Why Obama's leads in Ohio and Pennsylvania are realistic.

Polls today show Barack Obama beating John McCain in Ohio (by nine points according to SurveyUSA) and Pennsylvania (by two points according to Rasmussen).  These results may seem surprising since Obama lost each state by about 9% to Clinton despite investing significant time and resources into each state.  Concern over whether Obama can reach white working-class voters in this region has been epidemic this spring.

I have spent most of the past fifteen years as a resident of both Pennsylvania and Ohio and have some ideas as to why Obama has a good chance of winning both in November.  Below the fold I will ramble about why the news that Obama is leading in both states now is not a surprise, and why Obama has a good chance of winning both states in November.

If the Democratic Party in each state is unified, Obama should win each of these states.  Remember than Clinton had Ed Rendell and the party machinery in many of the cities (including both Pittsburgh and Allegheny County) on her side.  Those machines ought to deliver much larger returns for Obama in the general election.  He should also do better in Bucks and Montgomery County than he did in the primary, but my sense of Pennsylvania from living in the state about a decade is it is especially influenced by machine politics and the reputations of established pols and their families.  Incumbents rarely lose in statewide politics unless there is a major wave (like the 1994 electoral wave that swept Rick Santorum into the Senate and the 2006 wave that swept him out).  Familiar names on the ballot (like Clinton or Casey) have substantial advantages in a state that values stability.  Political machines may be a thing of the past in many parts of this country, but machine politics is very much alive in western Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the state.  

Hillary Clinton had the support of most of Pennsylvania's municipal and country leaders, as well as former Philadelphia mayor and sitting Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell.  Those factors, as well as the name "Clinton" went a long way towards securing her victory in April; John McCain, however, will lack those advantages.  Getting Rendell, Bob Casey, Michael Nutter, Dan Oronoto, Luke Ravenstahl, Scranton Mayor Christopher Doherty, and Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed (among others) united behind one candidate ought to provide the Democratic nominee with a turnout boost in November.  Add that to the hundreds of thousands of new Democratic voters on the rolls in Pennsylvania and Obama should offset those registered as Democrats who will not vote for him due to racial bias.

Structural changes in Ohio since 2004 are promising to Obama.  Victories over the past couple of years in Canton, Chillicothe, and Lorain leave Democrats as mayors of all ten of Ohio's largest cities.  Obama had the support of the mayors in Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati in the primary; he should now have machines working for him in all of the urbanized regions in the state.  With those mayors, as well as Governor Ted Strickland's office now working for Obama rather than nodding his head vigorously as Obama's opponent rails into the nominee, Obama will have the advantage of institutional support in the general election that he lacked in the primary.  He may also have popular Senator Sherrod Brown advocating his candidacy, which cannot hurt in Lorain, Cuyahoga, and Summit counties, and may have effects elsewhere in the state.  (I assume the campaign will not seek out the support of Youngstown-based ex-Attorney General Marc Dann, and may ask him to endorse McCain.  Dann's scandal, however, does not appear to be tainting the state Democratic party as a whole, and should not affect the November election.)  

One other structural change in Ohio will prove significant this fall.  Instead of having the state chair of the Republican candidate in charge of the state's voting practices, Ohio now has Jennifer Brunner as Secretary of State pledging to hold free and fair elections.  There will no doubt be problems at polling places in November, but the systemic statewide attempts at disenfranchising Ohio Democrats that plagued 2004 will not be in place in 2008.

What wasn't evident in March 4's primary is how toxic the Republican Party has become in this state over the past three years (due to both the actions of the Bush administration and the particular malfeasance of the Ohio Republican Party and former Governor Bob Taft), and my sense has always been that the eventual Democratic nominee would have about a five-point advantage over any Republican because of the state's mood.  That the SurveyUSA poll shows an Obama lead of more than five points is promising, yet not surprising news.

My analysis does not take into account any advantages Obama may gain this summer through his continuing voter registration drive, his eventual pick for Vice President, or the substantial advantage Obama is sure to have in media buys and field offices in both states.  Indeed, SurveyUSA and Rasmussen have as snapshots of the present leads for Obama.  He could well extend these leads over the coming months as the Democratic Party continues to united around its nominee and more voters are brought into the fold.

John McCain cannot win the election without taking at least one of Pennsylvania and Ohio.  If Obama's leads in Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and Virginia polling endure, McCain would more likely have to win both of these states to have a path to the presidency.  My sense is the advantages Obama has in both states are real and he will likely win both come November 4.