Loading ...
Clinton Only Picks Up 10 Delegates In Pennsylvania
- Filed under: Presidential
- Date: Apr 23,2008
After the Ohio Primary, polling in PA had Senator Clinton with a 20 point lead in the polls. That lead was cut to single digits last night. There is a big difference between the actual 8 point win that Senator Clinton had last night and the projected 10 point win that all the papers ran with this morning. Many prominent Clinton surrogates have touted the importance of a ten point win in Pennsylvania. She didn't get there. The current numbers are: Clinton 54.3% - Obama 45.8%. There is still .93% of the vote uncounted.
Senator Clinton's win allowed her to pick up a net gain of 10 earned delegates. - Clinton 75, Obama 65. Obama still leads by 156 pledged delegates: 1,482-1,326. It is pretty clear that there is no way Senator Clinton is going to earn enough delegates to beat Obama. The other argument that has some merit is comparing the total popular vote. Senator Clinton won Pennsylvania by just under 200,000 popular votes leaving Senator Obama with an overall lead of about 500,000 nationally. It is pretty clear that there is no way Senator Clinton is going to earn enough popular votes to beat Obama.
In the coming days, Senator Clinton is going to take a lot of criticism from Democrats for the negative tactics she has been using in her campaign. Yes, politics is a contact sport, but she is employing gutter tactics by invoking Osama Bin Laden in last minute attack ads. Clinton and her supporters justify these tactics by using the argument that the Republicans are going to do the same thing in the fall. I agree. I have no doubt that the Republicans are out to try and destroy the Democratic Party. That is their job. As today's New York Times editorial points out, "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election." I agree. It will be interesting to see how much of a backlash Senator Clinton faces in the coming days.
Pennsylvania certainly extended this race, but at the end of the day did little to change the basic metrics used to decide our party's nominee.
25 Responses for "Clinton Only Picks Up 10 Delegates In Pennsylvania"
On Good Morning America, Clinton stated that it would be ok to overturn the popular vote of the Democratic Party if she is still losing after all is said and done. And she is still claiming legitimate victories in Michigan and Florida. The word "delusional" comes to mind………
If Obama won ten delegates his supporters would call it a significant victory. Maybe you are just bitter.
Also, looking at the latest vote totals, it looks like she won by about 9 and half %, meaning the rounded difference the networks showed is reasonable.
If Obama had won by 10 delegates in Pennsylvania, it would have been an upset….Hillary had been predicted to win by a larger margin.
Nothing has changed.
I honestly may lose my mind the next time I hear someone say she won Michigan.
Nothing has changed but the momentum. If Obama was so great he would have won PA
She did win Michigan. Obama was afraid to run there because all of the high profile support he'd get from those nutty Muslims in Detroit.
[...] Hillary go on to pulverize him as she did last night, she will have erased his paltry lead after only sixteen more Pennsylvania primaries. Be warned! The rapture draws nigh! Don't be caught in an airplane or other mass [...]
Hillary did what she needed to do to remain as a viable candidate. And she did win in Michigan.
Obama… " I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction "
The Winds Have Shifted !!! This Power Mongers choices of Mentors, Friends, And Associates combined with his Lies and Egomania have rightfully caused a shift away from Obama by all who are sane.
Obama, The time is Now to Go Stand With The Muslims !!!
Should Democrats be concerned if Obama is the eventual candidate, that the states that are going to decide the election PA, Ohio, Florida (not legitamate) and Michigan (again not legit) all voted for Clinton? I saw something last night that 26% of Clinton voters in PA would vote for McCain over Obama and 19% wouldn't vote at all. I'm sure some of those number are because of crossover voters, but it still has to be somewhat concerning.
it is comments like that of Larry D that cause me to sound so angry sometimes. But at this moment, I am managing to keep it together, despite the multiple layers of absurdity in his statement.
larry is an equal opportunity agitator.
Once more, you know, just for the hell of it….
Florida and Michigan primaries did not count, and will not count. Both Democratic candidates agreed on those rules.
larry must have been inspired by the Pope's visit and now believes he can raise the dead…..issue.
I was just trying to push some buttons Chuck, but Obama would probably posit that you sound angry because you are unemployed and unsophisticated.
What I really believe is Obama pulled his name from the Michigan ballot to ensure the votes there and in Florida don't count. It was smart but smarmy.
But in his view, the votes of citizens as just an "abstract measure" that have nothing to do with the election, as I read today. Rules are rules and the ends justify the means, I guess.
Obama would win a Michigan primary. He would lose a Florida primary. It would be a wash.
My belief he would win Michigan is at the heart of why the DNC rules exist. Obama was still an unknonw commodity to most heading into these primaries. He needed those initial small 4 primaries to get more exposure. The rules made sense. Without those rules, the biggest name would win the nomination every single time…..that is not good…..just like Obama should not be handed the nomination in 2012.
Now that Obama is well known, he has been able to fundraise and get national exposure. With his money and lead in national polls, it is fair to assume he would do very well in Michigan (especially based on all the people that came out and voted against her for no reason, in an election the knew would not count).
By your reasoning it would be fair to assume Obama would do well in Ohio and Pennsylvania as well. But I guess Obama-ites now believe that losing by 9.5 percent is doing well.
chuck you are insane
he did lose a fla primary
he would get destroyed by a similarly dominant 10% margin that he got his ass served to him in Pennsylvania. Face it fatso you are backing a dead horse, whether it is now or in November makes no difference
larry he lost by 10% according to the news, and they know way more than that blow-hard
The only reason that Obama is winning is the way the Democratic Party is counting the Delegates. If it went straight by the Winner take all Method then with Ky and WVa
Clinton Would have enough to win and she is already ahead. The Democrats don't want her to win but it doesn't matter because he will lose in November too.
It is pretty clear that there is no way Senator Clinton is going to earn enough delegates to beat Obama.
Isn't as clear that Obama cannot get enough delegates either to get to 2025?
the most recent poll shows them tied in Michigan.
and Ohio is slightly whiter, poorer, and less educated than Michigan - all these favor Obama.
and Dale's comment is outrageously incorrect.
1) there is no formal popular vote count at this time, because we don't get totals from the caucus states (obama states).
So any claim to the popular vote is impossible.
2) the states that did do caucuses were huge winners for Obama. the consider that caucuses get WAY less voters. so logic stands, if states like Colorado or Minnesota would have had WAY more voters, which would give way more popular vote to Obama.
This area, alone, makes the popular vote argument absurd and impossible to levy.
3) you are using Michigan, where obama was not even on the ballot. and you are not accounting for any of the other 45% of voters that did not vote for her (think about that: she only got 55% when her only competition was Kucinich…..but I am stupid for saying Obama would win Michigan?!?!?!?!)
4) you are counting Florida. Which, admittedly, is a more legit tally, but still very flawed:
a) she sort of campaigned there days before,
b) she had all the name recognition, which he did not, which was precisely what the party sought to avoid by saying no until 2/5,
c) there was a property tax measure on the same ballot (the only other issue), which brought out the homeowners (older people). but there was no incentive for Obama's key area of under 30 year old people to vote.
d) since it is a fact Obama gets the more educated people, his supporters used their brains and did not waste their time voting on an election that was certain to not count.
- in sum, the Florida total is pretty much BS, too.
But Dale, in his absurd statement, ignores all these points and takes the word of the Clinton campaign. Hooray for you.
Don't forget all of us college-degreed blue collars who are educated and working for peanuts—we are too pragmatic to fall for the empty rhetoric of "Hope" and "Change" Obama–we will come out of the woodwork to vote when society gives us the ticket of time-off from our grueling jobs come November.
And, it has nothing to do with race or gender, but details and brilliance and knowing what to say and when to say it–
We are way beyond race and gender but in the thorny thicket of our lives when what matters is maturity and knowing that it takes much more than words to initiate action—we, too, were once idealistic and prey to hopemongers but know better now–we know that hope truly lies within the heart of us all and change is something done step by step. We don't believe that "just words" do anything–witness our lives, especially us women, who were told to dream big and we could have it all—still only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Change? Yeah, right…change translates to *just pennies…*–not enough—-show me the action.
so Obama is all rhetoric, but the Hillary and/or McCain campaigns are based on actions? That's interesting, because my impression is that all candidates run on a platform of ideas, which they seek to later implement. And in that regard, Obama provides as many specifics as Hillary….and both provide more than McCain.
But obviously, I don't understand all this very well, because this pennies guy is somehow seeing "actions" out of the speeches of the other candidates.
Chuck–actions such as what is said on the campaign trail and actions such as Obama voting FOR the dispicable Cheney Energy policy, where Cheney met in secret with over forty oil companies and Obama implying that he is the only candidate not taking money from oil companies—WRONG! No candidate has been able to legally take money from oil companies for over 100 years–BUT Obama has taken more money than any other candidate from oil company executives, oil involved workers and their families than either other candidate —to the total of more than 260,000.oo dollars—Just last month, as he continued to "avoid the truth", he grabbed over 46,000.00 dollars from oil executives—tell me the difference between oil executives wanting influence through money or oil companies garnering favors for contributions? None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Hypocrisy, Chuck, from the Obama camp—now ask me to trust the guy? No way, Jose.
Leave a comment