PA primary thread

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Tremendous victory for Hillary Clinton. Obama is falling apart.

I asume this is sarcasm? Or are you a Hillbilly fanboy?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: 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

You're likely mistaken about the final count.

If you look at the remaining areas where votes need to be counted, they are essentially all the areas which most strongly favored Obama, so it should go down to about almost flat 9% lead for Hillary when its all said and done.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: 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

You're just mistaken about the final count.

If you look at the remaining areas where votes need to be counted, they are essentially all the areas which most strongly favored Obama, so it should go down to about a flat 9% lead for Hillary.

Bwahahaha, funny how you people are counting decimal now trying to discount Hillary's victory. A victory is a victory is a victory, just like every other victory Hillary had in all the big states that counts in the real election.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Bwahahaha, funny how you people are counting decimal now trying to discount Hillary's victory. A victory is a victory is a victory, just like every other victory Hillary had in all the big states that counts in the real election.

Oh please.

Virginia is at least as much potentially in play as many of the states in question that Hillary has bragged about winning, and Obama utterly killed Hillary there. The point is Hillary is going to at most pickup 12 pledged delegates and probably less from Pennsylvania, she simply didn't do what was necessary to realistically put her in a position to win the nomination.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Like the old style Southern democratic primaries of 50 years ago, the candidate who won the democratic primary always went on to win the general election.

Yet in 08, the dems have two very strong and similar candidates the democratic electorate are still undecided on. Yet in the last of the big blue state primaries, Hillary seems to win over Obama on just one major constituency. Namely on the unskilled worker vote that has been the giant loser in a global economy. Somehow Hillary has hit the right note while Obama has appeared to be too elitist.

What is hard for me to think of if Obama wins the nomination, is any possibility that McCain can pick up any of those votes when the republirats have been the party most responsible for selling their interests down the river. That same unskilled worker group has watched candidates of both parties make empty promises they don't even try to deliver on.

Making that unskilled worker vote an irrational wildcard come November. And clearly an area where Obama must do better.

I think calling them irrational is a bit condescending, but it's going to be an interesting general election when Obama clinches the nomination.

McCain v Obama will put a number of states in play on both sides that were otherwise deemed safe (PA, NJ, NH, and MI spring to mind for republicans... VA, Idaho and Kansas immediately spring for democrats, along with any senate/house seats that can ride Obama's coattails to victory with heavy turn-out in black districts)

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: loki8481

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?

who cares what a newspaper says. Obama had won all the major paper endorsements in Texas and PA and most in OH and most in CA, etc. He still lost all three states in popular votes. You have record turnout, multiple polls saying both candidates should continue and the NYT editorial board thinks people are tired of this? Well, the people that have not had a chance are not tired of this. They want their chance to have their votes counted. Talk about out of touch.

Congrats to Hillary Clinton for her win in Pennsylvania.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: 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.

definitely donated to hopefully show the hillary campaign that her +12 delegates today is meaningless

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Like the old style Southern democratic primaries of 50 years ago, the candidate who won the democratic primary always went on to win the general election.

Yet in 08, the dems have two very strong and similar candidates the democratic electorate are still undecided on. Yet in the last of the big blue state primaries, Hillary seems to win over Obama on just one major constituency. Namely on the unskilled worker vote that has been the giant loser in a global economy. Somehow Hillary has hit the right note while Obama has appeared to be too elitist.

What is hard for me to think of if Obama wins the nomination, is any possibility that McCain can pick up any of those votes when the republirats have been the party most responsible for selling their interests down the river. That same unskilled worker group has watched candidates of both parties make empty promises they don't even try to deliver on.

Making that unskilled worker vote an irrational wildcard come November. And clearly an area where Obama must do better.

I think calling them irrational is a bit condescending, but it's going to be an interesting general election when Obama clinches the nomination.

McCain v Obama will put a number of states in play on both sides that were otherwise deemed safe (PA, NJ, NH, and MI spring to mind for republicans... VA, Idaho and Kansas immediately spring for democrats, along with any senate/house seats that can ride Obama's coattails to victory with heavy turn-out in black districts)

Give me a break. Idaho and Kansas? Obama drew 15k people to his rally in Idaho. There was probably 20,000 people that caucused in Idaho. 500,000 people voted there in the 2004 general and Kerry lost by nearly 40 points. Obama does not do better in Kansas than Clinton does.

There are no caucuses in a general election. Obama's supposed strength in these plain states and mountain states are overstated. He will not win these states once McCain runs one ad saying Obama wants to grab your guns (DC gun and IL handgun ban).

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Like the old style Southern democratic primaries of 50 years ago, the candidate who won the democratic primary always went on to win the general election.

Yet in 08, the dems have two very strong and similar candidates the democratic electorate are still undecided on. Yet in the last of the big blue state primaries, Hillary seems to win over Obama on just one major constituency. Namely on the unskilled worker vote that has been the giant loser in a global economy. Somehow Hillary has hit the right note while Obama has appeared to be too elitist.

What is hard for me to think of if Obama wins the nomination, is any possibility that McCain can pick up any of those votes when the republirats have been the party most responsible for selling their interests down the river. That same unskilled worker group has watched candidates of both parties make empty promises they don't even try to deliver on.

Making that unskilled worker vote an irrational wildcard come November. And clearly an area where Obama must do better.

I think calling them irrational is a bit condescending, but it's going to be an interesting general election when Obama clinches the nomination.

McCain v Obama will put a number of states in play on both sides that were otherwise deemed safe (PA, NJ, NH, and MI spring to mind for republicans... VA, Idaho and Kansas immediately spring for democrats, along with any senate/house seats that can ride Obama's coattails to victory with heavy turn-out in black districts)

Give me a break. Idaho and Kansas? Obama drew 15k people to his rally in Idaho. There was probably 20,000 people that caucused in Idaho. 500,000 people voted there in the 2004 general and Kerry lost by nearly 40 points. Obama does not do better in Kansas than Clinton does.

There are no caucuses in a general election. Obama's supposed strength in these plain states and mountain states are overstated. He will not win these states once McCain runs one ad saying Obama wants to grab your guns (DC gun and IL handgun ban).

Why, because they cling to their guns? There is no great love for McCain.




Otherwise...10 pts. You've got to be shitting me. Dems are suicidal continuing to draw this out. There is no way Hillary can win the nom w/o destroying the party. At this point, a vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain. :thumbsup: to Dems for working hard to blow a sure thing.

 

[lupi]

With another crushing lost we can see more how the empty suit will cause the dems to lose the general if he becomes the nominee. Excluding his home state he hasn't won in the top ten or so population states. He loses in all the key big states dems need to win in November when the election mimics the republican primary where it is winner take all and not partial delegates (which if applied to the democratic primary would have hillary far ahead). When subjected to what can be called at most a mild attack campaign, his results at the ballet box fold (talk about shooting clay pigeons for the RNC/527s come fall). A couple of the late PA polls even had him even or ahead during the final weekend, and yet the tally is showing a 10 point margin, how is that for attracting those independent voters.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
She picked up 28 more delegates than Obama.

Damn, she was outspent 2 to 1 and Obama didn't crush her.

I bet that crushes a lot of guys in here.

No, she picked up *at least* 28 delegates...meaning she got at least 18 percent of the vote

I imagine no one's crushed except for all the guys who were predicting an Obama win.

OK, numbers update:

She got 18 more delegates than Obama, big whoopie doo.

She outspent 3 to 1.

 

[351Cleveland]

I gotta laugh... it was a 10 point win. It wasnt close. Was the gap 20 at some point? Sure... but that is polling. It is barely ever accurate to that degree. The fact that the race was called with 2000 votes counted kinda says it all. Yeah, she was expected to win, and yesterday everyone was saying she needed 10+ points to really count it as a win. She got it... now everyone says it doesnt matter.

First rate entertainment

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
She picked up 28 more delegates than Obama.

Damn, she was outspent 2 to 1 and Obama didn't crush her.

I bet that crushes a lot of guys in here.

No, she picked up *at least* 28 delegates...meaning she got at least 18 percent of the vote

I imagine no one's crushed except for all the guys who were predicting an Obama win.

OK, numbers update:

She got 18 more delegates than Obama, big whoopie doo.

She outspent 3 to 1.

I think you mean she was outspent 3 to 1... and I think it was closer to 2 to 1.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
She picked up 28 more delegates than Obama.

Damn, she was outspent 2 to 1 and Obama didn't crush her.

I bet that crushes a lot of guys in here.

No, she picked up *at least* 28 delegates...meaning she got at least 18 percent of the vote

I imagine no one's crushed except for all the guys who were predicting an Obama win.

OK, numbers update:

She got 18 more delegates than Obama, big whoopie doo.

She outspent 3 to 1.

I think you mean she was outspent 3 to 1... and I think it was closer to 2 to 1.

Some articles say 3 to 1, some say 2 to 1. Either way McCain wins.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
I gotta laugh... it was a 10 point win. It wasnt close. Was the gap 20 at some point? Sure... but that is polling. It is barely ever accurate to that degree. The fact that the race was called with 2000 votes counted kinda says it all. Yeah, she was expected to win, and yesterday everyone was saying she needed 10+ points to really count it as a win. She got it... now everyone says it doesnt matter.

First rate entertainment

I agree. It's kind of sad how the Obama fanboys are making this a positive for Obama.

He outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and could not win.

He has can not beat Clinton in a big state.

Nothing positive for Obama here.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
She picked up 28 more delegates than Obama.

Damn, she was outspent 2 to 1 and Obama didn't crush her.

I bet that crushes a lot of guys in here.

No, she picked up *at least* 28 delegates...meaning she got at least 18 percent of the vote

I imagine no one's crushed except for all the guys who were predicting an Obama win.

OK, numbers update:

She got 18 more delegates than Obama, big whoopie doo.

She outspent 3 to 1.

I think you mean she was outspent 3 to 1... and I think it was closer to 2 to 1.

Some articles say 3 to 1, some say 2 to 1. Either way McCain wins.

Very true.

 

[idiotekniQues]

all these simpleminded people keep sayin 'hilary wins where it will count in the general election' like if she isnt the one running against mccain, he will automatically win them.

?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
hilary is the stronger candidate.
weathering the storm of negativity she still wins.

Puleeze. She is the storm of negativity.

 

[jpeyton]

Somebody please wake me up when she has more pledged delegates or overall popular vote.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Somebody please wake me up when she has more pledged delegates or overall popular vote.

Are you planning an early hibernation?

 

[Genx87]

Kind of surprised she won by 10 points. It is interesting in a state that could have sealed the victory for Obama and he spent that much more money and he lost by that wide of a margin. There is definately a rift in the democrat party and both sides are fighting tooth and nail for their candidate.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah, she was expected to win, and yesterday everyone was saying she needed 10+ points to really count it as a win. She got it... now everyone says it doesnt matter.

It does matter, but not as a positive for Clinton.

If you look at the exit polls, Obama did manage to make gains across Hillary's core demographics...doing better with the elderly, women and blue collar white voters.

Hillary's base continues to erode...Obama hasn't been able to put her down, but his has been an uphill battle against an established candidate with strong political loyalties and roots built not by her, but by her husband. The greater question is, why was Obama able to challenge Hillary in the first place...she was the clear frontrunner since announcing her candidacy, and yet finds herself in the number two slot...still.

States that should have given her a clear margin...Ohio, PA, etc...Obama managed to close the gap in all of those states...that is hardly a positive for Clinton.

Another interesting statistic is that the majority of newly registered voters went to Obama in PA...which means he is gaining Republicans disenfranchised with their party, independents, and the youth vote in record numbers.

He outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and could not win.

He didn't need to win PA...look at the map...look at the delegate count...and take McCain into consideration...the 2008 election could significantly change the electoral map...all previous conceptions of blue states and red states go out the window once you bring two candidates to the table with drastically different ideas on how to lead the country.

Hillary's base is not expanding...it is slowly bleeding away.

He has can not beat Clinton in a big state.

He doesn't have to beat Clinton in a big state...he needs to net more delegates than her across all states, which he has done.

The real question is, can Obama beat McCain in big states...that depends...he will take the core blue states regardless...the swing states could change dramatically.

Nothing positive for Obama here.

There is a lot of positive...exit polls also suggest that Hillary's negativity rating is on the rise, which is not a healthy number going into a General Election.

She managed to cling onto her lead in PA by going extremely negative, and attacking the current frontrunner of her own party.

Indiana will be another close race...North Carolina, she doesn't have a change in hell.

Her only chance at this point is to convince superdelegates that Obama is weaker in the General Election...but to make that argument, she needs to maintain the offensive, a strategy that will weaken both her and Obama regardless of who gets the nomination.

Will Dean and the DNC allow Clinton to cut off the party's nose to spite its face?

Neither candidate has a clear mandate, but Obama is the current frontrunner under the existing rules...Hillary can't change that...what she can do is attempt to leverage the super delegates to change the outcome.

Yeah, that will go over real well.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
I gotta laugh... it was a 10 point win. It wasnt close. Was the gap 20 at some point? Sure... but that is polling. It is barely ever accurate to that degree. The fact that the race was called with 2000 votes counted kinda says it all. Yeah, she was expected to win, and yesterday everyone was saying she needed 10+ points to really count it as a win. She got it... now everyone says it doesnt matter.

First rate entertainment

I agree. It's kind of sad how the Obama fanboys are making this a positive for Obama.

He outspent Clinton 3 to 1 and could not win.

He has can not beat Clinton in a big state.

Nothing positive for Obama here.

quit regurgitating what the media is telling you.

The only people that benefit from a drawn out political fight is the media. Hell at this point even McCain isn't benefiting all that much because he has basically been neglected as far as national attention is concerned.

I hate the media and this latest "win" is exactly why.

 

[idiotekniQues]

since last night at 11pm i started checking the PA state site for election results

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

since last night from 98.x% reporting through now he has maintained as 45.7% vs 54.3% for Clinton. unless you are rounding up from .3% - that is closer to a 9% margin not double digit.

yet the major media always has clinton and obama at 55-45.

i have some screenies showing the PA site showing obama with thousands more votes with less reporting % than on some major networks at the same time.
since for our overhyped media circus this double digit hooplah is so important, these little numbers matter. which are the right results?

 

[Dari]

Obama lost big. Next time, don't insult people, no matter how honest it is. Randell said whites in Penn. wouldn't vote for a black man and he was right.