Thomas Schaller

Thomas F. Schaller is an associate professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and author of The Stronghold: How Republicans Captured Congress but Surrendered the White House.

Recent Articles


Even though her Pennsylvania win is arguably Hillary Clinton's biggest since New Hampshire -- especially given the gobs of cash she’s raised since Tuesday night -- the fact is that the chances of a Clinton comeback, though better now than they were Monday, are still slim. And so, though some folks are going to find my column today in the Baltimore Sun a bit premature, and maybe very presumptuous, the issue of her departure from the race will need to be addressed. A quick sample: A year ago -- heck, even five months ago -- Mrs. Clinton's nomination was generally viewed as certain. Compounding the jarring effect of her transformation from inevitable winner into underachieving runner-up is the lost opportunity of her nomination as a potentially historic moment. The combined effect will make Mrs. Clinton's defeat a tougher pill to swallow - for her, for her supporters and for other key elements of the Democratic coalition, especially women, who cast a majority of votes in the country and...


I have mad respect for Tom Edsall , truly, but he’s just plain wrong in his new HuffPo piece about how the white male voter just must be crucial (as ever...yawn) to all things electoral in American politics. And invoking the Pennsylvania primary as a case in point was not the way to go. Computing the crosstabs from last night's results (see page 6 of 7 of exits here ), I have Hillary Clinton earning a net advantage of 16.6% from her support among white women, because she won them 68-32% and they constitute 46% of all voters. By contrast, she netted just 4.6% from white men, because she won them more narrowly (57-43%) and they were a much smaller share of the electorate (33% of voters statewide). Overall, then, her total net white advantage was 21.2%. Barack Obama won blacks overwhelmingly, giving him about 12% statewide overall margin from their votes, thereby producing the final statewide margin of 9 percent. Clinton thus produced almost four-fifths of that advantage among whites...


So, David Sirota is correct again about the curious, but entirely logical u-shaped relationship between states' black population share and Barack Obama’s performance. Obama does well where the black population is low (and therefore racial polarization is low as well) or high (black votes swamp out polarizing effects). Hillary Clinton wins the states with medium-sized black populations where polarization is strong enough to overwhelm the black voting base. This is why Obama should do well in North Carolina and Indiana should be competitive -- just as the polls as of now suggest. --Tom Schaller


A few weeks ago, NBC/ National Journal’s Matthew Berger reported that there were 101,499 new Democratic applications and 132,688 others who switched to the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania since January 1, compared to just 32,191 new Republican registrants and 13,937 switchers. Overall, these increases boosted the Democrats to a 900,000-voter registration advantage (4.1 million v. 3.2 million), an almost 50 percent increase over the 630,000-plus advantage Democrats enjoyed as recently as November 2007, according to the Pennsylvania secretary of state's office. So that bodes well for the Democrats in November, a point Holly Yeager makes quite convincing and eloquently in her online piece for the Prospect . But what, if anything, do the registration trends tell us about what’s going to happen tonight in the Democratic primary race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Nobody can be sure, and without seeing the county-by-county numbers the following is entirely speculative. But, as a...


Pharmaceutical companies spend millions market-testing the retail names for their prescription drug products (they’ve got the dough), and apparently names that include z’s and x’s for some reason create a soothing effect: Xanax, Zoloft, etc. But these new television ads (Jezebel caught this yesterday and has the video ) for Aciphex —a drug that helps reduce acid reflux—are a bit disturbing. In the ads, the pronunciation is perilously close to “ass effects.” (Yes, I confess to having my ears perk up while otherwise ignoring the commercial.) Is that really the best name the folks at Ortho-McNeil-Janssen could dream up? It sounds more fitting for a Guantanamo torture procedure or a north New Jersey strip club. (Bada Bing!) I gather they were trying to work the word “acid” into the name in some way, but Nexium and Zantac are much smarter and safer alternatives. I mean, does anyone want to walk into the CVS and proclaim to the pharmacist, “I’m here to pick up my Aciphex”? --Tom Schaller