PA primary thread

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ try this link.

Right on the first page of the PDF.
link

4-15/16
Clinton 45%
Obama 44%
That was a week ago to the day.

Again, nice selective memory - http://www.realclearpolitics.c...primary-240.html#polls

 

[Starbuck1975]

yes... the media that's been humping Obama for the past 4 months is totally in Hillary's pocket

The last weeks has seen the media come down much hard on Obama, and the last debate was totally stacked in Clinton's favor...yet Obama survived with little damage to his campaign.

It's not hard: "Clinton toughs it out to win a wide open primary after being outspent 3 to 1. She's shown that she can win the BIG states Democrats need to win in the fall to beat the Republicans."

Another way to spin it...Obama campaigned aggressively and eroded a decisive 20 point victory down to a marginal victory. It shows that Obama can attract Hillary supporters and the Democrat core in BIG states while also drawing independents and newly registered voters.

I bet that crushes a lot of guys in here.

Obama did what he needed to do, and that was to erode her margins in a state heavily weighted to her strengths...and arguably he was successful in that task.


Hillary still has a math problem. CNN performed an analysis, under best case scenarios and with Florida and Michigan factored in, and she still cannot claim both a delegate lead and the popular vote...she still needs the super delegates to push her over.

I doubt the super delegates will be that stupid...right now, the Democrats are facing an extended fight to the DNC.

Exit polls are showing that an increasing number of Obama voters will shift to McCain if he does not win the nomination, and vice versa...more telling, a majority of those polled blame Hillary for the negative tone in the nomination process as of late.

With every week this continues, McCain is the benefactor.

Hillary put up a good fight, but retooled her strategy too late.

 

[ProfJohn]

Lemon...

Those "unskilled workers" you talk about are often called Reagan Democrats. They have voted Republican in the past and could vote Republican this year.

Obama is going to have a very hard time to get them to vote for him after his bitter statement.
McCain on the other hand is already very popular with the independents and middle of the road Democrats. He will certainly pick up a decent percentage of those voters in the fall.

In short, Obama is winning the people who you expect to vote Democrat no matter what while Hillary is winning over the people the Democrats NEED in order to win in the fall.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ try this link.

Right on the first page of the PDF.
link

4-15/16
Clinton 45%
Obama 44%
That was a week ago to the day.

Again, nice selective memory - http://www.realclearpolitics.c...primary-240.html#polls

umm what are you trying to say?

As I said, a week ago Zogby had Obama and Hillary virtually tied, and I provided a link proving that. And on your link look at the Zogby tracking poll of 4-15/16 and you see the same thing. A 1 point Clinton lead. That one point turned into 10 points in the course of a week. That is a significant movement.

 

[LTC8K6]

"The delegates do not decide who people vote for in the general election. If Obama is still ahead in popular vote and delegates come the convention (and I have to assume he will be) and they still nominate her, you'll lose a lot of people who would have voted Democrat otherwise (some won't vote at all (mainly the younger vote), others will vote McCain, a few will vote 3rd party).

Hillary clinton CAN win the nomination, but she cannot win the general election using a strategy that gets her the nomination. "


That's interesting, but I didn't say the delegates had anything to do with the election and I didn't say she could win the election.

 

[idiotekniQues]

obama misspeaks here and there and it could ruin him.

bush misspeaks constantly, mccain flip flops more than kerry on a trampoline - and some blue collar voters that voted for that crook reagan cause he was 'charismatic' and they could 'have a beer with him' type attraction - will go suck it up again and vote mccain cause of an obama slip up here and there?

what a joke.

just donated some money to obama's campaign.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ try this link.

Right on the first page of the PDF.
link

4-15/16
Clinton 45%
Obama 44%
That was a week ago to the day.

Again, nice selective memory - http://www.realclearpolitics.c...primary-240.html#polls

umm what are you trying to say?

As I said, a week ago Zogby had Obama and Hillary virtually tied, and I provided a link proving that. And on your link look at the Zogby tracking poll of 4-15/16 and you see the same thing. A 1 point Clinton lead. That one point turned into 10 points in the course of a week. That is a significant movement.

I think his point is that you're selectively picking both the dates and the pollster. We can probably agree that March 5 was the starting point for the PA primary, with that in mind, some polls near that date:

PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/16 597 LV 56 30 Clinton +26.0
Franklin & Marshall 03/11 - 03/16 294 LV 51 35 Clinton +16.0
Quinnipiac 03/10 - 03/16 1304 LV 53 41 Clinton +12.0
Rasmussen 03/12 - 03/12 697 LV 51 38 Clinton +13.0
SurveyUSA 03/08 - 03/10 608 LV 55 36 Clinton +19.0
Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 500 LV 45 31 Clinton +14.0
Strategic Vision (R) 03/07 - 03/09 600 LV 56 38 Clinton +18.0
Rasmussen 03/05 - 03/05 690 LV 52 37 Clinton +15.0

 

[jpeyton]

If you extrapolate out the results with 96% counted, Hillary will come out with +10 delegates in PA and +210k in popular votes.

And that's when she started the race with a 20 point advantage. She's only polling a few points ahead in Indiana, and several points behind in N. Carolina.

Looks like she'll go to the convention down by at least 125 pledged delegates and half a million popular votes.

 

[nageov3t]

mccain flip flops more than kerry on a trampoline

really? where?

I mean, how the hell do you differentiate a "flip flop" versus responding to the will of the people you serve anyways?

in this case, the difference between Bush and Obama is that people expect him to say stupid shit... Obama's been riding the myth of him as the greatest public speaker in history, and no one can live up to the myth that's been built up around him.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
just donated some money to obama's campaign.

Same here.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
just donated some money to obama's campaign.

Same here.

at this stage in the game, what's the point?

he's got the nomination locked up, you'd be better off giving your money to the DNC.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
just donated some money to obama's campaign.

Same here.

at this stage in the game, what's the point?

he's got the nomination locked up, you'd be better off giving your money to the DNC.

I want Hillary to have the weakest possible case for the Supers when she rides her campaign to the convention.

If Obama can survive Rev. Wright, "bitter", and still erode her 20 point lead, imagine what will happen in the rest of the contests.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Farang
I think his point is that you're selectively picking both the dates and the pollster. We can probably agree that March 5 was the starting point for the PA primary, with that in mind, some polls near that date:

PPP (D) 03/15 - 03/16 597 LV 56 30 Clinton +26.0
Franklin & Marshall 03/11 - 03/16 294 LV 51 35 Clinton +16.0
Quinnipiac 03/10 - 03/16 1304 LV 53 41 Clinton +12.0
Rasmussen 03/12 - 03/12 697 LV 51 38 Clinton +13.0
SurveyUSA 03/08 - 03/10 608 LV 55 36 Clinton +19.0
Susquehanna 03/05 - 03/10 500 LV 45 31 Clinton +14.0
Strategic Vision (R) 03/07 - 03/09 600 LV 56 38 Clinton +18.0
Rasmussen 03/05 - 03/05 690 LV 52 37 Clinton +15.0

That would be a valid point.

However, I went with Zogby because it is a tracking poll that polls people on a daily basis and uses the rolling average etc etc.
Therefore it gives you a better sense of movement in the campaign as you can see it from day to day.

Hillary had a very good week, the question is can she keep going or does her MO stop.

Either way I expect Obama to win in the end, but I also enjoy watching Hillary and Obama beat each up. And it is also exposing Obama's weaknesses that I am sure will reappear in the general election.

 

[sprok]

Originally posted by: loki8481

mccain flip flops more than kerry on a trampoline

really? where?

I mean, how the hell do you differentiate a "flip flop" versus responding to the will of the people you serve anyways?

in this case, the difference between Bush and Obama is that people expect him to say stupid shit... Obama's been riding the myth of him as the greatest public speaker in history, and no one can live up to the myth that's been built up around him.

For one thing, he's trying to make the Bush tax cuts he voted against permanent. He also received endorsements from religious figures whom he previousely labeled as "agents of intolerance".

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: sprok

Originally posted by: loki8481

mccain flip flops more than kerry on a trampoline

really? where?

I mean, how the hell do you differentiate a "flip flop" versus responding to the will of the people you serve anyways?

in this case, the difference between Bush and Obama is that people expect him to say stupid shit... Obama's been riding the myth of him as the greatest public speaker in history, and no one can live up to the myth that's been built up around him.

For one thing, he's trying to make the Bush tax cuts he voted against permanent. He also received endorsements from religious figures whom he previousely labeled as "agents of intolerance".

Barack Obama received the endorsement from Hamas, but I'm not holding that against him.

 

[sprok]

I think there's a difference between rejecting said endorsement from Hamas, and defending it from the likes of John Hagee.

 

[0roo0roo]

hilary is the stronger candidate.
weathering the storm of negativity she still wins.

 

[Butterbean]

NY TImes just slammed Hill pretty good for a paper that endorsed her

Editorial
The Low Road to Victory

April 23, 2008
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it


Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...alink&exprod=permalink

 

[b0mbrman]

Ouch. Didn't the NY Times endorse her? Now that's what I call flip-flopping...

Anyhow. 54.7% 45.3% is where the numbers are at right now. Once all the votes are counted, they'll probably end up around 54.6% to 45.4% (HRC will love significant digits in the morning )

This should be a net gain of approximately 14 delegates from a 86-72 split

 

[CycloWizard]

All this media hoopla for... less than half a percent of change in delegates. In otherwords, the PA primary was meaningless for everyone except CNN, FNC, and some other guys who are profiting off of the Democrats' self-bludgeoning.

 

[Sinsear]

LOL; this is sooo entertaining.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
NY TImes just slammed Hill pretty good for a paper that endorsed her

Editorial
The Low Road to Victory

April 23, 2008
The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it


Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...alink&exprod=permalink

I wonder, what does the NYTimes think she should do when she's trying to win and there are no substantial differences between the candidates on substantial issues. is she supposed to stay home making pies and hope people vote for her because she's a darn nice gal?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
LOL; this is sooo entertaining.

And exciting. How could Democrats not get excited about record voter turnout for their party, along with hundreds of thousands of newly registered Democrats statewide?

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wonder, what does the NYTimes think she should do when she's trying to win and there are no substantial differences between the candidates on substantial issues. is she supposed to stay home making pies and hope people vote for her because she's a darn nice gal?

Dodging sniper fire and waiting by the phone at 3AM, of course.

 

[theeedude]

Tremendous victory for Hillary Clinton. Obama is falling apart.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Sinsear
LOL; this is sooo entertaining.

And exciting. How could Democrats not get excited about record voter turnout for their party, along with hundreds of thousands of newly registered Democrats statewide?

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wonder, what does the NYTimes think she should do when she's trying to win and there are no substantial differences between the candidates on substantial issues. is she supposed to stay home making pies and hope people vote for her because she's a darn nice gal?

Dodging sniper fire and waiting by the phone at 3AM, of course.

Oh I am sure that's better then attending church to listen to racial and hateful speeches.