Originally printed in response to the following query on Marc Ambinder's blog:

Can McCain's PA Gamble Work?

Some thoughts from Jennifer Rubin here.

Let's make it the question of the morning.

Can John McCain win Pennsylvania? How? Why? Why Not?

I have heard reports from the field that McCain is making a serious play for white ethnics in Philly.  The problem with this strategy, though, is that the seriousness of any play McCain makes on Obama's own turf will likely be dwarfed by Obama's own field operation.  It is said that McCain's strategy to victory in Pennsylvania is shoring up support in GOP strongholds like Central PA and containing Obama's margins in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.  The truth of this scenario is much more complicated than that. 

Pennyslvania is a much more heterogenious state than the simple "Pensyltucky" formulation espoused by many observers of the state's politics.  The partisan composite in various regions of the state cannot be oversimplified as such.  Within one state's borders, you have the Rust Belt (Pittsburgh), the Amtrak Corridor (Philly), the Twin Tiers (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre and the Lehigh Valley), and Appalachia (everyhwere else).  If the demographics of the state were more balanced, a statewide campaign would face the same challenge as though it were running in Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Upstate New York simultaneously. This, as we know, is not the case in Pennsyvlania, and the conventional wisdom recently  has held that a Democrat need only win the Amtrak Corridor (Philly) to carry the whole state (see Ed Rendell). 

Just as a side note, I think much of why we see a much tighter race in Ohio, the most demographically analogous state to PA, is that there is no correlarly to the Amtrak Corridor and the Twin Tiers in that state. 

Whoever campaign wins Pennsylvania will be the one most attuned to the fundamental heterogeneity of the electorate there.  Both campaigns may be looking at much tighter internals, but they are probably looking at a very precise regional breakdown as well.  From what I've heard, the McCain campaign is more visible than expected in Philly right now.  But from what I've also heard, those new Democratic regestrants aren't going to him this election cycle. The challenge for the Obama campaign in Philly is to offset through new and "base" voters any gains made my McCain on the margin.  They need also to perform (not overperform, but merely perform) as expected for a Democrat in Pittsburgh (where even John "Heinz" Kerry didn't exactly kill).  

I've also heard reports of better than expected Democratic polling and regeitration in some GOP pockets like Southwestern and Central PA.  The Dems won't carry these regions, but just as McCain can tamp down Obama's margins, Obama can do the same to McCain in other parts of the state. 

The Northern Tier is a harder nut to crack; both campaigns are making a very spirited run for this region by appealing very explicitly to its Blue Collar sensibilities (through Biden, Palin, and to a lesser extent, the Clintons).  I also predict a wash in this area, but I don't know enough about the region's voting history to know if this is typical. 

Both campaigns have cause for optimism.  There is indeed a tactical method to McCain's madness by making a play for PA, but I'm skeptical (though biased) about their overall strategy being sound.  These double-digit leads for Obama may be deceptive, but they certainly aren't coming from nowhere, and like everywhere else in the country, McCain's is a campaign that's playing to one tack and one tack only: turning out its base.  And turning out your own base can only carry you so far when the other side has been cultivating a strategy for over a year now of obviating any gains you make in the form of new votes. But we'll see: I was in New Hampshire last January, I've learned to except anything. 

I've had a week or so to mull over my last post (and responses thereto).  Intervening events, such as this, have also cast a different perspective on the situation in question (i.e., the seemingly lukewarm response to the Obama campaign by alot of Gay voters). 

To wit: the Philadelphia Gay News gave the editorial equivalent of the middle finger to Senator Obama after failing to schedule an interview with them.  This, after news reports of an Obama fundraiser among wealthy gays in New York City where the Senator was encouraged to speak more with the gay press. 

This dustup has given rise to its own subinquiry among gays: who the hell reads the gay press?

I'll get to that in a bit. 

But in context of the larger issue at play here, I've arrived now at a far less drastic, and decidedly un-sexy conclusion: that there is no such as a "gay voter", at least not in the sense that the mainstream media (or the gay media) would like to think. 

Sure there are issues of concern to gays (who vote).  However, gay voters have overwhelmingly cast their lot with the Democratic Party for a number of historical reasons (namely, that the Democratic Party's genuflection-coated indifference to gay issues is objectively far superior to the Republican Party's outright hositility towards them). 

The Democratic primary could be viewed as a gay primary of sorts and that is nowhere more true than this year.  With two candidates favorably disposed to the panoply of gay issues, gay voters are faced with a genuine dilemma.  More crucially, the protracted nature of this primary season has given a larger swath of gay voters a more meaningful say in this election.  While it would be negligently inaccurate to say that gay voters only live in places like Chelsea, West Hollywood, Oaklawn, and the Short North, these concentrated communities provide telling political barometers of what the community is feeling. 

But back to the gay press.  If PGN publisher Mark Segal's responses are any indication, this is a subgenre of alternative media that has developed perhaps a slightly overrexagerated notion of its role in the community.  To partially retract my earlier comment, obviously people do read gay media.  Whether or not it plays a role in actually shaping opinion in the community its impossible to say.  Anybody who has any demographic evidence (however anecdotal) to this event is urged to share it here. 

Obviously, though, the PGN's target audience is not the vast majority of gays who don't live in places like the Gayborhood.  Their target, quite simply, is the Gay Street and its inhabitants, whether resident or transient.  The Gay Street is indeed very diverse, but not because very many gays actually live there (or would care to).  It is the single most salient manifestation of gay culture to gays, whose sexual identities are often subjured to other identities (gender, race, class, faith).

The Gay Street is also, suffice to say, very upmarket these days, which brings me back to my original point.  If we are to view Gay voters similarly to every other portion of the electorate, then the following should be true: Hillary polls best among women, blue collars and seniors (the latter two being drastically undersampled groups among gays) while Obama does best with blacks and young voters (the former also drastically undersampled among gays).  Both candidates go back and forth among white men, with affluent whites tending to favor Obama overall. 

So where is Hillary's edge coming from? I would wager that she's doing better than usually vis-a-vis the gen pop with young gay voters and affluent white men.  While the urge to revisit the "Liza Factor" is undeniable, I'm not convinced that that moves very many voters.  There is also the open question of gender here.  Is gender such a potent solidarity good for white gay males.  If so, then why?

What about race? Is there a generational discomfort with some gays vis a vis voting for a Black man? One commentor addressed this point extensively and I would just like to reiterate that I'm not saying most gays think most blacks are homophobic, but that there seems to be enough resistance to Obama among a segment of the community to suggest that his obstacles are more fundamental than simply not sitting down to talk with the local gay press. 

To some of you, I realize I may have reduced this sampling to a point where it's no longer meaningful but I want you to get at what I'm trying to surmise: where Hillary's edge is coming from in a portion of the community that should demographically favor her opponent.  I'm a big fan of debunking what alot of identity groups think about themselves (and as anyone who belongs to one should know, it never gets old!) so every stone is worth turning up. 

All insight is welcome.  And thanks again!

As a substantive matter, "the street" is a remarkably worthless political metric.  Take it from me, I'm Arab. As such, the complex totality of my political outlook is reducable to what others around me, in mass quantity, take as a given.  And so it is often bandied about by self-proclaimed experts in the field that political discourse among Arabs (ha!) is explainable by some sort of "Arab Street" where political sentiment and expression is defined by a critical mass of external issues, not by an individual calculus of concerns.  To wit: Arabs live on streets, usually among other Arabs.  And because streets in the Arab world tend very often to be hot, chaotic, dirty, and impoverished, Arab political expression is probably manifest of these elements alone and nothing more. 

The thinking is no doubt more complicated than that, but you have it there in a nutshell. 

It's a flimsy and highly presumptuous thesis, but one that has gained quite a bit of currency among public opinion makers (and havers).  And since we're discursively stuck with it, we may as well spread it around and apply it to as many different groups as possible. 

Now you're probably wondering what any of this has to do with the gays, since they are no doubt way more fun to talk about than Arabs.

Bear with me, my gentle snowflakes. 

This morning's Philadelphia Inquirer had this interesting bit on Chelsea Clinton's recent forray into the Gayborhood, Philly's . . . well . . . Gayborhood, for want of a more inventive name.  The piece depicts a recent Clinton event at Woody's, a venerable (and IMHO, highly overrated) mainstay of the Philadelphia gay scene.  Indeed, Chelsea has become her parents' campaign's go-to for these types of events, having previously made the rounds at gay bars in Texas and, perchance, other gay venues on the primary map. 

She is, admittedly, an appealing asset to target this reliably Democratic demographic.  She's young, trendy, seemingly down-to-earth and accessible.  We've seen her grow up before our very eyes just like, I dunno, Claire Danes.  And as bona fide presidential issue, she is also directly proximate to both Senator and President Clinton in a way that makes her a more legitimate surrogate for them than anybody else on the planet. 

It is undeniably smart politics.  But is it, for gay voters, the political equivalent of eating ketchup?

The Inquirer article portrays an unusually balanced portrait of where the gay community stands with respect to both candidates at this stage of the game.  Though the cw has been that Senator Clinton has consistantly out-polled Senator Obama among gay voters, the Inquirer introduces us to a Philadelphia gay establishment that is noticeably divided about both candidates.  What is more telling, however, is the admitted basis for alot of this support. 

To wit:

[Rue] Landau, 39, a lawyer and a new mother, is running as an Obama delegate in the First District "because I like his vision for the country." Liberty City last week endorsed Clinton.

Tami Sortman . . . backs Clinton because "she is such a strong woman, which resonates for me as a lesbian. I think a lot of lesbians see that in her. To see a strong woman get this far is just amazing. I look up to her."

With gay and lesbian issues not in play with many gay voters, they have "the luxury" of judging Clinton and Obama on other criteria, says Andrew Chirls, 51, the first openly gay chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

"I get to be like the average Democrat, who evaluates these two people based on all the issues," says Chirls, a partner at Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen. "I don't have to exclude one because of a bad position on gay issues. It feels better to be a multiple-issue voter."

Larry Felzer, board member and former chair of Gay and Lesbian Lawyers of Philadelphia, seconds that motion.

"It's scary to make a decision on a candidate based on a single issue, no matter what that issue is," says Felzer, 45, a lawyer at a nonprofit legal services organization.

Initially undecided, Felzer and Chirls say they are leaning strongly toward Obama. "I like the way he's motivating people, getting them excited about the system," Felzer says.

Jonathan Oriole, 32, a Clinton volunteer who works at a Center City law firm, says many gay men support her "because she's definitely a diva, which is like a goddess to us."

"Every time you knock her down, she gets back up and fights harder. She's strong, powerful, smart and poised, with a sophisticated attitude."

Obviously, we see a wide range of views, all (in one way or another) pointing towards a sense that gay voters do not have a single issue candidate in the Democratic primary.  And, like so many substantive debates in this long primary season, the conversation naturally focuses on the lack of any significant daylight between both candidates on most issues.  In fact, on the only critical difference between both candidates on an issue of importance to gays (DOMA), Senator Obama's stance is more far-reaching than Senator Clinton's. 

In this sense, gay voters really do not have the luxury of being single issue voters in this primary.  And so, we can look at "your average gay voter's" political calculus as much conventional than would otherwise be perceived. 

We see, on the one hand, some gay voters basing their support for Hillary on other identity goods (like gender, in the case of Ms. Sortman) while others basing their support for Obama on rhetorical grounds (in the case of Messrs. Felzer and Chirlis). 

Essentially, gay voters get to disabuse themselves of the notion that there is "a gay choice" in this primary.

Stripped of this panoply of issues and identifiers that attach to the term "Gay", we have the following: an overwhelmingly white, highly educated, upper middle class or urban elites . . . an historically Obamaphilic consituency that presently trends towards Hillary Clinton.  Is something else afoot?

Quite simply, is there something about the "Gay Street" that draws gay voters to Hillary? Does she, inspite of everything else, present a certain (though no doubt substantital bloc) of gay voters with an undeniably appealing solidarity good?

The last quote in the excerpt above is most telling.  Let us call it "the Liza Factor".  In fairness to Mr. Oriole, he seems to be laying out not his view of Senator Clinton but how others in the community view her: as a fighter, a survivor, a drag icon without the drag act (at least that I know of)  She's Mama Ruby come to life, Norma Desmond without the body count,  Judy Garland's "Valley of the Dolls" screen test. 

The problem with such hyperbole is that, primarily, it presents gay voters with a false choice: an icon vs. an unknown quantity.  Worse yet, even it does speak to an admirably sticktuitive aspect of Hillary Clinton's public persona, it also sells her garishly short.  She is a no doubt complex, and highly intelligent figure, and (as my U.S. Senator) a very capable public servant.  Her personal life has been laid bare like no one else's in American politics, and her personal demons are seen as callibrated to her public posture in a way that is probably wide off the mark. 

That said, I have to wonder if there is something more calcified in the thinking of gay voters that lends itself to reflexive support of a Hillary candidacy? Since Andrew Sullivan is on vacation, I'm going to spare you (and myself) any self-satisfying treatises on "gay culture".    That said, whatever common "culture" there may be among gays . . . it sure seems to be pointing towards Hillary.  I wonder why. 

Obviously, Obama doesn't start off as a default favorite in any voter's calculus.  His base has indeed proven to be the more "organic" of the two, bubbling up as the campaign has gotten more momentum.  Even now, it has very few discernible blocks: apart from blacks, young voters, and affluent whites. 

But that said, given the undeniable demographics supporting most concentrated gay communities in the country, why hasn't Obama's showing been more robust? Detractors point to vocal support from anti-gay figures such as Donnie McClurkin, but this was far too isolated and remote of an event to have turned very many voters at such an early stage of the campaign.  It is also easily refutable by Obama's own words in front of black congregations taking his own community to task for its (often) reflexive homophobia, as well as his support from high profile gays like former Clinton confidant David Mixner. 

Then again, is there a drawback to addressing argument to that community that NEEDS to hear it, as opposed to the one that simply WANTS to hear it?

The mind wonders.  

There are still several more weeks to go until the primary, and I'm sure in the interim we'll see that "Gay Street", like any other politically metaphorical street probably signifies nothing.  And that voters will choose individually the candidate who they feel has most earned their vote.  What is not yet clear to me is whether, in embracing "typicality", we'll have arrived at a much more typical understanding of what it means to earn one's vote.