The Goal Posts: PA An Elimination Game For Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I think John McIntyre of right leaning Real Clear Politics describes the CW Goal Posts well:

Senator Obama has another opportunity tomorrow [to KO Clinton] in Pennsylvania - and this time he doesn't even have to win. If he simply outperforms the latest RealClearPolitics Average which has him trailing by 5.9%, that will be enough to calm nervous superdelegates while all but eliminating any hope Senator Clinton has of claiming a popular vote victory. Senator Clinton has a much higher hurdle. With time running out and Democrats increasingly anxious to turn their fire on John McCain, a win by 2-4 points along the lines of New Hampshire and Texas will simply not get the job done. Hillary Clinton needs a double-digit win.


Clinton will undoubtedly stay in the race with a 6-9 point victory, but at that point her chances for the nomination will be reduced to hoping for an Obama scandal or major gaffe that causes Obama's campaign to implode. Not totally impossible. But, then again, not very likely either.

Right or not, that seems to me to be what the Media CW will be tomorrow. Less than 6 will be viewed as an Obama "win" and the signal for Clinton to drop out. 6 to 9 and status quo remains. Double digits and it will be considered a Clinton win and Obama will still have work to do. Indiana then becomes the next KO opportunity.

< Pennsylvania Registered Dems: By The Numbers | For Declaring A Winner Tomorrow, The Popular Vote Trumps The Delegate Count >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When is the winner called the loser? (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    When HRC wins.

    Tim Russert on NBC Evening News tonight (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    seemed to say that the goalposts are she must win PA (he did not give a number she had to attain), then she must win IN--pretty much a given that Obama gets NC. If she does not win IN, she may have problems staying in; if she wins, she can go on to the rest of the states.

    Bigger spread in winning PA may mean increased donations.

    But, seemed to me, he was not playing the "she must win by 19 pts" game that on the air earlier.


    He outspends her more than 2 to 1 in three (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by catfish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    states, loses, and is the winner.

    That's politics (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by catfish on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    perception is reality.

    Not my reality (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    No Knock-Out (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    He will never put her away.  He does not appeal to the moderate Democrat and never will.  He'll never get those votes in a general election,either.

    And she'll never appeal to the Obama fan.  Their entire unity has revolved around hatred of her.  That damage is permanent.  He made the Clinton years into the boogey man.

    He will have to get out the youth vote to have even a chance to win in the Fall.  Good luck with that one.


    Not Enough Youth, AA and Creative Class (?) Vote (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    to win the GE if he loses the white male vote, female vote, the seniors and splits the latino vote.

    I agree with this. (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    She is on the edge of credibly remaining in the race, I think.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#67)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:42:47 PM EST
    This will be nice and tidy. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    The DNC will have dodged the bullet of MI and FL and everyone goes home happy.

    Thats been the theme for a while now. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    Popular vote, delegates, states won etc.

    PA is a large state and is a big opportunity for Clinton to gain some ground.  If she can't win big here then it's almost impossible to take the lead in any of the categories listed above.  The only way she can win is if Clinton can sway the remaining SD's to say she should be the candidate despite the numbers.  If she manages that, well, the end result should give the media a field day of headlines and political talk.

    PA, OH, TX, CA, MA among the states (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    that demonstrate that BO's support is shallow.  He has the support of the AA voters and a slice of the White Democrats, but reflective of the candidate's shallow lifetime accomplishments.  OH, TX and now PA, Obama cannot close the deal despite the almost unlimited funds to do it.  It's the candidate.

    And his chances in the GE ... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:23:29 PM EST
    start to look really bad, when he can't close against a candidate that his supporters claim "has no chance" of getting the nomination.

    Why, according the Obama supporters, are people still voting for Clinton?

    I cannot think of an answer to this question which wouldn't suggest weakness for BO in the GE.


    These things always look ... (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    so different the day after than they do the day before.

    Any loss is gonna be bad for Obama.

    No one likes backing a loser, no matter how much spin you throw at the loss.

    Of course, I believe this point is moot because Clinton WILL win by double digits.

    From Your Lips To God's Ear!! (none / 0) (#83)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    why Pennsylvania? (none / 0) (#101)
    by diogenes on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    Pennsylvania is one of the oldest and most blue collar states.  It's governor, Rendell, has openly stated (hint-hint) that many are not ready to vote for a black man.  Since when is it a refenderum on Obama, especially since national tracking polls still show Obama ahead even today among Democrats?
    She has her states, and he has his.

    How does that narrative change (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    If FL and MI were allowed to vote and be counted?

    Well (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:20:04 PM EST
    you know that is not happening so why ask?

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    I will reject any narrative that doesn't take FL and MI into account.

    Here's an interesting question.  Not to put you on the spot, but I think it's important:

    Is there a way that you determine between the (a)media narratives that should just be accepted wether one likes it or not and (b) the media narratives that should be rejected?


    Media narratives become reality (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    Once they are accepted by voters and/or superdelegates and become "facts on the ground."    

    I'm not an SD (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:21:35 PM EST
    But I'm a voter, and I reject any narrative that pretends that FL and MI aren't a part of the US of A.

    Here's what I think will ultimately happen (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST

    I think HRC wins 6 or 7 of the remaining primaries and gets close in delegates and ties or overtakes Obama in the popular vote.  I think the SD's give their votes to Obama, because they are cowards and don't want to be seen making a stand for the hated Clintons or have the media stalk them. Obama wins the nomination.  

    Come the fall, some HRC supporters will forgive and forget and go back into the fold.  October has a foreign policy "surprise" and everyone stops and thinks that they could be electing a neophyte and McCain wins big in November.

    Sigh.  I hope I'm wrong on so many counts.

    No, we will not forget what Obama and his (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    supporters have said and done to/about Hillary.  I will not vote for him in the general election.  I will sit this one out if he is the nominee.  My husband has already said he will vote for McCain over Obama.  And we are yellow-dog Democrats going way, way back.  My husband's family is from Pennsylvania and his mother was very involved with the Democratic party there before she died.  Obama does not represent the Democratic party so he doesn't get our votes.  Period.  Nothing is going to change that.  Ever.  

    I am fighting this inclination (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    but I know many many democrats who feel the same.

    I will vote for Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    but I believe this post represents a significant portion of the Democratic electorate.  And it is why I believe Obama will lose badly in the GE.

    It's also why Clinton will stay in this race till the bitter end.


    I live in Wisconsin and I won't vote for him. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Mari on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    The incredible level of misogyny that his campaign encouraged and tolerated will not be forgotten or forgiven. Frankly, Obama disgusts me. From his association with Ayers, a domestic terrorist and his juvenile antics at the podium, i.e. giving the finger to Clinton reveal his true character. O comes off incredibly arrogant and condescending. If he is the nominee, I hope the Republican Party pulverizes him. He deserves it and the Democratic officials who support him should be punished as well. I'm disgusted with Dick Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, and all these other so-called liberal politicians.

    I live in Wisconsin and I did vote for him (none / 0) (#98)
    by WorkinJoe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:58:26 PM EST
    Please point out the times he's been incredibly arrogant and condescending.  I'll tell you when Hillary lost my vote.  She knew that Obama is Christian and she knew he that he attended the same Christian church for 20 years.  On 60 Minutes, when asked if she believed that Obama was a Christian, she couldn't be a stand-up gal and just say "yes" without adding her little "as far as I know" comment intended to muddy the waters.  I also think that both Clintons have been subtly reminding voters that Obama is a black man, such as Bill's comments that Jesse Jackson won the SC primary, and Hillary tossing in Farakahn's (sp?) name in the last debate despite Obama having no ties with Farakahn.

    There's no denying that Hillary is a fighter, but I don't see her as a leader or an achiever.  She will brawl to the death, but a Democratic president has to achieve something this coming term, and Hillary is toxic to Republicans.  She will not get the cross-aisle support needed to pass through key legislation.  Hillary's strengths are better served in the Senate, and Barack's vision and leadership are better served in the presidency.


    Obama lost me (none / 0) (#102)
    by AnninCA on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:43 PM EST
    On the day of his great Reagan speech.  That's the day I saw his strategy clearly.

    He would trash the only Democrat we've had win 2 terms.

    I got it.

    And he has done it.


    We (none / 0) (#49)
    by sas on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    will not forget!

    I agree. I think the divide between Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    and Obama supporters is much deeper than I realized. I just had an interesting conversation about my sister-in-laws parents. These are the most yellow dog die-hard Democrats I have ever met.

    They are absolutely furious at Obama and the media. They even despise Theresa Kerry because of John and they loved her in 2004. They are permanently boycotting MSNBC and they say they will not vote for Obama period because of the way Hillary has been treated. They won't vote for McCain but they just won't vote.

    This really shocked me and I think Obama is going to have to reach out to Hillary and Bill Clinton in a convincing and sincere manner or some of her supporters will sit this one out. If these people will do it, I don't doubt there are many others.


    It will take some work (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    for me to convince my mother to vote for Obama. I don't think she's EVER voted for a Republican.

    Me too. My mother is as angry as my sister- (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    in-law's parents are. These are life long Democrats that have never ever voted for a Republican even in a local race. It's scary.

    I don't want to vote for him but I'm hoping time will heal my wounds. I'm not so sure about their's.


    I will vote for him because (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    I am a pragmatic voter and a party-line voter. Others don't fall in line so easily.

    Me too. I'm not even trying to convince my (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:46:31 PM EST
    brother. I'm trying to talk him out of voting for McCain but there's no chance he is voting for Obama.

    This will be my first experience "holding my nose". I've never understood how people could feel that way about our nominee before. With Harry & Louise and the social security "crisis", I understand now.


    He's (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by sas on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    run a sleazy low down campaign.  Playing the race card at every turn, subtly (or maybe not so) inserting sexism, (throwing the china, the kitchen sink) , getting his backers to block re-votes for Fla and Mich, claiming she's in her element, his supporters will support him, but not her, Michelle having to "think"
     about working for Hillary, accusing her of destryoying the party, not keeping his supporters in line when they say vile things about her, etc

    I'm a life long Democrat, and I will NEVER vote for this man.


    I'm a lifelong Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:31:45 PM EST
    who's changing her registration to Independent as soon as she votes for Hillary tomorrow.

    I'm a life long Democrat, and I will NEVER vote for this man.

    It's hard for me to imagine myself voting for McCain because I hate the GOP party platform. It's corporatist, fundamentalist, scary-stuff.

    But right now, it's hard to imagine voting for Obama with any sort of enthusiasm. If I can't bring myself to vote for him, I just won't vote. Maybe I'll write-in Hillary as a protest vote.


    I Have Yet To See ANY Evidence That Obama.... (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:06:17 PM EST
    ...has anything but his own interests at heart.  I do not believe, for a second, that he has, or ever has had the best interests of America and the Democratic Party in the forefront.  And, don't get me started on his angry, ghetto wife.

    To me it's deeper than Obama (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    Thanks for the post Nobama08! You seem to have been deeply affected personally -- and I thought I'd respond to ask you if you'd feel the same way if:
    • Obama is the nominee, and reaches out to Clinton supporters.
    • Hillary campaigns for Obama, and personally "asks you" to vote for him.
    • Hillary is offered a high-ranking Cabinet post, or say Senate Majority leader by the party.

    Point being, I have asked myself these questions, and concluded that my personal reasons against not wanting to vote for Obama go a bit deeper than the fact that I think he would be a bad choice for this country at this time in our history (given his inexperience, and his empty vessel campaign -- which is only bound to disappoint his supporters should he become President) or his campaign tactics (politics after all is a contact sport).

    What has turned me off -- is really the behavior of the Democratic party (the caucus process, the MI/FL votes, the SD behavior, and the lack of leadership -- I could go on and on), and the main stream media (which simply has NOT played their role), and last but not the least, the behavior of Senator Obama's supporters. Perhaps I am growing older, and am realizing that with members like this, and leaders like this, perhaps I'm really not a Democrat after all.


    I mentioned my run-in with the poli-sci (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    Professor at my school.
    His main reason for voting Obama it that Hillary is a "warmonger".
    Um, great.
    He's Iranian, btw, so I agree he has something to worry about; however, that holds for ANY of the top three. Obama is not just a hawk, he's an overconfidence novice. I wouldn't trust him as CIC.

    Speaking only for myself (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Chisoxy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    I have more trust in McCain than I do in Obama. He will sell out the democratic agenda in order to provide his unity PONY. He has made himself into something for everyone, and he will be viewed as a disappointment, ensuring future erosion of dems in the presidency, since I dont doubt he will continue to bad mouth the Clinton presidency. With McCain, I think we will at least gain more control of Congress, and hopefully prevent anything truly horrible from getting through. Thats my personal plan B if Hillary doesnt get the office.

    From the department of hollow laughter (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    Obama will have to reach out in "a convincing and sincere manner"...

    And then we can have make up sex?


    lol, I'm not counting on it either. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    Too much arrogance to admit he was wrong or even that he needs us.

    Obama Doesn't Have To Do Anything At All (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:17:25 PM EST
    Remember, Clinton voters will automatically vote for him but his voters won't vote for her.

    And BTW, if you don't somehow vote for Obama you are a racist.


    If Anyone Could Make Me A Racist, It Is Obama (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    Truly, he sickens me and even more so because I thought when he gave that speech at the Dem Convention he was something else.  I didn't know then that he is nothing more than an empty suit and a liar.

    Actually I Liked Al Sharpton's Speech Better n/t (none / 0) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    What makes him an empty suit? (none / 0) (#99)
    by WorkinJoe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    What makes Obama an empty suit?  He graduated Harvard Law School and passed up a chance for easy money at a prestigious law firm to work with union workers losing their jobs in the Chicago area.  Is that an empty suit, or someone living up to Democratic Party ideals that working people count?  He then moved into the Illinois state senate where he gained a reputation for listening to and engaging with his opponents and managed to pass difficult legislation, receiving praise from many of his Illinois colleagues in the process. Is that an empty suit, or an effective legislator?  Obama then won a US Senate seat, and in his first term chose to run for president, running a campaign that has drawn contributions from more than one million donors, continues to raise huge dollars twenty bucks at a time and as a relative unknown has the pre-campaign "hands-down" favorite, now $10 million in debt, on the ropes.  Is this an empty suit, or a heckuva campaigner?

    You may prefer a pantsuit, but I can't conceive of how you call Obama an empty suit.  


    No (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:37:08 PM EST
    He's so smug, he'll roll of and go home thinking we're gonna call him in the morning!

    ewwwwwwwwwww (none / 0) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    I've never said (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    anything like this before, but if the exit polls show that he won extra votes by betraying us on health care, my forgiving and forgetting is going to be a long time coming. My first primary choice almost never wins the nomination, and I've always worked my heart out for the nominee anyway. But this is different.

    Health care betrayal (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Davidson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    Michael Moore endorsed Obama.  Nice, huh?

    Actually (none / 0) (#81)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    That could help - lots of people ("Reagan Democrats") don't like Michael Moore!

    Obama in GE? (none / 0) (#78)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    I have conducted a very unscientific poll over the past couple of weeeks. I have spoken to many yellow dog democrats in Northeastern PA, who are currently supporting Clinton. It seems they are spliit in the middle. About a quarter will vote for McCain. About a quarter will not vote or will cosider a write-in and a little less than 50% will vote for  Obama. However, I don't think that a foreign policy crisis will put McCain in the  White House. It is simpler than that. Come November, Obama will not win PA over McCain. He will lose OH and perhaps MI. FL will not be in his win column. He may pick up one or two southern/western states. But they will not be  enough. So get ready to the idea of President Mccain.
    As for tomorrow's PA primary I wrote before that Clinton's  margin may not be  double digit and  if she wins  at all (there was a question for a while)  she will win by no more than 7%. However, Obbama  has gone  extremely negative-in ads as well as in campaign apperances. Most elderly voters  are getting increasingly upset by this. People who did not vote in years, are planning to vote  for her. I will not be  surprised if she finally wins by a double digit margin. But even a double  digit win (short of a 15% margin, which will not happen)will not  change the narrative. Within a day or two there  will be renewed call for her to drop out.

    I can't think of any southern state he can win. (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    I agree with your scenario for Ohio and FL. I'd hate for us to lose MI and PA but if Clinton voters stay home, we very well could/will.

    We will not forget what Mr. Obama did. (none / 0) (#103)
    by AX10 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM EST
    My brother has made it clear that he will take McCain over Obama.  He sees Obama as inexperienced and too much like Jimmy Carter on foreign policy.
    He also sees Obama and his supporters as being to much like Bush.  This bothers me too.
    I will have to consider what to do in the fall if it is: Obama V. McCain.

    PA voters already tired... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by stefystef on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    of Obama's saturation on the airwaves.  I've read on other blogs of PA people are are complaining about too many Obama commercials on the TV and the Radio.

    He's spending a lot of money, but he's turning off a lot of people.  

    And you know what?  Perhaps Hillary will do very well in NC.  Not win, but make it close.  Montana will go to Hillary, but not South Dakota.  The rest of the primaries will be very interesting.

    You realize that if the AA vote keeps going (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:54:40 PM EST
    to Obama like it's been going come the GE if he is the nominee to a large percentage of the population he will be the black candidate.  And I guarantee that this will be played by the RW talk shows in just that way.

    Like Bill Clinton was the black candidate? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:21:42 PM EST
    Or Kerry?

    Don't vote for Obama. He won't get every vote. Clinton would be a sure loser in November precisely due to the same phenomenon of not getting every vote.


    Not so fast (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:58:06 PM EST

    ARG             Mar 29  April 14-15
    Clinton      38%      41%
    Obama             51%     52%
    Someone else     4%     2%
    Undecided     7%     5%

    Clinton gets a rush of PA coverage, thats a closable spread.

    NC blacks are different than Philly. Conservative with a lot of military ties. BLT isnt really going to go over well.

    Anyway my premise is that NC is on the verge of becoming a must win for Obama.

    Think South Carolina but with more (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    liberal "creative class" people. I wish she had a chance but I think that poll is very optimistic.

    It may be unlikely ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    but she hasn't to fight for it.

    The recent SUSA poll has it a 10% race.

    But 12% is either undecided or other.

    That last bit is rather confusing.  In the poll, 7% claim they're voting for someone other than Clinton or Obama.  

    Could an Edwards write-in be that large?


    I think any single-digit loss in NC (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    ...for Hillary could be considered a win," particularly if she tops Obama by any margin in IN.

    This is just another way to diminish the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by my opinion on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:11:22 PM EST
    importance of the votes and therefore take the power away from the voters.

    De je vue all over again (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM EST
    Isn't all this exactly what happened in TX & OH -- Obama spent money like a drunken sailor causing the Obama "surge" to shrink Hillary's lead in the OH polls to single digits; Obama was going to pull surprise wins in both of them (remember NH! plus his outrageous "ground game"); if Obama wins TX or OH, the nomination is his; etc. etc.  And, even if Hillary does win PA tomorrow by double digits (as she did in OH), the story will change to the "math," "she needs to drop out" and only NC matters, not PA.  Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.  I fully expect Hillary to perform in PA at least as well as she did in OH.  I know I'll be lighting candles and praying (just like I did for TX & OH) and hope the PA voters do me proud.  

    Didn't really need RCP to tell you that, did you? (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    Everyone has known for a long time that HRC can't afford to blow a 16-point lead in PA. Considering his lead in NC and his likely wins in SD and MT, her threshold of victory is just gonna keep rising. At some point, it has to become clear that she cannot overcome his lead.

    It's not about her being a loser for winning, or any of the other kool aid facts people here like to think. It's about the reality of her campaign losing the overall race, which it is, and which, with gawd's blessing, HRC will learn to live with very soon.

    But how double-digity does it have to be? (none / 0) (#7)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:12:47 PM EST
    Which digits need to be doubled?

    I am sure even a 15 point win will be met with an onslaught of the MAAAATH!!!

    By double digits they mean 99 not 11. Silly wabbit.

    10 I think (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    I think she will (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    win by more than 10.
    but I have been wrong before.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    Though 8 or 9 may suffice given the recent tightening in the polls.

    15 would be met by SOME calls for (none / 0) (#24)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:30:58 PM EST
    Obama to concede, IMO.

    i'm curious, (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    does his popular vote count include FL & MI? he doesn't say.

    with all the millions sen. obama's campaign has poured into PA, if he doesn't win, and win big, he should drop out of the race, he's just wasting everyone's time and money.

    Why? (none / 0) (#19)
    by kempis on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    If Hillary wins by one lousy point to a guy who's outspent her two to one in ads and who has run a state-of-the-art, expensive, Google Earth-like, polling-defined campaign in the state to identify and target simpatico districts, then how on earth is it a win for him?

    Because she needs to make up delegates (none / 0) (#37)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    as he is leading.  

    No, needs popular votes (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:49:22 PM EST
    As he is leading. Delegates have not mattered for a while now. She needs the 9-10 for the gain in popular vote.

    Because she was favored by 19 (none / 0) (#59)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    points a couple weeks ago. Because this state IS the Hillary Clinton demographic. Because the reason he is able to outspend her the way he has is that people are voting for him with their donations. Vote once in the booth and $500 or $200 or $1000 or $2300 more times in dollars.

    Yeah, the old money is speech... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:54:15 PM EST
    So, some people have more speech and thus can vote more.  This is a terrible way to fund campaigns - we really should stop this and have public financing at all levels.

    as any candidate. Who else has over 1.3 million donors?

    Hear! Hear! (none / 0) (#100)
    by WorkinJoe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    As well noted by Independent Voter, Barack's campaign is the closest thing to public financing we've seen.  Most of his donations are under $200, and many people, myself included, have donated for the first time in our lives to a candidate.  Anyone who can organize this effectively and crank up the Democratic party registrations as Obama has needs to be given some respect.

    91% of Clinton's donations are individual (none / 0) (#104)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:51:42 AM EST
    Does that mean she's totally funded by people breaking open their piggy banks? Nope. Neither does Obama's "individual" donations.

    Take a closer look here:



    And.... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kempis on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:53:53 AM EST
    Read this:


    Obama supporters who think he's solely a "man of the people" have been hoodwinked and bamboozled.


    Obama Wouldn't Give Money To Precincts.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    to pay for lunches, carfare, etc. something that has always been done, but he refused.  Will this cause some type of backlash?

    Mostly correct (none / 0) (#27)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    9 points is a bit much for it to be status quo.

    My really quibble is that they only count the value of the 10 point win as "counting toward the popular vote".

    If HRC is up 10+ out of PA, then NC is really in play and Hill get the winners edit in most of the coverage the next couple of weeks. ARG only has a 9 point difference in NC now.

    Tell me this: how can Obama be the nominee if he doesnt take NC? If its HRC +10 in PA, then NC will be must win for Obama or he will be walking dead.  

    He won't lose North Carolina, no way, no how. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    Unfortunate, but I'd bet my life on it.

    I hope you're wrong ... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    because Clinton's best chance for the nomination is beating BO in one of his favored states.

    The odds in NC may look long, but they're not impossible.  NC isn't SC.


    It is totally impossible (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    indeed, Hillary's best shot there is losing by 10 points, IMO.

    Think of it this way, every AA vote is an Obama vote. Period.


    Not every African American will be voting (none / 0) (#47)
    by stefystef on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    for Obama.  There are voters who look beyond race.  

    it's a 9/10 thing (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    any other suggestion is simply delusional.

    What are the DP ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:15:33 PM EST
    demographics in NC?

    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:19:32 PM EST
    I've been wondering if that would factor in to a win for her in NC

    as for the primary, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    i'd agree. come the GE, neither democrat will win NC. that's a historical fact. or hysterical, take your pick.

    Obama up by 25 in NC in latest PPP poll (none / 0) (#50)
    by magster on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    Almost at 60%.

    (No link but it's posted on TPM Election Central.)

    So yeah, NC is not in play.  


    No its not (none / 0) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    But PPP is not a poll I'd look at.

    Indiana may end up being very important (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:47:15 PM EST
    if she wins in double digits in PA. NC will be an Obama win.

    Bill Clinton on IN (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Davidson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    I remember Bill saying if Hillary won IN (after winning PA) she's got a good chance of winning the nomination.  This is the same man who said if she didn't win both TX and OH, she'd be out, so I don't count on him to just casually throw that out there.  That's why this whole "She must win by, at least, 10!" has me so worried: let's see what IN has to say before we--the public--call her dead.

    That won't happen of course.  If she gets anything less than 10, the screams for her to quit will be too damn much.  Even if she charges on, I don't see how she'll have enough money to compete.  People won't see her as viable just based on lack of funds alone.


    I think Indiana is the critical state. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    IMO, in order for the campaign to end before the convention, Obama needs to stay within 10 in PA and win or at least perform very strongly in Indiana.  

    I agree with those on this thread who argue that losing North Carolina would be fatal to the Obama campaign, I just don't see that as a reasonable possibility.


    winner's edit! lol (none / 0) (#84)
    by angie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:50:45 PM EST
    she didn't get the winner's edit after she won TX & OH -- do ya really think she'll get the winner's edit even if she wins PA by 20? Yeah, me neither. ;-)

    What if. Not entirely impossible. (none / 0) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    Just think what has happened in the last two months. Who ever knew that there could be controversy. Well, I guess we would have known eventually when the GOP threw this stuff at Obama. Like it was going to be kept a secret forever? That he wasn't so pure afterall.

    interesting prediction from Salon writer (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    Although this piece is fairly pro-Obama (it refutes the idea he'd be another McGovern or Hart in the general election), its author makes an interesting prediction:

    I do, however, have a prediction of sorts: If Hillary Clinton remains within, say, 100 delegates and 100,000 popular votes after June 3, she will be the nominee. It's unlikely to be that close, but if it is, you read it here first.

    I'd be interested if BTD and others agree that that's a reasonable metric for her taking the nomination.