Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Cross posted at texasdarlin.wordpress.com

Let's get real. It's mid April and Obama hasn't closed the deal. Sure, he's got a slight delegate lead, but he's also failed three times to end the primaries: first in New Hampshire; next on Super Tuesday, particularly California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; and yet again on Super Tuesday 2, notably Texas and Ohio.

(Of course we're not supposed to talk about Florida, but he lost there too despite being the only candidate who broke the campaign pledge and advertised in that state. Source)

And now Obama's campaign is lowering expectations yet again, this time for Pennsylvania, another key battleground state. Surrogate Claire McCaskill recently predicted that Obama would lose Pennsylvania by "double digits." Which means, I guess, that if he loses by 9%, Obama will try to claim success.  Another surrogate, Sen. Bob Casey, didn't help the expectations game much when he said:

"President Clinton and Senator Clinton, either in terms of campaigning or governing, have been in this state for 15 years...Hillary Clinton chaired health-care hearings in 1993. She has a good base here, but I think we can cut into it." (emphasis added.) Source

In fact, it appears that the reverse will be true, according to SUSA, the most reliable pollster this election season. Their new poll says Clinton has actually cut into Obama's lead among white men recently.

What's wrong with this picture?

Has there ever been a Democratic nominee who lost the primaries in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida? (Obama would definitely still lose Florida if there were a re-vote, which is why he opposes one.)

Howard Wolfson was right when he said during a conference call on Monday:

"[Obama is] doing everything he can to win in Pennsylvania, and if he can't, it'll be a serious defeat...We all know the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue runs through Pennsylvania."Source

A while ago I wrote a diary called Hillary's Winning Coalition in which I discussed the reason for Hillary's success in the key battleground states, not only in the primaries, but more importantly for the general election:

Clinton leads among the groups that comprise the greater percentage of voters: women, blue collar workers, older voters, whites, and Hispanics. A Pew poll predicts that substantial numbers of whites, seniors, and lower-income Democrats could cross over to vote for McCain in the General Election if Obama were the nominee.

Hispanics may only make up approximately 7% of the electorate in November, according to a December 2007 Pew report, but their geographic distribution creates an opportunity:
Hispanics loom as a potential "swing vote" in (the) presidential race. That's because they are strategically located on the 2008 Electoral College map. Hispanics constitute a sizable share of the electorate in four of the six states that President Bush carried by margins of five percentage points or fewer in 2004 -New Mexico (where Hispanics make up 37% of state's eligible electorate); Florida (14%); Nevada (12%) and Colorado (12%). All four are expected to be closely contested once again in 2008.

Source

(Polls have indicated that McCain has a good chance of capturing Hispanic voters, against Obama.)

The bottom line is crystal clear. Obama has had pitch-perfect success in caucus states; he's done well with liberals and cross-over voters; and he's definitely sealed the deal with African Americans. But he does not bring home the Democratic base.

Time and again, he has failed to cut into Clinton's fundamentals. And without a candidate who has locked up Democratic women, lunch-bucket workers, people over 50, Hispanics, and a majority of white people -- we cannot win in November. The demographics for each candidate are solidified now; the patterns are predictable. Obama does not have a winning coalition.

Howard Wolfson was right on the money. Hillary does not need to win Pennsylvania by 20 points, contrary to Camp Obama's mantra.

It is Obama who needs to win Pennsylvania. It's his last chance to prove to the super delegates that he can carry the critical Democratic base required for victory in November.

Tags: clinton, delegates, Election 08, MyDD, obama, Pennsylvania Primary, Super Delegates, texas darlin (all tags)

Comments

277 Comments

Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

What does it mean if Obama loses Pennsylvania?

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

That Hillary is stronger than Obama in Pennsylvania on 4/22/08.

So?

by DamnYankees 2008-04-11 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

your answer made coffee come out of my nose!  good one!

by feliks 2008-04-11 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It also means that she has the endorsement and muscle of the governor and the mayors and ward leaders of every major city.  And oh, let's not forget the state party has endorsed her too.

She's going to win Pennsylvania - there's just too much institutional support for her for any other outcome.  What does it mean in terms of delegates is the real question.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I agree, she'll win Pennsylvania.

There are 50 states, though.

by DamnYankees 2008-04-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
In Hillary's America there are 50.  Obama only counts 48.
***A
by adrienne4dean 2008-04-11 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

That is unless the state holds a caucus and not a primary.

by feliks 2008-04-11 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

"It's clear that the elections aren't going to count for anything" -Hillary Clinton.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

ah yes, those were the days...

by JenKinFLA 2008-04-11 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It wasn't so long ago that the Clinton campaign was saying that only 5 states really matter. I think they were Texas, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

by dantes 2008-04-11 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It means game over for team Obama. You are absolutely correct. He can't win in any of the big states. His coalition is smoke and mirrors, the radical left and African Americans. He is a loser and a drag on the Democratic ticket.

Hillary is the only one with a broad base of support that can win in November. And besides, when all the info comes out about Rezko and the terrorist connections paired with God damn AmeriKKKA, Obama will become a footnote in history.

by Hunky 2008-04-11 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

This is like Waiting for Godot, except it's waiting for Obama to collapse....still waiting...still waiting.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Even if Obama wins the primary and gets the nomination in July, some of these die-hards are going to be posting here 24/7 in August and September about how Hillary still can make a play for it. They will still be throwing the kitchen sink in the hope that Obama will collapse in September and that the country will turn to Hillary.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by dannyinla 2008-04-11 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
We all know Obama isn't going to win PA....
he can't....plain and simply, it's not a caucus state....
by Patriot2008 2008-04-11 10:47AM | 0 recs
Please clarify

Obama has won more primary states than Clinton has.  I'm not sure what you're implying.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-11 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

You have no idea what you are talking about and you make no sense.

by dannyinla 2008-04-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
Gallup: Obama beats McCain

Gallup: Obama beats Hillary by nine.  Case closed, game over.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

His coalition is smoke and mirrors, the radical left and African Americans. He is a loser and a drag on the Democratic ticket.

Hillary is the only one with a broad base of support that can win in November.

If Hillary's base is broad, why does Obama have more votes? That makes no sense.

by DamnYankees 2008-04-11 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

African-Americans are the most loyal part of the Democratic base, going Democratic about 90-10 in the general election. If they don't turn out in November, Democrats will have serious problems. And if the Democratic party turns off young voters, that's a problem for the next 35 years.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

If Hillary's base is broad, why is Obama leading in both the Rasmussen and Gallup daily tracking polls. And to be honest, I find your dismissing African Americans as "smoke and Mirrors" to be highly offensive. They have been one of the most loyal constituencies for the democratic party.

by feliks 2008-04-11 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I guess you haven't studied Clinton maths, it's like regular maths except you make up your own answers, and they're always right.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-11 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
A loser?  Dude has won 30 states ... with 120+ pledged delegate lead ...
What an idiotic diary.
by stryan 2008-04-11 11:07AM | 0 recs
I hate to stae the obvious

but the winner is actually determined by the person who accumulates the most delegates, not the person who wins the most states of an arbitrary distinction like size.

But please keep pissing all over the smaller states and see how well the campaign does post PA.

by DSloth 2008-04-11 08:46AM | 0 recs
Depends on the margin

10 points or less, not much.  14 days later he'll win North Carolina by as much as 20 and maybe Indiana too.

by newdealer 2008-04-11 08:57AM | 0 recs
nope

she only needs to win PA and she will win IN and WV etc... his win in NC is just another small red state we don't need in November.  Winning in NC really is meaningless.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: nope
So then Teresa, what states are meaningful?? And how exactly is Hillary going to catch up in pledged delegates, total votes, or states won????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????
by lion king 2008-04-11 10:15AM | 0 recs
Remember

The most a-fucking-mazing coincidence in election history is the strange fact that Clinton happens to win all of the significant states, while Obama wins the much more plentiful insignificant ones.

Except Illinois, but he's got homefield advantage, doesn't count.

Never mind that delegates are awarded proportionally, so big states actually DO have more of a say.  

by nwgates 2008-04-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Remember

I'm not sure if you're being tongue in cheek, but are you suggesting that Obama can't win California or New York? What are your odds? I'd really, really, REALLY like to get some money down on that one.

by bookish 2008-04-11 11:26AM | 0 recs
Snarky-snark

Of Course Obama will win NY and Cali- the whole big state argument is hooey.

by nwgates 2008-04-11 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Snarky-snark

Sorry. You can never tell around this place. The whole up-is-down mentality is starting to affect my snark radar.

by bookish 2008-04-11 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: nope

"his win in NC is just another small red state we don't need in November"

NC is the 10th largest state in the country by population.  It will be the largest that Obama will have won (except IL).  It is also a state that could go Dem in Nov.  It has a large AA population and having Obama as our nominee could help us there.  Hardly insignificant by any stretch.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-11 11:47AM | 0 recs
perhaps you hadn't noticed that...

...Obama and Clinton are competing for the Democratic nomination.  

The coin of the realm in this battle is convention delegates.  Period, end of story.  

Obama has run a campaign for delegates to the convention, not one for the general election.  If he had been running in the general rather than the primaries, his strategy would have been different.  Perhaps it would have been similar to Clinton's campaign.  That the Clinton campaign didn't (and seemingly still doesn't) understand that the primaries aren't the same sort of beast as the general is the beginning point for analyzing the failure of her "inevitable" candidacy.

Today, Obama has the backing of more delegates than Clinton.  After Pennsylvania, he'll have the backing of more delegates than Clinton.  After North Carolina and Indiana, he'll have the backing of more delegates than Clinton.  And so on, for as long as Clinton wants to deny reality.

The superdelegates are breaking his way.  Her primary-election money is running short.  It's just a matter of time.

by N in Seattle 2008-04-11 01:30PM | 0 recs
Are you saying NC votes don't count?

Ironic all things considered.

by molly bloom 2008-04-11 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Right now, the Obama campaign is spending an unprecedented $2.2 million per week on TV ads there -- an amount one Pennsylvania strategist called "unbelievable."

If Hillary wins PA despite being outspent more than two to one, and despite far more critical media scrutiny, she'll have proven herself tough enough to withstand anything, and right to fight all the way to Denver.

Will she do it?  YES SHE WILL.

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-04-11 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I know you want to believe this, but no independent political analyst does.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

There's no 'if' about it - she will win Pennsylvania.  The party machine is behind her 100%, and that counts in the big democratic states.  He's paying to cut into her lead, not to win it.

He'll take his delegates and she'll take hers.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:08AM | 0 recs
Healthcare...

Obama doesn't want to address problems like this (below) that makes him not only deceptive, but vulnerable..

Elizabeth Edwards at Association of Health Care Journalists 2008
3/29/08

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast /uploaded_files/032908%20-%20ahcj%20edwa rds_transcript.pdf

    "We can expect a woman who is diagnosed with a brain
    tumor to a better hope that she disclosed those headaches
    that she had 15 years ago but she first got that insurance
    policy, that health insurance policy because her health
    insurance policy may now be covered by state law that allows
    rescission even for an omission that seemed inconsequential
    at the time because she didn't know about her pre-existing -
    she didn't know about the brain tumor that she - 15 years
    before because there's no limit on the look back time. That's
    true in a number of states in this country. They can go back,
    look at your applications - did you completely describe your
    condition. Even if you didn't know about the pre-existing
    condition, they can rescind or fail to cover the condition if
    they - it was pre-existing at the time.
    Now the question is how do you know? Well then you
    take them to court and then are you required to prove the
    negative? I bet there's going to be states that say you do
    and if there is, I bet that's where these policies are going
    to be written. There are real consequences to the differences between the candidates and there's no way - there is no way
    for the regular voter to work this out in their heads even -
    honestly, it's not that easy for me and this is what I do
    with - I talk about health care. I have to say I have some
    trepidation about talking always.
    I was in Colorado one time, 2004, and I got the first
    question on grazing and I thought - I looked around I thought
    shoot, everybody in this room knows everything there is to
    know about grazing and I don't know a darn thing. Now I know
    a little bit but in some events, it's almost more difficult -
    I know a little bit and you all are likely to know lots, lots
    more so I would say there's a hesitation but the truth is
    that all of this is not just the rhetoric of somebody
    speaking.
    This is not a fairytale or even a speech. This is
    real life with real life consequences for people if these
    policies are put in effect and I say that if with some -
    because obviously what they talk about, what happens, there's
    a big gulf between it that you can just bet that we're not
    going to get anything better than what they're talking about.
    They have to at least be talking about the very best things
    and maybe we can get some reasonably close to that.
    Real life that I've lived with a devastating disease
    and I've had the very best medical care. All the while I've
    had it, I've been talking to lots of Americans who don't. They had the same condition I have, faced the same hurdles I
    have but without the insurance coverage to assure them of
    that best care and often without any care at all.
    If the costs move higher, those women or the coverage
    is reduced, those women who look to us and look to leaders in
    this country in the time of their desperate need will once
    again stand alone. It's not who we are, I don't think, rather
    we like to think we are. It's who we actually are and we need
    to shine a really bright light on that. We don't need to let
    those people for whom bad luck or genetics or misfortune has
    tapped stand alone.
    Shouldn't they know the personal consequences to them
    of their vote - both the importance of their actually voting
    and the consequences of the choices that they make. You are
    the way they get that information. You are the best, the most
    reliable source for them on making those decisions and the
    oneness, I think, I can't put the - say this too strongly -
    the oneness is on you to make certain that they make that
    decision. We don't end up in - speaking in 2012, about gee if
    we just know it in 2008 what the differences were. That's
    your responsibility. My responsibility is just to urge you to
    do it. Now I'll answer any questions that I can answer in
    whatever time they tell me before they tell me to stop and I
    didn't tell too many personal anecdotes, if you want to hear
    those, you're welcome to but thank you very much. [applause]

by architek 2008-04-11 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
It looks like Obama's spending in Penn. is making a huge difference. What 2 weeks ago he was down by 28 points and now he's only down by 8. So why hasn't clinton spent more money to "close the deal" on Obama? With the size of her pocketbook, why isn't she using her money to ensure her victory? Does she not believe enouth in her own campain and chances of winning, to not invest in it????
by lion king 2008-04-11 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It is impressive how one candidate outspending in Penn can have such a positive effect on the electorate, while the other candidate overspending on Penn can have such a negative impact on the electorate.

I guess which Penn you spend on makes more difference to people in this country.

I think we all know which Penn spending was worthwhile and which was not.

by Why Not 2008-04-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
Which Penn, LOL

It seems Mr. Penn can't catch a break anywhere, even amongst the bitter enders.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I see the outspending meme has taken hold - well done for reading the talking points.  Would you care to put a price on the value of the exposure from being Mrs Bill Clinton since 1992, and then compare that to Obama's PA ad spend?

by interestedbystander 2008-04-11 09:57AM | 0 recs
Winner take all!!

OK, best two out of three-

No, best three out of five-

No, best five out of seven-

No, heads I win, tails you lose

by nwgates 2008-04-11 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Yeah, she would have proven that Obama is superior in raising funds to actually pay his bills and have enough left to outspend her 3 to 1 in the remaining states....Sounds like a helluva campaign!

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:29AM | 0 recs
If Obama loses Indiana and North Carolina

Then he'll start having problems with the superdelegates. I don't see Obama winning Pennslyvania, then a week after Indiana and N. Carolina, Clinton should easily win West Virginian and Kentucky. Clinton should finish the primary season with a win in Puerto Rico.

If Clinton wins Indiana and pulls of an upset in North Carolina, we'll have a very interesting convention is Denver (If it were not already interesting).

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-11 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama loses Indiana and North Carolina

I actually agree with this. That wouldn't be enough for her to catch up in the number of delegates, but an upset in North Carolina would be enough to raise some eyebrows and keep her in the race. But her campaign dare not raise the notion of an NC upset because it's way to much to expect. So far, Obama's tended to outperform the polling in states that have him showing a big lead (e.g. Virginia).

IMO, If Pennsylvania roughly matches the polls we're seeing now, and Indiana is close (which seems likely), and North Carolina is a blowout for Obama (again, I'm thinking it'll basically be a rerun of Virginia), the supers are gonna drop and the show will be over before West Virginia and Kentucky.

In the unlikely event Obama gets really close (like <3-5% margin) in PA, it's over, but the supers will wait the couple weeks for NC and Indiana to happen. Their results won't matter in that case unless they're way, WAY out of line with expectations. If he wins PA outright, it's over immediately.

by fwiffo2 2008-04-11 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Spending that money accomplishes two things.  
One, minimize Hilary's delegate and vote win, because - yes - she will win PA.  
Two - I think more importantly - he is setting the stage for November.  
Funny, Hillary supporters think he is spending money to beat her.  Unfortunately, he is already running against McCain via Clinton as proxy.  

by stryan 2008-04-11 11:11AM | 0 recs
It means that

you're trying to move the goalposts again.

Coincidentally, Obama is ahead by roughly ten, not one, percent in delegates, has a stable lead over Clinton in national polling (Gallup), and leads her in the popular vote by over a million votes.

The New York Times has the delegate count at Clinton 1474, Obama 1632, for example. You do the math.

by MBNYC 2008-04-11 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: It means that

It's interesting that no one wants to rebut this!

by SeanF 2008-04-11 11:40AM | 0 recs
&quot;The earth is flat&quot;

Your rebuttal, please?

Hint: some things are too obviously wrong to rebut.

by MBNYC 2008-04-11 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: &quot;The earth is flat&quot;

yes, i was making the same point!

by SeanF 2008-04-11 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
It means NOTHING
by lion king 2008-04-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
What does it mean? Obama must quit.

He's pouring tons and tons of money into PA.  He actually went on a bus tour.  He should win this state...and if he doesn't, he should concede the nomination to HRC.

by Shazone 2008-04-11 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.
well shazone why isn't hillary spendin some of her multi millions to shut Obama down? Again, does she not believe in her campaign, or ability ot win, to not invest her own money in her own campaign??????
by lion king 2008-04-11 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.
shazone, what no answer?
by lion king 2008-04-11 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

Why would the guy who's leading the race drop out?  The conspiracy buffs would be working overtime trying to figure out how that one happened.

Although it could be funny. He could suspend his race the night before North Carolina, only to say "I'm back in it!" when he wins there.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:28AM | 0 recs
Craziest thing I've ever heard

You win!!!

That makes zero sense.  Why bother with all this other trouble- we should have just held our primary in Pennsylvania.  Imagine the cash we could have saved!  

by nwgates 2008-04-11 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

What flavor is the kool-aid today, Shazone?

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

That stuff your inhaling must be real good.........

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

And then he should buy me a pony.

With wings.

by kyle in philly 2008-04-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

Hee-hee. Yeah. The guy ahead in all metric should leave the race if he doesn't win a state in which he was behind by 20%+ two months ago. I suppose if he loses by 5%, you'll still be calling for his head. There is some interesting logic at MyDDelusion.

by bookish 2008-04-11 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

Buahahahhahahah!

I actually just spit out water on my keyboard reading this.

Wait... wait.. Are you saying that if he can't win Pennsylvania he should drop out? Really? Even though he is ahead, and will stay ahead and WILL be our nominee?

IIRC, when anyone suggested that Hillary should drop out for any reason (like how she simply cannot win at this point and it's embarassing) you Clinton "Followers" freaked the fuck out.

You make me laugh.

by Darknesse 2008-04-11 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: What does it mean? Obama must quit.

By saying something this absurd you are proving that you have no meaningful understanding of this race, or of politics in general...

by JDF 2008-04-11 01:26PM | 0 recs
What does it mean if Obama loses Pennsylvania?

That sometimes throwing $$ at a problem won't make it go away?  I will be happy to see PA go to Clinton, especially since she is being outspent 4-1.  I also enjoyed when Rudy or Mitt outspent their opponents in certain states, and then lost big.  Go Huckabee! (just kidding).

by AnnC 2008-04-11 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Well, the Obama campaign is right now spending $2.2 million per week on TV ads in PA alone. Thus, when he loses, his will be the most expensive loss so far in the primaries. Granted, he has the money and as this is the first election post his Rev. Wright debacle I can understand why he pours everything he's got into it.

Still, losing after outspending Hillary like crazy will make him look weak. There's no way around that for him.

by DemAC 2008-04-11 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It's hilarious how myopic you guys are. He's spending money to register Democratic voters, help build progressive infrastructure, and oh yeah, win an election. He'll accomplish 1 and 2, and if he doesn't accomplish goal 3, despite the incredible odds against him, you categorize that as an "expensive loss".

What he's doing will help him in the general election, since winning or losing PA will not change the outcome of the nomination.

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Good for him. Since he apparently needs neither the voters nor the super delegates anymore I guess he'll be quite content if we bring them over to Hillary's camp instead. I can assure we'll use them to good effect and in the best interest of the party.

by DemAC 2008-04-11 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Well, he's got the voters and the superdelegates are coming, cowed only by a Clinton-dominated party machine. You were saying?

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:59AM | 0 recs
si stopped in to his local office

to pick up lawn signs for a friend and they didn't have any.  Now it is not like there are a ton of them around, I have only seen two in peoples yards.  So I don't think they spent much of that money on local outreach.  

Dean Obama campaign, get your Scranton office some damn signs. I have some friends here who would like one.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: si stopped in to his local office

I accidentally read one of your postings before seeing that repulsive sig line.

Just an FYI, the reason that the Obama campaign tends to run short on signs is because it built an infrastructure early in primary season to ship used signs from state to state, yet another example of how a leader should act by his example-in this case, not spending a boatload of money and toppling landfills with new signs in every state. I assume from the Clinton expenditures that this idea never made a fruitful stop in her mind.

by bookish 2008-04-11 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Obama 'lose'?

this isn't a win or lose situation it's how many pledged delegates each candidate comes away with--Obama will get his share to add to what he already has, that's my expectation for him.

Now since Clinton is playing this 'win -lose' situation, she must 'win' a hefty amount of pledged delegates with about 20% MORE votes than Obama, so what expectations do people have that she can do that?

I'm placing my bet on the expectation that Clinton must win 20% more of the votes than Obama for a hefty pledged delegate award.

by Wary 2008-04-11 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It means that Clinton gets to pretend to be a viable candidate for a few more weeks.

by jaiwithani 2008-04-11 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Absolutely nothing.  

by Toddwell 2008-04-11 12:37PM | 0 recs
Plagiarized? Lol!

You've been deservedly and effectively mocked.

It's amazing how easy it is to mock the Hillary arguments in most of the diaries posted here.  That you can't see how weak your arguments are, and how easily they can be made against your own candidate, is mind-boggling.

by LawStudent 2008-04-11 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Plagiarized? Lol!

Agreed. Satire and/or irony do not equal plagiarism. If people refuse to address the discrepancy in their expectations for each candidate, the mockery is so deserved.

I'm still waiting for any of the Clinton supporters to lay out in finite terms the way in which she wins the nomination. I don't want to hear about the evils of Obama; I want to see the delegate math in black and white that shows how Clinton wins this race, without the language of equivocation.

I don't think there's a person out there who will do it, because the relative moral and ethical contortions needed to do so would make the author look like a scorched-earth elitist.

by bookish 2008-04-11 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Not much. It's one state and it's one that everyone expects him to lose.  There are nine more contests and people expect him to win five of those.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
A win in PA doesn't do much

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhe ad/archive/2008/04/10/the-superdelegate- wall.aspx

"In this pre-Pennsylvania lull--a relative term--it sometimes feels like we're just finding new ways to express how royally screwed Hillary Clinton is. Well, like it or not, the minds over at ABC have found yet another way. Their verdict: Clinton needs to win 80 percent of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to secure the nomination.

The math is far from perfect (which they freely admit). It assumes that Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, and that Obama wins Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. In their model, they also put each victory at a 55-to-45 split.

But as an experiment, the numbers are instructive. For one thing, this is a fairly optimistic model for Clinton. Given current polls in Pennsylvania, a 10-point margin would be considered a huge win for her. In other states, it's likely to be closer as well. In the past, Obama has been able to narrow her lead by logging face time in states that favor Clinton. (See California, Texas, and, to a lesser extent, Ohio.) Certain Obama wins, on the other hand, are likely to be wide. North Carolina could well be a blowout, as many polls put him up 20 points. Even when they factor in Florida and Michigan, Clinton still needs to win 237 of the remaining 300 delegates--or about 80 percent--to get to 2025."

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:38AM | 0 recs
slate

paid pundits with an agenda.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: slate

80%. She needs to get 80% of remaining super delegates. That is math. In essence, this is what you've been arguing.

It doesn't matter how close Obama gets in Penn, if he can't win. By losing, he's proving to the 80% of superdelegates that need to swing Hillary's way that he can't take the White House. Your whole argument is trying to convince the 80% of super delegates that Obama can't win the GE...

by dantes 2008-04-11 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: slate

Troll rated for an absolutely worthless comment.

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: slate

Teresa,

If you find the analysis quoted in Slate lacking, how about EXPLAINING why it's wrong and giving your own possible road map for Clinton winning?

That would be far more persuasive than name calling.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: slate

how long is your enemy's list, anyway?

by SeanF 2008-04-11 11:56AM | 0 recs
Crystal bowl

Wow, you know how HRC does in the GE.

Can you help me with my lottery tickets ???

by hebi 2008-04-11 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Crystal bowl

I'm no medium, but I believe people use crystal "balls" for purposes such as seeing into the future.    I think crystal bowls are more commonly used for things like punch and sometimes salads.

by the mollusk 2008-04-11 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Crystal bowl

You're so right about this, I grant you that, but so wrong about the state of the race.

It's about delegates, nothing else.

No significant change in delegatees in Penn, means one step closer to the nomination for BHO.

by hebi 2008-04-11 09:04AM | 0 recs
it is not about delegates

though I can see Obama would like to thinks so, he is so busy disenfranchising the ones from MI and FL.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Crystal bowl

You've obviously never heard of the 8-piece-dinner-set-of-fortune that Nostradamus used in the majority of his predictions.  Let's be honest here, most clairvoyants don't spend all of their time telling the future, and a crystal ball is useless for pretty much everything but that.  Crystal bowls not only allow for accurate predictions, but they let your friends know that you really care about them by providing a nice dinner setup when they come over.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-11 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Crystal bowl

The Clinton supporters have nothing left to resort to but spin. Its obvious that she's going to end the primary race behind in the popular vote and way behind with pledged delegates. Therefore, if Obama doesnt win PA... then Clinton should win? That's so inane its almost not worth disputing. Clinton has lost in almost every metric. Its arbitrary to make the case that one state should be so influential... except that is not arbitrary, its a deliberate attempt to find some HOW some WAY to put Clinton back on the map to winning this race. Its pathetic, and it pretty well exemplifies the state of the campaign. There is no path to the nomination. Each side will be trading states, which is not good for the team that's behind by three scores with about 4 minutes to go.

by AC4508 2008-04-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Why is Obama always expected to cut into Hillary's base and her base states, and if he can't people give her a huge victory, but no one ever expects Hillary to win over Obama's base? Have you ever heard anyone say that it'll be a huge problem for Hillary if she can't win over African Americans or young people in the general? You never hear that. But if Obama can only win enough white females and working-class whites to pull within 5 of her, it's considered a massive failure for him.

I don't get it.

by DamnYankees 2008-04-11 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I know!- it's the "Obama just isn't cleaning Hillary's clock thoroughly enough" argument.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 08:41AM | 0 recs
If Hillary can't win NC

She's toast.  How 'bout those goalposts?

by nwgates 2008-04-11 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Because people want a reason to say why a Black man can't win. Did anyone hold Kerry or GOre to a litmus test? How about Clinton. From what I have read, Bill CLinton won in 1992 and 1996 BECAUSE of the black vote.  

I love how HRC supporters gripe about sexism when it appears that racism is more of a problem.

by regina1983 2008-04-11 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Wasn't Obama supposed to be above all that?

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-04-11 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

And here it is again.  Clinton supporters start an argument, and when they get hit upside the head by logic, can only respond with the aren't you supposed to above that shtick.  Or the, aren't you meant to be better than us shtick.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-11 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Here comes the race card once again.

by Dave B 2008-04-11 09:30AM | 0 recs
and Regina PLAYS THE RACE CARD

Thanks, I love it when you do that.  It just reminds me of what I can't stand about your candidate.

There was no racism except among Obama surrogates.  However Obama and his wife both made sexist statements and the Obama addicted media did it on a daily basis.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: and Regina PLAYS THE RACE CARD

I got called sexist for call Tweety a mysongonistic douchebag.  That sword cuts both ways.  People on both sides have been r-tards.  To claim that no one on the Clinton side has played the race card or no one on the Obama camp has played the penis card is either incredibly naive or just a malicious revision of fact.

by kasjogren 2008-04-11 12:20PM | 0 recs
ps

Al Gore wone every single primary.  He won the big states and the small caucus states.  Then he won the GE.  Obama is no Al Gore.
Kerry ran away with it as soon as he took IA.  No one else really had a chance.  Obama time and again has proved he can only win where most democrats don't get a chance to vote.  Caucuses are not a good  indicator of who will do well in November.  
Like it or not the super delegates have a responsibility to chose the candidate who gets the support of people in states we are going to win and that is NOT the small red states Obama has won.

The only close to sure red state is Arkansas and that is if Clinton is the nominee.  There is not a single red state Obama will win over.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: ps

Al Gore and John Kerry were not running against another candidate with all the institutional and money support that Clinton has.

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:38AM | 0 recs
what is not to get?
Clinton's base is the majority of the democratic party.
who do you think we can lose and still win in November...clue: It's not white women and blue collar workers.
by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 09:44AM | 0 recs
Reality check

Obama leads among Democrats nationwide.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 09:53AM | 0 recs
no he doesn't

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: no he doesn't

True. He doesn't lead among the Democrats that matter.

by Gimmeliberty 2008-04-11 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: no he doesn't

He leads amongst all voters nationwide.   You know, the ones you need to win a GE.  Good luck trying to win the just Hillary's base.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-11 10:09AM | 0 recs
Gallup sez:

"As for the Democratic Race, the majority of Democrats remain in Obama's column, showing a break away that's the first sustained one since tracking began."

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Gallup sez:

Gallup is CLEARLY in the tank for Obama.

/snark

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: what is not to get?

so if Obama is the nominee, the democratic base is all going to vote McCain?

by SeanF 2008-04-11 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It means NOTHING...do you really think that if Obama is the nominee that California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts will flip to republican? What parallel universe are you from.You yourself said Obama does well with crossover votes. Either Clinton or Obama need crossover votes to win in the GE. And as much as you may try to wish it away, Obama's lead in pledged delegates will follow him ALL the way to the convention.

by feliks 2008-04-11 08:40AM | 0 recs
hello

NJ and NY may very well flip but even if they don't, we can not win in November without PA, OH or FL.  We have to win two of the three and Obama can not do that.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: hello

Obama is polling ahead of everybody in Ohio right now.

by dantes 2008-04-11 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: hello

you see, with Obama we get to draw an entirely new map

by feliks 2008-04-11 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: hello

How did that strategy work for us Democrats in the past 2 GE's?

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

wow I got a troll rating of 10 with the truth

by feliks 2008-04-11 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

You got mojo-rated, not troll-rated.  11 people thought your post was good, not bad.

by fwiffo2 2008-04-11 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

This is silly.  Bob Casey's quote is simply a statement of fact.

Also, there's never been a black man or a white woman either to ever win the nomination.  There's a first time for everything.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Contrary to what you said, Casey has done a great job in setting expectations with his comment,
    "President Clinton and Senator Clinton, either in terms of campaigning or governing, have been in this state for 15 years...Hillary Clinton chaired health-care hearings in 1993. She has a good base here, but I think we can cut into it."

Clinton does have a good base and PA is a very traditional state which doesn't warm to political newcomers. So if he overperforms the 15-20 point gap based on Clinton's strong base, he'll be doing fine. And he'll make up the pledged delegates by winning SC big, making it even more impossible for Clinton to get lead in pledged delegates.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:41AM | 0 recs
&quot;Traditional&quot;

what a nice way to put it.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

No he dosen't.  Clinton needs to win the state by 30 points to make it interedting down the stretch.  If Obama keeps it within 5, he'll have done fantastically.  I expect a 10-15 point win for Clinton.  Then Obama wins NC by 15-20, Indiana's a tossup, Oregon goes to Obama by 10, KY and WV go to Clinton by 20, and Obama wins Montana by 15.  It'll be a push at best for Clinton, which is not enough to win.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-04-11 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Nope. He doesn't have to win PA.

And the funny thing is - no matter how many times it is said here or how enthusuastically - NO ONE BELIEVES IT.

Obama DOES NOT have to win PA.

And we all know it.

by dannyinla 2008-04-11 09:11AM | 0 recs
please correct

Obama doesn't have a 1% delegate lead. He  has a 6% lead in pledged delegates.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: please correct

Here's another way to look at it: Obama's "small" lead is the size of Hillary's margins in New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Ohio PUT TOGETHER.

So... yeah, I can see how she's going to realistically make that up in the 10 remaining constests, which include Guam, Montana, and South Dakota, not to mention North Carolina.

by Rorgg 2008-04-11 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Shit -

I got troll-rated by a newbie.
For putting up a map suggesting that Obama will lose.

I'm devastated.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-12 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Shit -

It's not factual, which was the trolly part.  But thanks for playing.

by Rorgg 2008-04-12 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Shit -

You violate the guidelines of ratings here at MyDD.
If you disagree - say so.

My map suggested what I believe to be a likely scenario for Nov. 2008.
If you want to censor everything you disagree with, I feel sorry for you.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-12 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: please correct

corrected that, see edit.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 10:15AM | 0 recs
Obama is NOT going to win Pennsylvania

and the media isn't expecting him too.

Pennsylvania is the PERFECT firewall for Hillary.  She probably will win it by double digits.  If Obama gets to within single digits than that will be considered a "victory" for him.

by puma 2008-04-11 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is NOT going to win Pennsylvania

I hate this frame because it's such a double standard.  Anytime in the past when Clinton lost but still outperformed expectations, it was "She's trying to spin a loss as a victory somehow.  A win is a win is a win."  Now Obamabots are doing the same thing, and getting a pass.

by jarhead5536 2008-04-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is NOT going to win Pennsylvania

When was that?  Might be the case, just don't remember it.

But plus, there are people who will spin anything in a way that makes no sense, I have seen some ridiculous spin from Obama supporters, but that doesn't make this diary believable.

by labor nrrd 2008-04-11 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is NOT going to win Pennsylvania

Yeah, that actually hasn't happened ever.  Iowa was an upset.  New Hampshire and Nevada were Clinton wins.  South Carolina was a drubbing.  Super Tuesday was a wash.

Then came a solid month of Obama winning every contest - AND outperforming expectations.  Hillary Clinton has never done that; she starts out with a lead that diminshes over time.  Sometimes she hangs onto it, sometimes she doesn't, but she's never come from behind to win or draw.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:34AM | 0 recs
Didn't you get the memo?

No more "bots"

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
No bots?

I prefer "Obamaton" anyway.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-11 10:57AM | 0 recs
he will spin it as a victory

but it will still be a loss.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: he will spin it as a victory

The biggest difference between who wins and who loses is when Obama loses he congratulates his opponents and thanks his supporters.

If Hillary loses by some act of god, and yes all expectation games aside it would take that for him to win, Clinton won't even acknowledge there was a race like she has done so many times.

by kasjogren 2008-04-11 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

The only 'musts' for the candidates in PA are:

Hillary MUST win by a large margin.

Obama MUST keep Hillary from winning by a large margin.

It is only by winning by a large enough margin that Hillary will collect the delegates needed to chip away at Obama's lead. It is only by winning by a large enough margin that Hillary will be able to add enough votes to the popular vote count to chip away at Obama's lead.

To move the Goal Posts (for the umpteenth time) all the way to "Obama must win PA!" is absolutely ridiculous.
Laughable....sadly pathetic, but laughable all the same.

by Kysen 2008-04-11 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Laughable... and NO ONE here really believes it.

by dannyinla 2008-04-11 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

ok but if doesn't win then what?

are you implying he should drop out? or what? he loses PA and then we go to the other 9 states, and no matter what since Obama lost PA the other 9 even if Obama wins them all don't matter?

I mean wow, HRC supporters actually calling for someone to drop out. I thought that was the most undemocratic thing we could do.

now it seems its only bad if its Hillary.

like you guys say, let everyone vote, if he loses PA, then move on to IN and NC. I mean TexasDarlin, don't you want the people of NC to have a say between the 2 candidates?

I am so confused now.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-11 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I am saying that if he can't win Pennsylvania, it should give the SDs huge pause about whether he can carry the Dem base in November.

That's the point of the diary.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 10:17AM | 0 recs
And you make a good case

for your point of view.  However, you fail to note that your argument rests on a faulty premise.  You are saying that Obama cannot carry the Dem base in the GE (where he will be running against a Republican) because he cannot carry the base in the primary (where he is running against another Democrat).

I would find it hard to believe, having enjoyed your thought diaries and comments that you sincerely believe that the entire percentage of the Democratic base carried by Senator Clinton over the course of the primary season - many of them presumably life-long Democrats - would en masse defect from the party and vote for the Republican nominee.

by UrbanRedneck 2008-04-11 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Obama MUST keep Hillary from winning by a large margin.

This isn't true. If Hillary wins it 65-35, that doesn't do anything but keep her in the race. It may delay Obama, but he doesn't have to keep it closer. It's sort of like a team being up 3-2 in a 7 game series. They don't have to win game 6, even if they really want to avoid game 7.

by DamnYankees 2008-04-11 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I can tell you if he loses 65 - 35 .

That would be very damaging to his prospect.

Remember this is the first post wrigth election.

SD are going to be looking for any impact on the electorate.

They would be looking at his margins among whites , women and several other factors , including the big state argument.

Plus that kind of margin would cut into his popular vote margin deeply.

If she gets ahead of him in the popular vote , its a 50 - 50 thing.

by lori 2008-04-11 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Yeah, I have to agree - it wouldn't be enough to close the delegate lead, but it would make the party elders heads spin around 180 degrees.

A major candidate is just not supposed to lose a key state by that amount.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I agree, too! That would be a shocker.

I tend to think that this one is probably hard to poll, what with all the new registrants who are hard to handle in any likely voter model.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 09:10AM | 0 recs
Talking Points Ditto (head)

So nice of you to lower the bar again.  Ed Rendell went from Clinton needing 5%-10% at the start of Meet the Press last Sunday and ended with 4%-9%... within a half hour!

Now you, TexasDarlin, are setting up the expectations that any loss, even by 1 vote, will be considered devastating to the Obama campaign.

Money is a conduit for the message.  Mitt Romney had a lot of money, but his message sucked, so he lost.  Obama's message is good, so the money helps... but it's not like he can just buy votes... he's not that kind of Chicago politician.

I'll be happy when the primaries are over and we can count on your tenacious blogging to support Obama, the almost certain candidate-elect.
In order to turn the tide and even think about winning the pledged delegate race, Clinton needs over 20% wins throughout the rest of the primary season, and if she can't get that in Pennsylvania, where she is strongest, then obviously her candidacy is in serious trouble.

And before you say that she only needs the popular vote, well, if she only gets a 1% win in Pennsylvania, it will mean that the popular vote will be a wash, and she needed something like 300,000 votes to even think about finishing ahead of Obama.  Regardless, counting the popular vote is disenfranchising everyone in caucus states.  Given your concern for the Michiganders and Floridians, I would hope that you would support people like me who waited in the cold to caucus on Feb 5.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-11 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Ditto (head)

Here's an interesting idea: in the upcoming primaries, the only big one that Hillary Clinton is expected to win with enough of a margin to make a dent in the popular vote is... Puerto Rico.  Expect a turnout of around 2 million voters.

What do you think the spin out of the Clinton campaign is going to be if she wins the popular vote by virtue of a territory that doesn't vote in the general election?  Because I think that's the strategy; the PR contest was changed from a caucus to a primary for a reason.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Ditto (head)

If 2 million turned out in PR and Clinton won 57-43 (slightly higher than her last poll), she would net 280,000 votes. I doubt if that gets her the popular vote majority, given the big win Obama will get in SC and in some other states. WV and KY, which Clinton will carry big are not big states and historically they have low turnout.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 09:04AM | 0 recs
Oh, interesting

When was the caucus changed to a primary?

I'm curious as to whether it has anything to do with the Obama-supporting governor who is facing finance allegations... if it was changed within the past 2 weeks, then there's definitely something funky going on.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-11 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, interesting

About a month ago?  It was before the governor ran into trouble.  At the time I thought it was because she does better in primaries, but I'm beginning to think it's because of the popular vote argument.

It would be the local party's decision; to the extent that they've endorsed, they're behind Hillary.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
Good

I'm glad it wasn't in the last two weeks.  That would have looked really bad.  Though the governor has been under investigation for awhile.

All the same, it will be largely meaningless in the long run.  Good that Puerto Rico gets to be at least slightly relevant, though.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-11 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Talking Points Ditto (head)

Yes. The reason is that a caucus cost several times more in resources and planning then a primary.

Seeing that Puerto Rico changed from an unimportant last place to a king/queen maker the projected attendence sky-rocketed so they changed it to a more manageable primary to avoid choas.

Sometimes there really isn't a conspiracy, sometimes stuff just happens. Even in politics.

by Ernst 2008-04-11 10:19AM | 0 recs
Caucus is more expensive?

I thought caucuses were cheaper, since they didn't last as long and didn't rely on ballots?

At least, that was what was explained about Michigan and Florida before Clinton nixxed the concept of caucuses in those states outright.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-11 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Caucus is more expensive?

They do require more space per person and require more time per person. You need more people to organise and regulate a caucus. And because the rules are more complex those have to have more training as well. The time and knowledge demands on the people participating is also far higher.

Although I don't have the figures I'm convinced that the common wisdom that caucusses cost less money to organize is completely correct.

Thats why I used the more inclusive resources to include qualified persons, spaces etc. I'd say an election although more costly in dollars is a far lesser burden to organize and is far better at absorbing surprise peaks in turn out.

You can see the hidden resource costs of caucusses very easy in elections in private sector where the organization, voting, etc. happens during paid hours.

Of course a firehouse caucus would be different, but from an organizational stand point that's an election really.

My apologies for the late reply

by Ernst 2008-04-16 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

News flash: No democratic candidate has ever won the white vote since FDR.  In the modern era, they hover around 40%; you need about 42% to win.

Hillary's "winning coalition" that you just described sounds an awful lot like the Republican coalition.  You should add "and evangelicals" just to complete the picture.

PS: on what planet are african americans not the base of the party?  The general election matchups of Hillary vs McCain show McCain picking up 35 percent of the black vote.  That puts all states in play.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Yep, and back in FDR's day, there were all those southern reactionary, segregationist whites who were hard core Democrats. It was after Truman desegregated the armed forces and the Dixecrat Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 that those southern whites started abandoning the Democratic party.

BTW, I heard a story on NPR this morning from PA where a union official was saying that a lot of people from his union said that they would not support Obama because they couldn't support an African-American.  I was surprised that people would admit that, but they did...to him...and then he was willing to report this on public radio.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

That's interesting, I heard Mr Hoffa from afl-cio say exactly the Opposite, that Obama's race doesn't mean anything to his members.

by feliks 2008-04-11 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Well the Teamsters are a heavily black union.

Also, since they've endorsed Obama, that becomes an official talking point - you can't have your surrogates come out and say that his race is going to be an electoral problem.  But at any rate it's not so much a class thing as it is a regional thing - central PA is.. well it's not as bad as Kentucky but it's the same sort of remnants of the Ridgerunner culture.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I have a friend in north central PA who quotes the guys he knows as saying "I just ain't voting for the n****r".  I haven't brought it up because someone would accuse me of saying that Clinton supporters are racists, but if the guy says it, I believe it.

It also doesn't matter - what election after election proves is that it doesn't matter what central pennsylvania does - if you win Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania, you win the state.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Yep - Isn't it so the strongest Clinton areas have the fewest registered Democrats?

BTW, what do folks who know PA think of this analysis? http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=86ba5ba8-c7ec-40ac-819c-2452eb9f6557

by politicsmatters 2008-04-11 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I have friends in Philly who said that is EXACTLY what Obama is going to do and they strongly believe that he is going to pull a surprising upset.

by regina1983 2008-04-11 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I've thought about it, but I'm wary of thinking that a win in Pennsylvania is even possible.  I don't feel like going through California again.

Also, backing of the party machine really does mean a lot.  When you see the polls, a good rule of thumb is to add about 3-4 points to Clinton to account for added turnout.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:43AM | 0 recs
Obama Must Win Pennsylvania, says who?

Talk about moving the goal posts.  I think Clinton will win PA and I think she needs PA, it is a must.  She can't afford for Obama to eek out a win or it may be the end of the road for her.  I see her win in the 5-12 point margin.  I also think that Obama needs to keep it close and keep a sense of momentum going into the next round.

by venavena 2008-04-11 08:54AM | 0 recs
no substantive diary rule?

will it never end? i agree with Kysen, this is sadly pathetic. Obama can get 40% the vote from here on and win the nomination.

can we please break the "no substantive diaries" rule and put an end to this assinine crap by filling this website with SUBSTANTIVE DIARIES? like maybe, on ISSUES? i know, it's a radical thought, but...

by catchaz 2008-04-11 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

A win or a loss won't really matter. What will matter is the delegate spread. If there isn't a significant swing in the delegate count, PA will essentially be a wash.

by rhetoricus 2008-04-11 08:58AM | 0 recs
Delegates

When one candidate is behind in delegates and popular vote why is it the candidate ahead that needs to win? I don't get that. Nobody tells the winning team in a sports game that they need to keep racking up points or it will be a loss for them, they just need to keep the other side from doing so.  Senator Clinton needs 58.7% of the outstanding delegates in order to win the nomination. In order to reduce this percentage at all and move closer to wining the nomination she must net 30 delegates (delegates not percent of vote) out of Pennsylvania. A win by any less increases the percentage of outstanding delegates she needs post Pennsylvania.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-11 09:02AM | 0 recs
Such is the alternate reality in which

some find themselves.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Delegates

The same reason the second place candidate offers the first place candidate the Vice Presidency.

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

SDs know what they're supposed to be looking for and what matters - they don't need us to tell them. I don't think very many are swayed one bit by all the spinning.

by Becky G 2008-04-11 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Let's get real. It's mid April and Obama hasn't closed the deal.

That's an interesting way of looking at things, but, realistically, Sen. Obama closed the deal back in March. When he won Texas and lost by a slim margin in Ohio, he erased any chance Sen. Clinton had of winning the pledged delegates. No matter what happens in the final races, he'll finish with a margin of somewhere between 100-200 pledged delegates.

He'll only fail to get the nomination if there's some kind of devastating scandal that makes him completely unelectable and his announced superdelegates start defecting. But he's been pretty well-vetted and nothing came out except for silly micro-scandals like the business with Rev. Wright. Anyway, if the superdelegates start switching, then Sen. Clinton is in a good position to get the nomination with just the pledged delegates she has today.

Obviously Sen. Clinton is free to stay in the race for the fun of it, just to see how many more pledged delegates she can pick up. But that seems unfair to her supporters, who are basically being asked to donate money for no good reason. If I were in her place, I wouldn't remove my name from the ballot, but I'd pay all my outstanding bills and then put fundraising on hold until after the convention.

by mazement 2008-04-11 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

"When he won Texas..."

Dude, don't you know that caucuses don't count?

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Exactly. Which is why disenfranchising Michigan is a travesty, but disenfranchising Iowa/Colorado/Washington is logical and morally sound.

by vcalzone 2008-04-11 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I'm still wondering when Clinton closes the deal. Any supporters want to lay out that scenario for me? C'mon, give it your best shot. I want to see if there's a Clinton supporter who'd be willing to put the campaign's victory scenario in print. Please show me the math with delegate breakdowns that show how she wins the nomination. I hear more crickets coming.

by bookish 2008-04-11 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Senator Clinton failed to close the deal February Fifth.

Since she had no plan for a campaign beyond that date, and has no cash for it, and no lead in any measure, she will likely continue to fail to close the deal.

-chris blask

by chrisblask 2008-04-11 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I think he needs to get Bill Clinton's endorsement.  I mean if he can't get the endorsement of the last Democratic President than how can he be leader of the party.

by labor nrrd 2008-04-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
So, labor, why would the last democratic president not endorse the democratic candidate. Him not endorseing Obama would make the clintons persona non grata within the party.
by lion king 2008-04-11 09:18AM | 0 recs
Hillary will campaign for Obama

She has said she would.  I know that is a pill of the bitterest variety for some on this blog, but that's kind of how it works.  Even Mitt Romney, who can't stand the sight of McCain got up on stage with him and endorsed him, shortly after blowing many tens of millions of dollars on another presumptive nominee effort that couldn't seal the deal.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Um. Really?  I think that the situation has now reversed itself.  If Bill doesn't endorse the eventual nominee, that hurts only him.  Everybody knows where Bill stands in this primary, and it certainly isn't with Obama.  Sure, Bill's endorsement could help speed the "healing process" among Dems, but if Bill doesn't endorse Obama, the only thing that is affected negatively is Bill's standing in the democratic party, not Obama's.

I want to say that I don't begrudge Bill for campaigning for his wife at all (obviously).  Anyone would do the same.  That being said, this situation is entirely unique in American politics, so it's hard to try to try to draw conclusions about the effects.  It's just that Bill isn't viewed by democrats (in my opinion, I suppose) as being some statesman who can rise above the fray as ex-presidents usually are (or Gore, for instance, who will stay out until we have a nominee).

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Wow - a lot of commenters are sure angry about this "inconvenient truth".

by pan230oh 2008-04-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Saying "inconvinent truth" doesn't make something a good point.

by labor nrrd 2008-04-11 09:15AM | 0 recs
This is not an actual argument n/t

by Q 2008-04-11 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Clinton is 6.3% behind in pledged delegates and 4.5% behind overall.  There are only 252 regular super delegates left, 69 add-on super delegates (which will favor Obama thanks to the selection process), and some delegates who are pledging to support the pledged delegate winner.  A win of upper single digits (the expected outcome at this point) followed by expected results in the remaining primaries will require her to get over 80% of the remaining super delegates.  Unfortunately for Clinton, the vast majority of recent super delegate endorsements have been for Obama.

Just getting over 50% in Pennsylvania is practically meaningless for Clinton - she will only be farther from the nomination without a blowout 20%+ win.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-04-11 09:15AM | 0 recs
There you go again

with your durn mathematicals!

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
In a horse race it's up to the horse that is behind to catch up. If that horse can't catch up before the end of the race, he loses. It is not up to the horse that is winning to prove that he can win the race.
by lion king 2008-04-11 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Not necessarily. If the winner is found to have violated any rules that horse is disqualified.

by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-04-11 03:07PM | 0 recs
Clinton must win everything left....

...to even come close to matching Obama in pledged delegates.  Pennsylvania is an important state, but winning it is not enough to get the nomination for Clinton.  The only reason Obama needs to win Pennsylvania is to end this thing now.  So, really, it's a matter of Clinton has to win this or she's done.  It's do or die for Clinton, not Obama.  If he doesn't win it, he will very likely clinch the nomination in May/early June.

by Q 2008-04-11 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

The goalposts are wherever the Clinton supporters on MyDD say they are.

And they will be moved daily, or more often, from now until the convention.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-11 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I'm probably committing suicide here on mydd.com.....But Why all the troll ratings for comments that seem pro obama????Even the civil ones!

by feliks 2008-04-11 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
Because clinton supporter here tend to behave in rather childish ways. They scream about following the rules and then never do them selves.
by lion king 2008-04-11 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Are you seriously asking that question?  You must be one of those damn idealists :)

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

To their credit, most of them don't troll-rate without reason, they just vote up any comment that is pro-Clinton and anti-Obama. Even ones that are completely inane or completely contradictory to reality.

by vcalzone 2008-04-11 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Very true.  Also I have to say, I would imagine that some TR abuse comes from new members who just don't really know what it's about.  I know when I first started reading/posting I wasn't entirely clear what the ratings were used for.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Actually, this is a must win for Hillary.  If she loses, she's done.  

Can we stop with the he advertised in Florida bunk?  It was a national ad.  No way to prevent it from playing in Florida.

Speaking of, now Hillary supporters want FL/MI to count?  That wasn't the case before.  Oh, she needs them now.  I see.

If the roles were reversed, you guys would be calling Obama out on this as well.

by chewie5656 2008-04-11 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I saw the same ads - they were 30 seconds of Lawrence Tribe talking about how inspiring Barack Obama was.  It was a "getting to know you" ad.

It probably swayed exactly 0 people.  Ads like that lay the groundwork for followups that get into more specifics.  He made a national ad buy just to introduce himself to the country.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:48AM | 0 recs
great diary

you are so right and it is clear to everyone but Obama supporters.  A guy who gets all his win where the democratic party base is disenfranchised is NOT the best candidate for the GE.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-04-11 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: great diary

I will bet you any amount of money that a) Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania, and b) Barack Obama is the nominee.

Barring a game-changing scandal on either side.

by Mostly 2008-04-11 09:46AM | 0 recs
Well, there's a new scandal every week

for the Clintons.  The latest one, the $800,000 Bill made from Columbia isn't as visible or as easily understandable as the Bosnia Pinocchio Festival, but it can't be helping.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: great diary

And he out-spent Hillary 4:1 in Texas...

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: great diary
And he also won Texas. So, again,if hillary so believes that she can win, why isn't she investing in her own campaign. If she truly believed in her chances she would use some of her millions to "bet" on herself. Why isn't she??
by lion king 2008-04-11 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: great diary

And he still has enough money to pay his bills...

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: great diary

Spending money! What a scandal!

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:55AM | 0 recs
Bar raised, goalposts moved (NT)

by bernardpliers 2008-04-11 09:53AM | 0 recs
This is the argument that our SDs

can make, but I don't think that it will be enough.   It's a wierd year when you have a candidate who will have won 8 of the 10 largest states, which comprise almost 50% of the US population (yes, I am including FL and MI in the definition of "win"), losing only the opponent's home state and GA which will never go dem.  

That said, Obama presents the potential to win the race with a different electoral map.  He might drop MI and PA, and fail to win OH and FL, but pick up a number of southern border states like NC and VA and make gains in the mountain west with states like CO and NM.  

I think that his math will be tougher in the fall, which is one of the number of reasons I back Clinton, but is it logical and possible?  Absolutely.

The "we won the big states" argument alone won't be enough.   We need a case for the popular vote.  That case may include the votes in FL, but we need a win on that score to have a shot at this.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-11 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: This is the argument that our SDs
Obama won Texas. 99 - 94 I think he would have won MI as well since it is very close to his Chicago operations and he's won most of the other neighboring states (WI, IA, etc). You have to admit Obama's GOTV operation has performed amazingly well.

He's run a very smart campaign against a formidable opponent with a huge machine behind her. Hillary started with a 100 super delegate lead right out of the gate. She was inevitable...

There is no way that Obama loses to McSame (Bush's 3rd term). He will easily win PA, MI in November and probably OH and many mountain west states. He's actually expected to win "a share" of the Delegates in NE (they split by CD) too. Texas will be in play as well as ID, AK, and others. This will help Dem's downticket. That's why Obama has picked up ~70 new SD's and Hillary is actually "net negative" since Feb 5th.

by power of truth 2008-04-11 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: This is the argument that our SDs

Michigan looked like an Obama win to me.  If I had more space, I would describe to you what an Obama state is and what a Clinton state is.  Michigan is an Obama state.

Also: Jesse Jackson won Michigan ;)

by Mostly 2008-04-11 03:38PM | 0 recs
MICH

Would have been closer than OH or than PA will be.  I wouldn't call it an Obama state - Clinton would still carry it, unless it was run as she was in the midst of her losing streak.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-12 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Why is this on the rec list?  I don't mean to be rude, but seriously:

Obama MUST win Pennsylvania?

I'm afraid that this is categorically untrue.  Clinton must win Pennsylvania, and she will.  This is true whether you back Clinton or Obama.  This isn't a subjective matter (or it shouldn't be).  This question implies that Obama should consider dropping out if he loses Pennsylvania or that people* will call for him to drop out, neither of which are even remote possibilities absent a 90-10 margin of victory.

*People aside from the Clinton supporters who turn out these diaries, that is

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania
Check out who rec'd it. The usual cast of characters. And just for fun you should check out the diarist personal blog and see what kind of discusting hatred she posts there.
by lion king 2008-04-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

It's all the stuff that gets deleted by administrators here. Why she doesn't get banned, I'll never know.

by amiches 2008-04-11 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

No, I didn't say that.  I have said several times that I would never call on anyone to drop out.  That's undemocratic.

If he loses, it will give the SDs pause, and should cause them to question whether he can carry the base in November.

That's the point of the diary.  He "must" win to convince the super delegates.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Yet she can convince the SDs by losing the pledged delegate count, total number of states won, the popular vote and total money raised.

by fwiffo2 2008-04-11 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

No, he has never been expected to win there. This is when running against HILLARY. When running as the only Democrat, it becomes important. Before then, it means very little.

You guys completely ignore the fact that Clinton and McCain share the Reagan Democrat base that you speak of. And if it comes down to an issue of who people trust, she'd never win.

by vcalzone 2008-04-11 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Well, I'm not going to say she'd NEVER win. But she will have every bit as much of an uphill climb as Obama, because her double digit trail in Republican states means that McCain can focus all his energy on these battlefield states.

by vcalzone 2008-04-11 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

This diary is indicative of everything that's wrong with mydd. Way to push this to the rec list.

by gcensr 2008-04-11 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Meh- you're wrong, but that's no surprise, you're from Texas.

(this is a joke, I used to live in San Angelo)

But, seriously, Clinton needs to carry PA, and in a big way. I think she set the bar a little too high for herself, and has to tamper expectations now. I doubt any superdelegates are going to seriously take the "I win states with lots of electoral votes" argument, considering Texas surely will vote Democratic in the Fall if Clinton's on the ticket, and New York and California will never vote Democratic for Obama. Right?

by ragekage 2008-04-11 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

San Angelo . . . Ohh the memories. I recall the culture shock when I spent a few months there.

by Veteran75 2008-04-11 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Hillary MUST win North Carolina! A loss there means that she can't seal the deal in Edward's home state.

by Veteran75 2008-04-11 10:16AM | 0 recs
Edwards........

Didn't he run for president a couple of times?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-11 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Spin much TexasDarlin?

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:22AM | 0 recs
HAHAHAHAHA

Ahhhh. Thanks for the laughs. The guy who is ahead just needs to stay ahead.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-11 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I figured it out...TexasDarlin is a pseudonym for Howard Wolfson.

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

funny!  wrong, though.  I've never met or communicated with anyone affiliated with the HRC campaign.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

You should...you would have probably run a better campaign than those bozos...It's a compliment!!

by hootie4170 2008-04-11 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

The person who wins is the one with the most legally and rule abiding delegates. Anything else would be perceived as an unfair or stolen nomination.

The rules were agreed upon before the process started. Wanting to change the rules halfway through because you are losing is unfair.

by IowaMike 2008-04-11 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I seriously wonder if any Clinton supporters are aware of how it would be perceived if Clinton wins the nomination while losing in pledged delegates and the popular vote.  I can certainly understand why people are mad about Michigan and Florida (though it's a pretty big logical leap to blame Obama for their primaries not counting), but can you imagine what would happen to the democratic party if they went that route?  I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for Hillary, because I would vote for, work for, and give money to her campaign if she's the nominee, but I wonder why Clinton supporters who write these diaries don't understand that the dems have to make the best of a bad situation with Florida and Michigan, and that while the present situation is by no means perfect, all the remedies they're proposing would make it much less fair rather than more.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

To ask "Has there ever been a Democratic nominee who lost the primaries in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida?" is as meaningless as asking "Has a woman ever won the Presidency".

by My Ob 2008-04-11 10:39AM | 0 recs
Someone, please tie down those goalposts

This is not a flattering diary for Hillary supporters. Nobody is going to take this kind of argument seriously. You're just making yourselves look silly.

What's next?

"Clinton's won all the states with an odd number of electoral votes!"

"Clinton's won more delegates from congressional districts with nearsighted representatives!"

"Clinton's only losing by 2% in states whose motto isn't in Latin!"

by fwiffo2 2008-04-11 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

He's trying very hard to win PA, otherwise he won't invest a lot of money into ads.  Don't count him out just yet.

by JoeySky18 2008-04-11 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

If Pennsylvania were winner take all, your post would make more sense to me.  Those dollars aren't wasted even if he loses.  Obama is spending money in Pennsylvania to win votes to win delegates, though the state itself would surely be a nice bonus.

by minnesotaryan 2008-04-11 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

WHAT?! Obama MUST win Pennsylvania the way that Clinton MUST win North Carolina. What a deliberately obtuse statement. Obama MUST win Pennsylvania in November. He doesn't have to do anything now.

Besides that, the benchmarks for Hillary are at least 15%. This is not for some sort of magic formula, this is what she needs in order to WIN THE POPULAR VOTE. Remember that? Actually winning the popular vote in the country? The benchmark that was supposed to make superdelegates flock to Hillary?

If Obama comes close in Pennsylvania, Clinton's only prayer is to hope that voters just decide that Obama is unelectable. A formidable task for someone who has just been beaten by him.

by vcalzone 2008-04-11 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

He won Texas, darlin'

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-11 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Hillary Clinton is now the Black Knight from Monty Python apparently.


 ARTHUR and BLACK KNIGHT:
    Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc.
    [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
 ARTHUR:
    Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
    'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
    A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
    No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
    Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
    I've had worse.
ARTHUR:
    You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT:
    Come on, you pansy!
-FIGHTING-
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
...
 BLACK KNIGHT:
    Just a flesh wound.
    [kick]
ARTHUR:
    Look, stop that.
...
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right leg off]
...
 BLACK KNIGHT:
    I'm invincible! (Inevitable!)
ARTHUR:
    You're a looney.
BLACK KNIGHT:
    The Black Knight always triumphs! (A Clinton Never loses!) Have at you! Come on, then.
    [whop]
    [ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's last leg off]

BLACK KNIGHT:
    Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw. (You can be my running mate!)
ARTHUR:
    Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT:
    Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

As long as Hillary Clinton refuses to accept she's lost, she hasn't!  

by PantsB 2008-04-11 10:56AM | 0 recs
HIllary Must Win PA by 15+ Points

Otherwise, she can't make the momentum argument, since the polls had her up by 15-20 points before campaigning began.

In fact, even that won't save Hillary, since it's unlikely to change the outcome of the primary.  The Math, you know.

But good try moving those goalposts.

by Spirit of Fighting Bob 2008-04-11 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

"Let's get real. It's mid April and Obama hasn't closed the deal.

Yes. Let's finally get real. Hillary will never close the deal.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-11 11:01AM | 0 recs
I'm surprised Wolfson hasn't lost weight...

... with all the goalpost-moving he's done this election season.

I realize, of course, that this is a message to superdelegates, above all else, but I highly doubt they're buying this line of crap given that Wolfson and others have made clear previously that PA was/is a "must win" for Hillary.

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-11 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Agreed TX

What people either fail to understand or perhaps
it's just denial is BO has FAILED to WIN a SINGLE large state except his HOME state. Get it???
He CANNOT win the general election when he can NOT pull in anything except a bunch of states that will vote repug come November.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

by IndyRobin 2008-04-11 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Now I get it. If Obama is the nominee, California and New York will vote McCain! I never understood that before. Thank you for explaining this so that I can vote for Hillary!!

by SeanF 2008-04-11 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I don't know where you are getting that information, since many polls in California have McCain in a dead heat with Clinton, while Obama wins handily.  

by Toddwell 2008-04-11 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

yah that was me being sarcastic! =)

by SeanF 2008-04-11 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

I guess Minnesota, Washington, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri don't count in November according to Hillary?

by Toddwell 2008-04-11 01:03PM | 0 recs
The argument

that Obama can not win big states in the GE because he failed to win them in the primary is deeply flawed. PRIMARY WINS HAVE NO CORRELATION, I REPEAT, NO CORRELATION TO HOW THE RESULTS IN THE GE WILL BE.  This argument is further debunked by the fact that most of the big states are deep blue Democratic states.  Do you really think a state like California or New York is going to go Republican in the fall?

by SocialDem 2008-04-11 05:58PM | 0 recs
Has there ever been a Democratic Nominee who

failed to win in
Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Texas(Obama won Texas), Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia,  Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Iowa, the Virgin Island, the Expats, DC and soon to be North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana and Oregon?

Oh and the popular vote.  And the pledged delegate count.  

by PantsB 2008-04-11 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Has there ever been a Democratic Nominee who

No.

by chrisblask 2008-04-11 11:22PM | 0 recs
Formatting problems

Like facts

by TheSilverMonkey 2008-04-11 11:16AM | 0 recs
Another reason to believe Obama will lose PA

For everyone talking about how much money Obama has spent in Pennsylvania, he's not spending money in one area that could hurt him: "street money."

The LA Times reported yesterday that Obama appears unwilling to go along with the long-standing Philly tradition of paying "street money" to the city's ward leaders in exchange for their help drumming up votes. The city operatives dole out this money in $50 to $100 payments to foot soldiers who go door to door, but Obama's campaign has given no indication that they will make such payments. Many Democratic leaders in Philly warn that if Obama doesn't put up the cash, the foot soldiers will take Clinton payments instead.

You can read the full story here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-streetmoney11apr11,0,6553901.story

by jdusek 2008-04-11 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason to believe Obama will lose PA

that's incredible.  what's the reason given?

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason to believe Obama will lose PA

In the LA Times piece, an Obama aid is quoted as saying that the campaign's field strategy has been to "recruit new people drawn to Obama's message" rather than "tapping long-standing political machinery."

by jdusek 2008-04-11 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason to believe Obama will lose PA

LOL, if he had given out street money, you would have accused him of buying votes.

Incredible indeed.

by fwiffo2 2008-04-11 11:32AM | 0 recs
Obama also did not do this

in South Carolina

by SocialDem 2008-04-11 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Another reason to believe Obama will lose PA

I heard about this on the redio today as I was headed out...caught the tail end of it...so, thanks for sharing this with us...

by Patriot2008 2008-04-11 12:03PM | 0 recs
At this point it is becoming comical and painful

to watch Hillary supporters.

This is seriously funny stuff but also painful in the sense that you can hardly watch someone make such a fool of themselves.  You want to look away but you can't.

Hillary supporters are kinda of like "Michael" the boss from The Office at this point.

by FinneganOregon 2008-04-11 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Excellent diary, TD.

Those that believe the winner of the DEM nomination is the one with the most pledged delegates - not true.  It is the one that gets to 2,024 first.

The SD's will decide this race and they will continue to weigh in based on exit polling results.

If BO cannot gain a majority of white voters in the upcoming primaries - then it is the job of the SD's to ensure that we have the most electable candidate against McCain.

It will be Hillary - not BO.

by nikkid 2008-04-11 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Democrats haven't won a majority of the white vote since, when, FDR?

On the other hand, Democrats never win without winning almost all of the African American vote. By your logic, Hillary can't win the general election because Obama's winning the black vote.

by fwiffo2 2008-04-11 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

Hillary is much less electable than Obama and would also drag down our downticket candidates.  The SD's wont have this.  

by Toddwell 2008-04-11 01:01PM | 0 recs
Skreeee....

The sound of the goalposts moving again.  Just plain hilarious.

by quixote27 2008-04-11 11:51AM | 0 recs
Bull SH*T Obama advertized in FLA!

Clinton had "fundraising events" in FLA where she "wasn't campaigning, just raising money"

And you claim Obama campaigned in FLA?

And you feed these people crap like this?
And they eat it up, like the ninnies that they are.

Obama ran some national tv ads, that is it.

Retraction anyone?

I didn't think so.

by Silence Do Good 2008-04-11 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Bull SH*T Obama advertized in FLA!

You are essentially correct, and I will be adding that source to the diary.

Both Obama and Clinton had fundraising events in Florida.  Those were permitted by the agreement.

What was expressly prohibited by the pledge was campaigning or advertising.  So allowing TV commercials to be aired across the state on cable networks was in violation of the agreement.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 12:06PM | 0 recs
back that up.

Lets see that aggreement.

I want to see that line that you reference.

I believe you are being disengenous.

by Silence Do Good 2008-04-11 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: back that up.

here you go:

DNC Campaign Pledge: http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/ THREE_pledge_versions.pdf

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the link

That is a tough one, I guess I would need to know more about how national TV ad buys work.

I can see why you believe you are correct.

I could argue that he didn't actualy buy any ads in MI or FLA. But if it is common practice to buy national ads on CNN but exclude states then I would be wrong.

The bottom line is they both aggreed that MI and FLA wouldn't count

by Silence Do Good 2008-04-12 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

TexasDarlin must stop making stuff up as she goes along.

by DemUnity 2008-04-11 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania

And now she DEMANDS that I delete my satire at ONCE:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/11/1638 3/2563

Democrats can have fun too!!

:o)

by FOB92 2008-04-11 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Penn - WRONG!
Hillary needs to win by 20% or this thing is OVER.

Obama's delegate margin might seem small, but it's close to the combined margins of victories of all of Hillary's prior wins. There are only 10 states left, and PA is the biggest. There are no CA's or NY's left. PA, NC and OR are the biggest states left. Real Clear Politics Delegates

Hillary's top 10 victories by margin.

NY +46

CA +38

AR +19

MA +17

TN +12

NJ +11

OK +10

OH +9

AZ +6

RI +5

================

Total = 173

Nobody thinks Hillary can win all 10 of the remaining contests (though anything is possible, of course). It's hard to see how she can make up the deficit with the remaining states. Hillary needs to win PA by a HUGE margin.

by power of truth 2008-04-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Penn - WRONG!

Just for kicks, here's Obama's list by biggest delegate wins:

IL +55
GA +33
WA +26
VA +25
MN +24
CO +15
KS +14
MD +14
SC +13
ID +12
LA +12
IA +11
WI +10

by Skaje 2008-04-11 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Penn - WRONG!
Thanks! That helps put it in perspective.
by power of truth 2008-04-11 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Updated]
I must say this is a wonderful diary. But my favorite part is where you source the fact that Obama had ads up in Florida, despite the pledge not to do so, despite the fact that Hillary kept to the pledge, and IN FACT that he lost so big anyway.
I was in Florida, and NOT NORTHERN FLorida, but southern FL the weekend before the primary there, and the Obama ads went on the air on several channels over and over again. They claimed they were tied to a SC ad buy, and that there were a few that were shown in Northern FL, but I WAS THERE and they were all over the air in southern FL as well. And not just a few.
But at the time, Hillary took a lot of cr*p for supposedly 'breaking the pledge' about advertising, and Obama got a free pass.
Well, what else is new??
So thank you for sourcing this piece of the story!!
by rrs11215 2008-04-11 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Ms. Texas -

If you would just drink the Kool-Aid, then everything would be fine.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-11 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Updated]

When will her supporters realize she has lost?

by DeskHack 2008-04-11 01:31PM | 0 recs
Clinton lost

Wisconsin.

You have no explanation for that.

Clinton lost Virginia.

You have no explanation for that.

Clinton lost Texas where it counts, in delegates.

But you claim it as a victory.

Clinton lost Colorado and Maine and Washington despite having every advantage in the book.  Voters know her but don't pick her.

Clinton lost Mississippi and Wyoming despite her "huge" win in Ohio supposedly giving her momentum.

Clinton lost Minnesota and Iowa and Missouri.

Those states, full of voters who know her well, don't count.

Clinton lost the Maryland and Connecticut primaries. Those states must not factor into getting to the White House either.

Clinton lost Georgia and South Carolina and Louisiana and Alabama despite her Southern husband and her Arkansas accent.

Clinton lost Nebraska and Kansas and Idaho and Alaska and North Dakota.

Could she have chosen to compete? Is there any accountability?

Clinton lost Illinois by huge margins, much greater than those that Obama lost New York.

Yes, Clinton won Rhode Island and New Jersey and New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

She will win Pennsylvania and West Virginia and Kentucky too.

But Obama has won states he wasn't favored to have won and some of them by large margins.

Clinton has not. All she has done is win in the narrow range of states where her advantages have been strongest...and oftentimes by narrow margins.

That's why Clinton is losing and has no chance to win the pledged delegate count.

(Btw, she has already claimed FL and MI...after she pledged not to...and then wanted revotes...and now is claiming it's "unAmerican" to refuse to give her what she needs, which is any excuse to confuse the election.)

Clinton needs to win Pennsylvania and North Carolina and Indiana by over 20% apiece. She needs 65-35 wins minimum in all three states with the most favorable delegate splits in every congressional disctrict.

She won't get them.

Hence, you are saying Obama has to win Pennsylvania!!!

lol.

Clinton needs a time machine and a better campaign manager.

She's not going to get that either.

by kid oakland 2008-04-11 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Updated]
Oh yes, Hillary the annointed one.  The saviour of the Democratic party.  The only Democratic candidate that can win the big states in a general election.
Do you really believe the sh*t that she is pedalling?  I doubt it.  But yet you follow blindly.   Maybe a loss by her in PA will finally end it?
by jv 2008-04-11 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Updated]
If his delegate lead is "slight", why is there even a concern. Surely Clinton can overcome a "slight" lead?
Obama has already won enough to lead..and he is not through. A month ago it was perceived a blow-out in PA...Look at polls around 3/10 and now
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
Do folks really believe that record turn-outs in every Primary are the result of folks supporting Clinton?
How is that Clinton Power in NC looking?
http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
 
by nogo war 2008-04-11 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Unplagiarized]
Texas, it surprises you that a BO supporter would plagiarize?  Let's see the anointed one uses other's speeches, Hillary's policy ideas and always seems to hedge until Hillary takes a stand.
Gee...there appears to be a pattern here.
by susanclare 2008-04-11 02:13PM | 0 recs
Hahaha.. Seriously? Crying about plagiarism?

YOU consider that to be plagiarism?

wow. unfortunately, that's not what plagiarism is.

That is called satire. And for satirical purposes it is perfectly acceptable to use nearly the same language you used. That's how the world works, get over it.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-04-11 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Hahaha.. Seriously? Crying about plagiarism?

Blue, you forgot that all MyDD diaries are protected by double-super secret copyright, which prevents satire as well as traditional plagiarism.  /snark

by bosdcla14 2008-04-11 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Unplagiarized]
And if you loved this diary you can see what darlin really thinks. Just go to her personal blog and see the discusting and hateful things she posts there.
by lion king 2008-04-11 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Unplagiarized]
Texas- Thanks again for another good diary. You keep telling the truth-
I said it before and I will say it again- PA is Hillary country!  
by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-04-11 03:22PM | 0 recs
UPDATE

lol....you mean they're YOUR WORDS?  Not someone else's words re used and copied?

...it's seems to be a habit in the Obama campaign, huh?  

Axelrod no doubt has his playbook of phrases.  But bloggers don't have access to it, so they have to copy other bloggers.  lmao

by LindaSFNM 2008-04-11 04:06PM | 0 recs
This is bullshit

"(Polls have indicated that McCain has a good chance of capturing Hispanic voters, against Obama.)"

unless you post head to head polling numbers that support it.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-11 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: This is bullshit

that is included in the source right above, if you take the time to read the whole reference and not skim it.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-11 05:33PM | 0 recs
Post the link for

the head to head Obama-McCain poll that shows him losing latinos to McCain as compared to Clinton. It shouldn't be hard.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-11 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Must Win Pennsylvania [Unplagiarized]

I voted in Florida, and was told by the Clinton volunteers outside the polling station that I "shouldn't worry" because there was a "huge effort" underway to get out the Clinton vote - big smiles and conspiratorial winks are around...

Apparently, saying something good about Bill Clinton made them believe I was a supporter of his wife...

When I told them the whole thing sounded underhanded and went on to say that I thought Obama was the person for this cycle they clammed up, stopped looking me in the eye and stopped smiling.

Sen. Clinton abandonded my state when I wanted my vote to count because, as she said airily: "it will all be over February fifth".

Now she cares?

-harumph

-chris blask

by chrisblask 2008-04-11 11:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads