So, Hillary did win Pennsylvania, as expected, and so close to the much-mentioned 10-point margin hurdle that the media is happily rounding up in its reports on the subject. Hillary’s campaign continues on and there’s a lot of rhetoric being slung about as the two camps work to secure enough superdelegate support to claim the nomination.
Obama, of course, points out that he’s won more primaries, is ahead in the delegate count, and under DNC has won more popular votes.
The Clinton campaign, of course, happily points out that they’ve won more key states, and if DNC rules were set aside, they’d have the lead currently in the popular vote count. (Of course, that includes a big net win in Michigan where Obama kept his word and didn’t appear on the ballot…but I digress.)
And of course, the political corner of the news world, and political blogs have been chock full of stats showing how Hillary wins among older voters, and in the northeast, while Obama wins among younger voters and the south and west.
One discussion I haven’t heard, however, is whether any thought is being given to how this election could impact future elections. Under the political circumstances, both Obama and Hillary will likely have coattails…although the down-ticket folks brought along will likely depend on which candidate’s coattails are being considered.
So, if one candidate is stronger in parts of the country that have been growing, and among voters who have longer life expectancies…and the other candidate’s strength is with a dwindling population base….shouldn’t some conjecture about long-term impacts of candidate choice factor into the deliberations of the Democratic party bosses and strategists?
[Note -- In the interest of disclosure, I should point out that I won't be voting for either Barak or Hillary in November. While I think they both have potential to be at least decent Presidents, and I have no special love for McCain, I won't be able to vote for the Democratic nominee. Congress will presumably remain in Democratic hands, and the thought of a Democratic monopoly in Washington scares me almost as much as the Republican monopoly did.]