Michael Barone spends a lot of time trying to explain why Barack Obama might win a state that has gone for the Democrat in the last 5 elections. Not quite sure why this needs an elaborate explanation. It's a Dem-leaning state and Obama is doing much better nationally so this really shouldn't be much of a surprise. His theory is that relatively well off people in suburban Philadelphia counties have lost a bunch of money in their houses (even though the housing bubble really didn't hit here) and 401Ks. His concluding sentence is hilarious,
given his theory:
The irony here is that voters motivated by anger at the decline in their wealth seem about to elect a president who has promised to embark on wealth-destroying policies.
In other words, they're going to vote for Obama because George Bush destroyed all their wealth but this is ironic because Obama's going to destroy their wealth. Or something.
I understand Barone was once sane.
