In Ohio, where Catholics account for 20% of voters, Senator Clinton won white Catholic voters by 31 points. In Pennsylvania, white Catholics could be closer to a third of the vote. If she were to match her Ohio performance in Pennsylvania, white Catholics alone would give her 20% of the overall vote.

For Obama, an uphill battle in Pennsylvania
By Dan Balz
6 March 2008

Pennsylvania's April 22 primary stands as the next big battleground in the Democratic presidential race and Barack Obama has no good options. He can stand and fight, and probably lose, or try to downplay the contest, and lose by an even bigger margin. In terms of demographics, Pennsylvania is Ohio squared.

Everything that worked for Hillary Clinton in Ohio is there in Pennsylvania in greater numbers. The Post ran a chart in Thursday's editions comparing the Democratic electorates in the two states. Obama's campaign should tape it on every office wall in their North Michigan Avenue headquarters in Chicago as a reminder of the steep hill they have to climb.

Look at some of the comparisons: The black-white mix is roughly similar, meaning Obama will not have a significantly larger African American population to tap. The male-female mix is also roughly similar, with women accounting for nearly 60 percent of the electorate, meaning Clinton will have her solid base upon which to build.

But look, too, at some differences. There are fewer young people and more old people in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, which is good for Clinton and bad for Obama. In Ohio, 44 percent of the Democratic electorate was under age 45 and Obama carried them by 54 percent to 45 percent. In Pennsylvania those voters may represent only a quarter of the electorate. In Ohio, voters over age 65 comprised 14 percent of the electorate and Clinton carried them 72 percent to 26 percent. In Pennsylvania, they may account for a quarter of the Democratic vote.

There are fewer college graduates and more non-college graduates in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, both among the population at large and among white voters. That, too, spells trouble for Obama.

The differences are not hugely significant, but even a slightly less educated electorate plays to Clinton's favor. Again, look at what happened in Ohio. Among white, non-college educated voters, who accounted for almost half the electorate, Clinton beat Obama by 44 percentage points -- 71 percent to 27 percent. Among white, college graduates, who were just 29 percent of the electorate, she won, but by just 7 points.

Clinton has generally done well with Roman Catholics. In Ohio, she won white Catholic voters by 31 points. There they accounted for a fifth of the electorate. In Pennsylvania, white Catholics could be closer to a third of the vote. If she were to match her Ohio performance in Pennsylvania, white Catholics alone would give her 20 percent of the overall vote.

So the deck is stacked in Pennsylvania. A Clinton victory there will intensify a debate among Democrats about whether Obama has a "big state" problem. In states with more than 100 pledged delegates, Clinton has won California, New York, Texas, Ohio and New Jersey. Obama has won Illinois and will be favored in the May primary in North Carolina.

Clinton also claims victories in the disputed states of Michigan and Florida. That's an unfair claim because both states were sanctioned by the Democratic Party and stripped of their convention seats. Both may be headed for do-over contests later this spring.

With Obama continuing to hold a lead in pledged delegates, Clinton will point to her success in big-state primaries as she tries to woo superdelegates to support her candidacy. It is a justifiable argument. When matched head to head in states with big and diverse electorates, Clinton has consistently defeated Obama.

Her advisers argue that shows she will be a stronger general election candidate in some of the major battlegrounds in the fall. Pennsylvania may well add to that record.

What are Obama's counter claims? One is that many of those big states will vote Democratic no matter which candidate is the nominee. California, New York, Illinois and probably New Jersey fit that category. Clinton will point to Ohio and Pennsylvania as evidence of her ability to win critical battlegrounds, but Obama will counter that his victories key Midwest states that have been competitive in recent elections -- Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota -- show that he's best positioned to compete in key swing states.

Another Obama counter is that he will have a far easier time winning over her voters than she will have winning over his voters. The logic here is that her base of traditional Democrats are hungry to recapture the White House not likely to back John McCain in the fall, but Obama's constituency will be less transferable. Independent voters may be more reluctant to back Clinton, his younger voters may have less enthusiasm for Clinton and his African American voters may feel cheated if he is not the nominee.

Obama also will argue that he has more ability to expand the electoral map. He will point to success in Virginia and North Carolina -- if he wins there -- as partial evidence, and he will highlight his endorsements from prominent red-state politicians -- Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius among them -- as proof that they see him as a far better nominee in their parts of the country. Clinton will note that she won Arizona on Super Tuesday as well as Arkansas and Tennessee.

Clinton and Obama remain remarkably evenly matched. Neither has shown an ability to consistently peel away the others' voters. Obama could close down the race by defeating Clinton in Pennsylvania and will have seven weeks to make his case to the voters there. But it will be a hard sell, given the landscape and Clinton's support from Gov. Edward Rendell. Which is why the race is could go on well beyond the Keystone state.