Pennsylvania Thread: Clinton Wins by 10

Clinton by 8 (0.00 / 0)

I used to think that Obama would make PA very close, maybe 2%, but that was before "bitter". Now I'll be happy with anything in single digits.

Looking ahead, if Clinton wins PA by 5-10, we'll have two more weeks of limbo, but only two more weeks. She's running out of time and states, and the superdelegates know it, but you can't push somebody who just won a big state by a healthy margin out of the race. So the superdelegates will wait for North Carolina and then will end it.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 20:14:18 PM UTC

Politico? Feh. (3.00 / 2)

Clinton cannot claim "victory" unless she has a landslide.  She is too far behind in pledged delegates to be plinking around with a 5-10% win.  She needs 25%-30% to tip the delegates over.

So, I guess Obama might be stretching to call a close loss a "victory" however anything short of a overwhelming victory for Clinton is a loss.  Oh, she may say a win is a win is a win.  But it will not do her much good and it will not get her close enough to a nomination.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

---

by: hillgiant @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 20:37:16 PM UTC

It Doesn't Matter (3.00 / 1)

PA Doesn't Matter, she can't get close to
damaging his delegate lead in PA unless
she gets 70% of the vote.

When I get caught up in the spin -
I tell myself this one thing:
It's the delegates, stupid.

---

by: salsal @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 21:15:37 PM UTC

My prediction: She'll "win," but (0.00 / 0)

it'll be by 4 or 5 points, which may as well be a loss from the standpoint of her campaign's viability.  I think she'll stay in the race if she wins by even 1 point, but it's going to be a lot harder for her to raise money and keep the superdelegates she already has, much less convince any undecided ones to support her.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / Attack of the Machine Elves / My Twitter feed

---

by: Big Tex @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 21:45:52 PM UTC

What I don't understand (3.00 / 1)

is why she and her campaign insist that since Obama is spending more money he should win. She is the one that has the family ties, and the endorsement of the governor, and the 20 point margin as of a few weeks ago.

Anything less is a loss in my book--as in Clinton lost ground. Obama is closing the gap. She can't be "Rocky" because she never was behind in PA. Talk about some spin.

She has stated a "win is a win" so obviously if she wins by at least one vote, she's going to stick around. I notice that now they say IN is a "must win" but not NC. Why can't she close the deal there in NC if she is so much more electable? I'm tired of the argument that  only she can win the big states-- that go blue in the general anyway. (*note I contend that she did not win "red" TX in the end after the caucus votes were tabulated)

---

by: txcoles6 @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 22:11:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly (0.00 / 0)

Complaining about the amount of money spent is silly.  If she had the money, don't you think she would have spent it?  Perhaps there is a reason Obama is out-raising Clinton?

I hate the money game that comes with high stakes politics these days.  But I cannot help but be impressed with the fund raising field behind Obama.  Especially when I compare it to the Clinton money machine.

---

by: hillgiant @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:42:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

why? (0.00 / 0)

would you be more impressed with Obama's?  They have pretty much the same machinery, but Obama has the adoration of the latte liberal set.  hence, more money.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:56:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Latte Liberal" Set? (0.00 / 0)

Really? This is the best you can do?

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and John McCain would like to recommend a few more possibilities for you to use:

America-Hating Liberals
Dhimmi-Liberals
Treasonous Liberals

Could you at least try to find a phrase to denigrate Obama supporters that isn't already popular with the conservatives?

---

by: misternaxal @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:09:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Republican Playbook (0.00 / 0)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...

enjoy.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:36:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton cannot claim "victory" unless she has a landslide. (3.00 / 1)

In the reality based primary, perhaps, she can't claim a victory.

Regardless, she'll claim victory, even if it's by half a point.

The meme that she won Texas was spotted just as recently as Saturday morning on "Weekend Edition." (And yes, they got a message pointing to the BOR analysis.)

I was going to say "Hillary by 8," but Lorenzo beat me to it! :-)

The question is, how can she afford to run in the remaining primaries - she's almost broke! AP: Obama is flush, Clinton in debt. I'd have to think that once that news gets wider dissemination, the super delegates will have one more data point to help make their decision.

---

by: jelyon @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 22:16:21 PM UTC

Clinton by 5-10% (0.00 / 0)

is my guess.

Not enough for her to gain any significant advantage in delegates.

A win is not just a win, and I'm tired of this obsession with just winning a state that the media has, even if that win is by a very small margin and the delegates from that state are tied.  Because in the end, it's the delegate count that matters, and it doesn't matter if the state you win is big if you only get a handful of delegates from it.  For example, Obama's net delegate gain of 14 delegates over Hillary from his 74% victory in Kansas more than counters the 7 delegate lead Hillary got from Ohio.  Or why even though Illinois is smaller than California or New York, Obama's delegate win in Illinois was larger than Hillary's in either California or New York.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 23:32:25 PM UTC

To add (4.00 / 2)

If it's a single digit win for Hillary, that will have been a great achievement by Obama, considering how behind in the polls he was a month ago.  Just like his losing the primary part of Texas by only 3% and getting more delegates from Texas due to winning the caucuses was a victory in my book.  A large reason why Obama is winning in delegates is his ability to rack up large victories and therefore delegates in the state he wins, while minimizing Hillary's victories and net delegate gains in the states she wins.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 23:35:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know it's slow... (0.00 / 0)

... and I'm not talking about results. Some of the ads are having a bit higher than usual load time. Growing pains because of a beta and all.  

Please read the Community Guidelines and How to Rate Comments.

---

by: Karl-Thomas Musselman @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 23:33:44 PM UTC

My prediction (0.00 / 0)

Obama by 1-2%.

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 23:52:25 PM UTC

You may be right! (0.00 / 0)

With the exit polls too close to call you may be right.

I was surprised when the clock hit 7pm and Wolf Blitzer wasn't saying, "CNN is ready to call Pennsylvania."

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 00:13:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

obama by 1-2% (0.00 / 0)

i wish! wouldn't that be sweet? they've called for clinton now- 6 point spread.

---

by: ag8grl @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:07:02 AM UTC

with only 8% of the vote counted (0.00 / 0)

How do you call an election that quickly?

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:13:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exit Polls (0.00 / 0)

---

by: matthew_lt @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Combined with sample precincts (0.00 / 0)

The sample precincts provide a reality check to correct for any systematic bias in the exit polls.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:40:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton by 10% in Pennsylvania (0.00 / 0)

with 94% of precincts reporting. CNN just said she will pick up 200,000 votes.

Interesting ~ 55% of White Men voted for Hillary.

Good night. And good luck.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:53:21 AM UTC

98.40% reporting now (0.00 / 0)

Clinton has 1,230,822 votes, or
54.3%
Obama has 1,037,420 voter, or
45.7%
The margin is currently 8.6%

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:24 AM UTC

Serious Problem for Obama (0.00 / 0)

I've always thought both candidates would (not could) beat McCain in November.  Now, I'm starting to think McCain coudl beat Obama.  Let's take the blinders off and look at facts - (1) he's losing states he needs to win (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.; (2) his campaign is trying to exclude two states that we need in November (Michigan and Florida); (3) his debate performances have been poor; and (4) he's not closing well.

If he can't address those four issues, we're in trouble if he's nominated.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:10:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Disagree (0.00 / 0)

How I see it:
1) Clinton was always going to win PA.  The fact that the 20 point lead was cut to 9.2 (latest number with 99.44% reporting-and still not 10%), should be more troubling to the Clinton campaign.

2) Clinton is trying to include two states which were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be seated because of when they held their primaries.

3) We're just going to have to disagree on this one.  The last debate was an utter farce, especially given that someone who owes his career to Bill Clinton was a moderator.

4) In case you haven't noticed, she's not closing, either.

9.2 ? 10

Unless we can pull together behind one candidate without tearing the party to shreds, we're in trouble in November.

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:28:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One point (0.00 / 0)

Very few polls gave her a 20 point lead, and the only two since January were PPP and ARG. Pollster.com average lead by month was 6 in April, 13 in March and 10 in February, all after Edwards dropped out.

---

by: George @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:07:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Those Two States DO count in November . . . (0.00 / 0)

. . .which I think was the point of the prior post.  Michigan and Florida both have a lot of electoral votes, and Florida in particular is a key swing state that may well decide who the next president will be.  The Democratic party nomination process has a lot of unique aspects which seem to be favoring Obama.  Not seating Michigan and Florida may be playing by the party rules, but how does this help the party pick the best candidate to beat McCain?  The November election, with no caucuses, winner take all state contests in all 50 states, and the electoral college (which is itself a bizarre thing) is an entirely different animal.  The super-delegates (and any Democrat who really cares about defeating McCain in November) should be taking a very hard look at who is in a better position to win the electoral college in the general election.   Clinton -- despite her negatives -- appears to be more competitive in some key swing states, including Florida and Ohio (remember 2000 and 2004??).  That analysis may change in the next few weeks, but it is an analysis that has to be done.  

---

by: tejassaluki @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:54:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, they count in November (0.00 / 0)

But how they count in August is going to suck.  

They were told they wouldn't be seated, and I think the party should stick to it.  It hurts, but there is no way to tell how they would have voted if everybody got to participate fully in both states.  

The most equitable suggestion I've seen is to seat half of the delegations, and split them evenly between Clinton and Obama.  That way, the states get some say at the convention, but neither candidate gets favored.

MI and FL really screwed the pooch on this cycle.

Neither campaign will be happy to lose that way, and I would be willing to argue that neither should accept winning that way, either.  

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 18:26:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan and Florida (0.00 / 0)

They do count in November.

They count a lot more than Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa.

The Democratic National Committee, not Michigan and Florida, screwed the pooch on this one.  The DNC came up with the worst of all possibilities - disenfranchising two very big states.  Howard Dean should never have allowed it to go that far.  STUPID!

Of course, on the flip side, just counting the states opens up a can of worms as well.

I support Hillary but think Obama is going to win --especially if it comes down to superdelegates.  If Obama is thinking past August and into November, he should just agree to seat Michigan and Florida as is.  Doing this would show courage and confidence.  But, of course, it's not in his August interests to do so when every delegate matters.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 19:05:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The states knew a year in advance (0.00 / 0)

For a full year they knew that if they changed the dates, they would be in the hurt.

They did it anyway.

I would suggest that the good people in Michigan and Florida who are bent out of shape about this (and were I there, I'd be furious) get involved and throw the bums out who did this to them.

They knew.  They did it anyway.  They took your voice.  Make them pay for it.

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 19:39:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DNC was wrong... (0.00 / 0)

Basically, it was brinksmanship between the two states and the DNC.  Yes, the states didn't listen to the DNC.  In Michigan's case, it was the Michigan Democratic Party that forced the issue.  In Florida, it was the Republican-controlled legislature.  They deserve blame.

But so does Howard Dean and the DNC.  He allowed other states (South Carolina and Nevada) to move forward, but drew the line when Florida and Michigan wanted to move forward.  Pretty arbitrary and capricious.  And it's one of the reasons he needs to be replaced ASAP as Chairman of the DNC.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:46:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that was the premise (0.00 / 0)

of this article today, "The good news for McCain last night"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Now, poking inside the numbers: Once again, Obama's weaknesses among blue-collar and rural voters are exposed for all the world  to see (including GOP strategists devising fall targets).   He lost 60 of 67 counties in Pennsylvania.

But, again, it's not just that he lost so many rural and blue-collar communities -- it's the margin with which he lost them.   Despite over a month of campaign time with more retail and fewer big rallies, millions of dollars in media and true-blue Keystone validation in the person of Bob Casey, Obama lost by 20% or more in county after county.  He appears locked in a demographic rut, regardless of momentum, inevitability, his style of campaigning or who endorses him.  

And even in those more moderate Philly suburbs -- those counties that enabled Ed Rendell to lose most of the state and still beat Casey in the '02 gubernatorial primary -- Obama showed suprising weakness.   Given the option of a pro-choice women -- something these suburbanites didn't have with Casey -- voters in Montgomery and Bucks county spurned Obama.   Some may come home to Obama when the option is another pro-life male (McCain) but that these counties were not locks for the Illinois senator despite all those voter re-registrations offers at least hope to the GOP.

Further, the exit polls confirmed what surveys leading up to the primary had demonstrated: that a significant number of Clinton supporters said they'd back McCain over Obama in the fall.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:59:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Montgomery Spurned? (0.00 / 0)

Montgomery County had a margin of 1.4%, out of 153,568 votes cast.  I don't think that qualifies as "spurned".

Bucks County was 25.2%, with 114,699 votes cast.  I'll accept that as spurned.

Of course, Bucks also decided to give 23.3% (combined) to Paul and Huckabee. 37,961 total votes in the R primary.

We could (and probably will) spend weeks parsing this information.  In the end, I don't think it has much meaning to the big picture.  The one where we get Democrats-note the plural-elected.  

I'm still going to be spending my time and energy working for down-ballot races, because they are getting hurt the worst.  All the hoopla is getting people excited and involved, but a bunch of them are bailing after they've cast the presidential vote. (still smarting over the 700,000 who did that in TX).  

Now that we've got their attention, we need to tell them to finish the ballot.

Disclosure: Former Political Director for Lee Leffingwell for Mayor of Austin ('09)

---

by: sccs @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 17:45:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he's talking about women (0.00 / 0)

not the whole electorate.  Though that paragraph is the weakest in the argument, I believe the only state in which Obama did well in Hillary's demo was Wisconsin.

I do agree about down ballot.  I wonder if the Presidential race is going to "crowd out" spending down ballot, which would probably hurt Dems more since Repubs aren't spending on the top of their ticket.  Based on the recent runoff here, it doesn't look like the turnout momentum is going to translate like we thought it would, so we might be in trouble.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 19:38:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A win for Clinton is a win for McCain (0.00 / 0)

I recall hearing she had to win by 15-20% to have a big impact on race as a whole. At this point among the remaining nine contests she may win a majority of them, but her gains will come no where near close enough to erase Obama's now 133 (down 12 after yesterday)lead in delegates.

Additionally, supporters consider their will be great consequences to having a credentials fight at the convention, especially when a majority of delegates at the convention will be for Obama. We can all agree the tension levels are extremely high between two sides, and taking the fight to that level with Clinton winning will ultimately result in massive disenfranchisement of Obama supporters and 3 months to smooth over till the general election. A win for Clinton is a win for McCain.  

---

by: PaulR @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 19:35:15 PM UTC

Best night of the year for Clinton (0.00 / 0)

Clinton's 9% win yesterday got her about a dozen delegates. Amazingly, that's the most she's ever gained in a day of voting. She's almost always won when she had the organizational or demographic advantage -- Obama just can't put her away -- but they've been very small wins delegate-wise. On Super Tuesday, she won the big-name states, but actually got fewer delegates than Obama. March 4 (4 primaries and one caucus) was only worth half a dozen delegates. But when Obama has had the advantage, he's won big (SC, Potomac, WI).  She's scored field goals, and she got another one yesterday, while he's scored touchdowns, and he's about to get the ball back -- NC demographics favor Obama.

There are about 400 pledged delegates left to be voted on, and almost half of them are in NC or Indiana. There are about 300 uncommitted superdelegates, who will be watching NC and Indiana closely. There just aren't enough contests left for Clinton to make a run at the nomination.

But Obama can't afford to just run out the clock. If he gets the nomination after losing a string of contests (and possibly losing KT and WV by big margins), he will look very, very bad, and the Clinton supporters will have a hard time accepting the result. He needs a big win, after which the superdelegates can step in and call this thing over.

That's what North Carolina is for.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 21:17:55 PM UTC

Good night but not good enough (0.00 / 0)

Pennsylvania's numbers are very much the typical Clinton win.  She has had a couple of state's where she has gotten double digit wins, but she has only broken 60% in one state so far (her second home state of Arkansas).  Narrow wins do not make a convincing argument for electability.  Obama has several wins in which he has gotten over 60% of the vote (

Right now both candidates appear to be leading McCain in the general election. Even with the temporary sharp divisions in the Democratic Party, Senator Obama is leading McCain in Pennsylvania by 8% and is only 4% behind in Ohio.  In addition, he puts Texas, North Carolina, and Nebraska in play.  Senator Clinton is leading for more electoral votes, but she does not put any of the traditionally red states into play.

While Obama can't sit back and run out the clock, a strong campaign focusing on the general election should get him solid enough results.  I believe in having unpledged delegates for two situations.  First, they can break a true tie given the imperfection of any system for allocating delegates.  However, a lead of more than 100 pledged delegates does not qualify as a true tie.  Second, they can step in when a narrow majority select a candidate who is clearly and convincingly unelectable to such an extent as to drag the rest of the ticket down with him/her.  At the present time, the numbers do not sufficiently support an argument by Senator Clinton that Senator Obama is unelectable.

---

by: tmess2 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:07:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]