Dems try to figure out how to deal with six-week break

The pace of campaign news has dropped significantly over in the days since March 4th, as candidates have come to realize that there will be no prompt resolution to this contest. Consider that that the two longest stretches without an election -- from NH to NV and from SC to Super Tuesday -- were only 11 days, and there were the two FL and MI rogue primaries in those periods, not to mention that how disputed the GOP primary was.

Once Mississippi votes on Tuesday, however, it will be six long weeks before the next ballots are cast -- in Pennsylvania, on April 22nd. The Keystone state is already being described as the new Iowa because of how much time the campaigns will have to organize the state, blanket it with advertisement, identify every voter and make sure they get to the polls. Such operations generally only happen in the beginning of January, not in late April.

One consequence of this in the fall will be that the Democratic candidate will be advantaged in Pennsylvania come November. For all the talk about John McCain having time to regroup and prepare for the general (the NYT has a new article detailing the McCain camp's opportunity), Obama and Clinton will have detailed list of supporters and networks when they have to gear up for the fall in the Keystone state. They will be criss-crossing the state for six weeks without any Republican response, and they will likely be very well covered by the media. In fact, I would be surprised if the Pennsylvania media covers the general election with that intensity until some time in October.

Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes, and it is one of the swingiest of states, a must-win state for any Democratic candidate and at the top of any Republican's priority list -- both Gore and Kerry barely won the state. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Democratic candidate emerges out of April 22nd with a clear lead in the state's general election polls, unless, that is, the Democratic primary gets nasty (much more nasty than it has been up to now).

Another very interesting storyline to follow here is how well the two campaigns manage to set the spin of the upcoming states: Which states will come to have the most clout, and which will be portrayed as the most decisive? For example, Wisconsin's February 19th primary had come to be portrayed as much more decisive and important than Virginia's on the 12th, though the latter is a larger state. And it is Clinton's rout in Wisconsin that set her campaign's storyline of doom for the next two weeks. (By the way, speaking of clout, think about how much clout a medium-sized state like New Jersey or Arizona would have had had they moved to mid-March rather than Super Tuesday).

Hillary Clinton wants the Pennsylvania primary to be portrayed as the next great Super Tuesday. She has nothing to lose, in the sense that she is likely out anyway if she loses the state. But for now, she is generally considered to have a significant advantage. The latest ARG poll released yesterday has Clinton up 52% to 41% against Obama -- including a truly massive lead among women. And I have already detailed her demographic advantage in the state (not to mention that it will be a closed primary). Clinton is thus hoping to gain as much momentum as possible from Pennsylvania. If she wins big there as she did in Ohio, she will continue to press her argument that she is winning the big, significant states and she will head into May (I can't believe I'm writing this) with renewed strength.

Obama knows that he will hold on to his delegate lead unless something dramatically shifts -- and unless he weakens considerably across the remaining states. He does not really need to win Pennsylvania; even holding it at an Ohio-type level would be fine, as long as he can keep his advantage in places like North Carolina and perhaps Indiana (on May's Super Tuesday...). Therefore, Obama would like the campaign's storyline over the next 6 weeks to be the relative unimportance of Pennsylvania compared to other states that might be coming up after. That way, a Clinton win in Pennsylvania would not be covered as the momentum-changing victory that March 4th was but (hopefully for Obama) almost dismissed as an expected result.

This strategy could work (if Clinton continues to lead in polls, the media will be less interested in the contest) but the problem is that the Obama campaign will contest the state very strongly -- since it cannot afford losing the state by a large margin considering the number of delegates at play. And that will make it difficult for them to minimize the state's importance. Furthermore, there is a risk for Obama: He wants this campaign to be over ASAP, and even if he can't force Clinton out he wants to make it seem that she is out of the game, only clinging in to a race she cannot win (this would be particularly important in moving donors and superdeleagtes). But if he is talking about North Carolina and Indiana too much, it will emphasize that we are in for the long haul.

Overall, both campaigns are unsure of how to proceed, for the situation is new in so many ways: On the one hand, a candidate playing catch-up -- and no one really knows how realistic her chances are -- but facing no financial difficulty (anymore), whereas traditionally it is finances that get candidates out of the race. On the other, a front-runner who is unable to close this off, who realizes that even he can't win without the help of superdelegates and who is unsure of where the danger could come form (Michigan and Florida, anyone?)

Six weeks might be a long time, but it might be necessary to sort some of this out.