Hillary Wins PA By 10 Points, More Than 200,000 Votes

Hillary has broken the 200,000 vote margin with 93% of the Pennsylvania vote in.

Her campaign raised more than $2,500,000. since the polls closed. (Via John King on CNN, who received the information from her campaign.)

Obama's Indiana party was slow, there were empty seats.

Obama got trounced in the rural counties and by blue collar Dems and Reagan/Casey Dems, by Catholics, women, older voters, religious voters and gun owners.[More...]

David Gergen on CNN says it's a major victory for Hillary. "It's symbolically important." The blue collar vote is sobering for Democrats. "It's not good news for Obama. As he was closing, not only did he stall, but he got hurt."

Consider Hillary also beat Obama by 10% in New Jersey and Ohio. Indiana and Kentucky look good for her.

The superdelegates are going to be doing some serious thinking about electability. Paticularly when they consider the popular vote. They can consider Florida and Michigan in the popular vote even if the DNC doesn't.

You can't disenfranchise MI and FL and expect to carry those states in November.

This race is far from over.

Update: Clinton got 57% of the Jewish vote. She got even more of the Catholic vote.

Update: Comments now closed.

< NYTimes Jumps the Gun: Does Not Wait For The Votes | Late Night: Here Comes the Sun >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ahhhhh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by coolit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
    I'm a little too nervous to be excited.  But I'm pretty excited.  I just want to congratulate everyone who worked so hard.  I think this could be a really big turning point.  Is it possible?

    What interests me at the moment is that the (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    talking heads are finally discussing the electability issue.   Obama simply cannot win in November and Hillary can.  They must take that into consideration.

    The arguments the SDs are hearing (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST
    have to get out into the mainstream.  That  will give them enough political cover to pick Clinton.

    BINGO (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:04:12 PM EST
    That is exactly right.  They need a cover.  She delivered.

    He failed.


    Electability (none / 0) (#40)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:37 PM EST
    was on the radio all day today.

    This is huge, guys.  Huge!

    He didn't even get out the vote.  The reports are that the turn-out wasn't bigger than a solid usual one.  :)

    All that money.........


    Get Out Before He Loses Again (5.00 / 7) (#140)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:05 PM EST
    You know what a Hillary win means - more calls for her to get out before Barack loses any more.  LOL.

    Great energy in PA - volunteers, staff, all hands on deck to deliver a great win.  Headline today in PA newspaper: "It's Our Turn!"

    Yes, it was.  PA, take a bow.  Great night.


    I think it is entirely possible but the (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:45:45 PM EST
    huge question remains ......Does the democratic party wish to win or do they wish to see Hillary lose? that will be the bottom line...it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama can't win the GE, so will they back him anyway and take that HUGE GAMBLE or will they go with the much better candidate??  Time will tell....

    It's becoming less relevant what they think (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    The voters are speaking and Hillary has the "leverage of reality" now.

    Didn't Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by mg7505 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:46:32 PM EST
    also clinch the nomination quite late in 1991/2 primaries? Even if he did, Hillary's story will be more inspiring when she wins this thing!

    June 2nd, according to Begala CNN :) (none / 0) (#14)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:49:00 PM EST
    Woohoo! (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST
    Go Hillary!  She DID IT!  She got her double digit win!

    $2.5 million!!! Did I read that right?? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47:00 PM EST
    AMAZING.  I love her.

    I'm peeved they're not wondering about Obama $$$ (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:33:26 PM EST
    They're acting as if bux TeamO attracted when there was a "movement" -- when lots of freebie media, hype as Teh New Coolness, overhyped yewts, injecting massive new support into Dems blah blah blah were money magnets -- is going to be a constant in rate even after tonight.


    I wonder how many of these hip young Noo Roolz types (who strangely, seem within my generation yet regard me as an old problematic white woman for moving from neutral to supporting Clinton) will continue donating?

    How much fauxgressive cash will flow his way when they realize how much he blew in PA to lose by 10? He'd have to not only match his flow rate but increase his war chest.

    I wonder how many big Dem donors will want to roll the dice with TeamO at that burn rate.


    DVDs (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:38:35 PM EST
    Heard stories about all the Obama mailers in PA containing DVDs of Obama.  Geez - that's a good use of money?  The guy was all over TV, radio, the MSM - and they are shipping DVDs?  What a waste.

    Anderson Coopers said so (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47:39 PM EST
    Howard Fineman just said (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47:33 PM EST
    that Elizabeth Edwards is going to be making campaign stops with Hillary. God...let this be true...can anyone else confirm?

    Am I just hearing things?!

    That is just terrific! And only in part (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51:32 PM EST
    for what it means for Clinton.  This means that Edwards must be really recovering well.  

    This is like getting a big present and opening it up to find out there's not one but two gifts inside.:-)


    wow, if this brings in JEdwards' voters (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    imagine the possibilities !!

    Clinton/Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ig on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16:58 PM EST
    Obama cant win the GE, now with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Bittergate and who knows what else. Even if he is VP, it will will cost the ticket votes.

    If Hillary offers the VP spot to Edwards and he accepts and campaigns in NC, it will be hugh.


    Pinch me; I'm dreaming: (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by magnetics on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:01 PM EST

    The new unity ticket!


    When I read this (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51:55 PM EST
    I had a mouthful of cereal and almost choked...  Please let it be true!

    Beware :D (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    A friend got whiplash when she sneezed/choked on cereal. It's a very dangerous food. It has ninja powers.

    I knew it... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:03:24 PM EST
    that's why Obama eats waffles...self defense

    I'm having some very interesting (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:07:16 PM EST
    images of Captain Crunch pieces with black belts and katanas.

    Whoa (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST
    Remind me not to have breakfast at your house.

    Uh... now that might bring into question what I am imagining over here. (breakfast with Kredwyn?) Sounds kind of wrong!

    But I do love Cap'n Crunch.


    Hey now... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:20:40 PM EST
    Breakfast at my place isn't so bad...especially when I'm in a cooking mood.

    Generally speaking it's coffee and an english muffin...or the elitest Starbucks on the way to class.


    That's not what he said (none / 0) (#137)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30:48 PM EST
    Fineman only said that we should not be surprised to see Elizabeth on the stump with Clinton.

    It was speculation, not fact.


    Why did the NYTimes break common procedure? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by boredmpa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    And go live with a Wed editorial denouncing hillary's campaign while everything else was still up from tuesday?  It was actually up on tuesdays opinion page.

    My opinion is that they wanted the ad's and the plugs from talking heads on TV.  However, in the process they are clearly sidetracking campaign discussion.  Sacrificing journalism for profits.

    I don't want to even get into the dishonesty and revisionism of the "clinton is most negative" editorial.  That's a problem in and of itself, but the NYTimes has made some huge mistakes this year.

    From their sloppy blogging (that gets massive comments and corrections) to the 3 AM - KKK comparison on the day of the Mississippi primary, they have engaged in last-minute hits to undercut campaign support.  And not even real exposes, but by shoddy punditry.

    Today's action, where they clearly wanted to get that editorial out early for discussion (it's usually up at 9), shows just how fall they've fallen in love with ad revenue and short-term gains over a reputation for quality.

    Hooray for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48:13 PM EST
    She trounced him! Of course, Axelrod, Plouffe and the pundits will be clamoring for her to drop out of the race because she didn't win by an obliterating 50 percentage points, merely a decisive ten.

    Awaiting the onslaught...

    OK.. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48:48 PM EST
    he said he would not be surprised if Elizabeth joined her on the stump.

    who said that? (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    Howard (none / 0) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:50:43 PM EST

    D'oh! (none / 0) (#26)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:54:17 PM EST
    Almost choked for nothing...

    I should start harassing Edwards for a Hillary endorsement now...  That would be very good for her in NC, wouldn't it?


    OK (none / 0) (#41)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:47 PM EST
    just played it back. here is the quote...choke away...

    "We should not be surprised to see Elizabeth Edwards joining Clinton on the stump."


    wonder if that's him guessing or (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    if he knows something. Oh if it were only true.

    Well, her speech tonight sounded like (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:49 PM EST
    something J Edwards would like to hear, imo.

    I would love to see her and Elizabeth out there together. Talk about a couple of fighters!


    Does the 200,000 vote margin in PA (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:49:49 PM EST
    close the gap on the popular vote totals?  I believe that it is Hillary Clinton who has demonstrated true grit and has been strengthened greatly for the GE.  Never losing her composure even when the odds were stacked against her--money, MSM.

    Yes, yes, yes! HRC is ahead now (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:00 PM EST
    in popular vote, including FL and MI -- I've been posting this all over, and keep forwarding it until the talking heads have to deal with it to stop saying that's got nothing going in her favor by all the metrics.

    Per RealClearPolitics.com, popular vote is
    Clinton +108,118    +0.3%
    including FL and MI.

    And, of course, her lead is still growing as the results in PA still are growing.


    Nice!! That's pretty cool. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    It will be better when she's ahead with just FL. I think that will happen after the rest of the primaries. From the site you referenced, Obama is head in pop w/ FL by 213K votes and as you say, Clinton is ahead w/ FL & MI by 108K.

    The bottom line, the vote of the people (incl. FL and MI) should be what SD's consider along with electability. And in both those cases, Clinton is the better choice IMHO.


    I guess I hoped for more with those big SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:49:51 PM EST
    polls, 16 percent, that kind of thing.  But 10% in a state as big as Pennsylvania IS a pretty big deal, I guess.  That is a LOT of votes.

    CNN did several counts of measuring the popular votes--with Florida, etc.  Good for them.  Hillary is catching up.  I would really, really like to see an Indiana win.

    Florida (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:52 PM EST
    CNN did several counts of measuring the popular votes--with Florida, etc.

    Really? We're back in the union? Yeah!!!!


    It was different methods of counting (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    the popular votes.  With FL, without, and I didn't catch the exact metrics.  It showed how close Obama and Clinton are if you count ALL the votes that have been cast.

    Then, of course, if you look at important swing states--I would actually not want to be a superdelegate.  I know how intense and unpleasant Obama supporters can be, and they would not like to see their wishes dashed.  But I do believe, looking at the electoral map, that Clinton is more likely to win in November.  It would be difficult for the superdelegates to tweak the thing even just a bit, though, if Obama is a even a little ahead (pledged delegates or popular vote, either one or both, with or without MI and FL)--his supporters will come unglued.


    Philadelphia (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:00:36 PM EST
    It was the Philly vote for him that bridged the gap. I am sure we will hear more demographics in the next few days. I know Scranton she won with 75% but I was sure that would happen. Even in my county, she won 2-1. So basically you can look at the larger AA population in Philly went for BHO and the rest of the state didn't.  Seems like that is where they concentrated signing up the AA voters.These numbers will all come into play.  I am heading to bed now. But it is fun watching the results with all of you. Sweet dreams. Yes!

    Beneath the basic numbers (none / 0) (#166)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:53 PM EST
    However, AA voters were only 10% of total vote in PA; seems like many chose to stay home.    

    Dooh! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Shainzona on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:50:31 PM EST
    Bill Schneider just said Jewish PA voters went slightly toward Clinton.....it was Clinton 57% versus BO, 44%.

    When was 13% slight?

    Another example of "expectations" (none / 0) (#150)
    by Iphie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:36:50 PM EST
    I think they thought he would do much, much worse with Jewish voters. I can see why they would think that given the number of supporters of his who have said incredibly anti-semitic things. If it's just one or two people who've made slurs, you can make the argument that he isn't responsible for the statements of everyone associated with him. But when those one or two people turn into a pattern, you have to wonder why he's surrounded himself with so many people who not only hold bigoted views, but have made unapologetic public statements revealing that bigotry.

    I don't think of myself as (none / 0) (#196)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:59 PM EST
    "a Jewish voter". I think of myself as a liberal who happens to be Jewish. The MSM is totally befuddled on how to view Jewish voters, because we don't fit neatly into one box.

    When it comes to our foreign policy in the Middle East, I don't have my radar up for hints of anti-semitism. But I do keep a lookout for hints of knowledge and sophistication. Obama simply hasn't proven to me that his thought process on Middle East matters is sophisticated enough. He is either not able to grasp all the complexities or he is afraid to voice his thoughts on it. And either way, that makes me nervous.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#223)
    by Iphie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06:22 AM EST
    Although I would say that I'm liberal in part because I'm Jewish. I will also say that when there are really blatant examples of anti-semitism (or any form of bigotry) that does get my attention. Obama has sought and embraced the support of a part of the AA church that is virulently anti-semitic and homophobic. I think it's a huge problem. I'm not sure what it says about Obama -- is he not bothered by these sentiments, or is he bothered by them but doesn't have the courage to challenge this sort of thinking? It does come down to my assessment of him based on his own criteria: judgment. I think his is bad.

    CNN's spin (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:52:09 PM EST
    I hope this isn't OT - in a discussion of HRC's electability argument, the point was raised that for the SD's to "take away" the nomination from Barack would incite mutiny in the party. I am not certain who raised it, but was a Barack supporter (perhaps Roland Martin). The idea was that it would "kill the party for decades" if African American and young voters perceived that the nomination was "stolen."

    I am very troubled by this. First, there is clearly no consideration of the possibility that HRC supporters might legitimately feel the same way -- women, Hispanic voters, etc. They wouldn't be uspet? Now of course this discussion was premised on the assumption that Barack would be ahead on every single metric going into June - popular votes, delegates, states won, etc. So perhaps, given that scenario, you could make an argument that Barack was actually "winning." But still, the notion that only HIS voters would be angry was amazing to me.

    It also got me thinking about what the speaker was suggesting about his voters. Clearly, his message (to me) was an attempt to scare the SD's with images of angry youth and AA voters. That really bothers me. Are we to presume that these folks lack the capacity to understand an electability decision by the SD's? I found this comment vaguely insulting to Barack's voters, personally.

    Anyway, it was also interesting that, of all people, Brazile knocked it down and said that the party would unite behind either candidate.

    Perhaps Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:00:04 PM EST

    Anyway, it was also interesting that, of all people, Brazile knocked it down and said that the party would unite behind either candidate.

    Perhaps Donna is beginning to worry about her role in the DNC if Hillary finally wins the nomination. She now sees the possibility of Obama losing under the roolz.


    The Republican consultant (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by standingup on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:03:23 PM EST
    was really pushing the story that the supers giving the nod to Hillary would incite a mutiny.  

    He also went on and on about how Republicans can now run various ads against Obama (OBL, questioning his CIC creds,etc. ) that they could not before because Hillary had already run them.  Paul Begalia laughed at the idea that Republicans would wait for permission from Hillary to run any ad.  


    They are really afraid to face Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30:41 PM EST
    That by itself should confirm the electability of Hillary.  They are concerned that McCain will have to have at least three debates with her and based on past debate performance and an encyclopaedic command of the issues and facts, she can devastate McCain.  She can equal her in experience as a senator, foreign policy experience as first lady and senator and she has the right solutions.

    No wonder they prefer to have Obama.  


    I imagine (none / 0) (#230)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:14:39 AM EST
    they are noticing the possibility that McCain might pick up more Reagan Democrats against Obama than Hillary too.  

    It was a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    I heard all the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN use variations on those words.  In my opinion they are trying to make it happen by saying it will happen  telling Obama's voters they should be angry, as if they can't think for themselves and see the whole picture.

    God, if I weren't so close to Hillary's prime age demographic, I would remember the word for that!!!


    Exit Polls (4.33 / 3) (#75)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:48 PM EST
    Indicate still that a higher percentage of Clinton voters would exit the party if HE is the nominee.

    So unless the Dems are suggesting that it's all old people who are due to die anyway, that will not be a good reason to reject Hillary.


    It was Donna, again. She's a hack. Don't pay (none / 0) (#38)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:10 PM EST
    any attention to her.

    Oops. It was Gloria Borger, or whatever her (none / 0) (#42)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:56 PM EST
    name is.  Sorry.  But I still think Donna is a hack.

    It would really only hurt AAs... (none / 0) (#48)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:00:31 PM EST
    If that's right (and I can't stand Roland Martin, it wouldn't surprise me if he said it), and African-Americans refused to vote for democrats because Obama didn't win the nomination, who are they going to be hurting?  It's extremely counter-productive.  The Republicans won't be better for AAs than Democrats, probably never will be (although they'll court the vote nonstop, no doubt).   I imagine most people see that, or at least will see that by November.

    Tavis Smiley Seeks Relief from Crazed Obamites (none / 0) (#167)
    by Commander Vimes on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    This is a site I would recommend about AA attitudes:


    Sorry I don't know hoe to 'permalink'?

    But here is a clip:  ...[...]But Smiley violated the Obama mob's supreme commandment: Thou shalt not question Barack, period.

    Specifically, Tavis challenged Obama's rationale for refusing to appear, for the second year in a row, at Smiley's "State of the Black Union" (SOBU) gathering in February. Obama claimed his time would be better spent campaigning in Texas and Ohio, where Hillary Clinton was the primary favorite. Clinton, on the other hand, accepted the invitation to speak to Smiley's celebrity guests and thousands-strong audience, in New Orleans. The previous year, Obama had chosen to announce his candidacy for president in Springfield, Illinois, on the same day as the SOBU event, in Hampton, Virginia. On both occasions, many suspected that Obama's race-neutral campaign's intention was to avoid association with Black-specific affairs, or to expose the candidate to questioning by Cornel West or other's among Smiley's loquacious stable of "leaders" and "thinkers."


    Randi Rhodes sez Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:52:28 PM EST
    won because of "white trash".
    They're really coming unglued!

    Nice! (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:57:17 PM EST
    You know, because large sections of democratic party are not good enough for someone with as much class as she has!

    And Democrats wonder - (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by liminal on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    - why we can't win the presidency.  Oh, those white trash voters.

    That Should Really Help Garner White Votes (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:02:44 PM EST
    for Obama both in the remaining primaries and in the GE. Have you ever wondered how the Republicans sell the idea that Dems look down their elitist noses on poor and middle class white folks? Don't have to wonder ever again how this works after watching Obama's supporters  during this primary season.

    Oh shoot (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:03:54 PM EST
    Now I am a bitter red neck AND white trash. Right, just keep piling it on.

    at least you're not garlic-nosed (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Terry M on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:09:20 PM EST
    You're also a racist, don't forget (none / 0) (#118)
    by echinopsia on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:23:20 PM EST
    Obama's own supporters are hurting (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    him more than anything he himself has said or done.

    WOW (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    She did not?! (none / 0) (#44)
    by phat on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:59:03 PM EST
    That's absolutely awful.

    Randi... (none / 0) (#68)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:06:15 PM EST
    I guess she has to clean up her act now because she's on her last stop but we know how she feels anyway.

    Gee, Randi's upping the raunchy rhetoric again (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    What a surprise.

    I see she's really learned alot from her last gaffe-alon.


    Randi Rhodes (none / 0) (#152)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:37:46 PM EST
    was never glued. So she can't really get unglued.

    Randi has a job? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM EST

    20 points to 10 points (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    lot of commentators are saying oh Obama reduced 20 points to 10 points.. I don't remember if there was ever a day when the polls were averaging at 20 points margin for Hillary.. there might have been one or two outlier polls {like the ones having him in lead) so that argument is a fake. The average poll avg never went more than 10-12 points.

    I wonder if they would say the Lakers won (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    if they reduced the point spread with Phoenix from 15 to 1.

    I'm wondering if I can apply their (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:38:44 PM EST
    'scoring' to my Fantasy Baseball team . . .

    Bullseye... (none / 0) (#58)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:03:45 PM EST
    I also don't remember there being any sort of official voting 6 weeks ago, so I don't know how they can claim that they know of any sort of "trend"...  It's like trying to compare a Zogby poll to a SUSA poll from a week earlier and saying "WOW, LOOK AT THAT TREND!"

    both wrong (none / 0) (#69)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
    It went from 16 down to 10.  Using RCP's data. Turns out your 12 is precisely as wrong as their 20 ;-)

    The contrast is amazing (5.00 / 15) (#43)
    by GOP Lurker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:58:57 PM EST
    I'll be honest, I'm a moderate Republican and will probably vote for McCain in the fall. I'm also an avid reader of political blogs on both sides.

    I just want to say how struck I am by the difference between the Hillary and Obama blogs. The Hillary supporters seem to be so much more... what's the word? Reasonable. That's it. Motivated by reason, while the Obama folks seem to be driven by emotion, approaching hysteria a lot of the time.

    As a result I think Hillary has a much better chance of convincing voters like me to cross over in the general. Maybe the Democratic Party is interested in this sort of opinion. In any case, thanks for letting me post. I really do enjoy your site.

    There are plenty of (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:02:17 PM EST
    rabid pro-Hillary blogs too. But on balance, I think you're right on the money.

    Welcome! Please stay and share your thoughts (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:03:54 PM EST
    with us.  I too stay and post for the same reasons you stated.

    Thanks for the welcome (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by GOP Lurker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:54 PM EST
    I actually think Hillary would be a good President. I disagree with her on policy points but I have no doubt she would act in what she considered to be the best interests of America. In other words, I regard her as the principled opposition.

    Obama, on the other hand... I can't shake the impression that he is somehow fundamentally on the other side. Not in the whackjob "he's Muslim, he's Marxist" no-flag-pin sense, but more that he seems to regard ordinary Americans like me with mostly disdain and contempt.

    Hillary doesn't project that at all and it's reflected in her supporters, as evidenced here.


    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:37:53 PM EST
    I am appalled by the elitist attitude of Obama supporters.  It's embarassing to me to see so many disrespectful of people.

    I can't shake it either.

    It's just not right to step on good solid Americans who just work hard and don't hurt anyone.

    Just listening to Michael Moore's hostility in his "endorsement" today made me really sit back and wonder about the dangers of this group and what would happen if they got power.


    I don't think he disdains us (none / 0) (#201)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:12 PM EST
    He does seem to be puzzled and perplexed by us though. His supporters are often downright disdainful though. Ugh and yuck. I went into the campaign season with him being my close second choice and now I have a hard time picturing myself casting a ballot for him.( Conversely, Hillary was third choice and has garnered a great deal of respect from me because of how she has conducted herself. She is a fighter and if she gave the American people half as much as she has given in this primary, I'm thinking we are golden.) He seems to want to be all things to all people and "above the fray" more than he wants to lay out in plans how he plans to "change" the environment in DC. Change is just a word and doesn't necessarily mean anything good without a concrete plan or blueprint showing how change is going to happen and what things will look like when you are finished. What part of Clinton's policies do you dislike or disagree with? I'm curious to hear from someone outside the party.

    Points of disagreement with Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by GOP Lurker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:49:33 AM EST
    You asked, so I'll tell you a few.

    1. Free Trade I support NAFTA and the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, and similar. In the global economy protectionism will be disastrous for America in the long run.

    2. Health Care I agree that reform is necessary and accessibility to insurance must be expanded to cover all who want it, but I do not want a single-payer, universally imposed, government-run system. I believe the free market is better equipped than the government to solve this problem. Tort reform is essential.

    3. Taxes The current system is unnecessarily complex. I support a flat tax or at least a major simplification. I do not support a repeal of the Bush tax cuts, or an increase in the capital gains tax. Risk capital is an engine of our economy and discouraging it will hurt everyone, not just Wall Street fat cats.

    4. War in Iraq I think Hillary's initial vote authorizing the war in Iraq was correct. After 9-11 we were faced with difficult choices, none of them rosy. Instead of continuing our previous law-enforcement approach the Bush administration chose what seemed to be at the time the strategy most likely to alter the political pathology of the Middle East that ultimately gave rise to the 9-11 attacks.

    I am not under the delusion that Saddam was behind 9-11 (and neither was the Bush administration, as honest commentators will admit). But the Saddam regime seemed at the time to pose a significant threat - all reliable global intelligence agencies supported this assessment - and also a significant opportunity.

    The opportunity was taken. The alternative was to do what we had done for the previous thirty years in response to Islamist terrorism: nothing. The results will not be clear for many years, but  believe the US's preemptive action was the correct one.

    Well, you did ask. :)


    Welcome (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:10:57 PM EST
    We do try to be reasonable here....

    Come join the dark side (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30:20 PM EST
    It's fun here.  On Mondays, we smoke.  On Tuesdays, we drink.  On Wednesdays, we gamble.  On Thursdays, we dance.  On Fridays, we do the birds and beens thing.

    birds and bees thing (none / 0) (#138)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:09 PM EST
    Did a typo again!

    Oh thank goodness.... (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:36:43 PM EST
    There was some disturbing visuals with the beans.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#206)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:32 PM EST
    I was kinda wondering myself.

    Ms. or Mr. Lurker (none / 0) (#71)
    by Commander Vimes on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:05 PM EST
    I don't speak for anyone but me, but I appreciate your input and hope that you see that Hillary is the best choice for the Country as I do.  I will also admit that in the past I have crossed party lines in the hope of doing what is best for the country and local politics.  

    Even though we (or I) can be snarky (none / 0) (#89)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:13:19 PM EST
    we are rationale -- which is why we see that Hillary is the best choice for this country.  Stay and we can convince you too!

    deadly margins (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:02:00 PM EST
    Deadly margin
    What's striking here, as in other states, is that Obama is getting killed on the margins in the rural counties, with Clinton taking as much as 75% of the vote in rural counties in the center and the southwest of the state. Obama in the primary -- and a Democrat in the general -- doesn't actually need to carry places like that. But margins that wide are deadly.

    And that is after he out spent 3-1, had most favorable rating, most positive spin, etc.

    How did the suburban vote go? (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:22:21 PM EST
    That margin could equal delegates (none / 0) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:22:29 PM EST
    With margins like that she should cross the threshold to pick up some district delegates.

    He failed to clear 30% in MANY of them (none / 0) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:26:38 PM EST
    Despite all those ads...

    NPR had some great coverage (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:04:52 PM EST
    very objective and recognized early on this was a significant win for Clinton. I wish they had live election coverage to listen to through the primaries, they just give snippets and then back to other news.  But is was some of the best commentary I have heard, very fair to both candidates.

    Hillary Rediscovered... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    Thoughts by one of those "older, under-valued women" that the Democratic Party wants to disappear...


    Hillary Rediscovered...

    In the fall of 1992 I was a school media specialist and my best buddy was a Social Studies teacher. We were around the same age and utterly sick and tired of the Reagan-Bush I era. I was particularly angered and depressed by the constant anti-abortion message being shoved down our throats and had marched on Washington twice over abortion rights during these years. It felt like women were under constant attack.

    So when Bill Clinton hit the scene, Kathy and I became big fans. We weren't policy wonks at that point-we were just looking for some oxygen and Bill Clinton was it. One of my favorite expressions at the time was that Clinton "had a PULSE" and after years of ossification at the hands of Reagan-Bush I, that meant a great deal to us!

    Around the time the fall was still warm and sunny, Hillary Clinton came to the Rutgers University campus on College Avenue, in New Brunswick, NJ. Kathy and I decided we simply HAD to go!

    It was a beautiful day and a platform was set up as one entered the quad. I don't recall the crowd being exceptionally large, nor do I remember a word that was said. But I do remember Hillary. She was wearing a bright purple skirt suit and her hair was fairly long. After she spoke, she came down the rope line and I shook her hand. What struck me was that she was very petite. And her skin-very fair and almost translucent. She looked almost fragile.


    She doesn't appear petite on TV (none / 0) (#73)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:27 PM EST
    My friends who all went to see her in Scranton were all very surprised. Good things come in small packages.

    Here is my prediction: (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:06:09 PM EST
    If the Obama surrogates whine about racism fueling Hillary's win, Obama is finished: SD's will come out for Hillary strongly.
    "Fool me 10 times"? Democrats are not THAT stupid.

    I hate to say it (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    But yes, yes we are. We are just that stupid as a party. Look at who we are about to put up as our candidate, someone who until recently most people knew nothing about and is probably a very weak general election candidate. And he just proved that even his amazing fundraising won't raise him.

    Democrats: we can snatch defeat from jaws of victory, every time.


    Democrats aren't, but (none / 0) (#95)
    by Commander Vimes on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    the DNC, well that a puzzle.  And neither are moderates of all parties.

    Next Steps (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:15:56 PM EST
    Clinton and the voters of PA trounced Obama, she came in with a ten point margin being out spent 3-1, for me this is it, she is the Dem candidate that can be elected in Nov. Obama is not winning in the demographic needed to be elected President, the Base Dems and Independents like myself want Clinton to be the nominee and will continue to work towards that end.  It is now up to the remaining voters and SD to put her over the top and force the DNC's foot off the scale which has been tipping the race towards Obama IMO at the determent of the Party.  And it is time for Dems to ask why and remind Party Leaders that our expectation and investment has been to WIN the White House in Nov. not grow the Party.

    She is winning the popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    That is the best measure I know of the will of the entire country. For the first time ever I think she will win.  I didn't think that last fall even when she was ahead in polls.

    In fact, I might even say it is inevitable.

    Fun stuff, (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    eh?  Hillary supporters deserve a HUGE acknowledgement.

    We so could have faded.

    What makes me laugh?  Exit polls show that he still enjoys a higher trust factor than she does.  But they went for her.  He is viewed as less negative than her.  But they went for her.

    The secret factor:  Americans LOVE scrappy.  :)


    or the exit poll was BS (none / 0) (#147)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34:38 PM EST
    I wouldn't put it past the media.  

    The Real Big Story (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM EST
    will be that he failed to get out the vote.  His turnout wasn't at all the onslaught expected.  

    Hers was great.  His, mediocre.

    That says a LOT!

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:20:53 PM EST
    12% of teh 18-29?  I thought that was his big demo.

    And the Dems for a Day campaign?  I think that one fell flat too.


    I think the college students have moved on (none / 0) (#164)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:34 PM EST
    Last February it was very kewl to be all about Obama.  Right now, hmmm.  "Isn't that over yet?"  Both my kids are in this mode.

    I talked to one of 'em whose caucus was like, 50 to 3 for Obama.  She said, frankly I don't know anybody who still talks about the election, Mom.  It's just gotten old.

    If there were primaries and caucuses left after classes end in June I wonder how well the social networking tools would work?


    Nite all. We live for two more weeks anyway. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Teresa on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    Come on Indiana...use your heads.

    Managing the Winning Narrative (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Oje on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:23:03 PM EST
    On CNN earlier, King and Blitzer walked through scenarios of how to count the popular vote. CNN was careful not to show a scenario in which Clinton was winning (if I saw the whole clip). This is the most important narrative to kill in the coming weeks.

    Texas and Ohio ended the the Obama campaign narrative. Pennsylvania ends the Obama nomination narrative. The Clinton campaign has to flip the script on counting Florida and Michigan. Tomorrow, her media people should begin speaking exclusively as if Florida and Michigan will be seated fully. That way, it is absolutely clear that Obama only wins the nomination by a procedural maneuver by insider operatives (Donna Donna Donna) who act to exclude other Democrats from pledging their delegates at the national convention.

    Lastly, Clinton should follow up this repositioning of how to count popular and pledged delegates by promising that she will force a floor vote by all convention delegates to seat Florida and Michigan. This is easily defensible as the most democratic choice for the Democratic party - especially now that we know the backroom shenanigans of the DNC committee who stripped these states of a voice (Donna Donna Donna!). It would force the delegates and the Democratic party to clearly show their desire to seat two states that Democrats need in November (of course, the opposite seems unthinkable in a convention floor vote).

    Someone who talked like an Obama surrogate (none / 0) (#155)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:38:20 PM EST
    on CNN tonight said that FL will be seated with half the delegates "that's been decided for weeks." But MI is going to have to revote because "Barack was not on the ballot, and that's not fair." Then he went on to say that no one wants to pay for a revote and Clinton can't afford to, so he speculated there'd be a cheaper caucus in MI.

    Didn't catch his name, 30-ish black guy with glasses. His info seems a bit shaky to me, especially on MI, as Clinton's backers Corzine and Rendell already came up with $15 million for a revote. Soft money doesn't count even if you're already maxed out.


    I saw the erroneous info (none / 0) (#192)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:20 PM EST
    also.  It get a little annoying that they are allowed to do this.  If FL/MI had been settled, it would be news. Clinton wouldn't be talking about it and Obama would be hitting her for it if she was saying it wasn't settled when it was.  

    The talking head's info was debunked the minute he said that Clinton didn't have the money.  People like me could donate for an election.  With the big money donors and us small money donors, Obama could keep his money for advertising.


    There you go again! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    On the conrary, if Hillary Clinton surpasses Obama's popular votes, the SD's will simply be honoring the will of the people.  Individual votes are what determine pledged delegates.  How they are apportioned is the result of a defective rules  of the DNC.  Something is terribly unfair when a candidate who wins the popular votes ends up behind in pledged delegates.  The superD's are there as a final defense against fielding the wrong candidate for the party.

    This is the same Obama meme being repeated each time Hillary wins. No one is stealing anything from anybody.   If the DNC did not disenfranchise Florida and had allowed a revote in Michigan, the party wouldn't be in such a mess.  But fortunately, the voters are making their will known.

    Hm (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:25:00 PM EST
    Can we get another troll?  I think this one's broken.

    Judging by your analogy, (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:25:33 PM EST
    I take it you were or are not a history major.

    No, I'm not a history major... (none / 0) (#139)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:31:30 PM EST
    But I did study medieval literature at an ivy-league institution.

    OMG! (none / 0) (#154)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:38:17 PM EST
    Welcome to the future. Here we like to count the votes. Snark.

    Nice name (none / 0) (#162)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:14 PM EST
    Somehow it fits you, while mine does not.

    Many thanks... (none / 0) (#174)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    I welcome any comparison with dear Rosa. Or do Democrats have any idea of their roots anymore?

    Are the Clintons part of those roots? (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:24 PM EST
    in your opinion?  Doesn't seem like you value those roots as much as you think.  Clinton has received more votes from Democrats in this primary than Obama.  I guess many of us have become infected with the "plague."

    Yeah - we come from a long line of people (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by badger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:58:35 PM EST
    who fought to ensure everyone could vote in the 1960s and that every vote was counted in 2000, unlike Obama, who wants to ignore the voters of MI and FL just because they don't like him much.

    MI and FL (none / 0) (#225)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:01 AM EST
    disqualified themselves from the nomination process by violating party rules. They have no one to blame but themselves.

    Secondly, it is one thing to talk about voter enfranchisement in the context of actual, constitutionally-sanctioned presidential elections. It is quite another to talk about enfranchisement in the context of a party vote. This is a party vote. That's it.


    Exactly... (5.00 / 3) (#232)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:29 AM EST
    it's a party vote. With party rules. And the party rules say the party can change the rules.

    If you're going to argue the rules, then you can't pick and choose them. And the rules say the party can throw out the rules, just as the rules say the automatic delegates can make their choice based on any metric they want, including the popular vote total.

    And that means Sen. Clinton can indeed still win the 2,214 delegates required to secure the nomination.

    That rules also include waiving punishment of state parties that shift their primary dates, such as the states that held primaries before MI and FL. They got waivers, while FL and MI did not.

    The rules can also change to strip states that break the rules of 50% of their delegates. The 100% punishment is not required in the rules---that was an extra-added spanking, courtesy of Donna Brazile.

    The rules can also change to seat as complete these delegations at any time. One good reason to do it is to protect the possibility of the nominee winning the state in the general election.

    Florida, in particular, was in a bind considerng the primary move was attached to a bill to require a paper trail in voting. No Dem legislator was going to give up the paper trail---it was the only chance they had to get it and they took it. They chose to accept it for the long-term good of voting rights for their citizens.

    Finally, the rules may strip the states of their delegates, but I don't believe they strip them of their popular vote counts.

    Just because you say it's over doesn't mean it is. Saying so doesn't make it so.


    Waaaaahhhhhhh! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:25:48 PM EST

    Give me a break (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Terry M on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:28:58 PM EST
    I don't know where you're getting your news, but the media has been calling this race over since Iowa.  AND YET SHE CONTINUES TO DRAW MILLIONS OF VOTERS.  Amazing.  

    The SDs will have to overturn the will of the entire country?  Um, not quite.  The race, as a matter of percentages, is a virtual dead heat.  And if the DNC was an organization which believed in democracy, then she would be ahead with the Florida and Michigan vote.  Massachusetts, California, NY, NJ, Penn., Ohio, Texas, NM, Nevada . . . have these states been dropped from the union (like Florida and Michigan).  Because if not, then the SDs are hardly required to overturn the will of the "entire" country.

    Want a little hyperbole with your waffle?

    David Gergen said something tonight which I hope SD's bear in mind - the Clintons win. Over and over.   It has been half-century since have we had a twice-elected Democratic president.  That is a pretty long dry spell, don't you think?  Thank goodness for the Clinton oasis.

    So, do we want another McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry?  Or do we want a winner, that is, a Clinton?

    And she won her re-election in NY (none / 0) (#146)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:34:11 PM EST
    easily. Seeing B Clinton as the only 2 term Dem in awhile (in your comment) after her win tonight, made that little bit of info pop into my head and I smiled  :) I was so wrapped up in tonight that I forgot some of the perspective. I just kept thinking never count a Clinton out, forgot that they serve well, lol!~  ;)

    My reply: see delegate math and simmer down... (none / 0) (#177)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:45:19 PM EST
    Bad night for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by magster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    and so also for me (yeah, waldenpond "WAAAAAAAH")

    I did say before tonight that PA, IN and NC needed to be glommed together into one big contest and if Obama won that, then it was over.  Hillary has a nice head start on that, but I think that's still true.

    So 2 out of 3 takes it? (none / 0) (#169)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    Then I think Hillary has a pretty good chance.  I'm about to donate to her right now.

    Not quite (none / 0) (#175)
    by magster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:44:21 PM EST
    If Obama stays above 20% in NC, he can make up most of the loss tonight in delegates and popular votes, as long as he keeps IN close.

    You must have missed the updated SUSA (none / 0) (#186)
    by diplomatic on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:47:33 PM EST
    the Obama lead is only back to 9 now and that was before tonight's results.

    Regardless, I can counter by saying that Hillary can make up the NC margins by winning big in Kentucky and West Virginia.  And ultimately she will pass him in popular vote for good with Puerto Rico.  I've been on a pretty good streak with my predictions,  so I hope it continues.


    what is the pop in NC? (none / 0) (#202)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:14 PM EST
    I think Clinton has a good shot in IN, will trounce in WV of course, and I think she'll narrow that gape in NC. If he only wins by 15 in NC, and she wins by a few in IN, then I think she keeps the popular vote lead she has now (inc. FL&MI). She's got the momentum, he's waning and tired. I think media-proof beats media-darling, because no one is a media-darling forever.

    NC has (none / 0) (#215)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:59:33 PM EST
    2.6 million registered Dems.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#191)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:17 PM EST
    Obviously its not the result I'd like but if he does win NC and IN he probably has this thing wrapped up.

    At least you are honest, magster (none / 0) (#210)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:06 PM EST
    I appreciate that. I think she will win IN now. If she does, will you agree that Obama can't win the GE, because NC won't be in play in November.

    Jeralyn, the empty seats were at the PA party (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:10 PM EST
    according to the story you link, not Indiana.

    Other than that, of course, you and BTD did a terrific job tonight, and I appreciate it greatly.  My family just can't keep up with my political junkieness, and I can only call so many pro-Clinton friends . . . before I'd be watching tv alone and not having anyone with whom to share this victory!

    Ok, Lambert wins the award for (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:45 PM EST
    best prediction. He said they will NOT round up anything below 10%.
    Check out Orangistan.
    Kos is counting decimal places.. and look at this
    desperate diary

    I WISH votes were meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:43 PM EST
    when my candidate doesn't win.  No, wait, not really...not as a rule.

    Unfortunately, that sort of thing just happened to me bassackwards-like in 2000, when my candidate DID win, but the votes were meaningless.  

    Is that the kind of election "victory" you want?

    Whose votes do you think are meaningless?  Would you like some of us to have 3/5 votes or something like that, because we don't vote as well as you do?  

    Do my eyes deceive me? (none / 0) (#228)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:12:33 AM EST
    Are you actually - honestly - saying that my statement that the Pennsylvania vote was meaningless is comparable to the original constitutional decision to make slaves' votes worth 3/5 of white votes? Is this actually what I'm seeing?

    Way to make light of slavery for the purpose of your argument!


    Nor does she need to (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by xspowr on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:09:05 AM EST
    It's been accepted for quite some time that HRC may not overtake BHO in pledged delegates. However, the total delegate count you reference includes the SDs, whose votes will decide this contest for both candidates (and as discussed frequently here, the accurate total delegate count including FL/MI is 2214). As the SDs may consider other metrics, such as popular vote and electability, the "she can't catch up in pledged delegates" meme really has little if any persuasive power at this point. But points for your dedication in beating that dead horse.

    woke up fell out of bed (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:27:22 AM EST
    I read the news today, oh boy.

    First thing I read was CNN political ticker.

    Lead story?  Clintons sucks and the NYTimes her home town paper says so.

    just loveRly.

    Clinton WON, she ran a great and positive campaign and Obama was further exposed for the sham he is, although he himself had little to say and HIDES from the press as always, and this is what they say?

    Screw them all.  I came running here for a dose of reality the way 15 million voters see it.

    Houston, they have a problem and they don't even have a clue.

    Rise Hillary Rise.

    The PA party, not the IN party (4.00 / 1) (#128)
    by tomangell on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:27:08 PM EST
    was slow.  At least that what the Ambinder post you linked to says.  Obama is in Indiana, not Pennsylvania.

    Far from over? (1.00 / 0) (#5)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
    We have a month and a half of contests left.  No reason for superdelegates to dither beyond about June 10th.  
    Let's not get it twisted.  She was expected to win, probably by high single digits/low double digits, and she did that.  
    She has to win Indiana and at least make it close in North Carolina.  Beyond that, probably she needs an upset in Oregon, or to beat him in Montana and South  Dakota to highlight his vulnerability.  

    But there's zero reason to drag the race out beyond June.  Let the voters in the remaining contests cast their votes, and the other states to have the delegates picked at convention--all of which has to be finalized by the end of June.  Then the SDs have to choose.  Still no reason to go beyond June.

    What's that? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:49:38 PM EST
    You've confused me with your version of WORM tonight.  Obama didn't really mean to win PA huh?  Really didn't try hard at all.  Not like he outspent her 4:1 and still lost. No. that can't be it.  Oh yeah!  He never really thought he'd win PA.  I forgot.  

    troll (none / 0) (#28)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:54:59 PM EST
    This looks like a troll to me.  Dunno if pro-Clinton trolls are just as bad as those of us who like that awful guy, but still.  And, um, yeah that awful guy did try to win.  He closed a 19 point lead to 10 points.  Not good enough, and I'll be the first to say he got blown out.  Personally, I just pray that the winner will work for anyone at all as much as she is working for herself.  I don't believe for a moment she will, but I'd love to see it.

    Trolling is your last sentence (nt) (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:57:40 PM EST
    Ah, sorry (none / 0) (#72)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:17 PM EST
    didn't know it was trolling to doubt her.  My bad.

    You're trolling (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:00 PM EST
    because you're being passive aggressive, snide, and nasty. Not because of your opinion.

    Yeps (none / 0) (#94)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:38 PM EST
    I guess that's a fair call.  I'm disappointed, and I'ma move on at this point.

    So 5 weeks and how many millions (none / 0) (#46)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    Did it take to lose by 10%? Specially for someone as great as Sen Obama? Wasn't knowing him to love him? Wasn't it that he didn't have time before to show people how great he is?

    So what happened?


    It was the bowling..and the waffles..heh. nt (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    An 18 point starting deficit... (none / 0) (#32)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:56:40 PM EST
    ...plus Rev. Wright, "Bittergate", a debate slamathon, and near-ideal demographics for his opponent, and he  managed to stay within 10.  Not great for him, but not horrible, either, all things considered.

    My head is spinning (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    Come on, admit it. Its bad. He should have been very close or won. Everything says he should. He is the lead candidate, he has amazing press (and she has horrible press), he spends astounding amounts of money and loses by 10%.

    Its pretty bad, granted 20% would have been a disaster, but this is bad.


    Won? (none / 0) (#87)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:19 PM EST
    There is no way that he should have won.  He made up 6 points. Not good, and disappointing to me, but he still lost.  But, um... amazing press? for the past month?  Please point me to that, cause I musta missed it :-)

    Turn on MSNBC (4.33 / 3) (#96)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    And watch the 24 hour Obama network. Let's see yesterdays headlines at:

    ABC: we predict there will be two winners tomorrow,

    CNN: Obama closing the gap and our off camera expert predicts a surprise upset,

    NBC: Clinton evil killing babies, Obama will win tomorrow, all polls wrong.

    Get real. You can't miss it. I try all the time and still can't miss it.


    I agree (none / 0) (#199)
    by badger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    There's no way he should have won.

    And no way he should be the nominee either.


    Wright and Bittergate are good press? (none / 0) (#88)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    come on now.

    Did you miss the part (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    Where the entire MSM declared Sen Obamas speech to be one that should be required in all schools in the country, that he had put it behind him and he had started a race discussion (I guess no one else had).

    And bittergate: how many stories did you read that he was right, he was courageous.

    Just because they report what happens doesn't mean there isn't a ridiculous bias to spin it away too.


    Waaa waaa waaahhhhhhh! (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:26:47 PM EST
    So you're saying Obama expected (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:57:14 PM EST
    to lose after spending record amounts in PA?

    Yeah, 11.4 million or whatever it was to (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:10:27 PM EST
    stay in within double digits of Hillary. Snicker...

    More. 5 million on telemarketing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:27:45 PM EST
    the 11 million was advertising (not sure if that included mailings) He went in with 30+ million her, 8 million.

    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by mike in dc on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM EST
    I assume that's why Clinton didn't bother contesting  in so many earlier states as well.  At least Obama made an effort to try to win a state where the party  political machinery was arrayed against him, where the demos heavily favored his opponent, and during the most media-negative period of his campaign(wright, bittergate, debate slam, etc.)

    Oh, I love that (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:18:47 PM EST
    he tried to win but those darn voters just would not let him!!

    montana and south dakota (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:00:20 PM EST
    are meaningless predictors. but i'll give you utah. utah is clearly key for obama. more and more it is clear that utah was his litmus test state.

    over 200,000 victory tonight in penn. that's prety potent info for those who can interpret data. kerry barely won this state. obama wont match in the ge what kerry did in '04.


    She should take it all the way to the convention (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    because that is the official nominating body.  Everything has to be formally ratified at the convention.  This is what conventions are for.  No backroom dealing.  Let the delegates ponder and make decisions out in the open.

    Speaking for me only and my relatives, any whiff of the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile trying to load the dice against Clinton and we are gone.  Because with that kind of action, it tells me that the Democratic Party has ceased to be the Democratic Party representing and doing the will of the party faithful; but is now controlled by a few who for some reason have it for Hillary Clinton.  She deserves fair treatment. Her supporters deserve fair treatment and respect.


    All the way (none / 0) (#130)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    to the convention!

    If that is what it takes.


    Obama won (1.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:16:08 AM EST
    his "home" state by a landslide I think 500k votes.  Since this is one of Hill's home states, I would hardly call this a big win.  If she wins Indiana by more than 10 I would call that a huge victory.

    Obama will be the nominee and for the first time in years a candidate from either party will not be the "establishment" candidate.  

    The OFB are spinning (none / 0) (#3)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:45:14 PM EST
    like tops, trying to make this a win for Obama.

    There is always a morning after attack so the MSM (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM EST
    won't discuss her win, Obama team is very good at that but they have overplayed the Hillary is mean to me tune rather they know it or not.  But her team needs to start some kind of stink in the morning themselves, something to keep the cable and wapo types busy and off Axelrod's next anti Clinton editorial.  My guess it will be about Bill, Chelsea strangely seems to be receiving Monica question an awful lot lately.

    i think the HRC Campaign memo... (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST
    re: "Why Can't Obama Close the Deal?" will actually be discussed more than any pro-Obama spin. It is actually pretty incisive and hard-hitting.

    If only they'd kicked Penn to the curb 3 months ago!


    All the close the deal talk (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
    I've heard so far is tied in with his massive spending. I have to wonder if that will hurt his average donation base (not the rabid ones). They (OFBs) are always harping about her being broke and how can she manage the country, but it looks like her lesser dollars are doing ok ;)

    Money (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:50:31 PM EST
    obviously isn't everything.  Americans are obsessed with fund raising.

    It's ridiculous.  I'd be embarassed if I'd outspent all other presidential candidates in the state and still didn't even hit record turn-outs.

    THat's wasting money.


    If Obama were a CEO (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06:21 AM EST
    would he be fired for such expenditures without results?

    Well, no, he'd probably get a raise and perks in the business world under the Bush administration.  But in the real world that we may be able to bring back again in this country. . . .


    Post (none / 0) (#168)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:41:14 PM EST
    Penn is so nice!  :)

    Obama is going to need more than (none / 0) (#107)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:19:45 PM EST
    a few pillows after tonight.

    Why? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Commander Vimes on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:20:42 PM EST
    Lets look at the past.  The electorate didn't know anything about Barry, now they are beginning to know.  The process is not over yet.  There is a future whereas the Dem will win, only if the DNC wants that , of course.  I hope the SD's see the future as we see the present and vote accordingly.

    Bingo. n/t (none / 0) (#132)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:29:09 PM EST
    Status Quo (none / 0) (#116)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    Josh Marshall says a ten percent victory for Hillary is "status quo".    Guess you can't argue with that.   Nobody expects much from Obama at ballot box now.   He's just hoping to limp home on his early wins.

    Go ahead, child (none / 0) (#125)
    by xspowr on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    Get it out of your system. I know how much this hurts tonight. The knowledge that Obama is through must be very painful. But when your tears dry, I know we can count on you to support HRC in November, like the good Democrat that you clearly are.

    I am a good Democrat (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:47 PM EST
    That's why I think Hillary needs to stop hurting the party and step aside.

    That math ain't gonna change. Facts are facts, sorry to say.


    like how she's now ahead in the pop vote (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:25 PM EST
    (incl. FL&MI). Those facts. So given that Obama is behind in the popular vote, I'm sure you'll agree that it's time for him to step aside. Snark.

    It (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by sancho on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:44:41 PM EST
    shows. But not the way you may think. PhDs, especially humanities PhDs, have since Stevenson generally backed Dem losers. This is not only b/c of their tendency to make imprecise historical analogies but also b/c their consistent failure to understand history (except as a misleading textbook enterprise) makes it difficult for them to make smart contemporary political assessments. Generally, they cover their ignorance (or poor judgement) by saying I'd rather lose than win with "that candidate." The consequences for the country of such "Phd smarts" have been devastating.

    Ah, the math (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by xspowr on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:48:24 PM EST
    Facts are facts, sorry to say.

    Agreed. Perhaps when you're less selective with yours (or, to be more accurate, actually demonstrate some grasp of the mathematical facts that you reference) your posts will reflect something other than transferred anger and anxiety over your candidate's electoral inadequacies. Surely they taught you how to count to 2214 at that Ivy League school? /snark


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Iphie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:52 PM EST
    The math is changing: +200,000 votes tonight alone. And do we want to start figuring out the math of the millions and millions he spent to lose by 200,000? I am sure that that math is getting quite a bit of scrutiny from those SDs who raise big money for the Dems.

    Waaaahhhhh! (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    sheesh!  Can't find anywhere to whine tonight?

    It looks like the night shift came on with three Obama supporters tonight not two.


    Good job (none / 0) (#141)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:32:26 PM EST
    Hillary is to the Democrats right now what the bubonic plague was to Europe circa 1340
    That trope is right out of Nazi propaganda. Who do you think you are anyway?

    I am absolutely offended... (none / 0) (#148)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:36:12 PM EST
    As the descendant of holocaust victims, I take great offense at your comment.

    Saying that Hillary is a plague upon the party is a far cry from Nazi propoganda. The practice of comparing things we don't like to the Nazis is callous and only serves to diminish and make light of the true and barely imaginable destruction of that event.


    this is funny (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:45:26 PM EST
    you're actually saying with a straight face that it's reasonable to compare someone to a plague that wiped out a large percentage of the population. And then when someone says that's worse than Nazi propaganda (not Nazi atrocities themselves mind you, just the PR), you say that's worse. You're simply too much. Reminds me of my favorite quite from Sartre, "I chock with rage at..." I'm sure you can finish that.

    oops, type (none / 0) (#183)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:48 PM EST
    ... should be choke there... I'm sure your childish scolding you did above would have come out, so I thought I'd beat you to the punch.

    Fine... (none / 0) (#220)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:50 AM EST
    If you think that comparing my comment to Nazi propaganda is reasonable and doesn't diminish the actual horror of the Nazi regime, then I won't argue. It's an absurd position on it's face and I won't deign to respond.



    Well, a lot of us (5.00 / 7) (#180)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    are descendants of survivors of bubonic plague.

    You are offensive here.  Get along, actually contribute coherent thoughts, or go away.


    good one (n/t) (none / 0) (#185)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    Not it's not like Nazi PR (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM EST
    it is worse! But please don't be such a bully like the Nazis especially because you are personally aware of how nasty they were. I too am a descendant of parents who were in prison camps.

    you're slipping (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:54:18 PM EST
    you didn't correct his grammar with your ivy league erudition.

    and please take your faux outrage somewhere where it will wash. you compare a presidential candidate to the plague, and then try the "you can't say Nazi to ME!" crap.



    What this means -- email from Barrack Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:33:01 PM EST
    What this means --
    Votes are still being counted in Pennsylvania, but one thing is already clear.

    In a state where we trailed by more than 25 points just a couple weeks ago, you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible.

    Thanks to your support, with just 9 contests remaining, we've won more delegates, more votes, and twice as many contests.

    We hold a commanding position, but there are two crucial contests coming up -- voters will head to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana in exactly two weeks. And we're already building our organization in the other remaining states.

    But it's clear the attacks are going to continue, and we're going to continue fighting a two-front battle against John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

    I need your support right now. Please make a donation of $25:

    This is like my dad's fishing stories (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by angie on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:37:14 PM EST
    Now it's a 25 point margin they cut to 10? By tomorrow morning it is going to be a 50 point margin that they cut to 10.  Unbelievable.

    Heh (none / 0) (#173)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:43:13 PM EST
    If we each send $25, how long will it take him to close the gap with McCain in the swing states?  Please express the answer in dog years.

    I feel very sorry for people in IN.  The media saturation is going to be unbelievable.

    But it's clear the attacks are going to continue, and we're going to continue fighting a two-front battle against John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

    This just makes me angry.  Who is campaigning like a Republican again?


    Larry King (none / 0) (#200)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    I was channel surfing - its my aerobic activity - and I thought I heard one of the Larry King guests (Patrick Murphy?) say how Obama came back from being 30 points down. Did anyone else hear that or did I hallucinate?

    Cherry Picking Polls (none / 0) (#208)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:55:05 PM EST
    Cherry Picking Polls works both ways. The last two PPP polls had Obama up 3% which means Clinton pulled a 13% swing in 10 days.

    In actuality, The Real Clear Politics avg of all polls the last week had Clinton up 6.1% which means like Ohio and like Texas ...when it's time to vote,  the fence sitters swing to Clinton.


    Go sell that stuff in San Francisco, Senator. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by hitchhiker on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    What this means: (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:33 PM EST
    He still lost. Can he have some more money to try again?

    Hillary is running a $5 drive. Seems she's pulling in a tad more than that!  Her email:

    Dear ***,

    Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without your generous support.

    There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.

    Thanks so much for all you do.


    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    I almost feel bad (none / 0) (#161)
    by coolit on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:39:53 PM EST
    for Keith Olbermann.  He just seem so upset.  It's almost like he's going to cry.  He says these loaded phrases about how much the american people must hate her due to this victory.  Sorry Keith.  It's just you

    They must hate her? That's funny . . . (none / 0) (#217)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:48 AM EST
    since she's so close with Obama in the race, just as many must hate him, right?

    Or is it.... (none / 0) (#165)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
    Or is it "elitist" to insist upon proper spelling when receiving a childish insult?

    Go to bed - It's past your bedtime (none / 0) (#184)
    by Prabhata on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:46:53 PM EST

    Margin with 99% is 9.5 % difference (none / 0) (#204)
    by magster on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:52:38 PM EST
    So is 9.49% called a 9% or 10 % win?

    not the numbers I see at CNN (none / 0) (#214)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:58:50 PM EST
    CNN is showing 99% reporting with 55/45 (1,239,424/1,023,350). The PA department of state is a bit behind in the count from that, so we'll just have to wait a bit longer for them to catch up to see.

    9.49%=10% (none / 0) (#218)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:01:39 AM EST
    Rounded to no post decimal I believe is 10%. But hey I am biased.

    It's called a significant loss (none / 0) (#227)
    by badger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:11:55 AM EST
    for a candidate who was the front-runner, spent 6 weeks in the state, blanketed it with ads, got favorable press treatment, and outspent his opponent 3 or 4 to 1.

    It doesn't make any difference if it's 9.49% or .0949% - he had every advantage and still lost.


    Good luck spinning. (none / 0) (#231)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:18:31 AM EST
    If you close your eyes, you're bound to get less dizzy.

    Ahem Ahem (none / 0) (#219)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:02:16 AM EST
    Not all delegates have been assigned yet. But either way it doesn't matter.

    I haven't (none / 0) (#221)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:58 AM EST
    seen people saying she'll catch him in pledged delegates. The point seems to be that since neither will reach the necessary number of delegates needed to win via pledged delegates, that it will fall to the supers to decide. And they are not bound by who is leading in the pledged delegate count. The supers can decide based on any means they want (or just randomly for that matter). So some are pushing the popular vote count and some are pushing electability.

    Antagonizing... (none / 0) (#233)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:28:44 AM EST
    fellow democrats by the tone of your post isn't going to encourage anyone to vote for Obama, should he win.  I'm all for getting democrats to do what democrats are supposed to do and vote for a democrat, but this isnt the way to do that.

    The DNC (none / 0) (#235)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:35:00 AM EST
     should be very concerned that Obama is unable to carry Blue Collar White Voters. A major problem for him in Ohio and Pennslyvania should he be the nominee.

    I wanted by 20% but we will take 10% BABY !!! (none / 0) (#236)
    by drewohio1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:33:58 AM EST
    Congrats Hillary !!!!

    193,000 votes and 9.4% (none / 0) (#238)
    by faux facsimile on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:27:50 AM EST
    Not more than 200,000 and 10 points, unless there's a new form of math I wasn't previously aware of.

    Go Hillary! (none / 0) (#241)
    by vickyt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    Visit Gloria Feldt's politics blog, Heartfeldt, and leave a comment regarding Hillary's win in Pennsylvania.