PA primary thread

[b0mbrman]

It's over!

Thanks for playing

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Farang
If it was a game changer it wouldn't be too close to call at this point. Move along, nothing to see here.

Hillary doesn't have a prayer in the long-run, it just amuses me that Obama out-spent her almost 4:1, rode into PA as the front-runner since February, and only managed to narrow the gap (assuming Hillary wins by what people are expecting)

 

[jpeyton]

Ouch, too close to call according to CNN.

Hillary's math problem prevails.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Farang
If it was a game changer it wouldn't be too close to call at this point. Move along, nothing to see here.

Hillary doesn't have a prayer in the long-run, it just amuses me that Obama out-spent her almost 4:1, rode into PA as the front-runner since February, and only managed to narrow the gap (assuming Hillary wins by what people are expecting)

That's what Buchanan keeps rambling on about on MSNBC and I don't buy it. That is assuming there should be a point in a campaign where you go from 50-50, to 55-45, to all of a sudden complete domination at 65+. Basically that is what is needed to win every state, even those that before were heavily towards your opponent (like PA is). Yes he outspent her (I thought it was more like 3:1), but he also did seem to close in 10-15 point in 7 weeks so I don't see that as a failure. Especially considering the biggest "scandals" of his campaign came during those same 7 weeks.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Farang
If it was a game changer it wouldn't be too close to call at this point. Move along, nothing to see here.

Hillary doesn't have a prayer in the long-run, it just amuses me that Obama out-spent her almost 4:1, rode into PA as the front-runner since February, and only managed to narrow the gap (assuming Hillary wins by what people are expecting)

Ads win campaigns? I'm sure he'd happily trade that extra 3/4 of ad spending for the institutional support and demographic advantages she had

On top of that, it seems that she ran (or Rendell ran for her) a very smart campaign in PA.

[Edit] Hmmm...exit polls unchanged from earlier numbers - Text

That'd lead me to believe we're looking at 52C-48..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Farang
If it was a game changer it wouldn't be too close to call at this point. Move along, nothing to see here.

Hillary doesn't have a prayer in the long-run, it just amuses me that Obama out-spent her almost 4:1, rode into PA as the front-runner since February, and only managed to narrow the gap (assuming Hillary wins by what people are expecting)

It was always an uphill battle for Obama in PA. He was never a front-runner there. And as Hillary needs a big win to get her struggling campaign some hope, but the exit polls are saying 52:48 and CNN "too close to call," I'd say he's done quite well.
And he outspent 4:1 because he out-raised her more than 4:1. Hillary's campaign is $10+ million in the red now, while Obama is sitting pretty on a tidy stack of cash and lots of untapped donors.

 

[ProfJohn]

Vic... your not making excuses for Obama losing right?

I think Hillary has a valid point about Obama not being able to win the general election.
Hillary has won all the big meaningful states and Obama has won all the little states. In the fall the Democrats need to win the big states to over come all the little states that always vote Republican. Obama has yet to show that he can win one of those 'big' states.

 

[NFS4]

65/35, Clinton with 0% reporting.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic... your not making excuses for Obama losing right?

I think Hillary has a valid point about Obama not being able to win the general election.
Hillary has won all the big meaningful states and Obama has won all the little states. In the fall the Democrats need to win the big states to over come all the little states that always vote Republican. Obama has yet to show that he can win one of those 'big' states.

Would Hillary do better in the general?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic... your not making excuses for Obama losing right?

I think Hillary has a valid point about Obama not being able to win the general election.
Hillary has won all the big meaningful states and Obama has won all the little states. In the fall the Democrats need to win the big states to over come all the little states that always vote Republican. Obama has yet to show that he can win one of those 'big' states.

i'm not really sure how you can extrapolate a series of narrow wins by hillary in an election amoung a narrow self selecting group (democrats) into anything meaningful in the general election.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic... your not making excuses for Obama losing right?

I think Hillary has a valid point about Obama not being able to win the general election.
Hillary has won all the big meaningful states and Obama has won all the little states. In the fall the Democrats need to win the big states to over come all the little states that always vote Republican. Obama has yet to show that he can win one of those 'big' states.

i'm not really sure how you can extrapolate a series of narrow wins by hillary in an election amoung a narrow self selecting group (democrats) into anything meaningful in the general election.

Yeah, but have you seen the size of the states she won narrowly in? They're huge!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Vic... your not making excuses for Obama losing right?

I think Hillary has a valid point about Obama not being able to win the general election.
Hillary has won all the big meaningful states and Obama has won all the little states. In the fall the Democrats need to win the big states to over come all the little states that always vote Republican. Obama has yet to show that he can win one of those 'big' states.

Who's making excuses? After 8 years of Bush, and with his hand-picked successor McCain running, it's unlikely that the Pubs would win all those little states if the Dems resurrected Hitler for the run in the general.

Yaknow, we wouldn't have to worry about "OMG! Democrats! Liberals! Socialism!" if you idiots didn't fuck it up in the first place.

 

[bamacre]

Fox calls PA for Clinton with 1% reporting?

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fox calls PA for Clinton with 1% reporting?

She's up by like 30 points.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fox calls PA for Clinton with 1% reporting?

She's up by like 30 points.

60-40 now.. doesn't mean anything because the votes in PA are split regionally so its likely the Clinton areas are coming in first. The returns will have to be at least 50% to start to get a good idea

 

[NFS4]

MSNBC is calling it for Clinton, 55/45 with 3% reporting.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fox calls PA for Clinton with 1% reporting?

...officially. They're probably comfortable enough with their exit polling. MSNBC called it too

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fox calls PA for Clinton with 1% reporting?

Exit polling.

The exit polling has shown Clinton ahead all day.
All they need is a few results to see if they line up with the exit polling and then they can project the winner.

As much crap as we give them for doing this the only time they have really been wrong was Fl in 2000. The other 99% of the time they have been right.

 

[mflacy]

Clinton 52/48 with 6% reporting.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Fox calls PA for Clinton with 1% reporting?

Exit polling.

The exit polling has shown Clinton ahead all day.
All they need is a few results to see if they line up with the exit polling and then they can project the winner.

As much crap as we give them for doing this the only time they have really been wrong was Fl in 2000. The other 99% of the time they have been right.

They called MO for Clinton early on Feb 5...

Broke my heart when they turned it around. Not because I'm necessarily partial, but I hate when statisticians get egg on their face

 

[jpeyton]

53/47 for Clinton with 6% in.

With the way delegates are assigned to Congressional districts, Obama might actually still pull even or ahead in pledged delegates from PA, even if he loses the popular vote in PA.

:laugh:

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
53/47 for Clinton with 6% in.

With the way delegates are assigned to Congressional districts, Obama might actually still pull even or ahead in pledged delegates from PA, even if he loses the popular vote in PA.

:laugh:

As we saw after Nevada, I doubt many casual observers will make that logical leap even if Obama comes out with more delegates.

Assuming it stays around this close where she took 53% of the popular vote and assuming the CDs aren't terribly misaligned with the popular vote, she looks to net ten delegates.

51% : 81 to 77 net of 3
52% : 82 to 76 net of 6
53% : 84 to 74 net of 9
54% : 85 to 73 net of 13
55% : 87 to 71 net of 16

 

[Vic]

CNN calls for Clinton. No surprise there. Results seem to be tracking right along with the exit polls. So call it roughly 52/48 for Clinton, but with big losses in the major urban centers which means she still might not net any delegates.

 

[jpeyton]

53/47 holding at 15% counted. :thumbsup:

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not the decisive victory she needed to justify carrying on the fight.

Tomorrow morning, there will be no significant shift in the delegate or popular vote gap...expect super delegates to start rallying around Obama, as Hillary will use today as justification to continue moving forward.

I find the exit polls interesting...Obama is capturing essentially the demographic that represents the future of the Democrats...concentrations of young, educated individuals who are gravitating back to urban centers...Hillary is essentially clinging on to the old rust belt blue collar workers, who are quickly becoming obsolete.