What's Considered a Win for Hillary in Pennsylvania?

What's a win for Hillary in PA today? For me, it's:

  • winning the popular vote by any margin
  • winning among rural, older, Catholic and women voters.
  • Coming in second only or primarily among African American and younger voters.

The goalpost of PA in my view is neither the pledged delegate count nor a huge total vote margin. It's showing the superdelegates that Hillary has the better (if not only) chance of taking big states like PA, Ohio and Florida in the general election. [More...]

Except for Illinois, Obama hasn't shown he can win the big states. Democrats need Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. In November, Democrats are unlikely to carry many of the small states Obama has won so far. The upcoming primaries in North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota also don't matter much -- they are almost certain to go Republican in November.

While California and New York and Illinois are likely to go Democratic whoever is the nominee, they are not enough to bring the Dems to victory.

We need Ohio, PA and/or Florida. Michigan and New Jersey would be nice. The superdelegates need to factor this into their decision.

So, if Hillary wins PA, by whatever margin, it's a win. It means she's won the popular vote not just there, but in CA, NY, Ohio, FL, MA and NJ. I think she'll also take Indiana.

She's better in the big states than Obama. Dems need big states to win in November. For me, it's as simple as that.

What do you consider a win for Hillary today?

< Exit Polls: Thread One | More Exit Polls : Thread Two >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    5o percent plus one vote (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    Obama is well known now has had 6 weeks to introduce himself and out spent her 3 or 4 to 1 and he and his team have been relentless in bludgeoning her character and least we forget the GE Obama Network and Washington Post Companies publications campaign surrogates with Axelrod as Editor and clearly in the tank for Obama, oh and the DNC with their foot on the scale.  If she wins even by 1 vote she is the People choice.

    Silly people! (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by lambert on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    Nothing is considered a win for Hillary! Don' you understand the rules? What's wrong with you?

    Translation: Any win for Hillary that's less than 20  points is a loss.

    Fine points: 9, a single digit, does not round to 10, a double digit. Nor goes 9.5. Nor does 9.9. Nor does 9.99. Nor does 9.999... You know the drill!

    That's not true, Lambert! (none / 0) (#40)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    If Hillary wins by 50 points it's still a loss for her.

    So sayeth the OFB.


    For me, anything less than 5 pts (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    will be painful.
    If Obama loses by 10, it will be a significant victory for Hillary. If it's near 15, Obama should drop out.

    You nailed it (none / 0) (#46)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    Anything better than (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
    5% is a win, 10% is a blowout, 15% Obama needs to quit the race.

    ROFL.. great minds think alike, and so (none / 0) (#19)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    do we!

    Jeebus! (none / 0) (#42)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:13:41 PM EST
    Ya beat me by 16 seconds.

    Quit the race? (none / 0) (#71)
    by ROK on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    Coming from the same people who went crazy when it was suggested that Hillary should drop out.

    Why in the world would BO drop out when he is winning?


    2 things (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    50+1% victory

    And a greater than 3-1 Obama-Hillary margin in campaigning cost per vote.

    If he can't WIN after spending 4-1 money, he's not a viable candidate.

    Can I just say that I hope Claire McCaskill (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:18:30 PM EST
    loses in four years? With her voting record, she doesn't speak for me at all.

    I'm sick to my stomach nervous. I think she'll win (Hillary, not Claire) but I really really hope the exit poll on the number of women voters is wrong.

    There is a good chance she will lose (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:17 PM EST
    It's a knife edge of a state.

    I'll amend my comment by saying I hope she (none / 0) (#76)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    loses to a great Democrat in the primary. I really don't want to lose a seat but I don't understand what she has done to justify all the publicity she gets as a prominent Obama supporter. And I don't like some of her votes for sure.

    May Just Vote Republican For The First Time In My (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    life in 2012 against McCaskill. Rather beat her in a primary challenge, but not sure that will happen.

    Well, she has four years to prove us wrong (none / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    and change her ways. She does beat the Senators I have on the other hand (Tennessee).

    Doubtful That She Will Change (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 09:54:13 PM EST
    She is just Soooooo, Soooooo Proud of her bipartisan creds. She just glows when she talks about how much the Republicans like her. The fact that she dishonors her oath of office to protect the Constitution and gives away our rights doesn't bother her at all. Disgusted that I worked and donated to her campaign.

    Chill... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Spike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    I ain't no Hillary fan, but I wouldn't get too twisted up over early exit poll results. They seem to be wrong more often than they're right...

    Frankly, 9-10 pts (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    That will be the perception, and perception is reality.

    Double digits (none / 0) (#13)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    Will be a "decisive" win.

    And I think Zogby is right on this one.  She's going to hit that easily.


    No way (none / 0) (#41)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    This is ridiculous!

    Why would we allow anyone to change the definition of a win?

    Do athletes in the olympics who win by 1/100th of a second not get the medal?

    Do owners of horses who win a race by 1/10 of a second not get the cash and glory?

    Whoever gets more votes wins (even if it's just one vote), how can we even be saying anything else?



    I didn't have the opportunity (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
    to give anyone permission to adopt the conventional wisdom. It just happened.

    Um, in horse racing they time (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    in fifths of a second. And yes, they can lose the cash and the glory if the horse has interfered with another during the race. But other than that, no. And a horse race can be won by literally a whisker, same time for both horses, but one gets a tip of the  nostril in front at the finish.

    I think you got my analogy (none / 0) (#67)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    But it's good you let us know you know about horse races.

    Well, this is a horse race of sorts..LOL nt (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:46:00 PM EST
    An Obama loss is a loss (none / 0) (#58)
    by catfish on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:01 PM EST
    how bout that.

    I think what matters is both (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:47:35 PM EST
    the spread and the reasons.  I have this feeling the spread is going to be 12.  The reasons voters chose her will matter a lot--okay, should matter a lot--to the SD's.

    If exit polls show that there's still a lot of uneasiness about Obama among independents over the age of 25, I would expect the SD's to take a hard look.  

    I'm an independent over the age of 25, and something happens in the pit of my stomach every time I hear him say "When I'm commander in chief . . ."  

    I just can't see it.  

    curious, are (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    rural, older, Catholic and women voters the only voters that matter?

    I think the implication is (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    that Hillary maintains her base.

    yeah... i see a win as (none / 0) (#57)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    two thousand and twenty five delegates.  tonight, obama is going to get ninety something closer, never mind the supers standing by to announce.

    Well........ (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:25:48 PM EST
    If you are just thinking about winning the primary then that's the formula. Some of us think that thinking ahead is a good idea.

    the house of clinton has (none / 0) (#97)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:36:39 PM EST
    miscalculated the risk of the "big state" strategy.  it does not charm super delegates from small states when they are marginalized in this way.

    the super delegate trickle is about to become a steam.


    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    ought to be looking ahead to the GE. It shouldn't be about their "egos" being stroked, it should be about winning the WH in November. It isn't any wonder we lose if the party leadership doesn't "get" that.

    i am pretty sure that is (none / 0) (#120)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    why they are moving to obama.  this is politics, follow the money.

    Sure (none / 0) (#121)
    by Regency on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    Hey! Is that Mitt Romney I see on the sidelines counting his money?

    They're McCain voters (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by goldberry on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST
    Or the ones most likely to defect to McCain.  

    i voted for hillary in california. (none / 0) (#112)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    i do not buy the"defect" number.

    ok good maybe someone can (none / 0) (#1)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:43:13 PM EST
    answer this, so are we assuming then that the states you win and lose in the Primary are the states you win and lose in the GE?

    I mean are we suggesting Barack Obama CAN'T carry California and New york?  I mean does that mean I can assume that Hillary can't carry Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois? or the AA vote?

    I mean I am confused why is it we can assume that only Hillary can win California but then I can't say only Barack can take the Minnesota, Wisconsin,Iowa bloc (which I doubt she could win a GE without)

    I don't doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    Barack could take CA and NY in the general. I am worried about Florida and Michigan the most as he should be and his supporters.

    oh I know that, (none / 0) (#14)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:51:20 PM EST
    but there are people who go out and say Hillary wins the big states like CA, NY and TX, when we All know CA and NY would be carried by BOTH and TX by Neither.

    and i am just pointing out that the line of thought is arguing that if they couldn't win it in the primaries why should we believe they will win it in the GE?

    then I pointed out I have never seen a democratic president with without MN, WI, IA, Missouri, Illinois, or the AA vote.

    its a stupid argument unless we really want to follow it to conclusion and say Hillary can't win the AA vote.


    Even if what you are suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    is true, isn't Hillary preferable?  She wins the big states, usually by big margins.

    But the issue isn't the solid blue states, it's the big swing states, like Ohio and Florida.

    Obama won't win those, which means hello President McCain.

    Hillary will win those.

    Neither one will win the solid red states that have given Obama his delegate lead.


    Beyond the presidential election (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    I've been squawking about this for ages.  Might as well do it once again.

    This is bigger than just this race.  Hillary clearly has won the traditional Democrats over.  No question about that.  And today will only affirm that he's just not who they want.

    These are the Dems who show up to vote in off-years.  Very important times for SDs.  These are the bread and butter Dems who work the precincts when the whole world isn't excited as heck.  

    Drive them out.  You just broke the party!


    I don't agree with that argument either. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    Obama made the same point on the Today show.

    But Ohio and Florida - the two key states in recent elections - I fear are off the map in fall. I read a recent poll (and yes, take that for what it's worth) that Massachusetts is a 2-pointer between McCain and Obama. Fricking Mass.

    Also, sadly for Obama, the GE won't be a caucus. I do fear it will be a Dukakis, however.


    Dukakis?? No, he won't do that well.. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    In the GE, Obama will end up as McCain's toe jam. And it won't be pretty, either. And the Dems will take the heat for having foisted such an inexperienced, unqualified, badly vetted candidate on the country.

    ha-ha, a ducaucus! (none / 0) (#78)
    by isaac on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:58 PM EST
    as I said in my first Post ever on TL days ago (none / 0) (#94)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    if Obama is the Nominee, I'll sit this Election Season out.  Not an easy thing to do for someone who loves voting as much as I do, but I don't want to end up like a friend of mine who voted for Bush in 2000 (he thought Gore was a bore) and regrets it every time he sees the imbecile stumble and fumble and mangle the English language and our Constitution.  He quite literally hangs his head in shame.

    I don't want to feel that way watching Obama destroy the Party as a staggeringly unqualified disaster as President and watch the Repugs take back the Senate and House and then the Presidency in 2012.  I couldn't live with the guilt that my one vote helped create that disaster.

    So, I'd sit this one out.


    I understand those sentiments... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:40:14 PM EST
    but I'll never cede to McCain.


    Although with Obama I fear I may have to, he'll get my vote.


    I will vote the undercard, straight Dem, but (none / 0) (#114)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
    the top slot won't get my vote this year if Obama is the nominee. For the same reasons you give, more or less. I don't want to be party to a disaster. I know lots of Dems that feel that way too. Not only do they think he is not qualified, but they don't see why they should give him their vote in the GE when he tossed it out the window in the primary. So, in FL Obama is toast.

    Polls (none / 0) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:07:28 PM EST
    show that 30% of her supporters will probably switch to McCain while she would lose only 11% of his supporters.

    We already have that information, unless something happens to upset people even more.

    The older Dems won't switch to Obama.  I also think the Latinos won't, so there goes the western swing states.  I don't believe he'll earn the Jewish Dem vote.  He's not going to transform many of his caucus states into wins in the Fall.  That we know.

    So what's he got going?  Colorado?  Washington?


    bluntly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    if he she were to lose his black vote as long as it's in the south it will not affect the electoral college a bit.

    Probably (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    true......but the AA voters have consistently said they will vote for her if she's the nominee by a large proportion.

    So that's not really an issue.  I believe that's because she and Bill showed up to all the committed events, regardless of the reception.

    Obama avoids all situations unless he looks beloved.  She doesn't.

    That actually earns respect from people, even if they are frowning.

    Always let people be mad at you.  In the long run, they get over it faster.


    and (none / 0) (#55)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    latest polls show NJ is in play - and I wouldn't count WI just yet.

    don't count on NY (none / 0) (#77)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:45 PM EST
    Am an upstater in NY and it can be very republican here, McCain will be respected and will  considered considered by many. So don't just automatically assume he will carry. Yeah its a blue state, but given the Spitzer problem who knows what will come into play.

    Interesting! (none / 0) (#90)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:38 PM EST
    I pictured NY as total blue.  That has been the fun of following this.  It's been so interesting to learn about the politics in each of the States.  

    it's actually more interesting (none / 0) (#100)
    by ccpup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    when you break down Manhattan eg. Upper East Side is red, Upper West Side is blue, Greenwich Village is blue while those who live down by Wall Street (maybe not a lot of them, perhaps) tend to vote red.

    It tends to get confusing.  :-)


    Yup. My friend lives in what she calls (none / 0) (#105)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:40:29 PM EST
    the reddest spot in Brooklyn. Mine is bluer, but could swing red depending on the candidate. Hillary blue, Obama, eh, not sure . . .

    I had to laugh when I found out how (none / 0) (#101)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    red NYS really was. My dad (CA Republican) always made cracks about me living here with all the "bleeding heart liberals". I had to burst his bubble. At the time, CA was bluer in the major offices, lol!~

    Truth does matter (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:55:33 PM EST
    are we assuming then that the states you win and lose in the Primary are the states you win and lose in the GE?


    We're assuming that a candidate who wins in the big Democratic states probably has the support of a lot of Democrats.  It's possible that a candidate who wins in the small Republican states also has the support of a lot of Democrats, but it's not guaranteed, is it?

    And we're also assuming that if we must choose between two candidates who both have the support of half the Democrats, we should at least try to figure out which of them can carry more of the toss-up states.  Like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.


    I think it points to scalability (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ricosuave on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    Obama is clearly popular and can clearly turn out people to elections, but I believe his record shows that his operation cannot scale to big elections.  

    Obama doesn't win contests where a delegate represents more than about 9,000 voters unless some sort of extenuating factor exists.  He won his own state.  He won Georgia, which has an extremely high ratio of African American voters (before I get trolled on this: that's a great thing and we should all be happy about it, and AA's are a vital part of the Democratic coalition) but that condition won't exist anywhere in the general election.

    It is not a matter of winning states in the General that you won in the primary.  Obama has shown that he can motivate his die-hard supporters very strongly.  He has also shown that he generally cannot expand that to large elections and elections outside of dense areas.  He seems to get thousands of people to rallies (though Hillary does that as well), but he doesn't seem to connect with the people who DON'T show up to the rallies.  In elections and caucuses with thousands of people, he does very well.  In elections with millions of people (and all the ones he has to win in the general election will be those) he does very poorly.

    I predict today's results will be the same.  He has spent insane amounts of money and still cannot pull off a win because he can't break out beyond his (very committed) base of support.  His loss today should clinch the idea that he simply cannot win a straight-up big election.


    It's about the demographics. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    And I can't explain it....because I'm a total noob when it comes to this stuff.

    If you've been paying attention to the polls and analyses, you'll know who has a handle on how the numbers are crunched to get the likely wins and losses.


    CA has gone red for Reagan & Bush Sr and (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
    has Arnie. McCain will make a play. He'll prob also make a play for NY/NJ/PA/CT/MA. Clinton plays better in all those states. Obama will have to work for them, imo.

    McCain can cut into the demographics Clinton has, Obama hasn't been able to make a strong inroad in any of them. And Obama's campaigning 'style' of late may really be a problem in the GE.


    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    California is not a sure thing.  The Hispanic vote is key, and they went big for Hillary.

    If they go for McCain over Obama, Big Smoggy will go red in November.


    Latinos (none / 0) (#82)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    have definitely been known to vote for the "right" Republican.

    And that's a family network kind of vote.  My favorite story of the election was a Latino male who said, "Vote against Hillary?  Are you kidding?  I value my dinner and comforts."  :)


    great quote! lol!~ (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    And NY is a big Agriculture state (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:30:46 PM EST
    which many people don't think about. And we also have the manufacturing biz. It's really not all about NYC, who had a Repub Mayor before Bloomie the new Repub came to town. I think our prior Gov was also Repub and our Senate is still currently blue.

    I don't now how he'll do with the PR vote, but that's a factor also here. Along with all those other demographics. . . .  


    NY now is America's Dairyland (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    having surpassed us in Wisconsin a couple of years ago in production of milk or cheese or something.  That headline was quite upsetting here in the hinterland, even though most of us couldn't tell you which end of a cow to milk.  (I just keep clear of every end of a cow, which is why I'm still here.:-)

    And of course, we long ago lost most of our breweries that made my city famous.  And then this year, we lost the headquarters of the American Bowling Congress.  Somehow, getting all these trendy coastal Starbuckses just doesn't seem a good swap.  Me, I gotta have my homegrown cheeses at every meal and can drink down any coffee with it, no need for latte.  (But never, ever diluted with faux "milk products.")


    I love my dairy :) (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    I get my dairy from a 'local' place. YUM! They have what they call creamline milk and I use it for making ice cream and yogurts. Plus it's great for coffee and just to drink.

    I didn't know we had actually become America's dairyland, lol!~


    so I need you to (none / 0) (#17)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    clarify because i don't want to put words in your mouth.

    are you saying Barack Obama would have problems carrying California and NY as the Nominee?

    but Hillary won't have problems with Illinois, MN, WI, Iowa or the AA vote?


    Yes, I'm saying he could have a (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    harder time in NY and CA. He will have to work harder to keep them blue using more time and resources than Clinton. Upstate NY is red. Heck, our state senate finally has a chance to go blue this year :) Obama is still not solid on how to get these voters. Will see how much he has improved tonight. I'm not sure he could win my Brooklyn hood because of it demographics right now.

    CA also has areas he will struggle in more than Clinton.

    Obama doesn't close well, she does. He hasn't sealed the deal yet. She knows how to reach people better than Obama and McCain (imo). And by Nov, who knows what Obama's going to look like? After this past week, I'm not to confident. Recent national polls against McCain showed her getting back enough of the AA vote and she'll have the younger vote advantage over McCain with her other demographics. And this is before she debates him.


    McCain (none / 0) (#39)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    is inarticulate often, however.  CA could be his if he crafted an immigration plan that would not scare everyone to death and toned down the war rhetoric.

    I'm guessing he won't do that.


    Hispanics (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    love McCain - CA would probably go blue, but Obama would have to spend way more than he wanted to there.

    IL would stay blue with Hillary, MN - probably blue , WI - toss-up.

    But Obama's winning strategy also includes VA and MO and as of now, McCain would cream him there.


    VA and MO (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    Seriously?  He thinks he'd win?

    In his dreams.....


    Well, McCain is crafting a counter 'unity' (none / 0) (#93)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM EST
    plan. Did you see any of the snippets of him yesterday? It's entertaining to watch for now, lol!~  But he may play well in states we don't want him too, {sigh}

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    Even as mad as I am at Obama, I simply couldn't vote for McCain.

    Nader, maybe......because I'm a very stubborn girl!  :)

    I've been straight Dem for over 30 years.  I mean.....down to dogcatcher.

    They have so hacked me off, I feel a rebellion inside of me that may demand expression.  


    I'm writing in Clinton if Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:45:00 PM EST
    wins the nom. I could go Nadar, but would prefer to write her in. I will not be blackmailed or bullied into voting for Obama. He has SO much repairing to do before I could comfortably cast a vote for him.

    We don't vote for dog catcher, but by voting for Bloomberg, the strays in NYC won  :)


    Virginia (none / 0) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    is a big military/ military retiree state. Underestimating McCain here would be a mistake.

    Nobody said (none / 0) (#18)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    Obama couldn't take CA and NY in the GE - although CA could be in play with McCain as the Repub nominee.  Hillary could carry IL and the AA vote, and maybe Missouri (the primary was very close).

    I believe the point is that Obama has trouble in big swing states like OH, PA, FL, MI.


    she is losing the (none / 0) (#24)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:59:21 PM EST
    AA vote now almost 9 to 1, but we just give it to her that she will get it back?

    but we can't give Obama the blue collar vote or the women vote, when he is ALOT closer in those votes then she is on the AA vote?



    Winning 90% of a strong (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    consituency doesn't mean as much as winning a swing bloc.
    I"m sure Huckabee had a similar margin among evangelicals. Does that mean McCain won't win them in the fall?

    A multitude of exit polls (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    and subsequent show Obama bleeds more votes than Clinton.  Clinton voters are a stubborn lot.  

    Latest polls:

    20% will jump ship to vote for McCain.
    4% will vote for Nader.
    20% Undecided.

    Break the 20% that says they will vote for McCain...

    24% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain.
    14% of Obama supporters will vote for McCain.

    The number of Clinton supporters that won't vote for McCain has continued to grow at a steady rate.  The Obama supporters unwilling to vote for Clinton has dropped.


    The Obama supporters (1.50 / 2) (#59)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:13 PM EST
    are clearly better Democrats

    That was too easy (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:36:03 PM EST
    to respond to ....  where to begin...  

    Clinton supporters know quality and won't accept anything less.

    Clinton supporters back the only candidate that can win in November.

    Clinton supporters are more attractive.


    LOL (none / 0) (#102)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    "Clinton supporters back the only candidate that can win in November" and therefore they will vote for McCain just to prove it?  

    As for looks between Casey and Rendell, it's a push


    To Rendell I'm a person, so I think he's gorgeous (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    To Casey Jr., I'm less than a fertilized egg so the mere sight of him makes me hurl.

    Realistic (none / 0) (#107)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    figures there.  I was figuring he'd lose

    older Dems....that's about 10%
    Traditional Jewish voters
    Gay voters
    White women with a set mind
    White males with a set mind
    Independents who are mad at the Republicans.

    He'll end up with about the same percentage that we started with, except the flake factor will be higher.

    Just my take.....


    Do you think she would be losing them (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:34:54 PM EST
    if Obama weren't black? I don't. She would have them in her demographic if he weren't in the race. So take him out of the picture and yes, they will go back to her. And the women won't vote for him because he is a sexist and has shown that consistently in this campaign. If you want women to vote for you, you don't call them "sweetie", offer a kiss for a vote or tell the female reporter that she has to mind her manners. He is a condescending sexist. Women won't vote for him just because he got the nomination. And he doesn't have the resume to convince most women that he is qualified. We won't vote for McCain, probably, but we can sit on our hands as far as the Presidential vote goes. Obama should remember that the next time he opens his mouth to talk down to a woman. Or anyone, for that matter.

    Can AA females lose? (none / 0) (#98)
    by goldberry on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    Wouldn't either be a win for them in the fall?  BTW, when I was canvassing in PA, I found that Obama voters were soft.  They had no trouble saying they would vote for Hillary if she won.  And they seemed persuadable.  They wanted to hash out policy and stuff.  Clinton voters were firm.  Undecideds were leaning Clinton.  LOTS of women.  

    Not having as much money as Obama, (none / 0) (#61)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:22 PM EST
    if he or his supporters continue to alienate the Clinton voters; unable to get the Hispanic voters.  

    Headline should read: Not If (none / 0) (#65)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:23:47 PM EST
    I'm sorry to say this but... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Josmt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:43:32 PM EST
    Obama's supporters turn me off to vote for him in the fall if he's the nominee... btw, yes I'm latino... I like McCain better if that is the choice.

    No. (none / 0) (#122)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    example:  Wyoming. Registered democrats, 50,000/ Repbulicans 800,000 or some absurd high number.  No way Obama can get 50% of the republican vote in Wyoming.  Yet he won in the caucus. Utah is another example.  It has always voted republican and the registered democrats there almost has the same ratio as Wyoming.  

    In the casse of Hillary, the big states she carried are all the large states that usually vote democratic.  So in her case, the states she won will be the same ones she will win in the general election, including Florida and Michigan.


    I like it. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    I like your analysis.  :)

    Bonus would be a big margin in the popular vote that allows her to pass him by in any one of the many possible popular vote calculations.  That provides some ammunition in changing perceptions of him as the most likely nominee.  He's winning the perception game (not without cause), but I'd like something that puts her back in it.

    Depends on for who.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by coolit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    For MSNBC.... a win for Hillary might have to be 100-0.  Otherwise stated; it is impossible.

    As far as the rest of us....  After all she has been been battered, beaten, slimed, and sabotaged by the media and Obama's underhanded campaign, I think a win is a win. The people will speak, and they want her.

    By the way (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by coolit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    Did Obama say that when he won close in other states that it actually was a win for her?

    10 Points Or More (none / 0) (#15)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    The race has come down to phychology.  Hillary's task it to convince the SD's that 1) She is more electable, and 2) She has the big MO coming out of the primaries.  She also needs cover for the voters who supported Obama, and that means she needs to show them that Obama's early success is trumped by her momentum.  BTW, I read that the dems are now devided in "aritithmacrats" and "momentucrats"  She has a big hill to climb.  She needs 10 or more points tonight.

    Early exit polls suggest a 4 point Hillary win (none / 0) (#16)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    If she does not win by 8+ points, it will be seen as a defeat given all the expectations and her 20% lead in the polls more than a month ago.  Anything less than a 8% victory in my opinion will be construed as a green light to the super delegates to annouce their  support for Obama.  On a practical level, a victory margin of less than 8% will make it mathematically impossible for her to make up the popular vote lead (even counting Florida and accounting for MI) and thus deprives the Clinton campaign of their last, best argument for giving her the nomination.

    what exit polls say 4%? (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:55:03 PM EST
    The only one (none / 0) (#22)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    I have seen that says this is Drudge. And well...it's Drudge.

    there are no exit polls posted at (none / 0) (#73)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    the CNN exit polling center yet, so Drudge is dredging up from his hopes and wishes only...

    Oh I know that (none / 0) (#81)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    Drudge has Hillary only winning women by 10.

    Yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:04:01 PM EST
    But early exit polls have said a lot of things.

    We'll see.


    He was supposed to win NJ (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    at 6PM on super tuesday, right?

    Let's wait for 8. at least.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    I also remind what exits said about RI.

    Remind me (none / 0) (#34)
    by MaryGM on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    What did they say?

    Too close to call (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    Clinton won by 17.

    Yup (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    It was "too close to call" for a ridiculously long time.  I'm in it for the bulk of the results tonight.

    I am right there with ya (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:09:47 PM EST
    Got my Hillary water bottle and am about to go and put on my Hillary t-shirt for luck.

    Not sure I can take all the pundit talk with the objects to help me out.

    More Fox Exits:
    Churchgoers HRC 59% BO 41%
    Gunowners HRC 58% BO 42%
    Unions HRC 58% BO 42%


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28:18 PM EST
    I am curious about where the exit polling happened.  It's a vast state between Pitt and Philly, and believe it or not there are democrats there.

    What's a BIG State? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Spike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    Missouri? Washington? Minnesota? Wisconsin? Colorado? Virginia? Not BIG enough? There's no doubt that any Democratic presidential candidate on the ballot will take Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California in 2008. The key to victory in November will be expanding the map to include mid-sized purple states. Obama has demonstrated that he can do that. Clinton hasn't.

    According To Recent Polls, Clinton Is Doing (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    much better against McCain than Obama in MO. While Obama won the primary by 10,000 votes, he lost all but the typical Dem stronghold counties. Can't win the state that way.

    anything over 20 EC pts. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:18:45 PM EST
    Missouri is a midsize state.   Washington oddly enough--midsize.

    Missouri by the looks of it will never vote for Obama in the General Election. Same with Ohio and Florida.   And Kerry only won Penn with 2% so it's completely up in the air too.

    So shoot the craps.  Enjoy it.


    Ohio & Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#72)
    by Spike on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:13 PM EST
    Missouri will be a dogfight the Democratic nominee will be hard-pressed to win. But I've got no doubt that both Ohio and Pennsylvania will be solidly in the Dem camp this year. With Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico and maybe even Colorado and Virginia, hopefully, we won't need Florida this year...

    This late in the race (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    What constitutes a win isn't based on perception or other arbitrary factors.

    It's based on what the candidates need to do increase their chances of winning the nomination, under realistic future projections.

    The fact is that Obama is leading in overall elected delegates and popular votes.  By all accounts, in order to win the nomination, Hillary needs to significantly reduce his overall lead.  A narrow win in PA doesn't accomplish that.

    A win is a win. She should finish the primaries (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    all the way to the convention.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    We've gone this far, so it might as well go all the way through each and every state. Send a message, that each state matters.

    I'm not saying she should drop out (none / 0) (#75)
    by AF on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    That's up to her.  But when the election is not winner-take-all and you're behind, a win is not necessarily a win.

    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST
    I see a win as a win. This is going to come down to the superdelegates and who they think is going to run stronger against McCain in the GE. Personally, if they aren't looking at who wins what states and looking at past cycles I'd be disappinted. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time I'd be disappointed by a Democratic leader.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    She needs to win with a good margin. 6% is minimum to even carry on. Seriously I am a big supporters but if she wins by 1-2% she should gracefully exit.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST
    He outspent her by large margins. If he can't close the deal it isn't up to her to bow out after WINNING.

    A win for me is inroads (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:29:59 PM EST
    in to Obama's demographics.  I will be looking at the male vote, youth, income etc. to see some evidence of shift.  If it's the same old, same old, we are stuck throught the rest of the contests.  I want change I tell you, change!

    Why are people such in a hurry to get her out? (none / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    This action guarantees many Hillary Clinton supporters to either stay home or vote McCain. As Obama himself said, McCain will be better than Bush.  That would be for sure, My vote , my two sisters, and a couple of friends who follow the campaign.  

    Did he actually say that nonsense? (none / 0) (#89)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    Ugh. So much for going after McCain for BS. Why go after someone when you can hold hands and sing Kumbaya? I wonder if they get to the chorus before McCain shivs him in the back. D'oh.

    Yes he did. (none / 0) (#123)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:54:28 PM EST
    It was widely discussed in the media; criticized by Hillary and was a subject of several posts in TL.

    Yes Obama would lose (none / 0) (#124)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    if the CNN report of 50% of Clinton supporters do not vote for Obama. Obama supporters should not be so nasty to Hillary supporters or to Hillary because it will surely come back to haunt Obama/