Does Pennsylvania = Ohio?
Polling conducted immediately after Super Tuesday showed Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by ten percentage points in Ohio. After spending $4.4 million in the state–more than twice as much as Clinton–Barack Obama lost Ohio by…ten points (54% to 44%). Clinton’s victory was due, in large part, to her use of a populist economic message to win non-college educated whites by a staggering 40-point margin.
Like Ohio, Pennsylvania also has a large bloc of blue-collar white Democrats. And Obama’s initial position in the state was similar to his original standing in Ohio: for all of March, he trailed Clinton by around 10 points in polls of Pennsylvania primary voters. And just like in Ohio, Clinton’s campaign in Pennsylvania is centered on a populist economic message (watch her new twist on the much-discussed “3 a.m.” spot that shifts focus to home foreclosures and the struggling economy).
Obama, though, may have learned his lesson. In Ohio, he spent heavily on ads targeted to groups already likely to support him (like students) and the messaging in his state-wide ads was less focused, sticking to the broader theme of “bringing change to Washington.” This time around, Obama has been going after Clinton’s white, blue-collar base with ads that borrow from her populist economic playbook. Polling data from the last week shows Obama has closed the gap slightly in Pennsylvania, but he still trails her by around 7 points. He has spent $3.6 million on ad buys, more than double Clinton’s $1.4 million. As the millions of dollars of advertising begin to flood the airwaves, we’ll need to see if Obama can make inroads in an electorate dominated by the blue-collar whites who are Clinton’s base. If he does win–or simply exceeds expectations–in Pennsylvania, it will not be because he outspent Clinton; he’s has been outspending her all along. Instead, the difference will be a better strategy for using his money advantage.
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.