Pennsylvania, at last
-
The endless Democratic primary race finally has another round. Hillary Clinton is expected to win -- but how well does she have to win to stay in the race? Post your links, updates and comments here.
30 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
At this state it looks like she'll win by about 8%, stay in the race and leave the nomination in limbo for another couple of months.
-
Anything over 50%. Voter registation and turn out in PA is at record levels - 300,000 new registrations since the beginning of the year. The last time PA had any say in the nomination process was back when Carter was running.
Info on those new registrations goes into a - by now - massive database with a great deal of data that will be of use to whoever is campaigning in Nov.
-
I'm following the NY Times reporting -
front page and
and liveblog.Until Montgomery County reports (after 10pm ET), any call is premature. But the networks like to call things early...
-
CNN currently has a 6% gap, which if it holds will mean she'll get... 9 delegates closer? 10?
Enough for her and her to supporters to justify keeping on, but I don't think the maths has changed.
-
Enough for her and her to supporters to justify keeping on, but I don't think the maths has changed.
I think her campaign strategy is to stay in the race until some Aryan Nation member blows Obama's head off.
-
stay in the race until some Aryan Nation member blows
Does Mrs Obama get to stand in his place?
-
...but I don't think the maths has changed.
depends a bit on how the maths is done and how that's interpreted.
As of this moment Clinton ahead in the popular vote when it comes to the total of Democrat voters that have turned out to vote (that's including the votes in Florida and Michigan).
At present there's a bit of a fight going on over whether or not the Florida and Michigan votes will count - but if one's looking at who people are voting for it's still an important consideration.
-
depends a bit on how the maths is done and how that's interpreted.
As of this moment Clinton ahead in the popular vote
Well, given that delegates choose the candidate, not the popular vote, you're using some strange maths there. The maths relates to the delegates, and the only ones of them that are up in the air are those where primaries/caucuses have yet to be held, and some of the undecided/swinging superdelegates.
-
The maths relates to the delegates...
yes, but as you go on to say there's still the undecided superdelegates and the popular vote could influence them. So the maths is still open.
And in terms of the legitimacy of her continuing the campaign the fact that she has more votes than him is a strong argument.
-
Neil, where are these "more votes"?
NYT says "she still trails Mr. Obama in the popular vote and the delegate count".
-
...where are these "more votes"?
That's what I mean about it all depends on how the maths is done. If Florida and Michigan are included then she's got the lead (not likely to last long). Real Clear have it under Popular Vote (w/FL & MI).
That's not an uncontoversial way of looking at the votes as many will argue that those states should not be counted but it's an argument that might sway some supers. Those votes may not get counted now but they will be voting in Nov.
I've seen a few more pieces putting forward the argument that the drawn out campain is beneficial -
It's like mini-tornadoes...Think about how the primary process changes each state as it moves through. Pennsylvania is now altered politically because all of this happened. Bucks County started this process Republican, it's now considered a Democratic county. Montgomery County, Philadelphia suburb, ditto, went from majority Republican registration to majority Democrat because of these new voters. In that way this has kind of changed the political landscape.
-
I've seen a few more pieces putting forward the argument that the drawn out campain is beneficial -
Perhaps, Neil. But I fail to see the benefit for anyone if Obama wins the nomination, and McCain's spin things have a PVR full of tasty Clinton quotes to fill their attack ads. You've also got to wonder if these new registration -- who overwhelmingly broke for Obama in Pennsylvania if the exit polls are accurate -- are going to be particularly inspired to pull the lever for someone whose proxies have been quite happy to slam them as gullible elitists who've fallen for an empty suit who's all mouth and no substance.
-
Meanwhile, it looks like John McCain is tilling the South Carolina GOP to pull their heads in and not run a gross anti-Obama ad ahead of the N.C. primary:
In an attempt to lay down a marker on racially-motivated tactics, McCain's campaign sends word that the candidate himself sent a strongly-worded email to North Carolina GOP chair Linda Daves regarding their anti-Obama ad:
Dear Chairman Daves,
From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement.
This ad does not live up to the very high standards we should hold ourselves to in this campaign. We need to run a campaign that is worthy of the people we seek to serve. There is no doubt that we will draw sharp contrasts with the Democrats on fundamental issues critical to the future course of our country. But we need not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people.
Once again, it is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement.
John McCain
Has Senator Clinton done the same? And will the N.C. GOP take a blind bit of difference, or is race-baiting too useful a fundraising tactic.
-
Has Senator Clinton done the same?
Has Obama stopped beating his wife? Honestly Craig I've tried to keep my comments snark free and am tired of your line of argument by innuendo. I find it unpleasant.
-
I've seen a few more pieces putting forward the argument that the drawn out campain is beneficial -
I agree. They are getting media attention for their positive aspects as well as their negative ones. The campaign is robust and sometimes petty but in general that debates and speeches I have seen or read have great. Can you imagine Key and Clark doing a dozen two hour head to head debates over the next few months? It's good for democracy.
Neil, you have only just discovered "Craig's rule of equivalence"?
-
Has Obama stopped beating his wife? Honestly Craig I've tried to keep my comments snark free and am tired of your line of argument by innuendo. I find it unpleasant.
Neil:
Oh, diddums. I'd ask the same question of Obama if the N.C. GOP was outed as planning to run a grotesquely sexist attack ad against Clinton ahead of the Democratic primary.
What I find "remarkably unpleasant" is gutter campaigning, and good to see that McCain is showing some hint of a spine and calling out the Rove wing of his own party on their bullshit.
-
Neil, you have only just discovered "Craig's rule of equivalence"?
Yes, Don, I do have a law of equivalence for the campaign trail: Nobody gets to be a douche bag, and everyone is responsible for enforcing some basic standards. Race-baiting or sexism isn't part of a robust campaign, and I've sure got to wonder why the N.C. GOP is running ads ahead of the Democratic primary at all. McCain seems to get it, though he's not exactly lilly-white on that score himself and I'd like to see some scrutiny turned on his rather lightweight domestic and economic policies.
And as I said above, I'd expect Obama to be prompt, vocal and unequivocal in his condemnation if the N.C. GOP was running an offensively sexist attack ad against Clinton.
-
That's what I mean about it all depends on how the maths is done. If Florida and Michigan are included then she's got the lead (not likely to last long). Real Clear have it under Popular Vote (w/FL & MI).
That's not an uncontoversial way of looking at the votes as many will argue that those states should not be counted but it's an argument that might sway some supers. Those votes may not get counted now but they will be voting in Nov.
So if you overturn the rules, ignore the delegate count, and count votes from two banned primaries where Obama didn't even campaign, the supers could declare Hillary the winner? That'll go down well ...
-
Has Senator Clinton done the same? And will the N.C. GOP take a blind bit of difference, or is race-baiting too useful a fundraising tactic.
I'm not sure why Clinton should have to ask the Republican Party to not run a particular advert. In fact, it would just seem bizarre to have any leading democrat getting involved in what is essentially an internal Republican issue.
It'd be interesting to find out if McCain actually expects the advert to be pulled, or if he's just publicly distancing himself from it, then when the advert runs the opposition get tagged with it, and he can tut tut and come in and heal the wounds by saying sorry and getting the state chair fired. Double win.
So if you overturn the rules, ignore the delegate count, and count votes from two banned primaries where Obama didn't even campaign, the supers could declare Hillary the winner?
One where he didn't campaign. The other he didn't campaign, and wasn't even on the ballot. There's no way they can include that one, the party will tear itself to shreds.
-
I said it right from the beginning, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton got the nom - somehow.
Why would she be sticking around if she didn't geniunely believe she could get it?
Having said that, Ralph Nader may end up with a much higher vote count if she does get it. It'd be really good for Democratic morale if the supers said "well f*ck your popular vote, and f*ck your delegate count, you proles know nothing...we're going with Hillary."
-
I'm not sure why Clinton should have to ask the Republican Party to not run a particular advert.
Because, to be blunt, she's the only one who benefits from it. And she doesn't have to 'ask' the N.C. GOP to do a damn thing, just issue a statement along the lines of "We don't need your Rove-ian bullshit in our primaries, thanks."
It'd be interesting to find out if McCain actually expects the advert to be pulled, or if he's just publicly distancing himself from it, then when the advert runs the opposition get tagged with it, and he can tut tut and come in and heal the wounds by saying sorry and getting the state chair fired. Double win.
Fair question, but I find it encouraging that the McCain campaign would even consider it necessary or desirable to "publicly distance himself" from it. I don't think you'd see this if Rove was in charge of the campaign strategy.
Seriously, I think McCain genuinely doesn't want this ad to run because he knows it might hurt Obama in a single primary, but every iteration of this kind of crap is going to turn off moderate Republicans and swing voters. In short, he can count -- and knows thathe can't win the general from the theo-con hard right. And sorry to write another reality check, but I can't see any plausible scenario where a McCain Administration wouldn't have to work with a solidly Democratic Congress if it wanted to achieve... well, anything.
And here's one hardball question I'd like to see Obama ask Clinton at the next debate: "The ugliest elements of the far-right Republican Attack Machine -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and so on -- are smearing me, and endorsing you. I've got a thick ring-binder full of clippings, transcripts and rips off my PVR to prove it. What's up with that, Hill-dog?"
-
Because, to be blunt, she's the only one who benefits from it. And she doesn't have to 'ask' the N.C. GOP to do a damn thing, just issue a statement along the lines of "We don't need your Rove-ian bullshit in our primaries, thanks."
At which point I'd presume the Republicans to tell her to bugger off and stop telling them what to do with their own adverts.
Yes hopefully McCain would actually be forthright and really not want the advert. I am however cynical about American politics in general. If there's a trough to be rooting in, it seems that the American political system has no shortage of pigs on either side.
-
So if you overturn the rules, ignore the delegate count, and count votes from two banned primaries where Obama didn't even campaign, the supers could declare Hillary the winner? That'll go down well ...
It's not a matter of overturning rules - the states invloved have the right to appeal their punishment. And the DNC already broke the rules by making the punishment the not seating of 100% of the delegates when the actual punishment was supposed to be 50%.
Neither Obama nor Clinton campaigned in these 2 states, but their supporters did - why do think so many people turned out to vote.
But that's not the argument - at this moment (unlikely to last past the next primary) it's Clinton who has got more Dems out to vote for her. That's not something any super can disregard.
That's what the supers are there for - to consider such issues as electability. I suspect that if they have to make the decision then on balance they'll decide for Obama but that doesn't mean there isn't a case for Clinton. I'm just presenting it and I'd prefer to stay away from the That'll go down well snarkery.
diddums
And my reply - WILL DISAPPOINTED DEMS VOTE FOR MCCAIN?
-
But that's not the argument - at this moment (unlikely to last past the next primary) it's Clinton who has got more Dems out to vote for her. That's not something any super can disregard.
That's only the case if you include not only Florida but also Michigan where, get this, not one single lonely dem voted for Obama, as he wasn't on the ballot.
Do you really think that any Super Delegate should consider being swayed by the idea that 40%+ of democrats in Michigan voting against Clinton really means that Obama has 0.0% support there?
That's not an idea Supers can't disregard, it's an idea they have to disregard.
-
And my reply - WILL DISAPPOINTED DEMS VOTE FOR MCCAIN?
Perhaps -- just as we might see Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh put up and hit the campaign trail for Clinton if she wins the nomination, as opposed to that skeezy RINO anti-Christ McCain. Who knows?
Here's another reality check, Neil: A party registration places nobody under any legal or moral obligation to vote for that party's eventual presidential nominee. I have an American friend who is still a registered Republican, but hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988 and is a bit of a slut when it comes to voting down-ticket. He actually lives in Pennsylvania, and has a very clear conscience about supporting Arlen Specter, and voting against Rick Santorum ever chance he got. It only took sixteen years to get him out of Congress. :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.