stories about how Hillary Clinton is only running for the votes of super delegates. She admittedly and whole heartedly does not believe that this election should be based on the popular vote of normal non-super-delegate citizens. Moreover, she bluntly states that the votes of ordinary citizens of the United States of America should not amount to any value whatsoever in this election. I heard her interviewed on NPR stating that pledged delegates who were appointed by elections in previous state primaries should ignore the vote of the people and vote for her regardless of percentages. Please, listen for yourself via this link to npr.org's recording of the interview by Michele Norris. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89476099 Afterwards, ask yourself, "does she care about us?" I demand fair coverage by our evidently spineless commercial media!
Posted by: Philadelphious | April 20, 2008 12:35 PM
Role Model for Children – Obama
A few days ago Obama gave the ‘finger’ to Hillary on national television and smugly laughed about it with his audience. Is this type of malicious immaturity what you want your children to learn: lack of tolerance, vengeance and the bully mentality? After that one event, besides the mindless and uneducated, how could anyone seriously consider this Obama for any office?
Also, Obama’s state-senate candidacy was launched at Weather Underground bombers Ayers house in 1995. Ayers who advocate the violent destruction of America may have much more to do with promoting Obama than we know. The organization MoveOn has aggressively intimidated delegates to vote for Obama and to shun Hillary and is likely closely connected with Ayers. Ayers finally got his bomb – Obama.
Obama also rigged his election to become senator by unfairly disqualifying his opponents. He did this by meticulously finding fault with each of the other candidates signed petitions until each of the contenders had to drop out, Obama was the last on standing, there was no election. This was another finger gesture towards the American public by Obama.
If this isn’t enough, look at Obama’s affiliations:
Wright
Meeks
Ayers
Abongo “Roy” Obama
Rashid Khalidi
Robert Malley
Hamas
McPeaks
Rezko
Auchi
And the list goes on…
This may be the time of the Anti-Christ, but do you want to be on the list of people who voted for him?
Posted by: Bobby Alexson | April 20, 2008 12:54 PM
DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTS ...
"Vast right-wing conspiracy" leader's paper backs Clinton
PHILADELPHIA: Could it be the "vast right wing conspiracy" is having second thoughts?
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Sunday by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, whose owner and publisher, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, personally funded many of the investigations that led to President Clinton's impeachment in 1998.
It was one of a handful of endorsements the New York senator has received from Pennsylvania newspapers before the state's primary Tuesday. Most of the state's major papers have endorsed Barack Obama.....
WHY ARE THE PEOPLE HILLARY USED TO EXCORIATE AS FANATICALLY EVIL RIGHTWING CONSPIRATORS PREVENTING HER AND HER HUSBAND FROM DOING THE PEOPLE'S WORK NOW SUPPORTING HER!
WAKE UP CLINTONITES! YOU ARE BEING BAMBOOZLED AND USED, AGAIN!
Posted by: Martin Edwin Andersen | April 20, 2008 1:02 PM
After talking about the importance of voters in the ten remaining contests, Hillary encourages pledged delegates and superdelegates to vote against the will of the people. I hope the voters of PA show her the door.
“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.” - Hillary Clinton in 2000
Posted by: Matt | April 20, 2008 1:06 PM
To Bobby Alexson: Before your mouth spews out any more hatred and untruth, perhaps you should take a deep breath and go check out your facts. Then come back, and try again, thanks!
Posted by: tony | April 20, 2008 2:52 PM
Clinton's connections to Mr. Alamoudi of the American Muslim Council should be looked into. Hillary does appear to working all sides including the right wing as she betrays her own party. Is this how she plans to lead the country?
Posted by: Catherine | April 20, 2008 3:01 PM
"Remember that Swamp post about how Obama wasn't going to pay "street money" to local organizers in Philadelphia? Remember how supposedly noble the Obama campaign was made to look for not engaging in the practice?
Well, it's just the latest in a long line of campaign lies from the Obama camp.
"Then she let me in on a fact of political life. The Obama people are asking for names of people they can pay to canvass for the candidate. "Any way you look at it, they are paying people." So no street money, but a little canvassing money.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/17841154.html
I can't wait to watch the reality of what Obama's doing NOT get its own Swamp post like his original lie did. Jeff"
Jeff, if you wait for Obama's Swamp Fan Club to post the truth about their candidate and correct their earlier post, you'll die of old age. They won't. Which is why people like you MUST.
Posted by: Bruce | April 20, 2008 3:32 PM
This nomination process needs to end right here, next Tuesday.
Contact everyone you know in Pennsylvania and ask them to support Obama. Let's send Hillary back to New York and Bill back to the mothballs as soon as possible, before they ruin the democratic electorate.
Posted by: Susan in PA | April 20, 2008 4:13 PM
Interesting article, especially the observations that the popular vote does not matter in all of Pennsylvania, but rather in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and that unless one of the candidates takes these areas by overwhelming margins, the likelihood is a split in delegates, like Texas.
It is also worth nothing that there is not a precise correlation between delegate lead and popular vote, and that Obama does not lead in the popular vote by 700,000. Roughly 400,000 of his lead comes from caucus states, and caucuses do not test the popular vote, they show which campaign has supporters who can attend caucuses, and neither the delegates nor the votes from Michigan and Florida have not been counted.
At best, Obama has a slender lead over Clinton, who will close the gap quickly if the credentials committee seats the delegate from Florida and Michigan proportionally, which would seem fair, given that before those elections Obama was trailing badly in both states in the polls (19 and 26 percent to Clinton's 50 to 55 percent).
Then there are the remaining contests. Given the current polls, it looks like Obama and Clinton will split the pledged delegates, leaving him with fewer than 1900 and her with fewer than 1800 (without Florida and Michigan).
It is also worth noting that Obama and Clinton have split the primary vote and each has a very different demographic base, creating questions about which actually is the more electable that the Democratic nominating process seems designed to obscure, not confirm.
Finally, it is worth remembering that Obama's lead in delegates comes not only from excluding Florida and Michigan, but from the caucus states, and that the general election will not consist of caucuses that Obama supporters can dominate. It will be like primaries, where Clinton has actually done as well or better, especially in key states like Ohio and Texas (where she lost delegates not because she lost the popular vote but because Obama's supporters flooded the caucuses.)
Posted by: Joesson | April 20, 2008 6:50 PM
So all those caucuses Bill Clinton won in 1992 shouldn't really have counted then?
Posted by: Patricia | April 21, 2008 2:21 AM
WHy isnt anyone writing about MOVEON.ORG being attacked by Hillary, on Tape. This Dem Base Activist group, started up to support Pres Clinton during his impeachment!!!! Why is this not FRONT PAGE NEWS????
Posted by: lee | April 21, 2008 10:42 AM
The Clintons received $15 million from the Emir of Dubai (both the former and present) over the last 10 years as part of their $109 million earnings. The present Emir of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, has been known to visit Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. In his testimony before the 9-11 commission, George Tenet acknowledged that there was a problem in attacking Bin Laden's camp because "you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this."
Posted by: nazcalito | April 21, 2008 1:11 PM