Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

For Clinton, Simply Winning Pa. Isn't Enough

With 19 days left before Pennsylvania Democrats (finally) go to the polls to pick between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, conventional wisdom says the contest is Clinton's to lose. BUT, "How big will she win?" and "What will it mean?" are questions of huge importance.

Pennsylvania
Is Pennsylvania's April 22 primary the make-or-break moment for Clinton?

The Fix has been pondering those very questions and, through conversations with both neutral and aligned politicos, we've come to a conclusion: Clinton's margin of victory in Pennsylvania matters -- and it matters a lot. There are both symbolic and practical concerns tied to the percentage of her vote -- concerns that help explain why 59 percent would be a titanic victory and 52 percent could be labeled a loss.

Coming out of Feb. 5, the story line was that both Obama and Clinton essentially fought to a tie in the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses and the party was left without a clear favorite.

After that Obama won and won (and won) -- an eleven-contest streak that spanned the better part of a month. Obama's victories were clearly the driving force in changing the campaign's narrative, but it was the margins by which he won that made him seem invincible.

In Virginia's Feb. 12 primary, Obama won with 64 percent of the vote. The big wins continued: Wisconsin on Feb. 19 (58 percent) and Mississippi on March 11 (61 percent).

Those margins and the across-the-board demographic appeal that they revealed were the motor that powered the Obama surge.

Clinton's wins in Texas and Ohio have certainly helped her fend off the idea that she can never catch up and dismiss the argument that the longer she stays in the contest, the more she risks hamstringing the party in the fall. She has insisted that the race remains too close to call, and her campaign has pushed the idea that voters still have lingering questions about Obama -- particularly the working class voters that the party will need in order to win the White House in the fall.

Pennsylvania is filled with just such voters. For Clinton, a significant statewide margin (10 points or more) would likely reinforce the idea that Obama hasn't closed the sale with that swath of the electorate and would lead to more media examinations of whether Obama has problems connecting with working-class voters.

"I do think that if she were to blow him out and win 61-39 or 58-42, then it would again go to show that there is something going on in the whole country and with these working class voters we need in a general election," said one unaligned Democratic consultant who was worked on Pennsylvania races. "A blowout would continue to focus on that part of the deficiency of the likely candidate."

Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, made a similar point when asked about what's at stake in Pennsylvania. "If Senator Obama loses another big state and fails again to close the deal with voters, it will raise serious questions about his ability to win in a general," Wolfson said.

When any candidate loses a race (or a state) badly, it inevitably causes some navel-gazing by the campaign professionals. Obama's campaign has largely avoided that sort of public fretting about its candidate, but if he falls short by a significant margin in Pennsylvania -- on the heels of a double digit loss in an Ohio -- it's almost certain that some within the campaign (or Obama surrogates around the country) will begin to ponder whether something is wrong with the message or the messenger.

That's never a positive development for a campaign (see Clinton, Hillary) and can lead to days if not weeks of coverage about where the candidate went wrong and how he can fix it.

The second, and far more obvious, reason that Clinton's margin in Pennsylvania matters is the raw reality that she currently trails by significant margins in the pledged delegate count and the popular vote.

Even the most loyal of Clinton backers privately acknowledge that unless she trims Obama's leads in the popular vote and the delegate count by the end of the process on June 3, it will be a very difficult to argue that the race remains up in the air.

Given the size of Pennsylvania's electorate -- there are more than four million registered Democrats -- and its large delegate trove (158), the Keystone State represents Clinton's best chance to make up considerable ground on Obama.

Remember, however, that Democrats award delegates proportionally based both on a candidate's showing in each congressional district as well as his/her performance statewide. That formula makes it far more difficult, though not impossible, for Clinton to accrue a lot of pledged delegates in Pennsylvania.

What the Clinton campaign must hope is that they can keep down Obama's margins in the congressional districts in and around Philadelphia, where he is expected to do well. At the same time, the Clinton camp hopes to run up big margins in western Pennsylvania and the geographic "T" that lies between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Doable? Yes. Difficult? Absolutely.

Obama backers, knowing that the math works in their favor, seem content to fight Clinton to a delegate draw in the state -- even if that means their candidate winds up losing the overall vote.

Josh Shapiro, a state representative from the Philadelphia area who backs Obama, summed up the campaign's position succinctly. While not admitting defeat, Shapiro said: "You can argue percentages, you can argue electoral college, [but] at the end of the day it comes down to delegates. Either one of them is going to walk out of Pennsylvania with a small net gain of delegates."

As the Obama team knows well, no news (or minor news) is good news for the frontrunner. Or, as one unaffiliated Democratic consultant familiar with Pennsylvania politics put it: "Minus a knockout, it's just another round in a fight."

Polling in the race shows the possibility of a double-digit win for Clinton, but the surveys also seems to reveal a bit of Obama momentum in the state.

A new Quinnipiac University survey pegs Clinton's lead at nine -- 50 percent to 41 percent -- down from a twelve-point bulge in a similar survey done in the middle of March. An average of all recent Pennsylvania polling -- as shown by Pollster.com -- shows Clinton with a 51.4 percent to 40.2 percent lead in the state.

All of which to say is that a big win -- in terms of the popular vote and the delegate count -- is possible if not probable for Clinton at the moment. Clinton has shown an ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat before (New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas), but can she do it one more time?

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 2, 2008; 10:41 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Campaign Manager Invokes Florida Recount
Next: GOP Weighs Calendar Changes for 2012

Comments

There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania but 40% of the electorate live in only five: Philadelphia and it's collar counties of Bucks, Montgomrey, Delaware, and Chester.
Win Philly big and you win.
You think Ed Rendell got elected by winning the "T?"

If Hillary Clinton wants to go after the "T" fine by me; No Dem will carry it in November anyway.
The national media loves to paint PA as Ohio with cheesesteaks. PA has it's share of lower middle class voters - it certainly has it's share of older voters - but we are NOT Ohio. We are not mid-westerners.
We have "attytood."


Posted by: danieldeagler | April 5, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

How can you count popular vote when ten of the contests were caucuses? This is like comparing apple and oranges. If you extrapolate the results of the caucuses to states that had primaries of similar size (delegate allocation) Obama's popular vote lead grows by 800,000 which would make his lead 1.5 million. This is why the only way to determine the winner is- by pledged delegates.

Posted by: lacsr | April 3, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"After all, the previous generations have done such a horrible job of it, it's time to move over. We'll drive now." said topwriter

As someone who played an integral role in the Colorado student GOTV for John Kerry
I have to point out that it was the GenY voters I contacted in Denver who refused to turn out even knowing all of Ws bad policies in Iraq and for their generation so boomers won t be blamed for your generation s refusal to participate. We gave you the keys to the car and you opened the door and left and that was why we had 4 more years of W0. We tried but GenY said it was just not that impt;that was what college students at Denver s Aurora campus told me.

Posted by: leichtman | April 3, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Hillary won the Rush Limbo vote.

Doesn't that count for anything?

Posted by: grandstreetfund | April 3, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Light_bearer

Do you seriously think New York or Massachusetts are going to vote Republican? That's about as realistic as claiming Obama could win Nebraska based on his win there.

Oh, and Obama has won exactly 0 Electoral College votes. As has Hillary. As has McCain.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 3, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has earned more Electoral College votes than Obama. So, no doubt Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator McCain in the general election.
[...]
Clinton wins!

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM

I know! And to think some Democrats want to pick Obama and lose New York, Massachusetts and California in the general election, when they could run Hillary and win Arizona like she did in the primary.

Posted by: light_bearer | April 3, 2008 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton has earned more Electoral College votes than Obama. So, no doubt Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator McCain in the general election.
[...]
Clinton wins!

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM

I know! And to think some Democrats want to pick Obama and lose New York, Massachusetts and California in the general election, when they could run Hillary and win Arizona like she did in the primary.

Posted by: light_bearer | April 3, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Re: mrmatttt

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you strongly that the results of a caucus are important. These indicate enthusiasm for a candidate-which is important for assessing strength of support. Although Texas has an odd method for apportioning votes, it was a draw in the end.

Rw: edwcorey

The early poster claimed that Chris was in the bag for a particular candidate. I find that offensive. He's an interesting writer, far more so than I. (Well, except for magnetic resonance spectroscopy, organic electronics, and Sheffield United--Up The Blades!!!). Said individual has the right to post idiotic comments on the blog. I have the right to note correctly that such comments are idiotic. You have the right to note incorrectly that I'm out of line.

Buh-bye

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 2, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, you Obama supporters who are so confident your candidate will get the nomination, stop and think again. Hillary did not win in double digits in Ohio because Republicans voted for her. She won in double digits because Ohio has been one of the harder hit states in the nation and Hillary appeals to those who are stuggling economically because she has something to offer them. Barack is all words with no experience or voting record to back him up.
My husband who has been a union member for almost 30 years and a Hillary supporter predicted that when the union leaders backed Obama it would backfire against Obama because the rank and file union members rarely listen to their leaders particularly when it's the rank and file members who are suffering economically. In Texas, the Latinos supported Clinton big. The Latinos love the Clintons - much more so than Ted Kennedy - who simply doesn't carry the clout that he once had. Of course we all know that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Duval Patrick all helped Obama in their home state of Massachusetts probably to solidly lose it.
This is a message to you Obama supporters. Have you ever heard about burnning your bridges? When you insult and personally attack our candidate and her family and personally attack her supporters, you do great harm to your candidate and certainly don't stay on message with your leader's campaign about bringing Americans together. You make yourselves and your candidate by extension look like hypocrites. If your candidate does get the nomination; it's the women who are older, the working class people, the Catholics, the Jewish people, the Latinos, who are going to have to support him for him to beat McCain. He cannot win a general election without the support of those groups. So far Senator Obama's wife, his former pastor, his current spiritual adviser, some of his surrogates, and some of his supporters need to get on message with what he's preaching or there wll be a landslide come November but not for Obama.

Posted by: catjohn1 | April 2, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

mnteng: We are on the same page pointing out the many things that are TRUE. I have been involved in politics for some 60 years and I can think of a few times where some folks were fooled for a time, by the "Far Left Wing" of the Dem party by the likes of McCarthy and Dukakis [spelling] for example, and yet cannot understand how much it has actually hurt the normal "Joe Six-Pack" folks. These "Far Left Wing" "Nuts", as I sometimes refer to them, are for the most part the "Elite" of this country that have wealth in their family going back hundreds of years, been given the best education their money can buy, by these same "Nuts" that are so prevalent in our higher education system. This does not apply to most of these folks, but for those that it does, their enormous influence cannot be denied in the "Idiot-Ology" thinking of so many.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

brewstercounty, are you in Alpine, TX?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 2, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

(CHEYENNE, Wyo.) -- Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, announced Wednesday that he will support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.

drip.....drip........drip..........Hillary drip......drip.....drip........

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 2, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton holds a nine-point lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. But it is the survey's general election numbers from three key swing states that may do more to bolster the New York senator's campaign.

In hypothetical match-ups with presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Clinton outperformed Barack Obama in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In each of these states, Clinton is propelled by solid support among female voters, and Democrats -- particularly white Democrats -- in all three are less likely to defect to McCain with Clinton atop the Democratic ticket.

Overall, Clinton is up nine points over McCain in Ohio, while Obama runs about evenly with the Arizona senator. Clinton also has a more sizable edge in Pennsylvania and is competitive in Florida, a state where McCain is up nine points on Obama in the new poll.

Polling about November in the midst of a hotly contested primary contest is a perilous enterprise, but a Clinton campaign eager to sway superdelegates is sure to latch onto the new data. And the crosstabs do reveal some early obstacles for Obama.

About one in five Democrats in each of these three states said he or she would support McCain if Obama were the Democratic nominee; that is about double the proportion who would vote for the Republican against Clinton. And Clinton outpaces Obama among white women by double-digits in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania alike.

From the Wash Post Trail Today
Good Night to all..please try to keep all that nervous energy under wraps all you Obama supporters...

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse


"Eight years should suffice for this task. "

That statement is about as egocentric as Obama's tenor.


"I believe Obama has begun a great unification of spirit. Sure, haters, perhaps yourself included, will lend a cynical voice to the debate, even declaring his effort a failure before it has begun, but good will prevail, don't you worry,


Here's another really outlandish statement. I didn't join the hate-wagon, and I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who organized one. That does not put me on the same caliber as someone who builds a campaign out of hate. The logic is faulty.


"Obama crushes in November, says one who's feeling like that Christian with four aces..."

This is very scary statement.

"Oh, and by the way, you're comment is not much different than, say, a bullies, who punched his teacher and stated that 'she'd failed to keep him in line,' and should be punished for as much."


This is the most twisted statement yet. Between us there's only one bully here.

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Eriks you have to realize you're speaking to a broad swathe here...and honestly I identified you by your conversational style, as perhaps someone who....was or had been a member of....


Street gangs can identify through various verbalizations, for example, the "Bloods"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_signal

Blood in, Blood out..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_gang

"Blood" is often used to reference a commonality among the "brothers."

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Whole election process has been unfair for Obama. If Obama were same position as Hillary democrats would have forced him quit. It is Clinton machine, their desparation, argument for new rules as the situation changes, the hangover of old whitehouse occupancy making this whole process very complecated and been dragged beyond the reason. I can see clearly it the Clinton campaign who have been source of propoganda and distraction from issue all the time. When Obama himself made such a tough journey in his life why he would not be popular among the working American. For me he is real inspirational and hope for poor, disadvantaged Americans. It must give them hope, if he can solve so many problems and still get ahead in life every american can do it themselves. He gas got more respectand hearts for blue colar workers than Hillary whether it is white or black. If people think carefuly he is a hope not only for ordinary workers every american even for rest of the world.


Posted by: yadisharma | April 2, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Leichman,

I'm relieved to hear that the culprit was a republican and not a democrat. It figures. Now if an Obama precinct cpt did that to you, you'd have a point against the Obama campaign. Barring that, your justification is weak. Do you want us to judge the Clinton campaign by the lowest character that has ever been associated with it?

The fact that nasty things happen in campaigns does not justify campaign leaders to resort to gutter politics.

As to Clinton's support on NAFTA, she supported it, as proven by her records as a first lady.

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton will come from behind and win the nomination. She is a once in a lifetime candidate and will prove it this way. Then the white haired men's political club will have to let her in. And there will be a few whose hair will turn white overnite.

Hah. From a 60 year old man supporting Hillary.

Posted by: brewstercounty | April 2, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I am generous.

I think a more likely scenario is:

State - HC/BO
PA 55-45
IN 52-48
WV 60-40
OR 45-55
SD 42-58
Guam 50-50
NC 40-60
KY 65-35
MON 42-58
PR 60-40

To get to 2024 HRC would need 75% of the remaining "automatic" delegates

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Erics,

You are very generous. The Clinton campaign probably has as much justification to stay in the race as Huckabee had after Super Tuesday. If only they were as respectful of Obama as Huckabee was of McCain. There would be no problem at all with her staying on to the last state.

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

urban: the sign is totally irrelevant. The neighbors in my upscale neighborhood is a 35 year old pilot who is a Republican and should know better. He put his Obama sign right behind my torn up sign how childish life is too short for such nonsense. Its that behavior by SOME of his supporters that really amazes me as though that somehow would make me more inclined to support Sen Obama.

Calling Richardson a liar and Shame on You Sen Obama for dispensing flyers which incorrectly portrayed HC's position on NAFTA you call nasty. Obviously you have more than that b/c in comparison to any other Presidential campaign those comments were very very mild and polite in a campaign, respectfully.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I know the HRC supporters dislike math.

But let's play this out with a quite favorable break to HRC


State - HC/BO
PA 60-40
IN 55-45
WV 60-40
OR 45-55
SD 45-55
Guam 50-50
NC 45-55
KY 70-30
MON 45-55
PR 60-40

So has she made up the deficit? Nope. Has she halved the deficit? Not even.

All that happens she STILL needs a 67%-33% break in the remaining superdelegates.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

It doesn't matter who one Texas. Texas hasn't gone Democrat in a general election since the '60's and it's not about to go Democrat this election. It's red and it will stay red no matter who "won" the Democratic primary.

The Clinton campaign holds up Texas like it's some sort of trophy they can carry into November when no one, in their right minds, considers Texas to even be close to a "battleground" state.

What IS a battleground state? North Carolina, for one. A state that was close to going Democratic the last election and with Obama as the nominee WILL go Democratic this election.

And Ohio? Yes, another battleground state so close Kerry smelled the inaugural roses but who stands a better chance of defeating McCain there? Polls show Obama -Clinton's negatives would drive many Democratic voters to stay home and independents to vote for McCain.

So let's keep our eyes on the big ball here, shall we? The General Election; not a primary win in a state that wont go blue unless you strangle the states voters.

And let's also not lose sight of THE major reason voter turn-out for a primary has hit record highs. It's because there's somebody new saying something that resonates to a whole lot of people in a way and with a conviction and passion many who will be voting for the first time have never witnessed.

Richardson is right; it's time for a new generation. After all, the previous generations have done such a horrible job of it, it's time to move over. We'll drive now.

Posted by: topwriter | April 2, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I say: first of all, thanks for a balanced post. I don't think you're being biased at all, and am also tired of reading the bashing such posting litanies of grievenced having nothing to do with the WaPo article.

Responding to your point: Yes, Hillary won the Texas primary by just over 100,000 votes. But, don't forget Obama won the TX million person caucus by over 10%. I don't think it's clear at all who got more of the popular vote from Texas (unless we ignore caucuses).

Posted by: mrmatttt | April 2, 2008 12:01 PM

Dumbest post of the day by a not insane person. We know that Hillary one the popular vote. Why - Because you had to vote in the primary to vote in the Caucus. The same people voting twice does not count as two voters. Hillary won by 3 percent thats it.

Ok cultist you said Obama one Texas before the vote was over. It is still not over but yes Obama is probably get the Dels. The will not have the final final count until June.

Posted by: mul | April 2, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

you write:

"Its about a 20 year relationship.Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his 'Spritual Advisor'. It's about Obama's lies. Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth."

I've quoted you accurately, but for reasons of space I condensed your material into prose. (What's with the dramatic line-ends? It doesn't make your argument more effective.)

Anyway, let's assume there was something more lame than continually again and again returning to the Rev. Wright affair, last known to be circulating endlessly in Sean Hannity's nasty corner of the Fox Newsopia in which you've clearly been trapped.

Oh, liberate yourself brother or sister.

There is nothing so surprising about someone going to a church where the minister says things that are weird or offensive. More importantly, in this country we judge people by what they themselves say and do. There's no words for the contempt I feel for those people who keep returning to this issue: you need to get over it: no one, absolutely no one, has ever claimed Senator Obama has kinds of radical views Rev. Wright (in one minute out of twenty years) expressed.

Posted by: wilson.topher | April 2, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman,

I'm sorry about your yard sign. That behavior is certainly unacceptable. These youngsters (I assume they were) will need to be taught how to express political opposition with respect.

My point is though that the Clinton campaign has not shown good example of a respectful conduct. Bill Clinton is calling Richardson a liar. Hillary gives a "Shame on you" speech. Do I need to go on? This is what the young people see playing out in the TV/Youtube.

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton said it would be nice to have two people who loved America in the race.

Here's BHO's resume:
1) stopped wearing american flag lapel pin as US Senator, stating it was 'false patriotism'
2) chooses to leave islam to worship with Rev Wright for 18 yrs, who encourages congregation to sing "g-d d-amn america'
3) Ivy league wife of ivy league senator BHO gets a $200000 raise the day he is elected to the senate as a 'community outreach' officer for a Chicago Hospital. When her hubby wins the Iowa primary, she states she is proud of America for the first time in her life.

So it appears BC was right this time. BHO is 'typical affirmative action' empty suit with a major chip on shoulder.

Posted by: rahaha | April 2, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

harry I have focussed on their differences, its called their policy positions on healthcare and the economy policies which are primary for me. Personally I wouldn't even consider a Texas state senator who has served in the US Senate for less than 3 years as anywhere near the qualifications to be Pres. Most of his elected experience as you say has been in the Illinois State Senate. Lets replace Sen Obama with your local State Senator who defeated a very weak opponent in his run for US Senate and then ran for Pres. I see his qualifications as woefully lacking but at least you can agree to disagree. You don't think being first lady to a governor and a 2 term succesful President as any big deal, that is fine. Robt Byrd has labeled HC as one of the most knowledgeable and effective US Senators. Unless I have missed something I have yet to hear that comment from any of Sen Obama's colleagues; even those who have endorsed him.
And Harry I have read both of Sen Obama's books which were impressive, read his healthcare plan and attended his early UT speech last year. Can an Obama supporter say they have done the same for HC? I just came to a different conclusion for which I have been constantly attacked here.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, add Senior citizens...to Hill's list..
One more demo Obama doesn't own.

No one is talking about Iowa, Students crossing the boarder put him over the top.
You can't do that in the General Election..

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

lylepink:

If it sounded like I was disagreeing with you, that is not the case at all. Certainly, BHO will get a big split in delegates from CDs 1 and 2, which are heavily African-American. Not only that, due to the apportioning of delegates based on historic (D) voting, those districts will have 7 and 9 delegates, respectively, up for grabs. I just think it will be very difficult for HRC to make serious inroads on the delegate count in PA, though she should do well in the popular vote.

I'm with you on the bi-racial thing. As an Asian-American, nothing irks me more than people calling Tiger Woods an African-American -- his mom's Thai, for goodness sakes! Tiger's our boy, dang it. :)

Posted by: mnteng | April 2, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Please note that Obama, not Clinton, actually won Texas.

Clinton supporters are trying to rewrite the rules and the definition of what exactly "win" means, but by the rules that both Obama and Clinton agreed to at the start of this contest, Obama has won.

Posted by: hauntmeister | April 2, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Dr.you aren't subtle and you're also not very factual. Hillary beat Obama on every major demographic except Black Americans and men.

What's worse is his cross-over Republican votes are premised on hatred for another person. It has all gone to his head and he's now talking about creating an new electorate partially based on hatred.

While Hillary's constituents consist of working men and women, Aisian, Jew, Latino, his contains a broad swathe of hate voters crossing over to help Republicans in NOV.

Though we know hatred is powerful, that's the type of politics we should want to run from, not embrace.

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary only leads in one demographic: Seniors.

If they ever start to feel that Obama won't cut their social security, then she's a goner.

Posted by: jabailo | April 2, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

To: leichtman

I, for one, respect your opinion.

I disagree because I don't see Hillary's qualifications as any better. He's had about 8 years in elective office to her about 6. He's worked in the poorest parts of Chicago making a real difference instead of going for the big bucks American dream. She's basically had the pampered upper class upbringing (Wellesley, etc.) Her tea parties abroad don't really count as Presidential experience.

What really matters is what qualities the candidate brings to office, which include many more than commander-in-chief.

We can disagree on what those qualities should be and who has them. However, I strongly disagree with your "experience" argument. IMO, you should focus on what's really different and important in the persons running.

Posted by: harry4 | April 2, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

dearest tirade1,

you seem likable enough for a repulsive scammer...

you likka dis, soundbiter???

"vileness," here today, is repulsive scammer based....


it's what they do. People that don't lie for a living, think it has something to do with being a bad person...it's their lifestyle...


crab grass doen't have morals or scruples, termites and roaches are just insects that are in the wrong place...

republicans are a diseased tribe, cut them out of the herd...

banish them for a generation or two, take their money and influence away, give them resumes with the words TRAITOR marked on them, and let them hunt for work...

Jail the KAGANS, RICHARD PERLE, PAUL WOLFOWITZ, NEGROPONTE, PORTER GOSS, Douglas Feith, Dich Cheenie, Donald Dumbsfeld, James Baker III...and others...


keep AMERICAN free from DISINFORMATION...it's fraud in the real world.

during the 1972 McGovern Nixon challenge, McGovern was considered the stronger challenger


and so the repulisive scammers used character assassination to defeat McGovern, much as you see Hillary being attacked now... with the same illogic, spin and innuendo...

Hubert Humphrey was put forward as "the more reasonable," what they really meant was Hubert was the "more defeatable,"


Obama _i_s_ the weaker candidate.

SEARCH on 1972 KARL ROVE, McGovern.


Plus for every degree of anger between people voting for either Hillary or Obama the repulsive scammers can count on a swing vote or a non vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated.


I would say that about 40 PERCENT of the VILENESS and INNUENDO from posters here is repulsive scammer based.


I recognize a lot of the posters as being repulsive scammers, you can tell from their mode of attack....


it's usually spin and "appeal to emotion," very little logic


just name calling and playground tactics...slime, innuendo, impugning character,

EXAMPLES: purple lips, ankleless Annie


that kind of thing.


it's what they do. They have been doing it here at the Washington Post, for the last 4 years....same tactics, different purpose...they defended bush with these tactics...

called people, liberals, unpatriotic, homosexuah lovahs, negrah lovahs, injun lovahs, laboruhs, wimmens libbuhs, yankee doodle dandees 'en sech...

_they_ defended bush with these tactics...
as bushCO and CRONY _supporters_

just because george w. is going doesn't mean bushCO and CRONYs disappears....or loses any money...

wake up little hosers !!!!

Posted by: a_bigone | April 2, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"leichtman: I was there you were not: Well I am here and Texas is Obama country and you know it."

excuse me I am a native Texan and UT graduate and was Harris Cty pct secy, so who the heck do you think you are? Fine Obama wins 47% of Texas voters and we are Obama country and Obama will win Pa. Day is night, night is day, with Obamaspeak, whatever makes you guys happy; you are likely GenY so you must be right no one knows anything but you.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

the bama don't know about the past...


that's too much work,


he doing the Pee Wee


thas all he know


.

Posted by: a_bigone | April 2, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

UGH. Pinning this election on the blue collar/working class voter makes me sick. When Hillary wins PA, guess who Obama supporters are going to blame?

The working class.

When McCain wins in November, guess who is going to be blamed?

The working class voters of PA and Ohio for voting for Hillary and not "electable" Obama.

Thanks WaPo and other pundits. As if the working class doesn't crapped on enough by the upper classes, now we're going to shoulder the blame for the 2008 election.

Posted by: Tirade1 | April 2, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Taylor the Texan: You guys are so sad to be democrat down there. When was the last time a democrat won GE in Texas?

Please do not type when asleep and move north to be happier!

Posted by: work2play | April 2, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I think for a black man with republican backing

Obama is doing okay.


I don't think he would be a contestant if it weren't for the fact that

people are so easily confused...

80 PERCENT of the servicemen and women in IRAQ that were interviewed by the Wall Street Journal a year after the invasion of IRAQ

believed that IRAQ had blown up the WTC....

sound bite linking,

Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others saying the words...


Iraq, WTC, terrorists....as a word group created the illusion that the IRAQI's were


terrorists...

you gomers are falling for it about "the Clintons,"

how's your country doing ???

Greenspan called Bill Clinton the best President that the ECONOMY HAD EVER SEEN...

but you short attention spanned, soundbiters

who are so easily led,


you, are going to institute change ????


I think the change you need ot have occur is the abiltiy to tell the difference between schiess and shinola

'cause right now, you're schiess
walking 'n talking schiess too...

.
.

let's put things in perspective here...


war fraud,


COMMONLY known as an OCCUPATION....by anyone that knows enough to unzip before they try to take a leak....supposing that the ladies are wearing pants too....

$720 MILLION A DAY....to war profiteers.

but that's "the past," it doesn't matter...


nor does the bush family history since the late 1800's of war profiteering and nation breaking or collusion with the nazis...


SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, NAZIS, Dulles, Prescott Bush


SEARCH on Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Kagans, PNAC, JINSA


get to know your right wing conservatives.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | April 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

ruleitang wrote, "all those Obama support is just college kids, very naive."

That is a moronic and "hillarious" statement. Look at the polls and the votes cast so far: Obama beat Hillary among every category except older men and women and blue collar workers. That leaves out lot more kinds of people than just college kids.

You may want to concentrate on saving Hillary from all the imaginary sniper fire she faces during her trips abroad. It's too late to save her from defeat here in USA.

Irish for O'bama! Obama-Pelosi-'08!

Posted by: DrSubtle | April 2, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

One of two things is likely to happen from now until June 3. A third thing is unlikely to happen. The three scenarios in order of probability are as follows.

Scenario 1: HRC & BHO split the remaining contests roughly evenly. Obama then just get about 60 of the today's remaining 300+ superdelegates to win. Sounds rather easy.

Scenario 2: BHO comes close to a win in PA (or wins -- unlikely but possible). Due to momentum change, he rolls up larger than expected victories in remaining contests and gets 55% or remaining pledged delegates. He then has (or nearly has) the nomination.

Scenario 3: Something happens that makes Obama appear to be totally unelectable. Hillary gets overwhelming victories in the contests that are left, and lots of superdelegates come to and switch to her. Of course, such an event is about a probable as a tsunami in Kansas but not completely impossible.

Given the amount of time that the Clinton campaign and all of the Clintonistas out there have been digging for dirt on Obama, I really doubt that this scenario will come from the Clinton campaign. Obama will have to provide it. What are the odds of that?

Posted by: harry4 | April 2, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Actually a 10% spread in Pa would mean that Clinton support had deteriorated from Ohio.

Since PA is a registered democrats only primary the oranges to oranges comparison is her support among registered democrats in OH, which was about 14% according to exit polls.

So the proper number to compare her performance in PA to OH is a 14 point spread.

Posted by: clh1 | April 2, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: I was there you were not: Well I am here and Texas is Obama country and you know it. I was born and raised in Texas and Texans will never let one ethnic group claim superiority in this race,i.e., Hillary's race-baiting with the Hispanics over Blacks. And what makes you think White people in Texas will sell their souls to say Hispanics in Texas or anywhere else should be the deciding factor in who is our next President. The mixture of Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, old, young, poor and rich will deliver Texas in the General Election for Obama. Stop the madness and "silly-season" in your quest to be "right". Trying to change the rules, will not work now just like it didn't work in Texas. Obama Won Texas! And PA will not be sweet either for Hillary because "white, blue collar workers" should be offended and tired of being labeled as the no-thinking, underclass that has to be led around by Clintonites.

Posted by: cme3 | April 2, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

The new polling data will be a call to arms for all Clinton supporters and all those who do not want Rezkos to run the country.

Posted by: work2play | April 2, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama support is just too childish, Obama is just a cheer leader type, you feel good at the moment, then when you goes back, what he really means, you just do not recall.

change, change what, can some Obama support tell me? what his proposal different?

Posted by: ruleitang | April 2, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Everytime I hear an Obama supporter talk about how "he takes the high road" it makes me want to vomit.

Obama's run a very dirty campaign.

Here's a time-line of some of his attacks.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

mnteng: I am in WV, and you in Pa. confirms my assertions about how the Delegates are apportioned. Philadelphia would appear to be the strongest for Obama, based on the high amount of Black voters there as to the rest of the state. My thoughts are pretty well spelled out in my Post you refererence. This again confirms my thoughts about the Black vote going about 90% to Obama simply because of his claiming to be Black, when in FACT he is Bi-Racial. Someone mentioned the district that was represented by Congresswoman Tubbs, a Hillary supporter, went something like 90% of Black votes for Obama, as is being reported all over the country. This is something that will effect the vote in Nov. should Obama be the nominee, and IMHO, will almost surely guarantee McCain a victory in the GE. I can see no way {ZERO] Obama can win in 08.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

I didn't think Eriks was using the term to mean Clinton representing the old Washington politics, because in fact, as has been stated a zillion times by the press, at least they acknowledge that, in fact many of their policies are the same.

So, what's old? Therefore, I thought he might be referring to something else. He's not talking about political tactics, I think the Obama camp has been equal to the task of old style dirty politiking....

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

all those Obama support is just college kids, very naive

they do not understand, you need to be practical.

all those wins in small states in useless

coming November, general election, winner take all!!!

if Mac win Penn, Ohio, and Florida, there will be nothing can change the outcome.

South Dakota, come on, is there any chance, Demo can win that state?

Obama will be doomed, and those college kids will be heart broken again

Posted by: ruleitang | April 2, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

New rule in journalism: You need to be able to count and read the newspaper you work for.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/delegates/d/

Hillary won Texas Primary
Obama won Texas Caucuses

Obama wins overall in Texas NOT Hillary.

Posted by: dsOhio | April 2, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

urban4 --

Don't count your chickens before they come home to roost.

Barry Obama's unelectable.

The longer the race goes, the more people find out what kind of a guy he really is, and the less they'll want to vote for him.

His Teflon is turning to rust.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

On the other hand, Penn and Co would benefit if Clinton won the nomination. He'll be able to dispense his customary brilliant advice throughout the general election.

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

urbn I have had my HC signs on my front yard torn up and seen HC caucus goers spit on, childish behavior beyond the pale. I don't hold that against Sen Obama, I just find many of his supporters to be immature. I respect Sen. Obama and personally will never speak ill of him even though I do not want him as my president because I disagree with his policy positions and find him woefully unqualified. I have posted that before and had those comments tarred as hateful; who cares.

If Bill Rchardson, my initial selction before John Edwards told Bill Clinton he would stand on the sidelines, then he lied to the president and Carvell was asbolutely correct in what he said. Harold Ickes told superdelegates that they should consider Sen Obama's allegiance to Rev Wright and how that would effect Sen Obama in a general election. Is that too impermissable; do you think the 527s will listen to you when they use it in a general election?
Just don't see my comments why I oppose Sen Obama nor Carvell's as hate speech which you characterize it as.

I have struggled to be even handed here but that doesn't mean that I should quietly accept personal insults or attacks when I stand up for my candidate or correct incorrect misinformation by your supporters. We are all not minions here. The election is not supposed to be about me or you, but who is best qualified to clean up 7 years of the Bush mess. I disagree but respect your choice, I doubt there is an Obama supporter here that would say that to me b/c they are convinced that anyone who does not agree with them "should just leave the party, don't let the door hit you" I believe was the comment. Do you approve of those comments or think it is in your candidate's best political interest?

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

PERSONALLY I HAVE BEEN SO DISGUSTED WITH O'S HIDING BEHIND RACE THAT I'VE BEEN OVER HIM FOR AWHILE. AS A GAY MAN THERE IS NO WAY I CAN HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR HIM IN THE GENERAL. HE HASN'T EVEN BOTHERED TO DENOUNCE THIS GUY OPENLY AND FORCEFULLY. AND HE WON'T BECAUSE MOST BLACKS FEEL THE SAME WAY AS MEEKS (I'M BLACK AND GAY SO DON'T START.).WHERE IS THE MEDIA OUTRAGE? WHEN MORE GAYS REALIZE WHAT'S UP ALOT OF THAT GAY MONEY IS GOING TO DRY UP. AND WHY IS IT THAT NO MATTER WHAT HRC DOES THE GOALPOSTS JUST KEEP MOVING. THE O'S ALWAYS SAY THAT'S WHAT HRC DOES BUT I'M SEEING IT JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE ON THE O/MEDIA SIDE. SHE COULD WIN 80% IN PA AND THE MEDIA WOULD SAY THAT WAS ALWAYS HERS TO LOSE. IF O LOSES BY 15% THE MEDIA WILL SAY HE REALLY CLOSED THE GAP SO IT'S A VICTORY. WEIRD.

Posted by: dwashington314 | April 2, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

margaret-wooten writes
"Keeping alive the myth that white blue collar voters won't vote for a black guy"

That was the word in WI & Hillary DOMINATED there. She held Obama to only a 17 point margin of victory. That was her best state in the 11 game losing streak.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Lisa, this seems a plausible theory, but I don't think it is true. She has about $30 M set aside for the general election. If she suspends her campaign, she'll be able to use those funds to cover debts from the primary.

My theory is that Clinton has developed a clientele that has waited for 8 years to grab power and start milking it. Now the dream is slipping away.

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

democratic is just not very smart

why they not use the general election formula to choose a candidate, all those rules is just silly

like Clinton win in Texas, Obama ahead with delegate

does they understand, eventually the guy in the white house, need to go through the general election process

Winner take all of the delegate, otherwise all those big swing states will seal the fate

Democratic is just not think straight sometimes, I like Clinton, but seems I need to support Mac now

Posted by: ruleitang | April 2, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

She did not win Texas... And you should be providing this info, not your readers... You work for the Washington Post, shouldn't you at least try to look up to date or something?

You may want to check the available, public information:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5484

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/30/at_last_a_caucus_result_of_sor.html

Posted by: parancibia | April 2, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Is that large Limbaugh Republican crossover vote for Hillary being counted in her Texas and Ohio popular vote victories?

Why is the New Hampshire victory stated as a big win? Wasn't it about 4%?

Encouraging Hillary to stretch this out till we all snap?

Keeping alive the myth that white blue collar voters won't vote for a black guy, no matter how competent, smart and invested in the working man's plight he is?

Obama will win in Penn. Watch.

Posted by: margaret-wooten | April 2, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Already been posted, but apparently can't be said enough -- Clinton DIDN'T win in Texas. Jeez ... but I love the raised expectations Mrs. Clinton has created for PA -- as Sen. Obama has closed (one poll has him 2 pts up, another just 5 pts. behind) her "need" to have a blowout may help to put this race to bed.

Posted by: Omyobama | April 2, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won Texas?

Who won more delegates?

It's delegate count that determines WIN. Not wordplay. Or wishful thinking.

Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon PA

Posted by: HLBeckPE | April 2, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's handlers are saying that she still can win for one reason: if she were to admit defeat and drop out of the race, they don't get paid. Clinton's campaign is deeply in debt. She owns Mark Penn over $2 million and herself $5 million. If she drops out of the race, she won't be able to raise any more money and Penn and Co. will not get paid. I think that is what is going on here. She certainly isn't using the money she is raising to buy television ads. Obama is outspending her 5 to 1. She is using the money she is raising to pay off debt she racked up before Super Tuesday. This race is over and the Clinton's are too smart not to recognize it. They just do not want to walk away carrying a bunch of debt.

Posted by: lisa8 | April 2, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporters bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Perception vs. Reality - looking back on the first 4 states, the perception is that Clinton won NH and NV and Obama won IA and SC. Yet here is the current delegate count from those states:

IA - Obama 25 Clinton 14
NH - Obama 9 Clinton 9
NV - Obama 13 Clinton 12
SC - Obama 25 Clinton 12

That's 72 to 47 overall. Very interesting.

Posted by: optimyst | April 2, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it: Hillary should just drop out. She is stubbornly refusing to face reality, that being the fact that she has no way of winning the nomination short of unjustly flipping the supers and alienating voters in November. Do the math. She can't win. With the exception of her loyal, fanatic cadre of supporters, most people now accept the conventional wisdom that Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: nezbangi | April 2, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Chris, two things:

1) Up until the 11th hour, Clinton was being predicted for a big win in Texas, and in the end just barely pulled in a popular-vote majority.
2) Clinton did not "win" Texas. Obama won Texas. Like other posters here, I really wish you press folks would take note of that fact.

Posted by: dougom | April 2, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman

You look at the speck in your brother's eye but do not notice the log in your eye.

Before charge erics with cynicism, you may need to attend to the Clinton camp first. Do you think that public comments by Ickes and Carville, svreader and iowatreasures are particularly endearing to Obama supporters?? I don't think so.

If you want to raise the political discourse out of the gutter start with your own team.

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the margin of victory in the Pennsylvania primary matters at all. In the general election, a one-point margin delivers ALL the state's electoral votes to the winning candidate. With a primary victory in the Keystone State after her victory in Ohio, Clinton can argue that she is the better candidate to win in November. The Democrats barely won Pennsylvania in 2004 and lost Ohio. If they don't take both states in 2008, they could very well lose the general election. Can Obama win both against McCain? Probably not. A Clinton victory, even a narrow one, in the Pennsylvania primary will underscore this with the super delegates, who will be the ones to choose the Democratic nominee. I'm an Obama supporter, but I think his goose is cooked because he hasn't shown the ability to win the swing states the Democrats need to win in November.

Posted by: FrequentTraveler | April 2, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

vammap, have you seriously never heard the expression "new blood"? It's a pretty standard term, meaning new people. Unlike your use of "blood" to mean "Black American", which is hardly a common usage.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Chris how long are you going to continue to trot out the lie that Clinton won Texas? She did not. Let's not swallow the Clinton talking points hook line and sinker this time.

Posted by: dnbraggs | April 2, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Eriks

You said it's time for "new blood."
Telling me it was an "idiom" didn't answer the question. You used blood figuratively to mean......?
If you intended to use the word Blood as it's ofen used to define brothers, "the blood" or "Black Americans," than why didn't you just say that?
Isn't that what you meant by "new blood?"


Certainly any figurative references would do more to confuse and distract from what you really intended to say.

One assumes since you used it as an "idiom" that you did not just mean, ie. someone new other than, etc. etc.

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"She utterly dominated in Arkansas. I want to say 69 - 28 or therabouts."

I stand corrected. Wapost reports 70-26.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"If Hillary wins Pennsylvania, after all the sniping from the establishment press, Obama ought to seriously consider resigning."

I thought it was the Bosnians who were sniping. Now its the press? Perhaps they're all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You want hubris? You want arrogance?

"It will be over by supertuesday"

-Patti Solis Doyle 2007


We're cocky because we won.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary hasn't won 60% of the vote in ANY state, including her home turf NY."

Not true. She utterly dominated in Arkansas. I want to say 69 - 28 or therabouts.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The only people who believe this spin are the Obama supporters. They must be ready to surrender Pennsylvania to the Hillary forces if they are already coming up with excuses. If Hillary wins Pennsylvania, after all the sniping from the establishment press, Obama ought to seriously consider resigning.

Posted by: jackrickdc | April 2, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

ddipaula writes
"It is absolutely stupid to assume that if Obama or Clinton bests the other in some state's democratic primary, that that would indicate anything at all about whether they would win or lose the same state against McCain in the general election."


Stupid is as stupid does.

.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Cilliza, like other pundits who favor Hillary ignore the big wins with working class white voters that Obama has had in many states . Yes, Ohio Hillary won. But Texas? She started with a huge lead there and ended up winning the popular vote by a very small margin; Obama won the caucus and will end up with more Texas delegates. So let's stop talking about Hillary's big win in Texas. Hillary hasn't won 60% of the vote in ANY state, including her home turf NY. She can't win the nomination and it's sheer stubborness and denial of the facts on her part and her rabid supporters to insist otherwise.

Posted by: AJBF | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

@vammap To the contrary, I'm quite happy about it and looking forward to the race in the fall.

I find it amusing that HRC supporters have such trouble with math and reality.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

GET A CLUE CILIZZA!!
Clinton LOST Texas. Obama won 5 more delegates than Hillary there.
Your anti Obama stance is much too obvious.

Posted by: qualquan | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

" We no longer worry much about HRC"

nor do you care much about the 13 million HC supporters which you show such scorn for. Must be nice to be so arrogant.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama is ahead in both pledged delegates and superdelegates. It is very likely that the majority of superdelegates will see that Obama and Clinton are not really very different from each other in their positions (there are differences, but they are minor in comparison of either to McCain), and that either would make a fine President. There won't be an 'obvious' choice between the two of them.

Therefore, the superdelegates will mostly not agonize of the decision. They can go with the flow, and simply follow the pledged delegates. This clearly leads to Obama winning the nomination, because Clinton cannot catch up to his lead in the states remaining. Or, they could vote according to whom they think has a more secure path to the White House against McCain in the general election. Both national and state-by-state polls support Obama having the greater advantage in the general election.

It is absolutely stupid to assume that if Obama or Clinton bests the other in some state's democratic primary, that that would indicate anything at all about whether they would win or lose the same state against McCain in the general election. The Democratic primary turnout has consistently been MUCH higher than the Republican turnout, even before McCain was the presumptive nominee, and most of those voters will also vote for their party's nominee in the general, no matter whether it was their first choice candidate or not.

McCain will still take the really red states, either Clinton or Obama will still take the really blue states. The question is who can do better in the general election in the contested swing states.

With Bush's approval rating at 30%, I think McCain promising four more years of the same is a lost cause nationally. But of the two Democrats, I think Obama has the stronger advantage, both in the primaries and over McCain in the general election.

The more interesting question is how many seats the Democrats gain in each house of Congress. If the Democrats hold on to their 12 incumbent seats (very likely), they would only need to take 5 of the 23 Republican incumbent seats to gain a filibuster-proof cloture majority (3/5 of entire Senate). Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, and Minnesota would do it. And I think Obama has longer coattails in those states than Clinton has, too.

Posted by: ddipaula | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Wyoming Governor Back Obama

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, announced Wednesday that he will support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.


drip...drip....drip.......Hillary

Posted by: jellybean1 | April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Eriks pretty fascinating; you're winning, according to you and you don't seem very happy about it? Instead you're about as angry and vindictative as Wright, Farrakan, Michelle Obama...

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"Hear that HC supporters, this is our opponent's message."


The problem is you think Obama (or whoever stands in front of HRC's entitlement) is the opponent.

Obama supporters know McCain is the opponent. We no longer worry much about HRC. We're merely amused by those who did so poorly in math class.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

@cate58

Take a look at this link. In summarizes Obama's senate record nicely.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true

Posted by: urban4 | April 2, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"I am not yet convinced that he would be a better nominee or president than dull, boring, wonky Hillary"


What's the record for dull, boring, wonky Dems when compared to charismatic, inspiring, uplifting, change-the-politics Dems?

Dull, wonky, boring:
Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale

charismatic, inspiring:
Clinton (Bill)

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

@cate58 wrote"Note: I have been to an Obama rally and like millions of American found it to be an exhilirating and uplifting experience, one I recounted with enthusiasm to friends and family alike. However, I am not yet convinced that he would be a better nominee or president than dull, boring, wonky Hillary"


Leaders can hire wonks.

Wonks can't hire leaders.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I understand that both sides, Hillary's and Obama's, feel passionately about this campaign.

But...

Consider what a McCain victory means. What it means for Iraq. For the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. For Supreme Court appointments.

Just remember to close ranks when the Nominee is finally chosen.

Our country cannot withstand 4 more years of Dubya's policies. And with a McCain Administration, that is exactly what we'll get.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | April 2, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

congrats erics, I will post that message by my Nov ballot and forward that post to the Obama state campaign heaqdqtrs. They should be proud to have such wonderful and helpful suporters like you, really proud.

"Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out."

Hear that HC supporters, this is our opponent's message.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I used to like Clinton, but I soured on her mostly because of the sleazy people around her. Then i thought they had a real chance at locking up superdelegates, and I threatened to 'sit this one out'. But let's face it, McCain, for all of his talk of being independently minded, WILL move the court to the right, WILL support an overturning of Roe V Wade, WILL stay in IRAQ for his term, regardless of what anybody thinks ala GWB, WILL support and extedn the bush Tax cuts, and DOES NOT know a thing the economy or the financial cost of the war. Witbh all of this, if we sit this one out, we are a real ace, spelled with two 's'es. Nodoby's going anywhere except to the polls, which i am sure you will protest, but November will look a lot different if the race is remotely close

Posted by: william | April 2, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I think most disconcerting for Senator Obama is how much he outspent Senator Clinton in both Ohio and Texas, but he was not able to close the gap. In every other state he has closed when introduced to the voters, not so in these all important states. If he can close the gap in Pennsylvania and get some good exit poll results, he really demolishes Hillary's electoral college argument, which is her most effective argument to date. I would be interested to see spending figures on Pennsylvania. I think closing the gap is a wise investment for the Obama camp, and its not like he has anything else to do at the moment.

Posted by: dan111 | April 2, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

This report like so many are incorrect. HRC lost TEXAS!

Posted by: jrubin1 | April 2, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

northwest Houston mark is I-10 Katy, the most Republican section of Houston and one of the most Rep areas in the country.

Northwest Austin is NW Hills and parts of Lakeway I believe that are the most affluents portions of Austin and Houston I believe marc. Besides the Hispanic voters I sincerely believe that Dems at least I know for certain need to make inroads in the more rural parts of Texas and like I posted earlier about how Ted Strickland won in Ohio.
If Doherty's district includes NW, I-10 here in Houston that is problematic with either Obama or HC and can only succeed if the R's are disallusioned with McCain b/c he doesn't fit their cultural conservative base. Actually HC is seen as more moderate marc by the truly affluent's investor class, but Obama is more popular with those same higher income voters you site with college and post graduate degrees. But I expect your guy Doughtery to be swamped in NW Houston by Rs, that area is super conservative marc.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

@vammap

It's an idiom.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

A question for the many Obama supporters who regularly post on this blog --

I am interested in knowing what Obama has accomplished in his 2+ years in the Senate - as well as his terms in the Illinois state legislature - that demonstrate his ability to affect change, bring hope and unify opposing parties. There are many people obviously captivated by his rhetorical gifts and his call for unity and his claim that he is an agent of change who will bring about a new way of doing things in Washington. It certainly is a refreshing and exciting claim - who wouldn't want our elected officials to actually do things for the people versus acting like, well partisan politicians.

I'd like 3 or 4 examples of legislation that he has written / sponsored / helped pass - with the help of Republicans - concrete examples that demonstrate 'unity' and 'change' and 'hope' and were directed at very important issues impacting millions of Americans.

Many posters are quick to denigrate Hillary's record but I would like to know what exactly Obama has done in 2+ years in the Senate that illustrates his ability as a once-in-a-lifetime agent of change.

[Note: I have been to an Obama rally and like millions of American found it to be an exhilirating and uplifting experience, one I recounted with enthusiasm to friends and family alike. However, I am not yet convinced that he would be a better nominee or president than dull, boring, wonky Hillary.)

Posted by: cate58 | April 2, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

This is ridiculous. CLINTON LOST. Pennsylvania doesn't matter either way, unless she contrived to take 100%.

Do the math. Clinton lost, Obama won. She would have to take over 65% of every remaining contest in order to win. You might as well be giving us your 2 cents about Mike Gravel's odds. The idea that a super majority of super delegates will give her a coup is about as likely as them giving you or I the nomination. Stop pretending that there is a horse race here when it doesn't exist any more.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | April 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Eriks exactly what blood are you speaking of?

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman "I know after today's post that there is absolutely no way I will ever have anything to do with your candidate or campaign"

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. The democratic party has been mismanaged since the 1970s (which is why it took Ross Perot for us the win the presidency).

It's time for new blood.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Please spare me the comeback by Clinton in NH. NH was to Clinton as South Carolina was to Obama. She should have won huge. As it was they split the delegates 9 to 9, and she won by two measley % points. Do not give Clinton a great comeback in NH, on the contrary it was an Obama turning point. Besides who wants to look at a president, the colorful Clinton, who looks more like some kid auditioning for a school play on fruit and vegetables, banana(yellow), apple(red), eggplant(purple) and so on....

Posted by: MikeQ2 | April 2, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It is this cynicism by you and ericks and add to that MANY others WHO will drive folks like me,dickweek,vammap,patrick and svreader to simply sit out the Presidential campaign

Ditto!

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Whining about the form of the elections is a nonstarter. Each states pick their rules, and those are the rules. Maybe the goal posts should be moved to help your field goal kicker, but both teams take the same field, at the same time. Play within the lines to win.

If they apportion by population, then delegates are awarded by people living in a county. Nobody can control who or how many people actually show up to vote, but the majority carries the county, and when you add up the votes yes, you can win more votes but receive less delegates. It may be unfair, or it may actually be more fair if you consider tensions between rural and metro areas. In any case, it is up to the states to decide, just like caucuses.This is as fair as it can get here on earth. If it doesn't suit your candidate, 'thems the breaks...'

Posted by: william | April 2, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

no wonder reasonable folks like dickweed are staying away from this site. Attack atack atack, insult, misrep.

jnoel said:

Leichtman, I find it funny you were there. You demonstrate the exact kind of misunderstanding of Texas Primary rules which probably contributed to Hillary losing the Texas primary.

You don't defend your logic, nor refute mine. You just keep blathering on about popular vote, communist caucuses, young people assaulting the elderly (most of which is totally absurd). So, I am glad that we are in agreement; I was correct and "your logic" (if you can call it that) was misguided.
Glad you finally comprehend.

Communiost causes? exactly when did I say that? What I did say was that the next speaker of the Texas House Silvester Turner an Obama delegate said our system was unfair and he will end it.

Assaulting the elderly? again jonel where are you getting this from. My mom is 92 and lives in a nursing home and could not attend the caucus, i am sure you find that fair.

The spitting on HC caucus goers and receiving robo calls with minisnformation about our Texas caucus was a channel 11 storry with a recording of that bogus robo call. fair I am sure your side is quite comfortable with those tactics I found them to be disgusting.

You find it was funny that I was there and interviewed hispanic voters in south houston who were intimidated by Obama supporters on primary day. You seem to find a lot of these tactics as homorous and reason to insult those of us who have honorably worked in the political system.

It is this cynicism by you and ericks that will drive folks like me,dickweek,vannamp,patrick and svreader to simply sit out the Presidential campaign

I have worked in democratic politics since 1972 and have honestly never seen or experienced the level of nastiness or vitriol from a Democratic opponent's campaign that I have read here. If you Obama supporters somehow think that your insults and mischaricaterizations of HC supporters is helping your cause you are flat wrong.

The arrogant message I am correct you are not reflects the very dangerous element of your campaign and your supporters. Good Luck with that b/c I know after today's post that there is absolutely no way I will ever have anything to do with your candidate or campaign.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Alaska is bigger."

Clinton lost Alaska 75-25.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

dickweed, leichtman, bobby, Stonecreek, Texans,

I have a question for all of you about the down ticket. Let me say that I live in a congressional district with a R Congressman who can be beaten by the D nominee, Doherty.

I am thinking that the biggest pop centers in his district, north Austin and northwest Houston, were BHO country, while the places in between, like Giddings, were for HRC.

Can we try to get a feel for who gets helped by the top of the ticket by where the candidates did well? In other words, does the down ticket in metro Austin, Metro Houston, Metro Dallas, and Metro Fort Worth get more help from BHO while the down ticket in the LRGV and El Paso and San Antonio and Corpus gets more help from HRC?

Do y'all have any feel for this beyond your own personal preferences? Bobby, I know you were disgusted with BHO but I thiink you were also not high on HRC. Still you are the only Valley resident on the blog. So help.

And do we think Col. Rick has a shot under any circumstance?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 2, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

"Well, the biggest state is Texas, and she didn't win that."

Alaska is bigger.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

@JoseyJ You're crying over spilt milk. The time to challenge the structure of the election was last year.

But last year (before anyone voted) Hillary was inevitable. Pesky voters messed the inevitability strategy though.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

ericks - there is no "will of the voters" since the caucuses are very undemocratic and DISenfranchise voters!

btw - there are no caucuses in the general for Obamabots to bully participants and interfere with the process.

However, caucuses are not designed for the masses. That's why Puerto Rico just changed their caucus to a primary - to accommodate the expected huge turnout.

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

@JoseyJ Then it's too bad she screwed up her campaign strategy and can't win this.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

So Hillbilly is winning the big states, really? Well, the biggest state is Texas, and she didn't win that. -- I think the difference between the two candidates is obvious. Hillary is fighting desperately for her survival, while Obama is cracking jokes and having a good time. Obama has a great sense of humor while Hillary has absolutely none (Bill had humor, but not poor Hillary). Bush and McCain have a sense of humor, too, but not Hillary. I could never vote for a person who has no sense of humor.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | April 2, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

ericks - many young Obama supporters benefitted from their parents' prosperity during the 90s.

Obama always releases his Economic policies AFTER Hillary.

Obama = "what she said"

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Correct, pledged delegates alone do not mean a nomination. There are 795 superdelegates, 470 of whom have endorsed a candidate. (According to RealClearPolitics.com; it might be a little out of date.) That means that there are 325 unpledged superdelegates.

Hillary has 1502 delegates, counting superdelegates. She needs 522 more to make 2024. There are 325 superdelegates and 566 regular delegates, a total of 891. So Hillary needs to get 58.5% of all remaining delegates, pledged and super, to win the nomination. According to current polling, she's not likely to get even that percent of delegates in Pennsylvania, much less the rest of the primaries and the superdelegates.

Do you get it now? Or do I have to keep mathematically proving how wrong you are?

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes:

The most Delegates can be won by the loser in popular votes. This could actually happen in Pa. if my quick look at where the votes are for Obama, according to reports, are located.
Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 04:16 PM

If I remember correctly, that's what happened in NV: HRC won the popular, BHO got more delegates.

Here in PA, it's not only where BHO's votes are, but HRC has the problem that her strong districts have 5 delegates -- meaning that she'll have to get >70% of the vote in that district to get a 4-1 split. Anything less (like 69%) and the district goes 3-2.

Posted by: mnteng | April 2, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Obama did win more delegates in Texas, even though Clinton won 100,000's more votes! Sound fair? No!
And the caucuses were a joke at best and unconstitutional at worst! they were so confrontational it was scary. Certainly not the way we are suppose to vote in America. If this had been Obama's loss under the same conditions, lawsuits would be flying in every circuit court and we would have marches all over the state to the Whitehouse! If I were an Obama supporter, I would not be bragging about this Texas win. No, I certainly would not.

Posted by: Texan2007 | April 2, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris, another good article.

however, I have found it curious how newscasters in the industry keep referring to Clinton as winning both Nevada and Texas. Popular vote is nice, and primary vs caucus matters, but this is a race for delegates, period. Therefore, the 'winner' of a state is the person who wins the most delegates. Clinton had won Texas, until yesterday. Now, Obama has clearly won Texas, as he has been allotted more Texas delegates than Clinton. Same for Nevada.

Winning Texas literally saved Clinton's Candidacy. The fact that she has now lost it won't matter too much, but reporters need to both explain this important development, and then refer to the facts as they are, not as Wolfson interprets them. Accuracy helps keep tempers from flaring. The Wolfson narrative that somehow Obama is disenfranchising voters in MI and Floridarather than the DNC is disingenuous, and dangerous. Clinton voters need to see accuracy to understand the legitimacy of the outcome, and accept the will of the voters without feeling that it was wrapped up in shenanigans. Accurate reporting is where it all starts...

PS Clinton for VP! Even though it is not a great fit, and lacks strategic strength, McCain is the worst candidate of all time b/c of supporting the war and the Bush Tax Cuts. Clinton has raised more money than any other candidate in history (except Obama) and her supporters are justifiably passionate. Let's join these two groups of fanatics for one big 'snowball' of change comin' down the mountain! This is clearly what would be best for the party.

Posted by: william | April 2, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary must win by big margins, yes, yes, we've heard that before. When? Oh, two weeks before Texas and Ohio. What happened? Hillary won, but not by the 15-25% margins needed to become a contender again. So sure, in 19 days she needs to win big... When the day arrives and Hillary wins by 4 points, she will claim an enormous prize, claim that the people have spoken, and that America needs Hillary to save us from the un-electability of Obama. Never mind that Obama actually WON Texas (seeing as how delegates are really what count)--that's old news now. The fact is, there is no mystery in who will win. The mathematical odds are virtually insurmountable. Obama will win. He already has, PA notwithstanding.

Posted by: rnspreng | April 2, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

25% of Obama's Texas voters didn't vote the rest of the Dem ticket!

Most likely these are Obama's "Dems for a day" that he's been promoting from the gitgo.

Obama even assures them they can switch back before Nov. and vote for McCain!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jacksonvilleforobama/CrsJ

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman

Math is hard for you I know.

If HRC is behind in pledged delegates and popular vote do you really think the supers will save her?

Perhaps being bad at math is why her campaign is always broke. She's supposed to bail out our economy and she can't even run a $200 million primary campaign?

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"That's why they want to run against him!"

So that's why Limbaugh is telling republicans to vote for Hillary?

OK. Sure.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

A vote for Hillary Clinton is never having to say you're sorry.

Posted by: PGraber1 | April 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

get it? pledged delegates alone do not mean a nomination. Get it! Its the total of 2024 delegates. Get It, idiot.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will slaughter Obama. That's why they want to run against him!

Wright
Farrakhan
Jones
Rezko
Lying to get the Kennedy endorsement
Oil company CEOs bundling for him

...for starters


Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Obama won Texas. Saying Clinton pulled a rabbit out of her hat when she was leading in Texas by double digits up until the last week of the Texas primary campaign doesn't make any sense, unless Cillizza doesn't understand the expression.

Posted by: samhankins | April 2, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

To Christian_in_NYC: Not to give offense but don't you think the political process - the rules agreed upon at the beginning of the primaries - should be allowed to run their course? It's not over until the delegates vote at the convention. Why shouldn't Clinton be persistent? And how do we know what comes next from Obama and his current or former advisors?

Posted by: WhiteMale | April 2, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will win Pennsylvania and Indiana, and Obamedia will talk about nothing but North Carolina.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | April 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

dickweed said: "My apologies for the long rant,"
it wasn't a rant it was your honest frustrated UT feeling, you are not alone. I have been here for 3 weeks and heard more vitriol then you would believe except for mark in austin. HC supporters have repeatedly been told that if you don't get in line just leave the party. Right we are told that 13 million HC supporters should just leave the party and the Obama supporters don't understand how that message destroys the democratic party.

I hope you will join my effort to end the Texas 2 step so that candidate that wins 110,000 more votes is not told she lost.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: Do the math yourself.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

Hillary has 1046 pledged delegates. Obama has 1207. That's a lead of 161. There are 566 pledged delegates which will be allocated by the remaining contests. Hillary needs to win 364 of them to Obama's 202. Therefore, she needs to win 64.3% of the remaining delegates in order to have a lead in pledged delegates. Get it yet?

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman "I have now heard 60%,65%,70%,75%,today, anyone want to post 100%. Come on I am sure some of you Obama supporters can post that, why not lets just go insane with our hurdles today"

The number is 65% to catch up in pledged delgates. Look for yourself.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pHLqqCbSQUs38XWzQnjwacA&hl=en

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Throughout the primary, Obama has been the LAST to release major policy proposals on the Economy!
And when he did, most of it was based on similar answers he gave during the debates - "what she said."

It'll take a B***h to fix the economy!
Kumbaya won't do.

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"The racial disparity is a disturbing fact which attests to the failure of the supposed campaign's effort to "unite.""

Eight years should suffice for this task. I believe Obama has begun a great unification of spirit. Sure, haters, perhaps yourself included, will lend a cynical voice to the debate, even declaring his effort a failure before it has begun, but good will prevail, don't you worry,

Obama crushes in November, says one who's feeling like that Christian with four aces...

Oh, and by the way, you're comment is not much different than, say, a bullies, who punched his teacher and stated that 'she'd failed to keep him in line,' and should be punished for as much.

Clinton, Limbaugh, and the Racists are kicking and screaming, but the silent majority votes soon. Enjoy it!

Posted by: robertell | April 2, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama will seat FL and MI as voted after winning NC. There are simply not enough states left for HRC to win this. Through arrogance, apathy or incompetence HRC ceded all the contests between Super tuesday and Ohio. Those states are gone and she can't make up the delegates she lost there.

As for the general, look at how HRC, BHO and JMC has done among (I) voters in the exit polls.

This isn't a gender election, this isn't a race election. This is a generation election. This is when the kids born in the 1960s take over from the people who grew up in the 1960s.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama and surrogates have consistently used the Race Card as a weapon.

Michelle Obama and Oprah first played the Race Card - telling blacks to vote for THE ONE - the black one.

...followed by Jesse Jackson's racist comment about Hillary during the NH primary.

...followed by Wright saying "Hillary ain't never been called a N****r!

...followed by the Obama Camp claiming the Clintons were racists!

Obama/Wright08

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"Unless Hillary wins each and EVERY contest from now on by margins exceeding 75% says Christian"

I have now heard 60%,65%,70%,75%,today, anyone want to post 100%. Come on I am sure some of you Obama supporters can post that, why not lets just go insane with our hurdles today.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters, PLEASE READ THIS...

I have never posted a comment here before but I've been reading these comments lately pretty regularly and many of them make me feel vaguely ill.

I live in Texas. I voted in Texas. I voted for Hillary. I am not a Republican. I am not stupid. I am not brainwashed. I am not delusional. I assume many of you Obama supporters are the same. Differences of opinion should be acceptable. Mad screaming hatred and delusional paranoia are just going to p*** the other side (us) off.

Do you honestly expect Clinton supporters to swing over to your side if Obama becomes the party candidate and advocate for him with enthusiasm? Or are some of you really so crazy that you think you don't need us and so can afford to do your best to belittle and denigrate us and our vote in the primary?

Contrary to what some may think the following (and worse that I've seen posted) are not a sure fire way to make sure Obama gets the full support of the party. (And if you think he doesn't need it to win the general election, you've gone off your meds.)

1. Calling my vote a vote for a "liar", "the witch", etc.
2. Saying that my vote doesn't count because HRC only won the popular vote here in Texas because of Republican crossovers (I live here - I doubt you do. Trust me - you're wrong.)
3. Saying that I'm really just a plant from her campaign if I post supporting her (because after all - no one really supports HRC, right?)
4. Trying to spin every single ridiculous little thing that happens into the delusion that the Clintons are evil and can do absolutley nothing without it being a plot (and yet somehow at the same time they're supposed to be incompetent?)
5. Trashing Bill Clinton... wonder how many of those who do were at least out of high school in the 90s. I was. He was a hell of a lot better President for average folk than those who came before or "GW" is.
6. Acting as though anyone who is old enough to remember what the world was like before GWB (or especially before Bill Clinton) is so old that their opinion doesn't count.

Get real, people. There are two people fighting to the death to get the nomination right now. I voted for Hillary but I increasingly think Obama may be the final nominee but that's not a sure thing yet. And no matter how you slice and dice the popular vote/delegate count it will not be a landslide for either side. There will not be a "winner" by the established rules of the game without the super delegates deciding things. It is almost entirely impossible for Clinton OR OBAMA to get the number of delegates needed to win without super delegates voting in the way they see fit and not in the way that their districts voted.

And finally, because Obama DOES need as many Clinton supporters as possible to win in a general election (or vice versa if the tide shifts yet again and Clinton gets the nomination) the best way to do that would be a ticket that included both of them.

The candidates themselves are not making that impossible. They have BOTH (for the most part) shown enough respect for each other that it is still a possibility.

Obama supporters on the other hand (I can only speak as to how I feel about Obama supporters as an HRC supporter - I'm sure there's some of this on the Obama side about some Clinton supporters) seem determined to drive a wedge right down the MIDDLE of the party.

No, HRC supporters are not a small fringe... you're trying to split off half the party. That's just plain stupid. My apologies for the long rant, but get real people -- the real enemy here is the corporatist right wing hijacking of the country through the Republican 'family values' agenda, and GWB's good ole boy incompetence.

Posted by: dickweed | April 2, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is tops on the issues - economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, jobs, green jobs, etc.

Politicians endorsing Obama DO NOT cite his positions on the issues as their reasons for endorsing him.
But rather - he can attract a big crowd!

That's called buying a pig in a poke!

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilizza has proven to be a tedious bore at best.

The whole thing is over.

Obama wins in November by, for example, 54 to 46 percent.

The rest, in Chris's analytical capacity's case, is slop. The idea that Pennsylvania matters is a Wolfson Dreamworx production on it's best day.

Chris is a Clinton parrot, and probably doesn't even know it.

My guess is the Post hired him to service the diploma free demographic.

Posted by: robertell | April 2, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

The racial disparity is a disturbing fact which attests to the failure of the supposed campaign's effort to "unite."

From the tenor of the posts from Obama supporters it would seem "unity" is a convenient word, but certainly not the main thrust of a campaign...

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

eriks I spent 6 weeks working in the Shaker Hts Strickland/Brown state 2006 campaign office alongside the Ohio state campaign manager. There is a sizable African American vote in Cleveland but Kerry lost the Columbus, rural, and very large Esatern European population having given his all with a large African American turnout in Cleveland. HC is much stronger in Columbus and with the Ohio rural voters where Sen Obama is weakest and where Ohio elections and Ted Strickland's victory was decided. You understand that had Kerry won 80,000 more votes in Columbus he would be running for re-election today.HC is polling 8% higher in a general election matchups in Ohio. If Obama can't win in Ohio and has totally p.o. Fla as he seems determined to do he is unlikely to win in a g.e.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, the media needs to correct the record that it was in fact Obama and not Hillary who won Texas, by virtue of its simultaneous primary and caucus election.

Posted by: eeandoh | April 2, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama MARCHED with Nation of Islam leader Farrakhan!

Obama has never specifically denounced Wright's racist comments about Hillary that he made FROM THE PULPIT!!

Obama and Wright & Co. are wrong for America!

Go Hillary!

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Unless Hillary wins each and EVERY contest from now on by margins exceeding 75% it does not matter whether she wins any of them. PA doesn't matter.


It is past time for Hillary to drop out of a race she cannot win.

Posted by: Christian_in_NYC | April 2, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Will you guys QUIT reporting that Hillary won TX??? She didn't and in fact is losing!! She's gotten all this mileage out of her loss in TX? C'mon - aren't you some sort of expert??

Posted by: lgmellowdog | April 2, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Look at this map.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/index.html

HRC will lose those red counties in the general against McCain. She'll need a strong turnout by blacks in Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo to have a chance in OH.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Political junkies and John McCain are ecstatic that the press continues to present the view that Obama vs Clinton is a horse race.

This encourages the candidates to keep campaigning and spending precious campaign dollars against each other rather than McCain. Clinton is encouraged to make the Democratic political establishment and the public perceive that Obama is not electable (with all that implies). Obama and Clinton supporters are transformed into hard core supporters of their respective candidates who have a strong dislike for the other candidate.

Imagine the hard feelings when the Superdelegates' decision is seen as either sexist or racist!

It makes for good theatre - I wonder whether it makes for a winning candidate.

Posted by: Wolfeman | April 2, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Obama LIED about his father's connection to the Kennedys - easily refuted by the Washington Post with tons of AVAILABLE doumentation.
The Kennedys even cited the "connection" during their endorsement of him.

Obama created a false narrative about his life and gains the Kennedy family endorsement by bamboozling them.
Sweet - huh?

But of course it's not mentioned in the Pro-Obama media.

Obama/Wright08

Posted by: JoseyJ | April 2, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"for example these dispicable (sic) comments by you: Monica, How we did nothing after the '93 WTC attack"


That's what you'll hear from the GOP in the fall.

As for OH, look at the general election map of OH from 2004. Look at what parts are blue, look at what parts are RED. The dems NEED to black vote in Cleveland to win OH in the general.

The primary results are moot.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

News chris - OBAMA has taken the TEXAS lead in delegates.

Second, if the Clinton's were in Obama's position they'd be yelling for him to "give it up." So now they are playing the "victim" role, claiming the 'boys' are picking on a woman. She's not a woman, she's a machine and a sore loser. We don't need a country run by two families --Bush/Clinton--running our country for two decades. What are we - a 3rd world country?

Posted by: Fjet2020 | April 2, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"I do think that if she were to blow him out and win 61-39 or 58-42, then it would again go to show that there is something going on in the whole country..."

Gottta love stupid statements! Since when is PA the "whole country"? So, according to this idiot, no other state matters? How long did it take to dream up that spin?

Where do they dredge up these morons?

Posted by: michael4 | April 2, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"The only way the dems win OH is the black vote in Cleveland."

wrong. Hillary won Ohio by 11% points and lost Hough in Cleveland 80-20% even with Congresswoman's Tubbs support.

You can write all the nasty posts you want about HC, just don't expect that to do anything to ingratiate Sen Obama to the 13 million HC voters.

Keep up your rants eriks and there won't be a single HC supporter that will even think of supporting Sen Obama if he is the nominee in Nov.

for example these dispicable comments by you: Monica, How we did nothing after the '93 WTC attack


Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The most Delegates can be won by the loser in popular votes. This could actually happen in Pa. if my quick look at where the votes are for Obama, according to reports, are located. This goes against "Common Sense". I think this is what happened in Texas with Obama getting 3 or 4 more Delegates once the Caucus was figured.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

@vammap

I suspect dean is out in any case.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

eriks,
they may win the black vote, but they'll lose white votes to the GOP...it's a given..

That's why Dean is trying so desperately to patch up his own mistakes..if this race goes in the GOP column, Dean is out.

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Monica
Mark Rich
Filegate
Travelgate
Impeachment
Library donors
How we did nothing after the '93 WTC attack"

Please. You think any of that crap will turn off black voters? If anything it will remind them of how much they can't stand Republicans.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 2, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman

pledged delegates.

Supers are fungible. HRC has lost a lot of supers since February. She'll lose more after the next 3 contests.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

False Facts.....

When will your newspaper ever stop reporting - falsely - that Clinton won Texas. She did not win Texas. Take a look at the delegate vote. Obama won Texas. It´s about delegates, stupid!

Posted by: jaytuck | April 2, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"How do people pull these numbers out of their a$$es?"

We look at maps and voting patterns.

The only way the dems win OH is the black vote in Cleveland.

The only way the dems win MI is the black vote in Detroit.

The only way the dems win PA is the black vote in philly.

The only reason this is close is that the Obama campaign has not borrowed the GOP's oppo research on HRC.

Has BHO mentioned;

Monica
Mark Rich
Filegate
Travelgate
Impeachment
Library donors
How we did nothing after the '93 WTC attack

Hillary will be slaughtered in the general election.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Superdelegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes told the Web site. "I've had superdelegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them,"

Posted by: jdcw | April 2, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama won Texas on delegates.

The nomination is won by the vote of delegates to the convention.

The states decide how to pick their delegates.

Texas decided to have the system they have.

Clinton won the primary

Obama won the caucus

HRC did not win Texas.


Al Gore wasn't elected president in 2000 either, even though he got more votes.

Posted by: jpadilladeborst | April 2, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

touche svre

eriks you just make up your numbers, Sen Obama is still almost 400 delegates short of the nomination, Hillary 530 which is more like a 45/57 difference.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.
The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.
Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

These are the figures that doom an Obama Presidency. Blacks only represent 20% of the population. It also tells us Black voters are voting more on racial lines that white voters. Frankly as one of the other 80% of the voting population, I don't feel Obama represents the electorate very well. Particularly because Hillary owns all the other demographics.

As to Texas, I don't think any caucus win is a fair vote based on what will happen in Nov when you can't cross vote...

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Don't fall for the PLOY, Don't quit.

If 'any' Democrat will win the predominately Blue states in November 2008, that's 248 Electoral Votes out of 270 needed
22 more Electoral Votes are needed to win the Presidency

13 of 15 Swing state Elections held to date
Hillary has won 8 out of 11 Swing states / Obama has won 3 out of 11
73% for Hillary / Obama has 27%

Total Electoral votes in those Swing States:
88 for Hillary / 27 for Obama

Hillary is also favored to win Kentucky & West Virginia
This will give her 10 of the 13 Swing states

She will have won 77% of the much needed Swing states, 13 out of 15

Posted by: mjno | April 2, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Ted Olsen's wife? That rightwing hag? Why would anyone want to read her?

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

PatrickNYC1 writes
"How do people pull these numbers out of their a$$es?"

Reach in, grab & yank.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"2,024 that is the only number that matters."


Yup, and HRC needs to get 65% of the remaining delegates to get 2024.

BHO only needs 35%

Deus ex machina is the only way HRC wins this.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

drindl --

Both candidates have made the same pledge to Al Gore.

Hillary contacted him first, with an offer to raise the EPA to a cabinet level post.

Both candidates were asked by Gore not to use him as a lever.

I suspect he will be quite angry at Obama for violating that promise to him.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

pkmc83a, you're flat wrong by calling Dean a liberal. Trust me, I live in the state where he was governor and he regularly frustrated liberals in this state.
In my opinion, Bill Clinton did NOT win because he was a centrist; he won because he is a charismatic politician - people either love(d) or hate(d) him, with no middle ground.
I think that tired line of thinking has been what kept the D's out in the wilderness since 1994. It has also led to D's ceding ground to Republicans and letting Republicans define the issues on their terms.
Really, what did Bill Clinton ever do for the Democratic Party? Two years after he took office the Republicans took control of Congress.

Posted by: kenzoan13 | April 2, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I recommend that voters read the late Barbara Olson`s book, "Hell To Pay". Possibly Hillary would have less support.

Obama `08

Posted by: joanbell17 | April 2, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

It is odd, isn't it, how some people can become so overwrought over a clump of cells, but not be bothered at all by actual living children who are torn apart by bombs?

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Apr 2nd, 2008 | WALLINGFORD, Pa. -- Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday he would give Al Gore, a Nobel prize winner, a major role in an Obama administration to address the problem of global warming.

At a town-hall meeting, Obama was asked if he would tap the former vice president for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to handle global warming.

"I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."

The only position higher than a Cabinet post is vice president. While Obama seemed to dangle that possibility in his answer Wednesday, he has repeatedly said it is far too early to discuss potential vice presidents because the nomination has not been won.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem is that Obama supporters are in love with the image he's sold to them, not the real guy.

They refuse to read anything that shows what kind of guy he really is.

They don't care that he let the people who put him into office freeze in unheated slums that Rezko got $100M to repair or replace, but didn't bother to, and that Obama himself didn't care enough about his voters to check up on.

They don't care about his lies.

They just want to elect him because he seems "cool"

That's not a reason to elect a President.

The last time we elected the "guy you'd rather have a beer with" we got Bush.

Obama's using the same playbook and people are falling for it yet again.

He'd get CRUSHED in a general election.

Democrats can't afford to lose again.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

You understand that if party insiders follow their rules and overturn the will of the voters the democratic party will lose between 45 and 49 states in November?

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 03:35 PM

--------------------
45-49? How do people pull these numbers out of their a$$es?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 2, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Aghhhhh!!

Why have I become so addicted to this stuff? Is there an equivalent of a re-hab center for political junkies? I'm losing my mind!

Nobody knows anything, and the political weather changes each and every day. That's the only given.

Today's changeable forecast seems to be Obama's closing the PA polling gap with three loooong weeks to go; Hamilton and Wyo's gov endorse Obama; icky Ickes pimps Wright; and, Dean says absolutely nothing in Florida.

That's it. All this jibberish about how much Hillary needs to win PA by is just drugs to a junkie.

It poisons the mind.

I'm off....

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | April 2, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP. I'll be sooooo glad when I no longer have to read or listen to these theofascistic anti-abortion fanatics. Maybe if they talked about the ideas concerning bread and butter and the slaughter of innocents in wars of aggression, more of us would listen to their concerns. If you don't like abortions, "DON'T HAVE ONE". May we please talk about Obama and Billary's social and political issues without the arrogant moralizing?

Posted by: hapibeli | April 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

As with most of the states, polls show significant numbers of undecided voters, or voters whose support of one or the other candidate is soft. Once again, the final days of the race in Pennsylvania (April 19-21) will be extremely important. The final days in New Hampshire, Texas and Ohio were positive news cycles for Clinton, so late deciders went her way.

All current polling and predictions are practically meaningless. Obama can make Pennsylvania competitive, unless he has a bad few days leading up to the primary. In Ohio, the final few days focused on Obama's economic adviser having had secret meetings with Canadian officials to assure them that Obama would not alter NAFTA. The final weekend before Texas and Ohio also featured the Clinton campaign's notorious "3:00 A.M." TV ad, which evidently was effective. Now, I assume the Obama campaign is ready for a similar last-minute maneuver by the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: harlemboy | April 2, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

focus eriks: 2,024 that is the only number that matters.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman It is a mathematical fact that HRC needs to win every single remaining race by 30% points to catch BHO in pledged delegates.

That is not spin, it is math.

FL and MI, even as voted, don't change that math very much.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, HILLARY DID NOT WIN TEXAS.

Please stop perpetuating this lie.

Posted by: jessmath | April 2, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporter's bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I just read the polls. Pollingreport.com

Obama and Clinton are both in a statistical dead heat with McCrazy.

So the assertion by Clintonistas that Obama cannot win is a load of crap.

What is surprising is that McCain is getting that much support. He is four more years of the same failed Chimpy policies, and Chimpy's numbers are not that high.

Why are Americans stupid enough to vote for the Repukes who would destroy them?

We are a nation of idiots and we are DOOMED.

Posted by: TomIII | April 2, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I just read the polls. Pollingreport.com

Obama and Clinton are both in a statistical dead heat with McCrazy.

So the assertion by Clintonistas that Obama cannot win is a load of crap.

What is surprising is that McCain is getting that much support. He is four more years of the same failed Chimpy policies, and Chimpy's numbers are not that high.

Why are Americans stupid enough to vote for the Repukes who would destroy them?

We are a nation of idiots and we are DOOMED.

Posted by: TomIII | April 2, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

sorry eriks but that has not been the DNC rules for selecting our Presidential nominee since Walter Mondale. Actually the will of the voters here in Texas are not being respected by the delegate aportionment but your side seems quite comfortable with that. If you truly want Sen Obama to be the nominee he should go down to Fla and Michigan and kick HC's butt in a revote, HC supporters would then gladly join your movement. Again Obama supporters the Democratic party requires 2,024 delegates and both candidates will need superdelegate support to reach that number, period.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

What do you mean finally get to go to the polls? They didn't get postponed, it's just now their turn. Somebody has to ride the back of the bus.

Posted by: TennesseeJim | April 2, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY DID NOT WIN TEXAS PERIOD. THE CONTEST IS ABOUT HOW MANY DELEGATES YOU CAN WIN AND BARACK OBAMA CAME OUT ON TOP BY MINIMUM FIVE MORE FOR THE GOOD GUYS. Hillary and her reality distortion routine can stick around until the ten and only ten remaining contests are over at which point as pointed out in the article it will be all over but the crying. Dont blame Obama for her campaigns failure their strategy was flawed due to their hubris and sense of entitlement. Caucus states don't matter, Lets spend more money on Mark Penn and Mark Wolfson while not paying our staffs health care bills or even my high school alma matter function and catering bill? She cannot run her own campaign finances and we want her to run our economy. IRAQ and its true costs will soon be the real issue again. Only Obama had the sense of not supporting it. Too many of my fellow Iraq war vets lives, limbs are left on the desert floor for no reason remember that America.

BARACK OBAMA IN 2008.

Posted by: pedraza1 | April 2, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

It's not spin, it's math.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

PPP Kool-Aid? Think again. The kool-aid does not come to us courtesy of PPP but early voting in California, where Obama lost to Clinton by approx. 390,000 votes. I suspect many of those voters had remorse issues by election day. Not surprisingly, polling closer to election day reflected a surge in Obama support not present at the time many early votes were cast. There will be no dispensing of that kool-aid in Pennsylvania, not this time around.

Stephen Eric Berry
Ann Arbor, MI

Posted by: seberry2 | April 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"If the supers overturn the voters and give Clinton the nomination you're going to see a very low black turnout."

and that would really be sad for the African American community. I recall the lowest poverty rate, falling crime, real home ownership growth,and the lowest African American unemployment rate and school drop our rate in the 90s ng plus a moving euology at the Coretta Scott King funeral. Don't really understand the African American hostility towards HC. Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters don't agree with you. I can understand African American pride for Sen Obama but don't understand their hostility towards HC, it makes zero sense.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman

You understand that if party insiders follow their rules and overturn the will of the voters the democratic party will lose between 45 and 49 states in November?

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Chris

Why do you state that Clinton "pulled a rabbit out of a hat" in NH, OH and TX. First of all, she was never behind in the polls in any of those states, so why is it a surprise that she won. Secondly, she didn't even win Texas. As is not widely known, because pundits like you don't report facts, Obama came out ahead in the overall delegate count in TX.

You should at least try to hide your Clinton bias a little bit, it makes you look a little pathetic.

Posted by: clumsypooch | April 2, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Right; it's not enough because the DNC has to do something first. And that's be more equitable in the way they make rules and adher to them.

Five states broke the rules but only two were punished. "Under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A. "

"Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention."
"So, the rules were not applied equally and fairly. The resulting mess is due to the actions of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly."

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, according to the rules should have had their delegates stripped too.

That did not happen.

When is Howard Dean and Donna Brazil going to come clean.

Posted by: vammap | April 2, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Just don't count on the convention healing those wounds and everyone singing cumbaya in Nov. and don't presume that your candidate can win Fla, Ohio, Michigan and Pa with his flawed strategy and where most presidential elections are decided.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 03:08 PM

Leichtman, you presume that the situation as it currently sits will stay that way for the next 7 months. Which I disagree with, this is what I was alluding to in my last post. But alas, fallen on deaf (or clogged) ears again.
Don't assume that results of a primary say anything about a general election. Just keep citing your "facts" as you believe them, even though they prove nothing.

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

While you generously described her victories in Ohio and Texas as "pulling a rabbit out of a hat", you obscure the plain fact that she was ahead by over 20 point margins in both states no more than three weeks out. It was you and others who decided to (erroneously, I think) play this as Clinton come-from-behind victories, rather than as Obama admirably closing the gap, as he always manages to do. I fault the Obama camp for not effectively playing the expectations game, but fault also lies with the MSM for so diligently distorting reality.

Posted by: mikehicks424 | April 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

eriks the crying comment is sexist, enough.

DNC rules require 2,024 delegates, I presume you have learned that by now so all of the Obamaspeak won't change the fact that the superdelegates will decide which candidate will obtain 2,024 in total delegates. If you really don't like that rule I strongly suggest that you become a member of the dnc rules committee.
Pledged delegates are nice but even your campaign understands they too need 2,024 delegates not 1600, or 1800 in total delegates. So until and IF your campaign reaches that number don't bother us with your spin.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

I hate "conventional wisdom" because it is conventional and STUPID.

"Conventional wisdom" supported the mistake in Iraq.

"Conventional wisdom" supported the mistake in the White House.

Cilizza, you are an IDIOT to use this term.

Posted by: TomIII | April 2, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama won more delegates in Texas. A clarification is in order.

Posted by: superyeadon | April 2, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem is that Obama supporters are in love with the image he's sold to them, not the real guy.

They refuse to read anything that shows what kind of guy he really is.

They don't care that he let the people who put him into office freeze in unheated slums that Rezko got $100M to repair or replace, but didn't bother to, and that Obama himself didn't care enough about his voters to check up on.

They don't care about his lies.

They just want to elect him because he seems "cool"

That's not a reason to elect a President.

The last time we elected the "guy you'd rather have a beer with" we got Bush.

Obama's using the same playbook and some people are falling for it yet again.

But not everyone.

Look at the national polls.

Obama would get CRUSHED in a general election.

Democrats can't afford to lose again.

Its that simple.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

BTW, the racial thing cuts both ways.

Clinton can't win PA, MI, OH, IN, IL, and possibly CA in the general election without the black vote.

If the supers overturn the voters and give Clinton the nomination you're going to see a very low black turnout.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Why do people continue to say Hillary won states like Texas and Nevada? Sure, she won the primaries, but Obama WON MORE DELEGATES!

When both sides, including authors of news articles like this, state that delegates matter, then why not recognize that HRC actually lost Nevada and Texas in terms of delegates?

Mind Boggling.

Posted by: blggs14 | April 2, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman

You understand that if Obama wins or ties any of the remaining contests Clinton can not catch him in pledged delegates?

MI and Fl will be seated (probably as voted) but it won't matter, there are just not enough states left for her to make up the gap she let open in February.

She had this, she screwed it up by poor planning. It's all over but the crying.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Michigan and Florida need to blame their problems on their own elected officials. All the "good" Democrats left their names off the ballott in Michigan. At the time, she said "whoops, I forgot to take my name off." Uh-huh. So she WON! She had agreed to the terms all the other candidates agreed to. NOW it has become an issue for her becuase she needs the delegates. AT THE TIME, she could have cared less.
C'mon, people. Isn't it time we all saw "The Clintons" for who they really ARE?
Hillary may indeed be like Rocky - perhaps a little road weary and brain damaged. She would need another scandal about Obama, larger than Wright, to win. And don't we all love a candidate who wins that way? Not on their own merrit, but by throwing fake stones? Bill Clinton is trying to do to Obama what was done to him in 1998. It is a sad time for those of us who once loved Bill.

Also, zealots, do keep in mind that women will have abortions whether they are legal or not. I got pregnant the first time I had sex at 18 in 196? and abortions were not legal. It was frightening and impossible, and had it not been for the support of my parents, I would have never gotten that abortion, never have gotten my Masters degree, never would have left Wichita Kansas. Today I am the mom of two great grown up kids that were planned and well supported. They in turn are in college and very happy.
Ummm...what exactly is WRONG with that? I took a "life"? In that case, stop killing cows, stop killing trees, stop polluting our oceans and stop killing species by not taking resposinilty for globale warming. And by ALL MEANS, stop sending soldiers to war!!

Posted by: sheridan1 | April 2, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

amym2 --

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporters bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"According to a PPP poll, released today, Obama is slightly ahead, by 2 points"

yes and that same poll on election day had Sen Obama winning Ca by 17% points how did that work out for you? Go ahead and drink your cool aid.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

According to a PPP poll, released today, Obama is slightly ahead, by 2 points.

More importantly, two weeks ago Hillary was ahead in the same poll by PPP, by 26 points. Whether Obama wins or loses the primary, shouldn't part of the story be how much he has narrowed Hillary's lead?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

Posted by: amym2 | April 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

mnteng asks
"What do you think of McC having Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina as economic advisors?"

Too early to tell. I scanned the Wa Post article today that broached the issue, but I don't yet have an opinion. Once the Dems figure out who they're going to put up against him, it will be easier to compare & contrast.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Come November some may still be turned off by what happened to the primary but probably not 1/3."

What you don't appreciate are 2 things:
Fla has been trending Republican over the last 2 Presidential election cycles as the WWII generation has been dying off;
That states like Fla generally turn on a g.e. difference of maybe 2-3% so even if a fraction of those Fla voters turn to McCain or simply not vote for Pres. which is something I am seriously considering and will likely do so if Fla and Michigan are not counted. Just don't count on the convention healing those wounds and everyone singing cumbaya in Nov. and don't presume that your candidate can win Fla, Ohio, Michigan and Pa with his flawed strategy and where most presidential elections are decided.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama is all set to open up a can of you know what on Hillary here in North Carolina. Our seven Democratic reps are about to endorse Obama; we will more than make up for any delegates she picks up in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: gmundenat | April 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that PA, NC and IN will end up being a wash as far as the delegates are concerned. HRC will pick some up in PA, BHO will get those back in NC and IN will be a wash. HRC will still be back about 170 pledged delegates, but there will only be ~220 delegates left outstanding.

At that point BHO can have the MI and FL delegates seated with HRC getting the delegates she "earned" and BHO getting the balance. HRC only got 55% of the vote in MI (against "none of the above") and 50% of the vote in FL. From a delegate standpoint the margin will shrink very slightly (~30), but it will not be anywhere near tight enough for HRC to catch up.

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, at least we are finally on the same page.
And you are right about super delegates they should consider popular vote, but they can consider whatever they like (since their "super").

I give Florida and Michigan voters more credit than it appears you do. Specifically, to understand their state party is at fault and that neither candidate had anything to do with the primary debacle. Also, you state 1/3 of Florida voters said it will factor into their decision, but its April. Come November some may still be turned off by what happened to the primary but probably not 1/3. FL/MI isn't political; despite what your particular candidate of choice may be saying.

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"Barack Obama has taken the lead in Pennsylvania, a remarkable turnaround"

Apparently now there are no limits to the lies that the Obama supporters are willing to post here. That is truly pathetic and a waste of my time to read such garbage.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris, our analysis leaves much to be desired.

First, get the facts straight. Clinton DID NOT WIN Texas. Obama won the final delegate count 99-92.

Next, let's follow your own argument that a lopsided victory should raise questions about a candidate's strengths in certain demographics. During Obama's 11-state (12 if you count the overseas vote) winning streak, his average margin of victory was something like 26 points (don't recall the exact number - hopefully someone else will). During that time, Clinton was winning only with women and white older and less educated folks. That means Obama won with EVERY OTHER GROUP.

You say that if Clinton blows out Obama in PA, then that would cast doubt on his ability to win the white working class vote. But that doesn't translate to Obama being unelectable in the fall. Let's flip the tables: Clinton can't win voters black, young, men of any color, more affluent and educated of any color. So why isn't anyone saying she isn't electable in the fall with these, the much broader swath of voters than white women and working class, voters??!! Yes, we need these voters in a general election, but there is no evidence that group would go en masse to McCain in November. Not to mention the fact that Obama can get independents and some Republicans we know Clinton cannot get.

The only argument the Clinton camp makes for stronger electability is that they can win the "big" states. This is also absurd because many of those states (CA, NY, MA) would go Democratic anyway.

Finally, HuffPost has a poll showing Obama leading in PA:

"Public Policy Polling has released a new poll showing Obama ahead in Pennsylvania.

Barack Obama has taken the lead in Pennsylvania, a remarkable turnaround after trailing Hillary Clinton by 26 points in a PPP poll in the state just two and a half weeks ago.

Obama's steep rise could be a reflection of a growing sense among Democratic voters that a continued divisive nomination process will hurt the party's chances of defeating John McCain this fall. An Obama upset in Pennsylvania would be virtually certain to force Clinton out of the race. ...

He leads across all age groups except senior citizens and balances Clinton's 10 point lead with women with his own 15 point lead with men."

Posted by: sujung_kim | April 2, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse


My last post should have ended with --

Obama's supporters Gloat now.

They're cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 02:35 PM
-----------------------
Don't worry, no one pays any attention to your posts.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 2, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

With a long three weeks to go before voting in PA, all polls are trending slowly and steadily in favor of Sen. Obama. --------------------------------------------

Where have I heard this same crap before? California? Mass.? Ohio? etc. You Obamanites keep on counting your chickens before they hatch. Better be careful of your arrogance. It probably has already cost you the genetal, if you win the primary.

Just keep being arrogant. With all your BS words, you keep driving us Clintons to Mac.
Right now in my family 12 are moving to Mac if Obama wins and the other two not voting. You are going to need 26 votes to offset that. The fourteen you have lost and the 12 Mac has gained. You folks need to check your math, before you lose all the Hillary voters. Remember, for every one of us you run to Mac you need 2 new voters just to keep even.

Posted by: bnw173 | April 2, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

leichtman: I was referring to Repubs changing their Registration to Dem to vote for Obama in their effort to stop Hillary. I had seen earlier estimates of 50 to 60K and then 80 to 90K, but this was supposed to be an actual count of some 87,000. The last day to Register had the numbers for that one day, and I can't remember, but they were high for both new and changed.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

jnoel of course its about delegates but don't think you can get to 2,024 delegates without the superdelegates and superdelegates will not be browbeat who to support and will likely consider the popular vote.

Go ahead and stiff Fla and Michigan see how that works out in Nov which apparently means nothing to you or your campaign.

All I ask is that the Obama campaign just be consistent and say h*** no we don't want a revote or to seat their delegates. I remember 1968 and 1972, you can expect those exact same results if your campaign pulls that off, at the convention and in the general election results. There is a saying about don't wish for what you clearly want, you mighjt come to regret it. 1/3 of Florida voters have told pollsters that how their delegation is treated will effect who they vote for in Nov. Somehow I mistakenly thought that was impt. apparently not.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

My last post should have ended with --

Obama's supporters Gloat now.

They're cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Its called Democracy, some minor little concept we learned in the 5th grade that Charlie Christ, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris evidently don't believe in. I would presume that the Obama campaign would not be siding with Christ and the remnants of the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris corrupt Fla political system.
Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 02:22 PM

Right, it is all about democracy. So delegate count be damned. The people in Florida and Michigan already had their chance to vote--it didn't net anyone a delegate. But who cares, according to "your logic" all that counts is popular vote. If "your logic" is correct than why should Clinton or her supporters want to hold a revote? Perhaps it is because popular vote in Primaries and the General election don't elect the nominee or President....its a little something called government which we also learned about in the 5th grade. Maybe you and Hillary should go back to school.

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

leichtman-who ever claimed Missouri as a blowout for Obama? It was clearly a squeaker, as both the popular vote and the delegate count reflect (I believe Obama netted one delegate out of Missouri).

Are you talking about Mississippi? In that case you have more of a point, but you do have to look at percentages, too. Obama's margin of victory in Mississippi was a lot greater than Hillary's was in Texas, even if the actual difference in the number of votes was very similar. Seriously, basic math.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | April 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters, are in denial about the key issue.

Obama's actions don't match his words.

The image is great.

The real guy isn't.

Hillary's been fighting with one hand behind her back.

She can't bring up things like Obama's felony history of repeated cocaine abuse.

She can't bring up "Obama's Slums" and what it shows about his total lack of character and total lack of human compassion.

Republicans can, and will.

But there's an additonal point.

Obama supporters have done everything they could to trash the best Democratic President since FDR.

Mainstream Democrats will neither forgive nor forget that.

They Gloat now.

They'll cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

dee post more Obamaspeak: "Anything below 10 percent in the final tally should be counted as a significant show of strength for Obama. Unless Sen. Clinton can win by a 60-40 margin or better,"

HC is ahead with white Pa voters by 25% right now even though being out spent 5:1 on tv. Its all about whether the superdelegates are comfortable with that, not the Obamaspeak who's supporters want to spin their own hurdles. Its getting really old already, why not just say she must win 90% of the pa. vote if that makes you feel better. More Obamaspeak.

yea right losing Ca, New Jersey, Ohio, New York,Pa and likely Fla by 10%+ is a win in your lexicon.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

Lucky you to be staying an (I). I fell from the ranks on March 24, since I didn't think I could sit back and not vote in the closed PA primary. Guess I'm a (D) now.

What do you think of McC having Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina as economic advisors?

Posted by: mnteng | April 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

bsimon wrote: "Isn't it some obscure DNC rules committee that made the decision?"

Yup. That committee included several Clinton supporters. And Clinton was fine with the decision at the time, of course, when she thought she'd have the whole thing sewed up by the end of Super Tuesday.

Posted by: bearpaw01 | April 2, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"If its all about the popular vote why does she want a revote? "

Its called Democracy, some minor little concept we learned in the 5th grade that Charlie Christ, Jeb Bush, and Katherine Harris evidently don't believe in. I would presume that the Obama campaign would not be siding with Christ and the remnants of the Jeb Bush/Katherine Harris corrupt Fla political system.

Again, IF your side is the nominee, you will seriously regret taking this posture. Almost a third of Fla Dems have said that how this is resolved or not resolved will effect their vote in Nov. If that does not matter to your campaign, it will be a decision you will come to regret in Nov.and that is not just my opinion.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Let me point out .... Obama won Texas. It takes a while to count all the votes, but Obama got 3 more delegates than Clinton.

Posted by: bradcpa | April 2, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

When was the last time a Democrat running for President won more than 50% of the white male vote? The democrats should put John McCain on the ballot, let everyone vote, and see what happens.

The argument is that Obama is weak with working class white voters. And everyone knows he's weak with older white women. Doesn't that make Clinton weak with everyone else? Why does Obama have to prove there is no demographic he is weak with? Why doesn't Clinton? I still don't understand how Clinton can win enough electoral votes if black voters are peeved about her 'stealing' the nomination.

I guess we can be thankful Pennsylvania doesn't have a large Hispanic minority.

The Clinton argument reminds me of the old rule that if you're black you have to be demonstrably better than a white in all areas.

Posted by: caribis | April 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

As Bill said, relax and let the system work itself out don't try to browbeat the HC supporters into falling in line. It doesn't work for moveon and won't serve your candidate IF he is the nominee.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 01:55 PM
-------------------
I've said many times I'm going to vote for whoever the Democrats put up, but I wonder how many will sit it out or vote for McSenile if their canidate does not prevail?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | April 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

With a long three weeks to go before voting in PA, all polls are trending slowly and steadily in favor of Sen. Obama. It is unlikely that he will actually overtake Sen. Clinton in the popular vote. But he has already cut substantially into her 20+ lead of a few weeks ago and the indications are that he will continue to reduce her margin. Anything below 10 percent in the final tally should be counted as a significant show of strength for Obama. Unless Sen. Clinton can win by a 60-40 margin or better, she will not accumulate enough delegates to make a difference in the overall totals. She has never won any state primary (including NY) by a margin this large so it is exceedingly unlikely that she will do so now.

Sen. Obama executed the same steady climb in both Ohio and Texas where he was behind by more than 20 points a month before the primaries and closed swiftly to within a few points in both states. The media chose to call these "wins" for Sen. Clinton in order to maintain the excitement of the faux horse race, but the reality was clearly in the other direction.

The facts to be grappled with are that 12 months ago, Sen. Clinton had vastly more money, more big name supporters, more media attention, more staff members, more name recognition, and much better poll numbers than Sen. Obama. Her epic decline since then is due in part to the gross mismanagement of her campaign in all areas. But a more important factor has to be the intelligent, nimble, consistent, and tough campaign run by Sen. Obama.

This is the kind of smart, competent, experienced leader our great country deserve in the White House.

Posted by: dee5 | April 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I thought Hillary already claimed victory in MI/FL?

If its all about the popular vote why does she want a revote? She already garner most of the popular vote in each state, one of which (MI), Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

stonecreek HC is ahead in Indiana by 9% right now. But again HC supporters know that if she wins Pa, Indiana, W Va, Ky and Puerto Rico, your side will scream she lost. Its called Obamaspeak.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Dean refused to stand up to Charlie Christ , the Republican Fla Senate and the Katherine Harris/Jeb Bush remnants still running that state. Trusting the Fla Republican party to do the right thing for the Dem Party is naive at best and neglgent at its worst. Was Howard Dean asleep in December 2000? Dean should be toast after Nov., he knows that and will likely step down right after the election. The only people who embrace the debacle in Fla and Michigan are apparently Sen Obama and 100% of the Obama supporters.
Wonder Why?

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has much more to lose in Pennsylvania than does Obama. it is clear from the way Rendell has been steadily lowering expectations that the Clinton campaign is extremely worried about PA. Although certainly an outlier, today's PPP poll showing Obama up 2 points over Clinton in PA can't be good news to a candidate desperately trying to keep money coming into a starving campaign. Should Obama beat her by even one vote there, it's all over.

My prediction: Clinton "suspends" her campaign immediately after PA in order not to take a drubbing in NC and IN, which would seal the lid on her political coffin. That way she can sit on the sidelines praying for a lightning bolt to strike Obama (and furnishing opposition research to the Rs).

Posted by: Stonecreek | April 2, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

niq:

Actually, there was a pretty good analysis of the PA delegate count posted by "minvis" on myDD a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/17239/2856

A 58-42 split for HRC could give her as many as +22 delegates.

But I really think at this point, her best (only?) shot at convincing the supers is to win the popular vote, however the DNC ends up tabulating it. So, the delegate math is probably a moot point.

Posted by: mnteng | April 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I find it funny you were there. You demonstrate the exact kind of misunderstanding of Texas Primary rules which probably contributed to Hillary losing the Texas primary.

You don't defend your logic, nor refute mine. You just keep blathering on about popular vote, communist caucuses, young people assaulting the elderly (most of which is totally absurd). So, I am glad that we are in agreement; I was correct and "your logic" (if you can call it that) was misguided.
Glad you finally comprehend.

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I disagree. I should also clarify a point. You seem to assume I am a Dem. I am not. I support Obama because I think he is best suited to lead this country. I think McCain is next-best suited. Clinton comes in last. I will vote 3rd party before I will vote for her.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

bsimon you and I know that neither candidate will get to 2,024 without the superdelegate votes who will look at the delegate count which will likely be less than a 100 spread by July AND the popular vote. You won the undemocratic caucuses lets see what the remaining 400 superdelegates think about that. There are no caucuses in Nov and I think that the superdelegates are intelligent to understand that.
"The popular vote doesn't determine the nominee" no it will be the superdelegates many proClinton Ca delegates who have not been heard from b/c of Ca party restrictions. You are ahead in the popular vote NOW not counting Mich, Fla or any of the remaining 10 states. As Bill said, relax and let the system work itself out don't try to browbeat the HC supporters into falling in line. It doesn't work for moveon and won't serve your candidate IF he is the nominee.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The truth is Hillary has not legitimately won a state since Super Tuesday. The Rush Republicans handed her the popular vote in Texas, and Ohio would have been a close tie. With an ex-president campaigning for you like he is the candidate (Bill gave six speeches a day in Texas--more than Hillary and Obama combined) and the governor of the state campaigning for you in Ohio and Pennsylvania, I would say that there is something seriously lacking in a candidate if you still need Rush Limbaugh to hand you the win. I think Obama has been underestimated because of the Rush Republicans and could possibly pull out a win or a very tight election in Pennsylvania, and the Clinton Rove-like machine will finally be done.

Posted by: mbpotter84 | April 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone noticed how the Clinton campaign has inserted the popular vote into the criteria for electing the Dem nominee.

No such criteria exists... it was and is the delegate count that names the victor.

In the only measurement that counts, Obama won Texas.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | April 2, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Though, frankly, I'm more amused at the attempts to pin the blame on Dean, rather than on the parties in FL & MI that changed the dates. Dean's the consistent one - he said "don't move the dates, or you'll be sanctioned." They moved the dates, and - get ready to be shocked - he sanctioned them. Though even claiming 'Dean' did it isn't really true. Isn't it some obscure DNC rules committee that made the decision?

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

" I am sure that you are thrilled how Howard Dean has mishandled Fla and Michigan."

I would say 'amused' rather than 'thrilled'.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

and bsimon I am sure that you are thrilled how Howard Dean has mishandled Fla and Michigan. As long as any practice advances the cause of Sen Obama its a great success. Sen Obama will be a disaster here in Texas for our chances to take back the State Senate and Harris Cty judges, so Howard Dean's 50 state strategy as for Texas will have been for naught. Dean needs to leave the dnc after Nov, his service has been appreciated but this fiasco in Fla and Michigan is guaranteed to tear the party apart and he has been right in the middle of it. He should have told Charlie Christ and the Fla Rep party a year ago to go to h*** And that is a success, how?

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

leichtman writes
"You lose the popular vote by 110,000 votes and its a win."

Its all Clinton spin, we get it. The popular vote doesn't determine the nominee, but since Clinton's best shot (though its still long) is to close the gap with Obama in the popular vote, so her supporters are trying to redefine that as the bar she must meet. Delegates? Forget them! They're undemocratic, right? Just count the popular vote & use that. Of course, the caucus states don't have a popular vote count, so they can be left out, right?

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

the first correct thing that you have said:
"A win can be determined in a number of different ways."

again its all Obama spin we get it. You lose the popular vote by 110,000 votes and its a win. I will just start referring to your Obama logic as Obamaspeak. The "voters" of Texas speak for their candidate HC. Its called the will of the people of Texas, something I am beginning to believe that your side could care less about. Your side gamed, intimidated, robocalled and spit their way into acquiring 4 more delegates, I was there you were not.We should expect more Obamaspeak after Pa, Indian, Ky, W Va and Puerto Rico, you lose but you lose by less than you drove the media to expect so that too will be a win. We get it. Its called Obamaspeak.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"Incidentally, whining that the Post writer is biased for against a particular candidate is tiresome. If you want YOUR news YOUR way, go to the candidates' site and leave us alone."

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade

Just above the window where comments are posted it reads:

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

So who are you to determine when a person's comments are appropriate? Oh, that's right--you're a Clinton supporter. Excuse me.

Posted by: edwcorey | April 2, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"You are correct about Dean and the Moveon crowd. They seem to be Hell bent on destroying the Dem party, and it has been apparent to me for a long time."

Yes, as evidenced in the 2006 election. Dean's delusional 50-state strategy seriously damaged his party by retaking both houses of Congress from the GOP.

After pissing away the Pres race twice in a row against an inferior candidate, perhaps the Dems should try to figure out how to do a little more 'party destroying' like Dean's.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Clinton can win by as much as 58-42, and, in theory, still only net about five delegates out of PA.

In practice, based on the regional breakdown in the SurveyUSA poll, the margin is probably somewhere between Clinton +7 and Clinton +12 in delegates. Neither of these are particularly helpful margins. To get a big boost, Clinton would have to win PA-06 59-41, win all three 7 delegate suburban districts, get 70% in the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre district and 63% in Williamsport, and win Pittsburgh. That might net her as many as 20 delegates.

Posted by: niq | April 2, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

How big a win is necessary in PA depends on "necessary for what?"
To match Obama in delegates and popular vote, Clinton must get something like 65% of the vote in the remaining primaries.
If she doesn't get that in PA, it looks less and less likely that she'll do that anywhere.
If she simply wants to look less like a loser with superdelegates, than anything over 55% will do.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | April 2, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

actually lylepink the numbers in Pa were 230,000 changed registration, yet the Obama supporters complain about those cross over voters.

Spinning a 4% loss in Texas, setting up hurdles of 20% in Pa are all part of the Obama campaign strategy to spin the media. I posted 2 weeks ago that if HC wins Pa, West va, Ky,Indianaa, and Puerto Rico, that the media and the Obama supporters will spind that as an Obama win, that is apparent by what we read here.

As to moveon I quit them a month ago and urge others to join me due to their heavy handed purity standards who have zero tolerance for Democratic moderates. It scarily reminds me of some of the McGovern folks in 1972 who called Lloyd Bentsen a traitor after he defeated Texas icon Sen Ralph Yarborough.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

harlemboy wrote:
"I just think it's hypocritical for the Obama campaign to whine about the superdelegates while they take full advantage of other elements of the system . . . "

Actually, I don't hear the Obama campaign "whining" about the superdelegates. Obama is doing quite nicely with superdelegates, thank you, having shrunk Clinton's once-formidable advantage with that group almost to nothing. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has picked up well over 60 superdelegates, while Clinton has picked up something like a net five, and the Obama camp continues to court superdelegates aggressively while the Clinton campaign is in a defensive posture, fighting strenuously to hold back the floodgates and keep the superdelegates from deciding until later when they hope the terrain will be more favorable to them.

Overall, I've heard a lot more whining about superdelegates coming from the Clinton camp lately, including a lot of ugly name-calling bordering on character assassination when Bill Richardson came out for Obama, and snarling about how "undemocratic" it was for Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar to come out for Obama "before all the primaries are decided." It appears the Clintonites want to have it both ways: superdelegates are just fine so long as they're for Hillary, but not if they're for Obama. Same with caucuses: not a problem when Hillary "wins" Nevada (even though she came in second there in delegates), but suddenly they become profoundly undemocratic after Obama wins a long string of them.

I can see where this is headed: with all the polls showing Obama rapidly closing the gap in Pennsylvania, Hillary will be unable to put a significant dent in Obama's lead in elected delegates even if she ekes out a narrow win there. At that point, more superdelegates will come out for Obama. Even more will jump on the bandwagon when Obama wins North Carolina decisively a few weeks later, as the polls are predicting. And at that point the Clinton campaign will be whining about how undemocratic it is for the superdelegates to decide the nomination, because the pre-ordained "right" outcome was for the superdelegates to hand the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton, the LOSER of the Democratic nominating contests. Because caucuses shouldn't count. Because "red" states and "small states" shouldn't count. Because states with large black populations shouldn't really count as much as states with lots of working class white voters. Because Florida and Michigan, which held uncontested illegal primaries, should count. Hillary's toast, but mark my words, she'll go down whining until the end.

Posted by: bradk1 | April 2, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, stop misrepresenting what I said. You are mixing your logic again. A win can be determined in a number of different ways. You Clinton supporters should be used to creative definitions by now. Also, stop trying to compare what takes place in primaries to what will happen in the general; it is a total fallacy.

Let's try this again. People are claiming, correctly, that Obama won Texas based upon the delegate count(which is how we elect a nominee). You are right that Obama did not win the popular vote. But because the popular vote is not the only way to determine a winner it is not the only statistic that matters. Despite what you might think about caucuses those were the rules in the Texas primary. No candidate was opposed to them before the primary process began. So, you can complain about them after the fact as much as you like; it isn't going to change the reality that the popular vote was not the end all of the Texas Primary.

You are wrong; Obama did win Texas when you compare delegates won (which in the primary process is all that matters).

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Seems that Obama will this the Bush/Cheney way with more delegates (electoral votes)at the end of the primaries.

this is not the same--Bush/Cheney was about changing and inventing rules in the middle fo teh process--Obama and Clinton along with Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and the rest all agreed to the process and the FL MI issue at the time.

Posted by: chadibuins | April 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Liberals, Abortionists and Muslims Oh My!

Whatever shall we do--I ma so grateful that Obama supporters have the GOP to help us see the error of our ways and come to the light before we send America to hell in a hand basket. Obviously everything they're sying is true and every fact we spout is wrong and unjustified.

Oh if only they can get their message out to everyone--what a wonderful country we'll have when everyone wears RED and Votes R.

. . .sarcasm inserted obviously . . . :)

Posted by: chadibuins | April 2, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters, are in denial about the key issue.

Obama's actions don't match his words.

The image is great.

The real guy isn't.

Hillary's been fighting with one hand behind her back.

She can't bring up things like Obama's felony history of repeated cocaine abuse.

She can't bring up "Obama's Slums" and what it shows about his total lack of character and total lack of human compassion.

Republicans can, and will.

But there's an additonal point.

Obama supporters have done everything they could to trash the best Democratic President since FDR.

Mainstream Democrats will neither forgive nor forget that.

They Gloat now.

They'll cry later.

Posted by: svreader | April 2, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

pkmc83a: You are correct about Dean and the Moveon crowd. They seem to be Hell bent on destroying the Dem party, and it has been apparent to me for a long time. Polls in WV and Ky. are showing Hillary leading about 2 to 1, 50s% Vs 20s%. The Obama folks, along with the Repubs, are doing their best to spin anything less than a double digit win for Hillary in Pa. is really a win for them. We must not forget there was some 87,000 changes of Registration from reports in an effort to stop Hillary, or at least reduce the margin of victory.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Seems that Obama will this the Bush/Cheney way with more delegates (electoral votes)at the end of the primaries. If Hillary has more popular votes at the end of the primaries, will the Democrates really go with the delegate count winner? It will go against everything they've said since the 2000 debacle.

Posted by: SW-DCWaterfront | April 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama may be very liberal on abortion but McCain won't be dumb enough to make that a big issue. After the economy and Iraq, everything else will pale in importance. Voters who are undecided most certainly won't be using abortion as their touchstone for choosing between McCain and Obama.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 2, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama's getting this nomination no matter what. Hillary can cry all she wants, but it won't make a difference.

http://gopcatholics.blogspot.com

Posted by: anthem20042001 | April 2, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

jnoel: sorry, but losing a popular vote by 110,00 votes is not a win again no matter how many times you or the Obama supporters post it. Yes the poular vote does count and in Nov there will be no caucuses where 10% of Sen Obama's GenY voters can run over folks like my 92 year old mom who voted by absentee vote but couldn't show up to her caucus. Texans know the difference and even prominent Tx Obama delegates understand that the caucus vote was not representative of the political will of Texas and vow to end our totally ridiculous 2 step process.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The reasons why Obama is winning the nomination against Clinton and why he will win the general election against McCain are the following...

With McCain, we have someone who lives for wars and who is missing the heros of WW-II (see the reference to Churchill in one of McCain's publicity). We also have someone who didn't object to the idea of starting a war under false pretenses.

With Hillary Clinton, we have someone who is associated to too many scandals with her husband before, during and after the White House:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before Bill left office, he gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

The reasons why Obama is winning against Clinton and why he will win against McCain are that voters are sick of people starting wars for false pretenses and they are sick of corrupted politicians (I include the Clintons and some of their pundits who have been allies in their past scandals).

Posted by: Logan6 | April 2, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania is the land of blue collar and Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with them. She has not worked with them on the street to help them finding jobs as Barack Obama did! She had loaned her own campaign millions of dollars (much more than a regular blue collar will make in his life time) coming from the lobbyists she is working for (and who do not have generally the interest of working people in mind) while Barack Obama's campaign is fully financed by small donors. Barack Obama is the man of the people, while Hillary Clinton is part of a dynasty and who would not be in this race without the name of her husband and the support from the establishment and lobbyists. In a fair world, Pennsylvannia should be an uphill battle for Hillary Clinton.

If Pennsylvanians are voting for the most experienced candidate, they should take into consideration that Chelsea Clinton has the same leading and heroic experience as her mother by growing up in the White House Mansion and by also dodging snipers fire in Bosnia. So Chelsea could also run for president if we follow Hillary's reasoning. Seriously, when Hillary will agree to cooperate to release her White House records, Pennsylvanians will know that most of Hillary Clinton's experience comes from meeting with lobbyist and that Barack Obama is really the most experienced candidate compared to Hillary, with more years in the legistlature (Illinois and U.S. senat) and more years working on the street with people.

Pennsylvania should be tailored made for Barack Obama! It's only a question of passing the message to the voters.

Meanwhile, the Clintons should be pressured to release their records (tax returns, White House records, list of big donors to their foundation). There are things that can raise ethical issues.

Posted by: Logan6 | April 2, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"I think Obama is therefore and abortion extremist and his views are way outside the mainstream of what most Americans feel is reasonable."

C'mon, Proud, this is just another RNC talking point along with "Obama is the most liberal Democrat in the history of the Universe." Political algebra: insert whoever the D candidate is into either of the above statements and argue the result as the absolute truth.

You'll have to do much better than that to win in the fall.

Posted by: judgeccrater | April 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I believe they are referring to the delegate count. Which, in Texas, is not directly tied to the popular vote.

Therefore, if Obama comes away with more delegates, he wins. That logic isn't flawed; your selective reasoning just left out a key portion of their claim.

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"You are mistaken, bsimon. McCain has been my first choice since election 2000, in fact. I kept sending contributions even when the pundits called for him to quit. No, no, there'll be no realting to Casey's 'dilemma' here."

Thanks for the clarification. I must have been confusing you with one of the other regular GOP posters here. I find your conclusion intriguing though - do you find yourself in 100% agreement with McCain, across the board? That would be unusual.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Of course the campaigns all knew the ground rules for each state. And of course the Obama campaign out-organized the Clinton campaign. However, I just think it's hypocritical for the Obama campaign to whine about the superdelegates while they take full advantage of other elements in the system which don't reflect the true "will of the people." I don't begrudge them anything. Let the Obama campaign use every possible advantage. But PLEASE do NOT be sanctimonious and intellectually dishonest about the supposed "injustice" of superdelegates potentially thwarting the "will of the people." Hillary won a popular vote majority in Texas, but not a majority of that state's delegates. Oh, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles, and rules are rules. However, the superdelegates could hand the nomination to Hillary, if she's still not far behind in the count in June. Oh, well, the rules allow that, too. Get over it.

Posted by: harlemboy | April 2, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Interesting: Obama wins Missouri by less than 10,000 votes out of several million and its a blowout for Sen Obama, and HC obtains 110,000 more votes "from voters" in Texas and she barely wins the popular vote here.

Consistency?

Clinton won the March 4 popular vote by a 51% to 47% margin. Get over it Obama supporters. Losing a poular vote by 4% points and 110,000 votes is not a win even in your delusional world. Your candidate gamed our flawed Texas system but to claim you won the popular vote in Texas is nothing but delusional no matter how many times you post it.

I can just see his supporters post in Nov IF he becomes the nominee saying they won Ohio by losing by 110,000 votes.

Your flawed logic will mean absolutely nothing in November no matter how many times you scream it.

Posted by: leichtman | April 2, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

At this point neither candidate can win the nomination without the assistance of super delegates. So, a large (margin-wise) victory by Hillary Clinton would only mean something if it convinced super delegates that Obama is not viable in the general.
I am still not sure how a single primary would make that kind of difference nationally. (to Penn supers it might make a difference, but I don't see that translating to California or elsewhere)

Posted by: jnoel002 | April 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Latest Results Just Posted!
New Poll Just Started, Vote to See Results.
Thanks for Participating!

Posted by: votenic | April 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

We now tentatively know that all three candidates have strong pro-Israel voting records in the Senate. Add BHO to the list.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/pa-jewish-leaders-praise-obama-in-letter/

For those who do not follow it, "The Caucus" is the NYT's flawed attempt to flatter Chris by imitation.

I think American foreign policy should be very supportive of Israel's right to exist, but I also believe that the last two Admins
lost contact with potentially friendly Arabs by not pressuring Israel heavily to
begin serious dismantling of settlements in the West Bank.

So while I am relieved that BHO does not buy into his Pastor's views on Israel, I would love to hear just one of these candidates say they thought James Baker ran a better Israel policy than his successors.

McC is the most likely to endorse Baker who supports him, but Baker is and was completely at odds with the KristolKrowd.

So I wait and watch some more.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 2, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

In the wake of Obama's 11-contest winning streak, the only thing -- the ONLY thing -- that "helped [Clinton] fend off the idea that she can never catch up" is that virtually every "journalist" and news organization in the country pushed the same false myth that you're pushing here, i.e., that Clinton won both Ohio AND Texas.

The fact is, Texas is a two-step. Because the awarding of delegates is the one thing that the primary and the caucus have in common -- and because, indeed, "Texas" will exist in Denver only as a SINGLE BODY OF DELEGATES that reflects the COMBINED RESULT of those steps -- the "winner" of Texas can only be the candidate with the projected lead in pledged delegates.

Whether or not the Clintons or the media or anyone else likes it, that candidate is Barack Obama, who currently has a projected lead over Clinton of 3 pledged delegates.

OBAMA WON TEXAS.

A footnote: Writing about this past weekend's caucus conventions in Texas, the publisher of Burnt Orange Report noted yesterday that Obama "has earned AT LEAST a 37-30 national delegate split from Texas. I say "at least" because we are aware of a couple of challenges based upon incorrect at-large allocations from some conventions, specifically SD-26...and potential issues with SD-13. Should even the SD-26 case be resolved prior to the state convention, and assuming the outstanding 6% of delegates don't break out uncharacteristically to any candidate, according to the math Obama does indeed stand to garner a projected 38-29 delegate win from the caucus portion."

Posted by: johnlumea | April 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

chadibuns- McCain has been a consistent pro-lifer. He hasn't held this issue as all-important, like some social conservatives, and that, frankly appeals to me as a voter. I don't really consider it that important to overturn Roe v Wade except that it is very poorly written law; I am actually pro-choice myself.

But I'm not a single issue voter - I do agree, however, with the majority of Americans that partial-birth abortion is a morally and ethically repugnant practice that needed to be banned, especially considering the advancements made in recent years regarding the viability of very premature infants.

I think Obama is therefore and abortion extremist and his views are way outside the mainstream of what most Americans feel is reasonable.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Re: FairlingtonBlade | April 2, 2008 11:05 AM
You say: Hillary DID win the Texas primary. The Obama campaign continues to emphasize the total number of votes received in addition to delegates. In that context, a primary win is a win is a win.

I say: first of all, thanks for a balanced post. I don't think you're being biased at all, and am also tired of reading the bashing such posting litanies of grievenced having nothing to do with the WaPo article.

Responding to your point: Yes, Hillary won the Texas primary by just over 100,000 votes. But, don't forget Obama won the TX million person caucus by over 10%. I don't think it's clear at all who got more of the popular vote from Texas (unless we ignore caucuses).

Posted by: mrmatttt | April 2, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Clinton needs to win PA by about 10% to make it really valuable. She is way ahead at this point in Indiana, KY, and WV with a good chance of winning PR.

Obama needs to try to cut into Clinton's lead with women, catholics and white voters to make a difference. If he can then he has the right to claim that he can appeal to a broad base. If he can't then he will be trouble in November. Those are the voters that will make the difference.

The problem for Obama is that he is now being perceived in many places as the Black candidate. He did that to himself in many ways to win the SC primary and the Mississippi primary, but because this nation is still so racist it will hurt him in November. As many African American candidates have found out you need to have a secure lead in the polls- 5-6% to actually win because people lie to pollsters when it comes to race.

Obama now has another reverend problem and that is Rev. Meeks. He is listed as a main advisor to Obama on his webpage and Obama has done bible study with him etc. He calls him a mentor and Meeks is an Obama delegate from Chicago. Meeks is identified as one of the ten most anti-gay Black ministers in the Nation by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He is rabidly antigay as the following article confirms.

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=66&id=18614

The issue for Obama with these Pastors is not that he actually believes what they say, but that he will owe them if he wins and that is a problem in his judgement.

Posted by: peterdc | April 2, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

so Proud-if you were supporting McCain back in 2000--you were supporting him when he was much more "pro-choice" than now?

Posted by: chadibuins | April 2, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I am glad CC is pointing out that a "win" doesn't mean what it used to.

I know the Dem proportional delegation is getting alot of flack this time round--but I still think it is better and more democratic. Yes there are issues that have been brought to light that need to be worked on--but "winner takes all" is not appropriate in this day and age of mass and internet communications.

I think that people are easily forgetting how far ahead Clinton was in the polls and superdelegates just a few months ago--therefore it is easy for her to paint Ohio (and in the case of the popular vote--Texas) as big wins for her--but like PA she was over 20 points ahead and he has eaten and eaten away at her lead everytime. Even now, even after Wright, even after the "extra vetting" he is still eating away at her lead. Her argument that "I won big states" does not take into account how closely Obama lost in those same big states. Big states are not the sole property of Clinton and Obama has been more competitive in big states than she has been in the mountain West or Af-Am dominated South.

Posted by: chadibuins | April 2, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

I hate to be one of those placing blame on the media, but as a regular consumer of news (and Fix fan), I've been really upset by the media's portrayal of the Texas results.

Going in to TX/Ohio Tuesday there was a thoughtful discussion on TV about how the results should be covered and what would be defined as a win b/c the primary portion did not determine all the delegates (i.e. determine who won). And then, as soon as results showed someone winning something (Hillary winning the popular vote) Texas was called for Hillary. While there have been some notes in the news about the prima-caucus and what it means, because Hillary narrowly won the primary portion of the Texas prima-caucus the media awarded her the victory. Perception often becomes reality. Most mentions in the news casually say that she won Texas without giving more explanation of the situation. This does a disservice to readers who turn to the media for information about what is happening in the world and don't have time to independently learn about something arcane like the Texas Democratic Party delegate selection process.

Because this is party process, not a general election campaign, the winner of Texas is the one with the most delegates (not popular votes). The winner of Texas has yet to be determined. I think it would have been more responsible to say that the race for delegates is too close to call until the final tallies are in at the state convention. The media could have also reported Hillary's lead in Texas but note that (until the caucus results are certified) based on part 1 of the process and to discuss the now more clear results of the caucuses/county conventions.

Posted by: sjl | April 2, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Clinton narrowly won the popular vote in TX
Obama won the majority of delagates.

Clinton won the popular vote in OH
Clinton won the majority of delagates thou it was count was much closer than the popular vote would imply.

Now does Clinton win TX at all or OH by such a large margin if it wasn't for Rush's and other neo-cons call for Republicans to vote for Hillary? The estimate is that over 100k switched that day to vote in the Democratic primary in TX alone, and these are not same Republicans that have been voting for Obama. Or will be voting for either Democratic candidate in the general.

Just saying...

Posted by: rhinohide | April 2, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"If I'm not mistaken, McCain wasn't your first choice either. Perhaps you can relate to Sen Casey's dilemma as a result."

You are mistaken, bsimon. McCain has been my first choice since election 2000, in fact. I kept sending contributions even when the pundits called for him to quit. No, no, there'll be no realting to Casey's 'dilemma' here.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 2, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's campaign completely failed to understand the Texas system, and thus ceded Texas to Obama. This is how Obama is coming away the true winner from Texas. She may have edged him out (barely) in the primary but her folks on the ground didn't press on to seal the deal in the caucuses.

They just failed. Get it? FAILED.

And so Obama keeps edging her out in pledged delegates.

Is this the rank incompetence you want in the White House? I certainly don't.

Posted by: Charlene-K | April 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Strangely enough, an anomaly poll from PPP came out today that has Obama up +2 in Pennsylvania.

Whether this is "accurate" or not is irrelevant - it shows that even if it's off by its maximum error margin, it is still becoming a much closer race than pundits and polls have let on in the past few weeks. It also confirms what we've seen in nearly every other state - when Obama gains exposure, he gains popularity, while Clinton has somewhat the opposite effect.

It also shows that our small-dollar fundraising is beating out the PAC and lobbyist donations Hillary is receiving. Time to go donate $15 more.

Posted by: thecrisis | April 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

YesWeCanForFree-
Your analysis, while amusing, suffers a fatal flaw. Your premised is based on the delusional assumption that each candidate will carry or lose states in the general election based on their performance in primary. It is irrational, for instance, to argue that Sen Clinton would not win Illinois in the general, just like it is irrational to argue that Obama would not win NY.

Sadly, there seem to be quite a few people who fall for this kind of nonsense.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Who is really better candidate clearly depends upon who can win 270 out of 538 electoral votes needed in the general election. Let do the math. Since FL & MI are not counted (although Clinton won both states with 44 electoral votes), revised electoral votes needed-to-win in this example would be 247 out of 494 electoral votes in the general election.

Obama won (probable win also included) the following states with 241 electoral votes:

AL, AK, CO, CT, DL, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN (toss-up), IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MN, MS, MI, MO, NB, NC, ND, OR, SC, SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI, WY.

Clinton won (probable win also included) the following states with 253 electoral votes:

AZ, AR, CA, KY, MA, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, WV.

Senator Clinton has earned more Electoral College votes than Obama. So, no doubt Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator McCain in the general election.

If nominee is other than Senator Clinton, there is no need to wonder why once again democrats have lost 8 out of 10 presidential elections lased 44 years. Democrats are guilty of picking wrong horse every four years.

Pick Obama and join LOSERS CLUB members with Humphrey (1968), McGovern (72), Carter (80), Mondale (84), Dukakis (88), Gore (00) Kerry (04) and Obama (08).

Pick Clinton and join EXCLUSIVE WINNERS CLUB members with Carter (76), Clinton (92-96) and Clinton (08-12).

Clinton wins!

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic Primary has devolved down to a battle between Howard Dean and his Brother Jim againts Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

At stake is the future of the Party.

Democrats last won the White House under Bill Clinton who ran from the center as a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC). As a Centrist, Clinton was at odds with the Congressional Democratic Party which is more to the Left of Center than either Clinton.

Liberals, such as Howard Dean have a great deal of resentment against the DLC. Dean ran in 2004 as a representative of the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party".

Dean's abortive presidential campaign of 2004 showed that a candidate could separate himself from the big donor network and raise money on the internet in sufficient amounts to be competitive with a big structure, institutional candidate.

Dean did not become the Chairman of the Democratic Party out of the goodness of his heart. He has an agenda to take the Party away from the DLC appratus and move the party back out to the Left. To do that, the power of the Clinton's and the loyalties that they have attracted must all first be broken so that something new can come to its place.

Plumb prizes like John Lewis and Bill Richardson coming to Obama from Clinton are indicative.

Jim Dean, the Chairman's brother and head of an organization called "Democracy for America" (DFA)has been the most active, along with MoveOn.org in organizing the caucus victories that Obama has run up.

A sympathetic media plays up Obama wins in North Dakota, or Mississippi or Alaska as on par with Clinton wins in California, Ohio and New York.

The MSM has bought into the idea that a double digit loss in Ohio that Obama suffered on March 4 was "blunted" by Obama's win a week later in Mississippi.

Look at the polls in Mississippi now. Obama loses to McCain by margins approaching 60-30. The same will be true in many of the caucus states that Obama has won, the number of which is used to argue for Obama's nomination when compared to Clinton's big state wins.

There is a game being played and a dirty game at that.

The Corporatists who have been running the United States Government under the name of the Bush Administration are looking for another 4 years to consolidate their hold on the government.

McCain was picked in 2000 and told to wait his turn. He became a lap dog and an apologist for Bush in 2000 and again in 2004, the good soldier waiting his turn. Now that his turn has come, the appratus that brought us Bush is now bringing us McCain.

Problem is to get him elected. The biggest obstacle is Clinton. Republicans never figured Clinton out. Never could beat him. Their best chance was to beat Clinton before she got the nomination through the Democratic nomination process. The best vehicle of course was Obama. He has played his role well. Clintons without their African-American Constituency base are small enough to be "drowned in the bathtub" to borrow a Gingrich phrase used to describe what he wants to do to Social Security.

Once Obama finishes off Clinton, McCain has an easier path to the White House against the Barak Obama/Jeremiah Wright ticket.

McCain does not fire up the evangelicals, but the idea of Obama and his preacher occupying the White House incites such fear and loathing into the Republican base that they will turn out in large numbers to keep Obama as far from the White House as they can keep him.

Obama is working on hope and McCain, Inc. on fear. Unfortunately, as polls have shown, fear is a much greater motivator than hope.

So you all in the MSM who keep pushing Obama and his ridiculous claim to general election strength, I am just reminded constantly that you in the MSM also promoted the Iraq War of George Bush. You were wrong in 2003 and you are wrong again.

Posted by: pkmc83a | April 2, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Sen Casey has apparently decided to hitch his horse to the Obama bandwagon, principles be damned."

Perhaps Sen Casey realizes that there are qualities more important in a candidate than being 100% in agreement on policy.

If I'm not mistaken, McCain wasn't your first choice either. Perhaps you can relate to Sen Casey's dilemma as a result.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

PPP PA Poll: Obama +2 (down 25 two weeks ago)
Quinnipac poll: Clinton +9 (-11)
SUSA: Clinton +12 (-7)
Rasmussen: Clinton +5 (-5)

You see a trend, folks are moving faster and faster away from Clinton.
A single digit win for Clinton is still a loss. At the right Obama is going he will over take Hillary the week before the primary.

Posted by: sjxylib | April 2, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

gee, I hope Hillary wins some more states like she won Texas and Nevada.how did she win when she fell behind by 5 delegates in Texas and 2 in Nevada. Isn't the first one to 2025 the winner?

Posted by: majorteddy | April 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

According to CNN Clinton is 171 pledged delegates down. There are 566 pledged delegates left. She needs to win big where there are delegates.

PA awards 28% of the remaining delegates. To not lose ground Clinton needs to make up 28% of her delegate deficit in PA. That means she needs to net a 48 delegate gain out of PA.

To do that she needs a 30 point victory.

More troubling for her is NC where 20% of the remain delegates are awarded. To not lose ground she needs a net delegate gain in NC of 35. That's unlikely to happen.

The clock is her enemy.

I outlined some of this with a google spreadsheet.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pHLqqCbSQUs38XWzQnjwacA&hl=en

Posted by: eriks | April 2, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

PART 1: First the facts.

Can we please properly describe the Texas results and quit calling this a Clinton win?

The short version is that Clinton did not win Texas because she did not come away with the most delegates.

Yet, it is being repeated over and over again that Clinton won Texas. This is mostly being stated by Clinton supporters, but it is also stated in this post here today.

The longer, correct answer is that Clinton won the Texas primary but lost the Texas caucus, and overall Obama took the most delegates.

PART 2: Now for my opinion on this matter.

Clinton's camp was taken by surprise the elaborate Texas rules, and in effect walked away the loser from this state because of a lack of preparation.

Indeed, Clinton's camp has been taken by surprise a number of times and has been ill-prepared in each instance. In effect, the campaign has been the second wealthiest in history and yet has made several errors (tactical, planning and financial). And sadly because of this, much of her positions occur after the fact and are unabashedly self-serving at the moment. For example, she is now against the caucus process. This was never mentioned prior to any of them, just after she lost most of them.

At some point isn't someone going to notice that the Clinton's poorly run campaign (in spite of all of its resources) is indicative of her ability to be President? What more explicit, clear proof do we have?

Posted by: jeremyheiken | April 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Is it about winning or is it about not losing? Or is it about winning or about winning vs. expectations. Will Hillary the champion of the working class play well elsewhere or in the GE? Don't all three candidates need to articulate a vision for getting through the coming economic tsunami.
I feel like all the campaigns are floating somewhere above the reality that most voters are now experiencing - promising jobs lost forever will come back or that victory in Iraq is just around the corner, just wont cut it. From sub-prime mortgages to a sub-prime economy hardly takes much of a leap of the imagination. We need more than just a leap of faith with any of the 3 candidates

Posted by: nclwtk | April 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama has endorsed the morally and ethically repellant practice of partial birth abortion, yet somehow still garnered the support of a purported pro-lifer, Sen Casey. One has to wonder how strongly held are the principles of a man who would voice support for an abortion extremist.

From today's WaPo:
"Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban.

In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


Sen Casey has apparently decided to hitch his horse to the Obama bandwagon, principles be damned.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is clearly the favorite to win Pennslyvania on April 22nd. Hillary has the backing of most of the popular and influential Democrats in the state, which means access to their local political machines.

Hillary has led Obama in Pennslyvania polling by 20pts or more since early 2007. If Obama loses to Hillary by less than 10pts, but shows that he has captured some of her white working-class base, Hillary's win will look more like a draw in the eyes of superdelegates.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | April 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama won Texas.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Is it the aggregate margin of victory that's important, or will the superdelegates be looking more at the demographic breakouts?

Though generally, even that kind of analysis is short-sighted, isn't it? Whomever ends up as the Dem nominee, won't they be relying on the others' supporters in the general election? To argue that blue-collar white males (for instance) are expressing a general election preference with their primary election vote is presumptuous, isn't it? At least as far as assuming if they vote for one Dem in the primary, they'll vote for McCain if the other Dem is nominated? Seems fallacious, or fanciful, at best.

Posted by: bsimon | April 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Hillary DID win the Texas primary. The Obama campaign continues to emphasize the total number of votes received in addition to delegates. In that context, a primary win is a win is a win.

Incidentally, whining that the Post writer is biased for against a particular candidate is tiresome. If you want YOUR news YOUR way, go to the candidates' site and leave us alone.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | April 2, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Here's a link to see
Obama's Top 5 Campaign 'Exaggerations'

http://www.townhall.com/video/TheFivewithAmandaCarpenter/1450_033108Five


Looks like Obama has been stretching the truth, just like Hillary, maybe even more.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 2, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Didn't Obama win more delegates in Texas that Hillary. Just saying...

Posted by: shann23 | April 2, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Clinton DIDN'T win Texas. Look at the delegate count there. Among the insightful ones, so many of the comments people post are ignorant, nauseating, racist and sexist. So can't we at least keep the facts straight?

Chris, your Clinton bias continues to show. Are you CUA buddies with CUA boy and Clinton fundraiser "Macker" McAuliffe or something?

Posted by: ghostmoves | April 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Hillary Hillary. Hillary Hillary Hillary. Hillary Hillary Hillary. Hillary Hillary Hillary. Hillary Hillary Hillary.

Must be a slow news week.

Posted by: novamatt | April 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company