Clinton's 'double-digit' win? Not exactly: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted April 23, 2008 8:29 AM
The Swamp

By Paul West

Newspaper readers and network TV viewers awoke this morning to word of Hillary Clinton's 10-percentage point victory in Pennsylvania. An obsession with her precise margin, part of the buildup by her campaign and the news media, dominated election-night coverage and was regarded as an important indicator of her resilience and Barack Obama's failure to close the sale.

Before the votes were counted in Pennsylvania, a Clinton victory in the mid single digits would be seen as good, not great, some said. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, her leading supporter in the state, said that high single digits would be significant. But double digits was something else. A 10-point win would be "extraordinary," said Rendell.

Getting to double digits would match her primary victory in next-door Ohio last month, which she won by 10 points, and signal Obama's inability to make substantial progress despite heavy spending and six weeks of in-person campaigning.

It also sounds more impressive.

Based on nearly complete returns, however, it doesn't appear that Clinton quite got there. According to the latest Associated Press tally, with less than one percent of precincts yet to be counted (50 of 9,218 precincts), Clinton is leading Obama by 54.7 percent to 45.3 percent. That works out to a winning margin of 9.4 percent.

The elections division of the Pennsylvania Secretary of State's office, which also has more than 99 percent of the districts in (9,212 of 9,264) gives Clinton 54.7 percent and Obama 45.3 percent, a Clinton advantage of 9.2 percent.

Either way, that's good, but not double-digits. (For the record, she won Ohio by 10.4 points.)

Now, parsing fractions of a percentage point in Pennsylvania is nothing compared to the debate over the popular vote tally, which is just getting under way and could easily run for another six weeks or more. Already this morning, Clinton is arguing that she has taken the lead in total popular votes, a boast that may not pass the straight-face test among experienced Democratic politicians.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

For Change Vote Obama!

John Mellencamp Small Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8

Bruce Springsteen Radio Nowhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q

Obama 08!


Amazing how Clinton's camp keeps changing the goal posts. She needed a 20% victory to stay viable, and her chances now are even more mathematically slim.

The popular vote argument will only be successful if they count FL and MI votes, and if the caucuses are not included. It will also hold only until the next election.

When Hillary wins big, she wins by 10%. When Obama wins big, it's by multiples of that.

In the next elections, Hillary will not again have the advantages that she had here, a hometown state, a Dem machine that churned for her, and a demographic tailor made for her.

Looking forward to closing this down. Six more weeks to go.


Mellencamp has not endorsed anybody and will be appearing at a Hillary event as well. Mr obama coulnt take the heat last night and left PA in a huff. Go Hillary!!


Hillary won in both states by 10 points. Obama outspent her 3-1. Incredible.


Everything still (and has for some time) hinged on the Superdelegates (which are a dumb idea of the Democrats, but like it or not, we're stuck with that process). The superdelegates who HAVE already declared (on both sides), should have kept their mouths shut and WAITED. Why? Because the undecided Superdelegates (more than 300) could go either way, and they're watching -- and waiting. The supers who have picked a candidate could change their mind at the convention. Bottom line: even if Hil only wins half of everything, neither she nor Obama can get the magic number without the Supers. It's a wait and see game, and always has been. Two very strong candidates --and we'll see what June brings.


Why does the media continue to allow her to "lie and spin" her way out of anything that doesn't go her way. She won by single digits and by the way most of her wins have been in the single digits! People let's begin paying attention to her "divide" politics. She will not win the nomination. She and her campaign will go down in defeat!


What none of you Obama fans will acknowledge is his "lead" in delegates relies heavily on states that never go Dem: Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, etc, etc.
With the exception of Illinois he hasn't won any big state needed to win in November. His refusal to even talk about Florida has cost him local voter support, and likely the state in the general election.
An Obama nomination is a November disaster in the making...but keep fooling yourselves. And tell me about the administrations of Presidents McGovern and Dukakis.


Hillary seems to be proving what she claimed--she has staying power and can take the big, important states. By the way, I don't see anything that lists this story as being commentary/op ed. It sure sounds like it...i.e. Obama heavy. If it's commentary it should be labelled as such. As a former journalist, I'm ashamed of the way the media now covers stories as if they are the experts and thereby attempt to sway voters one way or the other. what happened to unbiased, public service, Jeffersonian journalism!?!?!!?


Actually, it's even more dramatic. Check out the Commonwealth's own election website:
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

The totals [with 99.44% of precincts reporting] are Clinton 54.30% and Obama 45.70% - a difference of just 8.6%.

Worth updating, no?


Regardless of yesterday and Pennsylvania, there is no real path from here to a Clinton nomination. There is swarming rhetoric, there is media frenzy, but there is no way to a Clinton nomination upon which any of us would wager a week's paycheck, I'll bet.....And if I were advising Obama's campaign, I would tell them to start acting like nominees and to campaign against McCain at this point -- let America get a taste of him as nominee. And just let Hillary settle down and begin to realize the status of her candidacy.


The Democratic party is going to have to do some major repair jobs. No matter who the candidate is. In all fairness it is no surprise that Clinton won last night. She is the familiar candidate and she claims Pennsylvania as a home state. Obama HAD to spend like that to get the results he got however though it has been an uphill climb for him she was the presumptive nominee this time last year and that is just not the case now. So fight to the finish but there had better be A LOT of kissing and making up or else McCain has a fighting chance and that should be the scariest thing of all for Dems.


The Obama writers at the swamp can spin it any way they want but this is a big win for HIllary and another disappointment for Obama. He has the backing of 80% of the press, outspent her almost 4-1. Spent more money in Ohio and PA than any candidate in history AND STILL LOST!!!! The whole 20pt lead she had is just Obama campaign spin. It was 1 poll. THe vast majority of polls had her with a 12-14 pt lead way back when it all started. The bottom line is the more peoplelearn about Obama the less they like. ALso the popular vote is hers to win if Florida counts. Floridas popular vote should count even if its delegates do not. People voted and that is what this country is about. If Hillary is winning the popular vote come June she should get the nomination. Plain and simple.


What none of you Obama fans will acknowledge is his "lead" in delegates relies heavily on states that never go Dem: Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, etc, etc.
with the exception of Illinois he hasn't won any big state needed to win in November. His refusal to even talk about Florida has cost him local voter support, and likely the state in the general election.
An Obama nomination is a November disaster in the making...but keep fooling yourselves. And tell me about the administrations of Presidents McGovern and Dukakis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess this means that we are not the United States, just the United States that Hillary won. All votes should count EVERYWHERE. That includes a revote in FL and MI. But lets be clear, even with that, Hillary cannot surpass Obama in any number. It is over unless the democrats want to throw out democracy in its election process.


Obama still can not close the deal. Hillary Clinton is by far the strongest candidate to take on John McCain. If Obama can't win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania in a Primary Election, how in the world to you expect him to carry them in the fall against John McCain? People better wake up and smell the coffee, or its going to be more of the same for the next four years, another Republican President. Hillary 08!!


It is not the Clinton camp that keeps changing the goal posts, it is the Obama campaign and the media who declared that a "win" was not a win unless it was a commanding win, or a win by (some said) 8 points, or 9 points or double digits.

And when it looked yesterday like Clinton might win by double digits, Team Obama said that a 15 point win would not be enough, and late in the day newly converted Obama surrogate David Wilhelm
even said that Hillary would have to win by 25 points!


This morning all I can feel is dismay, frustration, anger, exasperation.....I will never understand the American Voter. I will never under any circumstances vote for Hillary and I am a 60-year-old-white-woman. All of us are not totally backward nor are we all like a pack of sheep!


Splitting hairs here? She won solidly. I don't think that an 10 or 9% is much of a distinction.


Nope, Vinny. The 20 point number came from Bill Clinton


Straight face test?? When there's record turnout across the country in every primary, people are going to decide that voters in certain states don't even exist, regardless of whether their votes counted for delegates or not? That's the concept that doesn't pass the straight-face test. Clinton certainly has the popular vote majority, and it's Obama's burden to try and win it back, but he can't do that by trying to parse it away.


After 20 years in the public eye, there really shouldn't be surprising traits about Hillary Clinton. She and her campaign are aggressive and determined. Sometimes that translates into pushing the boundaries. Successful people in all walks of life change the rules of the game (to benefit themselves).

Depending on whether you like Clinton or not, you might describe her persistence as Rocky or Jason (infamous 80's slasher film character).

She has definitely won my respect as a fierce competitor, just as I admire McCain for his tough independent streak. My advice for Obama and his supporters is to stop complaining and "strap you chin straps".


Senator Clinton's double-digit win didn't occur, just as the sniper fire didn't occur. The facts that her husband was the President, that she was born in the state of Pennsylvania, that she had close to the entire state's Democratic apparatus working for her, and in the closing weeks, she began her poor imitation of a Republican, she better have achieved a victory. In the process, I think she may have short-changed herself, in the long run. She is alienating an important part of the Democratic Party, she has squandered the good will of the former President and she still is running second in the Democratic Party's primary. These facts and the Republican-like tactics will not be forgotten!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.


The only thing Obama is good at is Spin. A Win is a Win, and he just can't seem to put it away. If Obama can't win in States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, how do you think he is going to win them against John McCain? People better wake up and smell the coffee!! Hillary Clinton is by far the strongest candidate to take on John McCain in the fall. Obamas loss in Pennsylvania last night is proff of that. Hillary 08!!


"He has the backing of 80% of the press" (posted by Vinny)

Are you kidding me? I guess Keith Olberman counts as 80% of the press. The “favorable” Press that worries about Obama's lapel pin or that anyone he knows, however remote, he is responsible for; his comment s continually taken out of context by his "favorable" press. I guess you buy into the Clinton mystique that the press is against them. Her campaign is responsible for every negative story written about her, but it's easier to blame the press. Talk about Spin Vinny, the popular vote does not count, it's delegates and like it or not Obama will win that category. The Clinton’s continually move the goal posts and change the rules.


The Obama campaign is now looking forward to the fall campaign.. Irrespective of how much the Hillary camp whines and cries, the people of The US of A have chosen Obama. In the fall, we all know, Hillary and Bill will try very hard to keep him from winning the White House, so that she can run again for President in 2012. However he will defeat McCain and HillBill's dark designs and take the White House. He will go down in history as one of the best Presidents that the US ever saw.


What none of you Obama fans will acknowledge is his "lead" in delegates relies heavily on states that never go Dem: Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, etc, etc.


Posted by: tomk | April 23, 2008 10:26 AM

tomk.. You and Hillary are still playing on Reagan's board. That's the problem. That field is tilted towards the Republicans and, as long as we play on their feild, by their rules, we'll lose consistently. When we win, it'll be incremental and divisive and the term will be 4 years of trench warfare (i.e. look at Bill Clinton's terms).

Hillary can deliver the exact same electoral map we got in 2000 and 2004. If my memory serves me correctly, that didn't turn out too hot for Democrats. Barack has a chance to change the field. He's got the mountain west northern plains states, and the south in play. Hillary doesn't.

Look at the election maps back when Democrats used to win elections consistently. They look much, much different than today's Republican-dominated map that the democrats keep trying to eek out an improbable victory on. You've been conditioned by 30 years of playing on the Republican's field of dreams that keeping the same losing map we've had for two elections and eeking out a "purple" state is the only way to go. It's not.


Hillary won by 9 points but is calling it 10! Absolutely incredible. Disgusting, actually.


It's amazing how every time something doesn't go Clinton's way, she says it's "irrelevant" or "not important" and there are other, bigger fish down the road. Seriously, you people who live in those "irrelevant/not important" states - aren't you mad when she says that about you?

It's amazing how the Democratic party is letting Clinton run such a sleazy campaign against somebody IN HER OWN party. If she's like this now - like a rabid mongoose that's been cornered - what's she going to do in office?


Just because a bunch of talking heads told you that a 10 point lead was what she needed, doesn't make it true.

Go to any website that has a delegate counter. If she wins EVERY state remaining including North Carolina which she can't win, 65% to 35% .... If she wins EVERY state remaining by 30 points, TRIPLE her Pennsylvania win, then Obama is STILL ahead by 26 delegate.

If SOMEHOW North Carolina is TIED and she won EVERY remaining state 75% to 25% then Obama is still ahead by 7 delegates... if she wins EVERY state by 50% and TIES North Carolina she still can't win.

Even if you count Michigan and Florida and give her larger victories there than she actually got... If she were given a 20 point lead in Michigan and Florida and won EVERY other state left by 30 points, then she would be ahead of Obama by 3 delegates.

She CAN'T win this fairly.

She can make a case that 30+ states elections don't matter and we should vote for her even though she lost... I don't think the Superdelegates are that dumb.

No way.


So...Tomk, what you are saying is that Utah, Idaho, North Dakota should be excluded from the primaries since their votes are meaningless. Funny, the last time I looked, there were 50 stars in the U.S. Flag. Unfortunately, Florida and Michigan excluded themselves.


Someone please explain why the Obama spin to downplay Clinton's victory in PA isn't considered racist, sexist, and ageist? There seems to be a double standard.

Also, wasn't the "Annie Oakley" comment blatantly sexist? If the shoe was on the other foot, the howling would be unbearable.


Why do these online forums remind me of the lunch table in junior high?


Obama really ran away with the vote in Alaska, beating Hillary 300 to 100 (meanwhile over 10,000 people voted in the Republican Primary). This is the most extreme example, but Barack has built his lead in states that are very similar to Alaska (a few thousand votes in a half dozen states have netted Barack about half of his lead over Hillary).


The last thing we need, is to be tearing at each others throats. The Republican's would love that. We need to have a common goal...keeping McCain out of the White House! I didn't think it possible, but I believe McCain would be even worse than Bush has been!
Like Hillery or not, like Barack or not...either one would be better than having another Republican in office.


54-46% Obama win, the Paul West/Trib headline would be: "Obama wins in a Landslide"

54-46% Clinton win, Trib headline doesn't even mention who won, let alone use the word "landslide", and Paul West wonders what a "win" is..

No bias here.....


Obama really ran away with the vote in Alaska, beating Hillary 300 to 100 (meanwhile over 10,000 people voted in the Republican Primary). This is the most extreme example, but Barack has built his lead in states that are very similar to Alaska (a few thousand votes in a half dozen states have netted Barack about half of his lead over Hillary).

Posted by: Bill | April 23, 2008 1:02 PM

There were less votes in many Obama states because he is dominating Caucus states. If anything, this further weakens Hillary's argument. If she REALLY were honest about getting to get an accurate popular vote total, then in order to justify her contention that we include Michigan and Florida, she'd also have to reasonably admit that it's only fair to appropriate the caucus margins against what would've been a reasonable primary turnout in those caucus states, had they held a primary instead.

For example... Colorado has roughly the same population as Alabama. Alabama held a primary and had 529,000 votes for Barack or Hillary. Colorado held a caucus and had only 119,000 votes. If you project Obama's victory margin in Colorado over a vote total like Alabama, he'd have netted 140,000 more votes than he currently has.

If that were the case, then she's looking at a 1 million+ deficit in popular vote.

If Obama were like Hillary's camp, throwing reality to the wind and moving the goalposts every week in a scorched-earth, seek and destroy campaign, you'd be hearing them crying about the popular votes lost in Caucus states. But he's not doing that... because his goalposts have never moved and he's winning with dignity.


To Ron Rubin: The comment about Florida and Michigan excluding themselves, well, I am from Florida, and I did not exclude myself, the REPUBLICAN legislature moved our Primary up early and knew what the result would be. The average voter did not move the Primary up, and its not our fault that happend. Just wanted to make that clear. Like you said, there are 50 stars on the
Flag, and Michigan and my state of Florida are wrongly ignored.


This is such silliness. Clinton won PA and picked up +10 delegates on Obama. Whoopdeedoo! Good for her.

But the only way Clinton wins at this point is by convincing superdelegates that she is the better candidate despite trailing in the pledged delegate count, failing to organize her campaign effectively in the caucus states, and being well behind Obama in the fundraising race.

Seriously, who really thinks Obama will lose "big states" like CA, NY, OH, and PA to McCain this year? For goodness sake, McCain is running on Bush's record! Would any sane Democrat vote for that? With McBush on the R side of the ballot, I'd cast my vote for Hillary Clinton's dog if he wins the nomination.


If a win is a win, how come Clinton argues that the states Obama won aren't important?

And these caucuses are the SAME caucuses that built the foundation for Bill Clinton's win in 1992


With McBush on the R side of the ballot, I'd cast my vote for Hillary Clinton's dog if he wins the nomination.

Posted by: Tom O | April 23, 2008 2:00 PM


Amen to that.. all these polls stating that "60% of hillary supporters won't vote for Barack in the General" and vice versa are bupkis.

When Obama (or Hillary) stands on stage in a debate against McCain and he starts talking about "how great the Iraq war is and we need to stay there forever + 1 day"... "Reagonomics is working wonderfully!"... "who needs healthcare? Me and my rich buddies are using our tax breaks to get top-notch medicine!" Democratic voters who supported the one who didn't win the primary will all, in unison, say "Ohhh yeaaaaahhh! That's right! I forgot about these guys. What was I thinking!?" and they'll vote along party lines.


Attention to minutae (10% v 9.4%) works for the media as well as her...the longer the tightness of the race, the longer the media draws viewers, plain and simple.

Hillary has shown she has no trouble prevaricating when the need arises, which it has all along this last 15 months as her vast superiority slowly twisted, twisted in the wind.

Remember when she led nationally by 20-some points?

Changing the lens does not change the landscape, as any photographer knows. It only changes what you focus on. Hillary, a person who seems not in fact to have any vision loftier than the tired politics of what has come before, is mostly skilled at changing the focus away from her weaknesses.

In a real vision for America, she has shown she is sadly lacking. When Obama finally wins the nomination, after she was unable to close the deal (which is the real long-term perspective...those who say he can't close the deal forget that he started at exactly zero), America will see that he will blow McCain and the disastrous GOP away.

Borrowing from the movie Patton, in which the brilliant American general waited to ambush a division of Rommel's Panzer corps after having studied his tactics, Obama supporters say to McCain and the GOP (Grand Old Paranoics), "Fear mongers, you beautiful bastids, we read your book!"

Bring on the slime, GOP fearmongers: we've read your book in its latest iteration : the Clinton small-mind politics edition. Hillie still can't close the deal because enough Americans see her for what she is: the latest political Caligula, willing to bring down the party to further her own gains.


"There were less votes in many Obama states because he is dominating Caucus states. If anything, this further weakens Hillary's argument. If she REALLY were honest about getting to get an accurate popular vote total, then in order to justify her contention that we include Michigan and Florida, she'd also have to reasonably admit that it's only fair to appropriate the caucus margins against what would've been a reasonable primary turnout in those caucus states, had they held a primary instead."

Sorry, CraftyB, your logic is flawed. It is far easier to get to a 75-25 advantage if only 400 people vote. I don't know how many Democrats there are in Alaska, but there are definitely a lot more Republicans. Therefore even exponentially increasing the size of the vote based on the number of registered Democratic is just a manufactured statistic. My point was that the 300 normal people in Alaska have just about as much say as the 300 undecided superdelegates. True, they only netted Barrack about 5 votes, but the Supers may not net either candidate many more than that.

It is also far easier for Barack to get to large margins if there is one city in a state that can truly dominate the rest of the population of the state {i.e. Baltimore at a little under 1 million people in the city is quite large compared to the population of the state of Maryland (approximately 5 million) -- this disparity is further exaggerated in a Democratic Primary versus a General Election}.


'Seriously, who really thinks Obama will lose "big states" like CA, NY, OH, and PA to McCain this year?'

Unfortunately, Tom O, you picked three Democratic states and the swing state from the last election. So any Obama supporter is going to believe that Barry can take all four.

But, I believe that McCain will take Ohio (which is really a Republican state), and I believe that McCain has a shot to take Florida (Barry's stance on letting illegal immigrants have driver's licenses is not going to play over well in California).


Who expected Obama to when PA? No one. He significantly cut her lead. That is what is significant. He's still ahead. She's not going to be able to catch up.

Oh and when he does win the nomination, many of those Clinton votes will go to him. So in the end he still may win those states that Clinton won.

Can't wait to vote for him again in fall. But more importantly, can't wait until this primary is over.


"...and the meek shall inherite the Earth....if that's ok with everyone".

Clinton can only shift the goal posts if the rules weren't clear to start with.

If Obama wants to win, then he better start competing. I am not used to agreeing with Pat Buchanan, but he nailed it on the head this morning by calling Obama's campaign and demeaner as " faculty lounge".....overly academic and big picture.

Obama needs to stop preaching to those that agree with him, and effectively address those that don't. This is not the same as attracting new interest from previously uncommitted or undiscerning voters (e.g. young voters).


So what's it really going to be in the history books, 9% or 10%? It's a big difference according to the 'spin' of things so can we please get it right!


Sorry, I meant to say:

"I believe that McCain has a shot to take California (Barry's stance on letting illegal immigrants have driver's licenses is not going to play over well in California)."

If McCain takes California, he is virtually unbeatable. And Obama's name would start being brought up with the likes of Mondale and Dukakis (who both lost California, I believe, in their landslide losses).

Do all the Obama supporters really think that the American people aren't going to figure out that Obama has never really attempted to reach accross the aisle? McCain has reached across the aisle -- that's why we have had bills like McCain-Feingold (Feingold is a Democrat from Wisconsin). The immigration bill was McCain-Kennedy. Is Obama going to claim that he reached across the aisle for an Ethics Bill?


" Goodbye" HILLARY AND TAKE BILLY WITH YOU !!
WE NEED A GOOD GOD FEARING MAN NOT SOME OLD FREE LOVE'N HIPPY'S
THE 60'S ARE OVER WE NEED CHANGE NOW LET A YOUNG EDUCATED MAN STEP UP AND SHOW YOU HOW IT'S DONE GO HOME HILLARY WHERE EVER YOUR WANTED ! I USED TO HAVE RESPECT FOR YOU BUT YOU REALLY ARE A IDIOT ! JUST STEP DOWN !!


Crafty B writes:
"There were less votes in many Obama states because he is dominating Caucus states."

This misses the point entirely. There is no indication that he would have won many of these states if they had primaries, where people actually go anytime during polling hours, cast their vote and leave.

Hillary won the vote in Texas and lost the caucus. That's proof.

No More Caucuses... ever!


Can people stop saying that Hillary Clinton won PA by 10 points. I don't care what planet she/her campaign/news media are from, but you can't change math just to suit your needs. The most generous percentage point is 9.4 and even that can't be rounded up to make '10'. On the other hand, can we really trust Obama?


Bill,

McBush wins California on immigration issues? That will trump the Iraq war, the economy, and the general anti-Republican sentiment? Wasn't McCain for sensible immigration policy before he was against it? In Karl Rove's dreams McBush plays both sides of the immigration issue and wins CA, but I won't believe Californians are that stupid unless and until they prove it.


1. It was NOT the Republicans that moved up the primary in Florida... That is the spin they are putting on it now... It was the head of the DNC there... They moved it up...

2. 9% is NOT a landslide, it isn't now, it never has been. 15%+ is a BIG win, 30%+ is a landslide.

3. Those BIG states Clinton won... the big DEMOCRATIC states will be won by Obama... New York will never go Republican, the mere insinuation is asinine.

Clinton can't win fairly at this point... She doesn't even protest that fact, she knows and has said that she can't win more pledged delegates than him, she knows she can't win the popular vote, she said YESTERDAY that the math doesn't matter... It is about FEELINGS... Who do you FEEL would win in November, and they should vote for that person (I.E. CLINTON)

She can't win unless she is appointed the nominee.,

CAN A SINGLE CLINTON SUPPORTER REALLY THINK THAT IT IS OK TO COMPLETELY OVERRIDE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS AND GIVE THE NOMINATION TO THE LOSER?

P.S. Look up John Hagee... See why you can't vote McCain...

He wont denounce a man who blamed Jews for the Holocaust, and thinks that God is punishing us by sending Terrorists to kill us.... Who says that Catholicism is a CULT...

sad..

Obama... NOT Clinton, NOT McCain.


Hillary has no chance statistically to win and yet she won,t give up and is helping the Republicans and hurting her own party ,but cannot see it or does not care.


Clinton won by 9.4% and not 10%. Landslide? maybe not. However, that hasn't stopped the media all day asking: why can't Obama close....he has the charisma, the money and the superior oration talents???

The Democratic primary rules says 2025 delegates win, not whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of April or May or June.

If Obama can't beat Clinton, whose negative rating are at record highs, how electable is he really???

Again, it's time for Obama to start competing and stop expecting Clinton to quit.


Sorry, CraftyB, your logic is flawed.

Posted by: Bill | April 23, 2008 3:04 PM

I agree Bill.... that's the point. If Hillary gets flawed logic in Michigan and Florida, then Barack deserves the same in Caucus states.

The only reason we're not hearing it, as I said before, is because Barack isn't moving the goalposts minute by minute. He's winning with dignity, not by trying to massage the rules. After Bush's massage in 2000, I'm tired of that crap. How about giving the election to the guy (or gal) that actually wins for once.


Clinton deserves congratulations for her significant win. However, it
doesn't need to be stated as being more than it was. So many media reports, and Clinton's own campaign, are referring to it as a double digit win. Double
digit win would mean she won by over 10%. According to the
official returns at http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/, Clinton
received 1,245,911 votes and Obama 1,037,953, which is a 54.55% - 45.45%
= 9.1% difference.


I'm the first to agree that quibbles over 9% vs. 10% are trivial -- she
still had a great win. On the other hand, since so many people said she
should get out if she didn't get a double digit win, it is not
completely trivial to point that she fell short of the mark.
Similarly, people said she should fold it up if she didn't win Ohio and
Texas. The media widely reported that she won both, when in fact she
lost Texas by 3 delegates when the dust finally settled.


Actually, the margin is 9.11% if you do the math. The Commonwealth website, with 99.99% in, says the margin was 1,245,911 to 1,037,953. If you do the math, that works out to a margin of 9.11%. For whatever reason, the MSM keeps repeating the "double digit" myth. Of course, 9.11 is actually triple digits if you don't care about where the decimal point is.


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "o" in the field below: