The Aftermath of the Pennsylvania Primary

It was almost two months ago that Clinton spokesman Doug Hattaway loudly declared, “Pennsylvania is the new Iowa”- and how right he was. Almost no one had predicted that the nation’s eye would be focused upon the Keystone State and its late April 22 Primary Day, but focus it did as Pennsylvania was swept up in a six week frenzy of political activity while untold millions were poured into the state. Senator Clinton’s campaign viewed Pennsylvania’s primary as a second opportunity; a chance to reclaim the victory that had slipped through her fingers so many months before in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus. Senator Obama’s camp felt similarly as they eagerly awaited the chance to recreate his Cinderellaesque January 3rd victory in Iowa- the victory that triggered his meteoric rise to the top of the polls and established the Illinois Senator as a viable candidate. For each candidate, it was essentially a reprieve; one that would offer Senator Clinton occasion to re-establish her legitimacy as a contender just as surely as it would offer Senator Obama yet another chance to deliver that final fatal blow. Few people could predict what the coming weeks would hold in Pennsylvania, but perhaps Politico’s Ben Smith did it best when he noted that “if the local mores kept the race relatively genteel in Iowa, Philadelphia is known for no such compunction. Instead, Pennsylvania seems likely to be the theater for a grinding, drawn-out and increasingly bitter conflict.” And so it was.

I won’t recount the many controversies and allegations that have swirled in our state over the past few weeks- culminating in last week’s heated Democratic debate- as the race to the nomination has become increasingly bitter. Suffice it to say that both sides suffered at the hands of the other while campaigning here, and both camps are likely equally glad to be moving on to other states- even if they only hold more of the same. Pennsylvania’s role is finally over as Tuesday’s primary marked our final farewell to the candidates. But did it? Did the primary even change anything? Voters turned out in droves at polls across the state, but many are left wondering what the Pennsylvania results actually mean for the future of both campaigns. To better answer these questions, I turned to some of Villanova’s finest (who were among those that turned out to vote in Pennsylvania’s primary) to ask them their thoughts regarding Tuesday’s primary.

When I asked politically active freshman Amanda Hogan who she supported in Tuesday’s primary, she was effusive in her support for Mr. Obama. When I asked her why, her answer was simple: “he’s been a positive influence on politics,” she said. Though she was disappointed that Mr. Obama had not fared better in Tuesday’s primary (she was hoping for a surprise, stronger-than-expected showing for her candidate), she was confident that the primary results did not harm his bid for the nomination. Fellow Obama voter Kamaria O’Reagan agreed with Hogan’s assessment of the Pennsylvania primary, adding that she doesn’t “think it [the Pennsylvania primary] will determine if he [Obama] gets the nomination or not.” Sophomore Eileen Kim, however, felt otherwise. Like many voters across the country, she admitted that there were things that she did and didn’t like about both Democratic candidates. Ultimately, though, Kim opted for Senator Clinton. She said, “I want insurance that they [Clinton and Obama] will get things done, and I feel more confident in and trust her [Clinton] to do it.” Though voters such as Hogan and O’Reagan cite Mr. Obama’s eloquence and message of change as persuading them, it appears that for others like Kim, Mrs. Clinton’s experience and specific policy plans have proven to be the decisive factor. Not surprisingly, when I asked Kim if she thought the Pennsylvania primary mattered, her response again differed with that of Mr. Obama’s supporters. Said Kim, “I feel like in the end, Hillary will get the nomination… it’s leading that way and everyone keeps waiting for something drastic to happen to change things up.” Based on the students that I talked to, it appears that there is no consensus among voters concerning how much (or how little) Tuesday’s primary results mattered.

Hoping for a decisive answer and a different perspective, I posed the question to a few of Villanova’s resident academics to hear their thoughts concerning Pennsylvania’s primary. First up was presidency scholar Dr. David Barrett. Like some of the above students, Dr. Barrett also cast his ballot for Senator Obama in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, saying “he’s unusually articulate and has a good way with people… and is very calm mannered.” Concerning the primary, Dr. Barrett acknowledged that it was a good win for Senator Clinton; he expected her to have a smaller margin of victory, he said, but nonetheless does not think that Mrs. Clinton will be able to catch up to Mr. Obama, particularly after North Carolina. Dr. Barrett touched upon the negativity surrounding the two campaigns in Pennsylvania, and noted that it would likely hurt the Democratic Party’s chances in November’s general election. Elections scholar Dr. Lara Brown, however, respectfully disagreed. Dr. Brown also voted in Pennsylvania on Tuesday- but unlike Dr. Barrett, Dr. Brown voted for Senator Clinton. Dr. Brown noted that the numbers that have been publicized by the media “are soft; the two candidates are about equal in a 50-50 race because the big picture is that they’re tied.” She elaborated that, “Pennsylvania gave Hillary enough credibility to keep going- a new lease on life- and even though it didn’t change anything, it could be a turning point if she capitalizes upon it.” Indeed, this momentum that Dr. Brown refers to already appears to be manifesting itself financially as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign reported today that it had raised an impressive ten million dollars in the 24 hours following the primary returns.

If nothing else, it is clear that the Pennsylvania primary results raise questions. With Tuesday’s primary being hailed as a decisive victory by Mrs. Clinton’s campaign while being characterized as too little too late by Mr. Obama’s campaign, its significance is undeniable. Indeed, when all is said and done, it’s all relative; relative to the campaigns, relative to the pundits, and perhaps most of all relative to the constituents in the states that have yet to vote.