PA primary, and a question for Bostonians

[cellio]

No surprises here -- with 99.3% counted Clinton won PA by 8.6% (54.3 - 45.7) (full results here), enough to continue an increasingly-ugly fight but not the clear win she needed in order to be viable. Obama isn't much affected; a win would have helped him but everyone expected him to lose, so a loss doesn't seem to hurt. Apparently she got the older rural white vote and he got the younger urban black vote, as everyone expected. I wonder if months of arguing about demographics will be better or worse than months of mud-slinging? Though I guess after the people are done voting, with no winner, things might change. I do wish that, in the absence of news in one area, the online media were more inclined to report actual news in other areas. (I'm glad my dead-tree newspaper still does a reasonable job of that.)

Some folks have been claiming that the media are biased against Clinton. I don't see it, really; there's plenty of bias against Obama too. Who actually believes that "the media" speak with one voice? It's important to use multiple news sources precisely because they don't. But for those who claim an anti-Clinton bias, what's with reporting this as a win by 10%? At best you can round (legitimately) to 9. (While I was writing this the site updated, now reporting 54.6 to 45.4. That's still not 10% unless you do your math by rounding one number and then substracting from 100 to get the other. I could see some sloppy reporters doing that, but those weren't the published numbers this morning when I saw 10% headlines.)

In unrelated news... friends in Boston, is this report accurate? (Link from Metahacker on LJ.) Legislation is pending to restrict public movement of people suspected of being gang members -- sponsored by Democrats? WTF? That seems really out of character for most Democrats at all, let alone New England Democrats. Or is this some sort of trick where you introduce a bill you know can't pass to get some of your constituents off your back, while hoping other people see what you're doing and don't hold it against you?

Comments

[astroprisoner.livejournal.com]

So far as I know, the story is accurate.

And I hate to shatter an illusion, but that type of thing doesn't even raise an eyebrow when it comes from Massachusetts Democrats. This state's answer to anything is "Pass a new law against it."

Or is this some sort of trick where you introduce a bill you know can't pass to get some of your constituents off your back, while hoping other people see what you're doing and don't hold it against you?

Probably not. The news story said "The bill, which was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee this month, has the support of numerous politicians, including Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi."

That's Boston Globe code speak for "This bill has the right people behind it, and is expected to pass." The short-and-easy lesson of Boston politics is that if DiMasi is behind a bill, it will pass...if he's against it, the bill will go down in flames.

Oh...this is my opinion only, but speaking as a guy who doesn't support any of the three candidates (and will be voting for none of them no matter who gets the Democratic nod), I wouldn't say that the media is biased against Clinton so much as a lot of reporters seem mesmerized by Obama and are willing to let things slide. There seems to be a conventional wisdom that Obama is a great guy, so he shouldn't be pestered with tough questions that might burnish the image. I could be wrong about that, but it's the impression I get as a neutral observer.

If my impression is right, it's too bad for Obama because after Denver, he's going to get hammered and he's not going to know how to handle it. I see a parallel here between Obama and Kerry in '04. Kerry was used to years of kid-gloves treatment by the Massachusetts press, and then after the convention when he had to face the national press he got beat up routinely by reporters who didn't feel beholden to be nice to him.

The way things look right now, you can expect the same thing to happen to Sen. Obama around Labor Day (assuming he gets the nomination) and the poor guy is going to look shell-shocked when it happens.

[cellio]

And I hate to shatter an illusion, but that type of thing doesn't even raise an eyebrow when it comes from Massachusetts Democrats. This state's answer to anything is "Pass a new law against it."

Ok; thanks for clarifying that. You guys have PR that much outpaces reality, it would appear. (You can probably tell that I have never lived there.)

I don't support any of the three major candidates either, though Obama (uniquely in this field) has distinguished himself as someone with character, and that's one of the things that matters to me. If PA is deemed a swing state I might be willing to do a vote trade with someone in a state with a foregone conclusion; I've done that in the past. For Obama it would be a straight trade; for Clinton or McCain the price would be much higher. :-) (We're talking "get an electoral vote for the libertarian" higher.)