The Facts on the Pennsylvania Primary
knowyourrights
Posts: 41
Last night, Hillary Clinton used up her last, best chance to make significant inroads in our pledged delegate lead of 171 delegates--and she barely made a dent.
Barack Obama was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the Ohio primary.
For example, among white voters, Obama narrowed the gap by six points. Among voters over 60, he nearly cut the gap in half, from 41 points to 24 points.
Pennsylvania was considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and all along she was expected to win. She has family roots in the state, which borders her own; she had the support of the Democratic establishment--including Governor Rendell's extensive network--and former President Clinton remains very popular there. And Independent voters--the group that will decide the general election and a group Obama is particularly strong with--were not able to vote in the primary. Not surprisingly, Senator Clinton led by as much as 25 points in the weeks leading up to the election.
Barack Obama substantially reduced that lead and gained support among key voters in the face of long odds and unrelenting negativity from Senator Clinton
As NBC's Chuck Todd said last night, "The pledged delegate count is basically over...it now appears like it's going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead."
Barack Obama has won more key battlegrounds--states like Missouri , Colorado , Minnesota , Virginia , Wisconsin , and Iowa . Clinton points to her wins in states like California , New Jersey , and New York (her home state)--but everyone agrees that those states will go Democratic in November no matter what.
The bottom line is that the Pennsylvania outcome does not change dynamic of this lengthy primary. While there were 158 delegates at stake there, there are more--187 delegates--up for grabs in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on May 6.
Barack Obama was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the Ohio primary.
For example, among white voters, Obama narrowed the gap by six points. Among voters over 60, he nearly cut the gap in half, from 41 points to 24 points.
Pennsylvania was considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and all along she was expected to win. She has family roots in the state, which borders her own; she had the support of the Democratic establishment--including Governor Rendell's extensive network--and former President Clinton remains very popular there. And Independent voters--the group that will decide the general election and a group Obama is particularly strong with--were not able to vote in the primary. Not surprisingly, Senator Clinton led by as much as 25 points in the weeks leading up to the election.
Barack Obama substantially reduced that lead and gained support among key voters in the face of long odds and unrelenting negativity from Senator Clinton
As NBC's Chuck Todd said last night, "The pledged delegate count is basically over...it now appears like it's going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead."
Barack Obama has won more key battlegrounds--states like Missouri , Colorado , Minnesota , Virginia , Wisconsin , and Iowa . Clinton points to her wins in states like California , New Jersey , and New York (her home state)--but everyone agrees that those states will go Democratic in November no matter what.
The bottom line is that the Pennsylvania outcome does not change dynamic of this lengthy primary. While there were 158 delegates at stake there, there are more--187 delegates--up for grabs in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries on May 6.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
1) Obama won more states
2) Hillary won the "major" states (CA, NY, PA, TX, etc...)
Both are somewhat close in the popular vote.
The question for the convention is:
1) Obama could not win the major states, can he win the general election?
2) Hillary is proven she can win the major states, but can she win with the smaller ones?
The democrats want to send the best canidate to win. Both have pros and cons. There is definitely going to be a backdoor discussion on who is going to run. Howard Dean is going to decide, not the "super delagtes". Should be interesting.
in the end obama won texas.
and you really think CA and NY would go red if obama was in the general?
cross the river to the eastside
Obama won the caucaus (or however you spell it), Hillary won the vote in TX. People don't like sticking around for the caucas.
Hillary won the states that had the most democrats in them.
Obama won more states, but with states with lesser amount of people.
It's not a question of CA or NY going to the GOP, but the will of the democratic voters on who to run. To me, both runners are pretty damn close and it will be hard to choose.
The Clinton and Obama maps
by kos
Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM PDT
So the pro-Clinton camp is circulating these Electoral-Vote maps to "prove" that Clinton is more "electable" in the fall:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr23.html
Clinton v McCain:
McCain: 239
Clinton: 289
Ties: 10
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr23.html
Obama v McCain:
McCain: 254
Obama: 269
Ties: 15
I can quibble with the methodology, but I won't. There's a larger point to be made using those maps. The author has helpfully divided the states into Strong, Weak, and Barely Dem/GOP. Let's see how our two candidates fare:
Obama Clinton
Strong Dem 67 74
Weak Dem 144 98
Barely Dem 58 117
Tied 15 10
Barely GOP 76 13
Weak GOP 44 89
Strong GOP 134 137
What's this tell us?
* It tells us that Obama's base is stronger: "strong" and "weak" Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.
* With Obama, McCain's base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.
These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?
* More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the "barely Dem" category, Clinton has double the EVs -- 117 to 58. What's more, the "tied" state -- Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.
With Obama, however, we have only 58 "barely Dem" EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.
* Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 "barely GOP" EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and "barely GOP" columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.
* Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the "base states" stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the "barely" category -- Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six -- Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.
Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.
If Democrats want to run the same campaign that has served us so poorly the last decade -- hold the Kerry states and win Ohio and Florida, then Clinton is the person. It's clear in her rhetoric that she can't fathom any other path to the White House. That's why she has insulted so many "Red" states and small states and whatnot. Because in her mind, 50%+1 is the only thing that matters.
Beside having a more solid base than Clinton, Obama's campaign would have a tough time competing in Florida, no doubt about that. But he opens up the Mountain West -- Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, possibly Montana, North Dakota, and even one or two of Nebraska's EVs (they are apportioned by congressional district). Obama would be competitive in Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia -- with their large youth, African American, Latino, and creative class voters.
And I'm getting this all from the map currently cited by Clinton supporters as evidence of her supposed better electability. The map, sad to say (for them), says the exact opposite.
It's been over for a while now, but she's done.
I wonder if she's just staying in it now just to pay off the $10 million of debt she now has. I see no other reason because she can't win.
that gave him more texas delegates than clinton. since that is how "wins" are being judged, obama won texas.
cross the river to the eastside
And Obama is playing the Reagan/Soviet Union strategy, by spending so much money, he is forcing Clinton to spend more than she has.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
This may be the most diligent post I've seen here. Well done. If Hillary believed at all in democracy she'd be gone by now. Oh right, according to her she's winning the popular vote. Funny that at the beginning of the race (when she was miles ahead) she was all about the people's voice. Now we're just "one part" of the democratic process...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
The last I checked he was raising a lot more money than her.
Not only has he raised a significant amount more than her from far more people, but he's also in much less debt and can pay that debt off easily.
I think he owes 500k and she owes over 10 million.
I just think it's amazing that she managed to pull in $10 million after her PA win. Personally, knowing that a candidate won't and can't win...I think I'd save that money! Then again, those crazy liberals are always spending. Spend, spend, spend! LOL
interesting
She lost??? She has nothing to lose... Try to be unbiased. I know a lot of Obama supporters hate Hillary but you have to view it from her side too.
Think about it...
She ran a close race with Obama. (A virtual tie)
Obama and Hillary could not win the needed delegates for the nomination. (I'm not adding the super delagates)
She can try and get a good compromise:
1) Get the nomination
2) Get the vp nomination
3) Get a cabinet position in exchange for her "support"
4) etc...
She does have a lot of leverage left. The Clintons are a sneaky bunch and they know how to play political games.
Sorry about my spelling/grammer... I know it sucks..
I was just messin' around.
I will never put ANYTHING past the Clintons!
Sounds more like a biased opinion to be more accurate
Math can be tricky...
But then again, it is one of the fundamental truths.