Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Missed this earlier. A poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Vocero/Univision from May 8-May 20 (prior to the candidates' Memorial Day weekend visits to Puerto Rico) shows Clinton leading Barack Obama in advance of Sunday's primary there. According to Pollster, her lead is 13% among adults, but that rises to 19% among the most likely voters:

n=800 adults
Clinton 51
Obama 38

n= ~300 likely voters
Clinton 59
Obama 40

An article I cited last weekend stated pretty emphatically that apathy had set in among the electorate due to the general sense that their vote actually wouldn't matter. This poll would seem to contradict that. From el cito's diary from earlier today:

50% of the electorate says it will not participate in the primary.

To the question of how important is the role of Puerto Rico in deciding the democratic presidential candidate, 46% very important, 26% somewhat important, 13% of little importance and 14% not important at all.

Out of 2.3 million voters in the territory, half would put turnout at up over 1 million voters, which was seen as the high end of estimates to begin with. And if 72% of Puerto Rico's voters really do see their role on Sunday as very or somewhat important, apathy doesn't seem to be a problem (a 13% win on Sunday with 1 million turnout would net Hillary a solid 130,000 votes.)

On a somewhat related note, Puerto Rico hometown hero Ricky Martin endorsed Hillary Clinton today.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, Puerto Rico Primary (all tags)

Comments

88 Comments

Obama Hightalied It

Obama hightailed it out of there over the weekend, while Clinton stuck around for a few days.

Now we know why!

Maybe his new Spanish-language commercial will swing the results a couple points in his direction.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-28 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

He will be back there this weekend.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-28 06:17PM | 0 recs
Michigan Looks Like McCain Country!
Wednesday, May 28
Race    Poll    Results    Spread
Michigan: McCain vs. Obama    SurveyUSA    McCain 41, Obama 37    McCain +4.0
by minnehot1 2008-05-28 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Looks Like McCain Country!

Mccain is not getting 30% of the black vote in Michigan. Let's get that cleared up right now. When you readjust that Obama is ahead by a few points.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-28 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Looks Like McCain Country!

5 months to change that

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan Looks Like McCain Country!

I agree that this poll is bogus.  There will be at the most maybe 5% of AAs will vote for McBush in Michigan if that much.  This poll is laughable.  I believe that Obama will crush McBush in Michigan and Wisconsin.

by Spanky 2008-05-29 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

His visit was quick because he's campaigning for the general election. PR, as you may remember, does not have electoral votes.

by PantherDem 2008-05-28 06:19PM | 0 recs
Looking gift horses in the mouth

When Hillary and her people attack Obama for not spending a lot of time in "her" states, do they really want him to campaign and drop millions of dollars on them in order to cut her leads or win, and force her to loan her campaign even more money while going even deeper in debt?

They're ingrates, I tell ya. But fortunately Obama doesn't feel the need to take them seriously any more so neither should anyone else.

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-28 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking gift horses in the mouth

so you are saying you represent BHO?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 07:16PM | 0 recs
Does anyone have a serious question?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-28 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

Yup, let him campaign for the General Election as much as he wants.  Let him leave states prematurely when he feels it ain't worth it, let him make speeches for the cameras as though he is the nominee.

There's just ONE small detail, though...

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

Because she doesn't want to go to Montana or South Dakota?

(Sorry if that was sexist.)

by Bush Bites 2008-05-29 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

Not sexist, just uninformed.  To her credit, Hillary has been making all-out efforts in both those states.

But PR may have 1-1.2 million voter turnout.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

Obama has to begin working on his general election campaign. Clinton does not.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Hightalied It

Obama's got to work on getting nominated.  He has won nothing yet.

But I agree:  Let him run the campaign the way he sees fit.

I will LOVE it when Hillary wins, and the recriminations and the blaming and the suicide watches begin.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 08:58AM | 0 recs
she bangs!

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-28 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: she bangs!

lol

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-28 06:11PM | 0 recs
American Idle - correct spelling

She does.

But it sounds like the William Hung cover, not the Ricky Martin original.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-28 07:20PM | 0 recs
idle

is correct

by sepulvedaj3 2008-06-03 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Now does PR go to Sen. Clinton's electability and popular vote argument since they don't have a vote in the fall?

by mefeck 2008-05-28 06:09PM | 0 recs
yes

it will show her strength in the hispanic population.

NV, NM, FL.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-28 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's See - -

Obama won California - - nope.
But he won Arizona - - nope again.
How about New Mexico - - no, amigo.
¿Y Texas? - - no, también.
Florida - - nada.

¡Qué lástima!
Pobresito Obama.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-28 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's See - -

If you knew anything about these states, you would realize that "Hispanic" means very different things in CA, NM, and FL

by guazatragicness 2008-05-28 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's See - -

actually  Obama got more delegates in Texas. Delegates determine the nominee not votes. Clinton is just embarrassing herself, she should lose with some dignity and accept the fact she will never be president instead of trying to hand it to McCain.

by JOEL1954 2008-05-29 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's See - -

Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself first?

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: yes

What is the relevance of the Puerto Rican vote to how hispanics from Mexico and Latin America will vote?  I hope you're not suggesting that all Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, and Latin Americans think alike because they all come from Spanish speaking nations or territories.

FYI, 80% of the Puerto Rican population is white.    

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-28 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: yes

The relevance is that Latinos and Hispanics share more, including languagae and the way they are treated as homogeneous in White America, than the nationalities which separate them.

Latinos TREND Democrat.  That doesn't mean that they always VOTE Democrat.  The GOP claimed 44% voted for them in 2004.

But they are the largest minority when taken together, and a candidate's strength or weakness with them must be part of any selection decision.

You guys would be chanting a different anthem if Obama was strong with Hispanics, wouldn't you?

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: yes

thats exactly what I was saying! DUH!

You know, me being puerto rican and all, i know all hispanics are the same.

Are you really saying that i was insinuating that? get real.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-06-03 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: yes

You do know that the hispanic population is not homogenous?

I speak Spanish, and I have a lot of personal experience with various hispanic groups.

They don't all like one another, and they don't all think alike.  There are sharp cleavages between some of the nationalities.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-28 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: yes

duhh - i am puerto rican - i think i know a thing or two about the diversity within the hispanic population.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-06-03 07:27PM | 0 recs
if these numbers hold

look for another 200K or so to come in the pop vote lead.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-05-28 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

which given the wide variety of of non-standard contests in the Primary is a corrupted metric in a close election.

by notedgeways 2008-05-28 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

The will of the people is corrupt!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-28 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

No, the method of determining such is what is corrupt (as in, "containg error", in case you are intentionally misreading what I am saying).

How exactly do you reconcile everything that has happened? Clinton violating her pledge on MI, FL and MI allowing people to vote in a primary that was ruled in violation of the rules as agreed to by the candidates, caucus states vs open primary, vs closed primary, disingenuous voters, a territory that can't vote in the GE having a greater say then half the States. The sheer number of variables in these situations makes the notion of popular vote as a reliable, verifiable metric is near absurd. Especially in a close contest.

So, no. I am sorry. For the Popular vote to carry significant weight the contest needs to be re-structured. Which means State level parties would need to work together, or the DNC would need to fund and run the contests in of itself. The inability to do so is one of the reasons we have our current system, it is an amalgam of 50 states and a handful of other contests. Delegates are the way the party seeks to aggregate the different contests. Accurate popular vote in this context is not wholly verifiable or reliable, so in a close contest it is untenable to rely on it.

by notedgeways 2008-05-28 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

REALLY??

Despite the fact that all kinds of arm twisting and corruption goes on in the caucuses, and from then to country and state convention when the delegates get chosen for Caucuses.  When the pledged delegates don't have much correlation with the popular vote in the state (see Texas for illustration on many of these points).  

But the simple act of voting and getting that counted displeases you?

by ghost 2 2008-05-28 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

I've gone to lots of caucuses and there was never arm twisting and corruption.  In fact, I bet there's more of a history of corruption in primaries, with street money and political machines getting folks incentivized to vote.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-29 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

The pledge arguments have been thoroughly debunked all over this site.

Please stop citing propaganda.  

by BPK80 2008-05-28 10:42PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

Bullshit. Those supposed "debunks" all depend on the concept that the word 'participate' somehow has a different meaning than what most of us know it to mean.

Hillary Clinton violated her pledge not to participate in Michigan, PERIOD. She violated it in letter when she intentionally kept her name on the ballot, and she violated in in spirit when she started arguing for the votes to count.

So Hillary lied and broke her pledge.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-29 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

That's not the prime reason it's debunked.

1.  It was nonbinding, only ceremonial, and has no enforcement mechanism.

2.  It didn't explicity direct anyone to remove their names from a ballot.  If that were required, it would have been stated (duh) and people leaving their names on the ballot would have been publicly admonished by the DNC (duh).

3.  Obama breached the pledge (and the Delegate Selection Rules) the day after he agreed to it by "campaigning" in Tampa, Florida.  The rules specifically list "news conferences" in its illustrative examples of "campaigning."  (Rule 20.C.1.b)

So that's the DL on the pledge.  It was legally meaningless, didn't even cover removal of names from the ballot, and it was breached by Obama the very next day after it was signed.

by BPK80 2008-05-29 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

1. What's a binding vs a non-binding pledge? A pledge is an OATH. A non-binding oath is a contradiction in terms.

  1. It directed them not to participate.
  2. Obama isn't the one who's demanding the legitimization of the Florida and Michigan votes.

I really have to wonder -- what do you think the point of this pledge was? What did the four states intend with it?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-29 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

"Participate" isn't a substitute for "remove your name from the ballot."  A request that specific would have been spelled out and Hillary would have been admonished or directed to remove her name from the ballot if that were the intent.  It wasn't.  No one was required to do so.

Anyone who removed their name from the ballot did so voluntarily.  It was required by no rule or pledge.  

The pledge has no current effect on the decision to seat Michigan or Florida, so I have no idea why you continue to resurrect a long deceased irrelevant meme.  

by BPK80 2008-05-29 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

"Participate" isn't a substitute for "remove your name from the ballot."  

How does one participate if not by having their names on the ballot? If the word doesn't mean that, then what does it mean?

"The pledge has no current effect on the decision to seat Michigan or Florida,"

According to you the pledge doesn't have an effect on anything whatsoever, so I wonder what you think its purpose was meant to be.

"so I have no idea why you continue to resurrect a long deceased irrelevant meme."

To illustrate the deceiving, oathbreaking and untrustworthy ways of Hillary Clinton.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-29 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

"How does one participate if not by having their names on the ballot? If the word doesn't mean that, then what does it mean?"

Participate connotes taking some affirmative act with respect to the election.  Are you trying to construe the pledge as a prohibition of doing exactly nothing?  That's what Hillary did re: Michigan.

Seriously, you can't even address the more obvious argument, that being that if Hillary was intended to remove her name from the ballot, the DNC would have clarified any earlier ambiguity in the pledge and directed her to remove her name.  Or they would have admonished her (and the other candidates) for staying on.  

"According to you the pledge doesn't have an effect on anything whatsoever, so I wonder what you think its purpose was meant to be."

You don't know what the purpose of the pledge was?  I'll help you out.  It was designed to affirm the frontrunner integrity of four states' elections.  That's why it's called the "Four State Pledge."  You may have noticed that those four states have already voted.

"To illustrate the deceiving, oathbreaking and untrustworthy ways of Hillary Clinton."

When you have to rely on a totally contrary-to-fact reading of an obsolete pledge that Barack Obama preached to prove that Hillary Clinton is "deceiving," you know you're analysis is results-oriented.  

by BPK80 2008-05-29 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: if these numbers hold

Cliton violated nothing, least of all any "pledge".

Pure Obamabot propaganda.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:06AM | 0 recs
No matter how many votes she gets,

it won't make a difference if she doesn't pick up delegates.

by Firewall 2008-05-28 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

That settles it!

If Ricky Martin is for Clinton,
then so am I.

Livin' la vida loca!

by johnnygunn 2008-05-28 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Hey, didn't Ricky back BUSH in 2000?

by jdeeth 2008-05-28 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Played at Bush's inaugural, in fact.

Is it sexist to bring that up?

by Bush Bites 2008-05-29 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Yes, it's just further proof that Hillary Clinton is more likely to bring in former GOP and Independents in the General Election.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

whoopee

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-28 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

What you show indicates that a lower-turnout (with a higher margin) is almsot as good as a higher-turnout with a lower margin.

A 19-point margin with a turnout of 850,000 would be 160,000 net votes for Hillary.

A 13-point margin with a turnout of 1,500,000 would be 190,000 net votes for Hillary.

Let's hope for a 19-point margin with 1,500,00 votes! --> 285000 net votes

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-28 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

And this line of thinking is ultimately what angers me most about Sen. Clinton's ongoing campaign: She keeps on giving false hope to her most ardent supporters.

No one cares what happens in Puerto Rico on Sunday. Most importantly, the superdelegates don't care. No offense to the no doubt fine people of Puerto Rico, but they won't be voting in the fall.

Sen. Obama has a majority of pledged delegates, and sometime on June 3 or 4, he will reach the magic number. The delegates are what matter. The delegates are all that matters.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-05-29 03:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

I CARE what happens in PR on Sunday.

What do you have to offer me?

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:09AM | 0 recs
It doesnt matter, but...

that said Im still interested to see how the last three contests play out.

by pattonbt 2008-05-28 06:25PM | 0 recs
Like watching the final season of MASH

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-28 06:29PM | 0 recs
Como Se Dice "Big F*ckin' Deal"?

Ooooh, Ricky Martin!  Will the rest of Menudo be endorsing as well?    

by PD1769 2008-05-28 06:44PM | 0 recs
Dates of the poll

Todd,

The poll was conducted May 8th-20th before Obama started to campaign there. You should note this in the diary.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-28 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Dates of the poll

Two notes from a political science perspective:

12 days is a ridiculously long time frame.

300 is a ridiculously small sample. The Moe is between 5 and 6% at 95%.

by PantherDem 2008-05-28 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Dates of the poll

Exactly.

by sweet potato pie 2008-05-28 06:50PM | 0 recs
You should note this in the diary.

Would Karl Rove?

by Freespeechzone 2008-05-28 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

How many electoral votes does Puerto Rico have?  They have more delegates than many states why?  There are some very good reasons to consider making PR a state, but today, as part of the primary process, they are not so their relevance is artificially inflated by the process.

by surakmn 2008-05-28 07:14PM | 0 recs
think of it like

the "representative" DC gets, mostly ceremonial, as a courtesy from the DNC. all this denigration of them is self-defeating. lots of them have relatives here that CAN vote, so why try to piss off another demographic?

by zerosumgame 2008-05-28 07:43PM | 0 recs
Clinton winning Puerto Rico

is like scoring a touchdown when you're down 28 points with 2 minutes left in the fourth quarter.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-28 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton winning Puerto Rico

This is just the twisted, distorted Obam suporte's view.

They've swallowed the Axelrod Kool-Aid, and the numbers they shoot off have no relation to reality.

1.  It's not the 4th Quarter, it's the end of the 3rd.  The 4th quarter is in DENVER, baby.

2.  She is not down 4 touches, she is barely down a field goal.

3.  She is carrying the momentum:  The winner of 5 out of the last seven with HUGE blowouts in 2, a majority of the big states, a majority of the states with big Electoral votes, a majority of the crucial swing states, current poll numbers that favor her against McCain in November, a much WIDER coalition (including Hispanics and Latinos as PR will showcase), probably the leader in the popular vote after Tuesday, and the leader in primaries won in states that have primaries.

If you ask me, Obama shoulda stayed and tried to fight this one out..    

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Unfortunately for Clinton, Puerto Rico's excellent turnout causes problems for her "popular vote" rhetoric.  Should Puerto Rico, with zero electoral votes, have as much weight in the primary as four or five average states because the voters there get a holiday for voting?

by jere7my 2008-05-28 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

The popular vote is meaningless, but since Clinton supporters put so much into it let's examine it.

Obama currently wins in 4 of the 6 popular vote counts on RealClearPolitics. Since it's kind of unfair to give Hillary a 328,309 lead by virtue of Michigan let's toss it out. I will be generous and count a slightly less flawed election in Florida and then use estimations of the caucuses that didn't record presidential preference.

Obama is at +273,877. If Clinton can overcome this then she has an argument where she wins 4 of 6 popular vote counts. If she doesn't she will win 3 and Obama will win 3. Notice none of this changes the actual outcome but I am guessing it has a large bearing on whether Hillary tries to rip apart the convention.

by wengler 2008-05-28 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Go Puerto Rico!  Their electoral votes should offset all of the electoral Obama votes from Democrats Abroad in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

by Rick in Eugene 2008-05-28 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Democrats Abroad are US citizens that can vote absentee in the general election in the localities where they used to live. Puerto Ricans in PR don't have any effect on who wins in November.

by wengler 2008-05-29 01:03AM | 0 recs
Todd, if I may ask

if the popular vote is supposed to be an indication of who would be a stronger nominee against McCain, why bother including Puerto Rico's figures into the popular vote in the first place?

A popular vote argument is not going to matter to superdelegates unless the percentage is very large, especially with the disputed metrics (caucus states, FL/MI, all the people that didn't show up in FL/MI because they thought their vote wouldn't count, etc.)

So, trying to figure out how much Puerto Rico's popular vote might slice into Obama's overall popular vote lead in the primary is essentially a useless exercise.  Popular vote doesn't matter in the general election--only electors do.

by hekebolos 2008-05-28 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

were the comments about PR threatening to close some voting locations because of lack of interest false?

by alex100 2008-05-28 10:02PM | 0 recs
Ecuador next?

I like that Daily Show bit the other night where they said that HRC won't be satisfied until all the voters in the Americas that support her are heard from.  Next is Costa Rica, then on to Peru!

by NeverNude 2008-05-28 10:33PM | 0 recs
I'll make my prediction

23.5% spread with turnout of 850,000.

Given that Hillary's actively courting the vote there all week while Obama pulled another "West Virginia," it predicts she'll outperform her poll averages, as she did in both states.  

by BPK80 2008-05-28 10:44PM | 0 recs
This just in!

NASA scientists have just revealed that there is life on Mars!

And for Sen. Clinton's supporters, here's the bestest, most superest, terrifically stupendous fake news ever: Its inhabitants are overwhelmingly supporting her!

The DNC has decided to hold a Martian primary June 7, and if polling holds, the outcome should look something like this:

Sen. Clinton: 99%
Sen. Obama: 1%

She'll net about 5 million popular votes (it turns out Mars is teeming with life) and should also net about 400 pledged delegates.

Amazingly, it seems that Mars is remarkably similar, demographically, to Appalachia. Who knew?

by BenderRodriguez 2008-05-29 03:11AM | 0 recs
Not Clinton or Obama Country

Half of the people polled stated they are not bothering to vote at all.

They used scales in the poll:

   

Para conocer la posible participación electoral del próximo domingo en la primaria presidencial se estableció una escala del 1 al 10 en que el 10 representa a las personas que están totalmente seguras de acudir a votar y el 1 que no van a hacerlo. En esos términos, el 50 por ciento decidió que no votará (1 al 5), el 46 por ciento que está algo inclinado a votar (6 al 10), el 43 por ciento que está bien inclinado a votar (8 al 10) y el 37 por ciento que está totalmente seguro de que acudirá a votar (10). En la pregunta de cómo se sienten con respecto a los candidatos, el 52 por ciento de los encuestados entiende que sus sentimientos son muy favorables hacia Clinton y un 42 por ciento opina lo mismo con respecto a Obama. En tanto, el 34 por ciento tiene sentimientos desfavorables hacia la Senadora y el 44 por ciento hacia el Senador.

Translation

To find out the possible participation next Sunday's election in the presidential primary, a scale of 1 to 10 was used , in which  10 represents people who are totally sure that they are  going to vote and 1 that they will not  In those terms, 50 percent decided not to vote (1 to 5), 46 percent were  slightly inclined to vote (6 to 10), 43 percent were very  inclined to vote (8 to 10) and 37 per cent were totally confident they would  come out  to vote (10). On the question of how they feel regarding the candidates, 52 percent of respondents felt that their feelings are very favorable toward Clinton and 42 percent believed the same thing regarding Obama. Meanwhile, 34 percent have unfavorable feelings toward the Senator (Clinton)and 44 percent toward the Senator(Obama).

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Loc ales&n=113365

by NeciVelez 2008-05-29 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Clinton or Obama Country

Vocero is distorting this, and so are you.

It says that 50% of the respondents picked answers from 0 to 5.

You are claiming that someone who puts down a 4, unsure if they will vote, is the same as a 1, definitely not going to vote.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Ricky Martin played at Bush's inaugural too.

What does that tell you?

by Bush Bites 2008-05-29 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

I answered this already.

It's further proof of Senator Clinton's strength in bringing in GOP leaners and Independents.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:27AM | 0 recs
Most Importantly,

except for Bill Clinton, no Democratic Candidate has won the Presidency without Carrying Puerto Rico in the last 31 years.

Hah!

/s

by ROGNM 2008-05-29 05:47AM | 0 recs
Become a state.

Or shut up.

by Roberto 2008-05-29 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

And Puerto Rico is important, exactly, how?

by Khun David 2008-05-29 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Why is Puerto Rico important? Because Sen. Clinton is going to win it. That's why! Don't you understand the Clinton math?

Clinton wins = important
Obama wins = irrelevant

Obama has won two-thirds of the elections against Clinton so far, and it's all over but the whining, and yet you know damn well come Sunday, Clinton and her supporters will trumpet her great "victory" in a nonstate whose people won't be voting in November.

The superdelegates will be so unimpressed!

June 3 can't come soon enough.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-05-29 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Obama has lost 5 of the last 7 elections so far.

Nothing is over but the incessant Obama supporters' whining:  

"Stop the Voting!!  We Won!!  Stop the Counting!!  We Won!!"

Ricky, we gots noos for joo-ooo!!  

And it ain't good.

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Why do Sen. Clinton's supporters have trouble with simple math? Here are the results of the last eight elections, and I'll be nice and not include Guam, since, like P.R., it's irrelevant:

Clinton wins: KY, WV, IN, PA
Obama wins: OR, NC, MS, WY

And, in case you forgot, Obama had a winning streak of 11 at one point and has won two-thirds of the contests so far.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-05-29 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Take it back four more days, and Clinton wins TX, OH, RI, and Obama VT.

She's won more than he has.

"Had" a winning streak is right.  

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

You write: She's won more than he has.

What planet do you live on? Sen. Obama has won two-thirds of the elections versus Sen. Clinton. How you fail to see this baffles me.

I'll say this again: What angers me most about Sen. Clinton's ongoing campaign is that she's giving false hope to her most ardent supporters.

by BenderRodriguez 2008-05-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Puerto Rico = irrelevant

PR only "matters" because Hillary will lose in both Montana and SD by double digits.  At least those are states with electoral votes up for grabs in the fall.

Once again, it's not about "the math", it's about "the Clinton math."

Just shoot me already...

by AK Democrat 2008-05-29 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Puerto Rico Continues To Be Clinton Country

Sure.  You want it in the brain?  

Where should I aim? <snark>

by dembluestates 2008-05-29 09:28AM | 0 recs
United States of America Baby!

Join or shut up.

by Roberto 2008-05-29 10:47AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads