What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Looking at Markos' predictions of a 54 percent to 46 percent victory today for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, I think that's about where I'm at: 45-46 percent for Barack Obama, 54-55 percent for Clinton in the state, with a slightly greater likelihood that Clinton will come in above 55 percent than Obama will come in above 46 percent. Obama has been able to move his numbers up a bit in recent polling, from a ceiling of about 41 percent to a ceiling of about 44 percent in pre-election polling, and though I think he should be able to improve a point or two from that mark, I'd imagine that more undecideds would move towards Clinton than Obama (given that in states like Pennsylvania that has been the case).

Regardless of what the margin is, however, what would a Clinton win in Pennsylvania mean for the overall race for the Democratic nomination? Bloomberg News' Catherine Dodge and Kristin Jensen take a look:

To overtake Barack Obama in the nationwide popular vote, Hillary Clinton needs a bigger win in tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary than she has had in any major contest so far. And that's just for starters.

After more than 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, Obama, the Illinois senator, leads Clinton by more than 800,000 votes. Even if the New York senator wins by more than 20 percentage points tomorrow -- a landslide few experts expect -- she would still have a hard time catching him.

[...]

``Popular vote matters,'' says Steve Grossman, a marketing executive and one of Clinton's top fundraisers. ``If there is an opportunity for her to pick up enough popular votes, that is a powerful calling card to the superdelegates to say the will of the people is a split decision.''

To earn that split decision, though, Clinton would need a 25-point victory in Pennsylvania, plus 20-point wins in later contests in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Even that scenario assumes Clinton, 60, would break even in Indiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana and Oregon -- a prospect that's not at all certain.

The folks at First Read did their own number crunching today, and found that in the case of a 10-point win for Clinton today, followed by very favorable results in the remaining primaries (for instance, only losing by 10 points in North Carolina rather than the close to 20-point deficit she nows faces in the state), Clinton would still end up close to 200,000 votes short of winning the nation-wide popular vote -- a margin large enough so that Obama would still lead in this tally even if Florida were included as well. (Update [2008-4-22 13:6:6 by Jonathan Singer]: It looks like either I'm reading the First Read folks incorrectly or they're just wrong when they write, "So Team Clinton couldn't get there with also adding Florida; they'd need Michigan, too", because Clinton's margin in the uncontested and non-delegate yielding Florida contest was larger than 200,000 votes.)

Does this all mean that a Clinton win in Pennsylvania would be meaningless? Far from it. If Clinton can exceed expectations and win by a healthy double-digit margin tonight, as well as eat away a significant chunk of Obama's delegates, she would have more than enough reason to keep her campaign going, at least through North Carolina and Indiana, and probably even through to the end of the voting process in early June. However, it is important to keep in mind -- for voters, for election-watchers, for superdelegates, for the candidates themselves -- that even under some of the rosiest predictions, Clinton will not be able to overtake Obama in the pledged delegate race, she won't likely be able to overtake him in the popular vote race, and, without an immense and unexpected movement from within the ranks of the superdelegates, she won't be able to overcome his overall delegate lead by the time Democrats stop voting at the beginning of June.

Tags: Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Primary (all tags)

Comments

135 Comments

Correction needed

Dear Jonathan,

Hillary won Florida by a margin of 294,772 votes.

So, the sentence: "Clinton would still end up close to 200,000 votes short of winning the nation-wide popular vote -- a margin large enough so that Obama would still lead in this tally even if Florida were included as well" - needs to be corrected.

As you can see, a path to popular vote victory does exist, and is not unreasonable (though admittedly it will be uphill).

by bobbank 2008-04-22 08:57AM | 0 recs
Florida

Hi Bob,

I am a Florida voter, and after casting my vote in January I stopped to sign a local petition and chat with the folks at the Democrat table outside.

We got to talking and I told them how I had supported Bill Clinton in the 90s and they leaned in and told me "not to worry" because there was a "huge effort underway to get out the Clinton voters" and that they had it on "good authority" that the delegates would be seated.

When I told them I was an Obama suppoter they physically drew back, and stopped making conversation and eye-contact.

I wrote Howard Dean about that, and Gov Crist.

I am "bitter" with the DNC and everyone involved in discarding my vote in the first place.  I am "bitter" with the Clinton machine for going behind the curtains to campaign in Florida against the rules.  I am "bitter" with the Senator Clinton for acting like she cares about my vote only after it counts since it wasn't "all over on Feb fifth".

I want my vote to count, but fairly.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-04-22 09:03AM | 0 recs
Only one way to do that.

You need to oust every freaking corrupt Florida politican that played craps with your voting rights.

Every time I hear about Florida politics, it makes me vaguely ill.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-22 09:12AM | 0 recs
Florida and Michigan are Irrevelant

They will never count, nor should they.

Thosands ov Mi. and Fl. voters stayed home thinking their primaries wouldn't count.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-22 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida and Michigan are Irrevelant

Democrats in Florida and Michigan are irrelevant.

Hmm.. I don't think you do fellow Obama supporters any service by sounding like the Borg from Star Trek.

I don't think you do Democrats (yes we are all in the same party) any service by saying votes should not be counted.

by bobbank 2008-04-22 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Florida

Can Floridians, after all the Press and discussion this got still remain so ignorant??

1.  The FLORIDA REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE would not allow an up-and-down vote on the date of the DEMOCRATIC Primary.  They lumped the Primary date in with a bill that would have reformed Florida Election machines, and FORCED Democrats to choose.  All, or nothing.

It is still in the hands of the Credentials and Rules committees to do the right thing.  But Obama will stop at nothing to invalidate these results, because he knows he cannot abide them.

2.  Hillary did NOT campaign in Florida, no matter what the BamaBots say.  She may have attended a couple local events, just like Obama did, but there was NO campaign, NO major media buys, NO rallies, NO bus tours, nothing.

3.  You have a right to be bitter, Chris, but you should not be bitter at Hillary Clinton:  She's been pressing for months for a way to get those Florida votes counted.  

Obama has been the one throwing you all under the wheels of his campaign bus.  

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida

The fact that some folks took it upon themselves to help mobilize a Hillary vote is not sinister, it's admirable.  The fact is that turnout in Florida, as measured by % of Kerry vote, is almost completely in-line with what other states were experiencing.

If you support Obama, cheers to you.

If you're bitter with the DNC for acting moronic in its handling of FL, MI, NH, IA, and SC (all states that broke the rules) - then I'm right there with you, brother.

But don't spread misinformation - Hillary did not campaign in Florida, and we all know that.

by bobbank 2008-04-22 04:08PM | 0 recs
And why does this deserve a troll rating ?

by SevenStrings 2008-04-22 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: And why does this deserve a troll rating ?

exactly.  whoever did the troll rating is him/herself a troll.  How to report them?

by moevaughn 2008-04-22 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed
DemUnity needs to be banned for abusing the rating system.
He/she is a lurker who precludes honest discussion.
by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:25AM | 0 recs
Troll Rating

Back in the Day, when I had trusted user status at dKos, someone gave me an unwarranted troll rating. I figured out who they were and I began to stalk their comments.

But I soon realized that by troll rating them I was tarnishing my own reputation. I quickly stopped that but I was still angry at my "enemy". I needed to do something.

Back then the ratings were 1-4, unless you were trusted. People gloried in leaving comments that racked up a ton of 4's. It was a ticket to trusted user status. So my enemy would often have comments with 10 or even 15 4's. But a single 3 would mar that beautiful string, and people were not happy that someone would give them a 3.

That became my tactic. I would give my enemy 3's on his popular comments. Mind you 3 meant that it was a "good" comment. So I got my revenge satisfaction without tarnishing my own reputation.

So what's that got to do with DemUnity? Nothing maybe. But for someone who feels compelled to rate comments; they can become a bit hamstrung by the current system here that offers the new commenter only two choices. Good and Troll. So maybe they just want to express disagreement with the post.

It's possible. Of course, so is your theory that they are out of sync with accepted behavior here at MyDD.

by Jeff Wegerson 2008-04-22 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed

Hillary didn't win Florida. Just saying.

by babbitt 2008-04-22 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed

Hillary DID win Florida.  And if they could find a way to have another Primary there, she would win again.  And you know it.

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed

Over 800,000 voters says she did. Who's more right? Them or you?

by SoCalHillMan 2008-04-22 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed

Me. That wasn't a free or fair election. No campaigning was involved and nobody was awarded delegates. It wasn't a real vote. It certainly wasn't an actual election. I am sure they will be seated in some manner but to claim a "win" in a show  vote is the same as winning the state is a little bit dishonest. Sorry, that's how I feel about it.

by babbitt 2008-04-22 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed

As for holding a primary? Yes, I do believe that she would win. I thing that Obama would probably win Michigan in a primary but the results would be closer than the Hillary win margin in Florida. Hillary would come out a net positive delegate winner. Not sure by how much.

by babbitt 2008-04-22 10:22AM | 0 recs
Oh great. Thanks DemUnity.

Force me to uprate a comment I don't agree with just to make up for your foolish troll rating.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:46AM | 0 recs
Uprated

for abuse of troll rating - and truth, even though I believe the "popular vote" metric is misleading.

by goshzilla 2008-04-22 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Correction needed

Thank you for the correction Jonathan.

by bobbank 2008-04-22 04:05PM | 0 recs
It doesn't mean anything

Even if she loses, she is taking it all the way to the convention.

by nonwhiteperson 2008-04-22 08:58AM | 0 recs
Your mistake is thinking it's her decision

At some point the superdelegates will endorse Obama, her money will further dry up, and she'll drop out. This will be in early June at the very latest. This is not going to the convention. No sane Democrat would wish that.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It doesn't mean anything

Yet another DemUnity trollrate.

Please, administrators.
Look at all of his/her trollrates.
Ban this person.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

If Clinton wins by 15% in Penna -
It changes all of the parameters for the upcoming races.

Coupled with Ohio and Texas, a big Penna win for Clinton will be seen and reported by the MSM as Obama running out of gas.

PS - Not everyone agrees with the 800,000 figure - esp. Clinton supporters.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:04AM | 0 recs
Texas?

Last time I checked, Obama gained more delegates in Texas than did HRC.

by KTinOhio 2008-04-22 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

Ah revenge of the antidemocratic wing of the party...

they seem to be having a good year...

Florida, Michigan, Texas, Washinton state, and caucuses everywhere...

Who decided a voter in Alaska gets 10 times the say I do????

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

Complaining about the rules they both operated under seems illogical.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

You mean the rules that allowed the voters of NH and other states to move up their primary dates, but shut down Florida and Michigan for doing the same thing?

Them "rules"?

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

Again. Complaining about the rules they both operated under seems illogical. Do you understand what I'm saying?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

It's "illogical" to have rules that are internally inconsistent and are neither applied nor enforced equally.

Know what I'm sayin'?

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

I understand exactly what you're saying even though you're wrong about the rules being applied differently and are clearly complaining about rules that they both played under as if somehow they benefit one candidate more than the other rather than one candidate simply being a better organizer than the other.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

McCauley, the RULES changed while the process was underway!

In December 2007, The DNC Rules Committee allowed Iowa, NH, NV, and SC to move their primaries up, yet voted to punish MI and FL for trying to do the same thing.

In SPITE of the fact that the FL Democrats were railroaded into it by the Florida GOP.

Rules??

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 11:26AM | 0 recs
You can bitch all you want...

an advantage for hillary was buried in them rules.

Her own damn fault if she made a campaign with a glass jaw.

by RisingTide 2008-04-22 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

Of course, if Obama gets the same percentage of VOTES in November should he be the Dem nominee, he will get ZERO electoral votes from Texas.  You can game the system - esp. in the Texas two-step - but when push comes to shove in elections, you have to face the music.

I think the tune today is "Rocky".

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas?

Game the system? Following the rules isn't gaming the system.

Clinton won't win TX either so that's a wash.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 10:05AM | 0 recs
Until the next contest

Yes.  The big story out of Pennsylvania will be - is Obama running out of gas?

Until we shift from a state where Clinton has a big demographic edge to one where Obama does and another where there's a genuine tossup.

Then the story will be - Hillary doesn't care, she's going to the convention because Obama's unelectable.

Sigh.  

After Puerto Rico votes, the supers better make up their minds.  There's no reason for four more months of this.

by TL 2008-04-22 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

Fuck You - DemUnity. (asterisk)
I am sick of your goddamned trollrating!!  (asterisk)

This asshole trollrates dozens of people - never posts a diary - rarely, if ever, posts a comment.
All he/she does is trollrate.
(another asterisk)

Will someone please do something about this abuse of the ratings?

Asterisk - I rarely use language like this, but DemUnity is abusing the forum.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:20AM | 0 recs
I agree.

I'm tired of having to go around uprating comments I don't agree with, making it look like I did, just because this bozo runs around troll rating anyone they don't agree with.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree.

Well, if it makes you feel better -
I do, too.

I have uprated comments that I disagree with totally.
But it is more important to me to keep an open conversation going -
Even if it does get heated at times.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 10:27AM | 0 recs
Absolutely.

I've troll/hide rated both Obamaniacs and Clintonites who step over the line, but rarely, and I uprate folks who are victims of this roving band of rating abusers. I could name a couple more and they're on both sides. All we can do is report them and hope somebody reviews their rating record. Since this is Jonathan's diary I assume we don't have to notify him of what's going on. Maybe he'll take care of it?

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

He won Texas.  I'll keep repeating that as long as necessary until people start acknowledging it.  If you want to say "He lost the primary vote" or "He got fewer votes" in Texas, that's fine.  But stop with the crap that he "lost" it, because that's not true.  At best it's disingenuous word-play, at worst it's a lie.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

If Obama ends up down 51% to 47% as the Dem nominee in November -
Then even the Supreme Court won't be able to give him the Electoral College.

So far, Obama has done quite well on the ground in caucuses and his people have mastered the process. Now, however, it's primaries from here on out.  We'll see if the streak continues.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

That's fine.  I actually agree that caucuses are not the way to go.  I think it needs to be as easy as possible for people to vote.  That being said, they both knew the rules when this started.  Obama's campaign has so far done a much better job playing by those rules (including Michigan and Florida).  

The 51-47 thing doesn't mean anything.  Just ask Al Gore.  More popular votes nationally has nothing to do with how many electoral votes you get (another thing that needs to change).

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes and No

The difference between Gore and Bush was nowhere near 51/47.

Yes, a person with fewer popular votes can win the electoral college, but it becomes increasingly unlikely the lower the percentage.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes and No

That's fine, but you can't make an argument from the difference 51-47.  While it would almost certainly be true, you can't even make an argument from 45-55.  Yes, the one with 45 would almost certainly not win enough electoral votes, but you can't infer it from that point.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

I can tell you today how the rest of the contests will go. Can't you?

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem

Different rules between the Democratic Primary and the POTUS Electoral College...Easy answer he WILL have a different strategy...Thats like saying if we were playing checkers instead of chess I would have beat you...

by hootie4170 2008-04-22 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem
Well, Hoot -
Like I said, kudos to the Obama campaign for a masterful strategy.
I agree that they will pursue a different strategy in the general if Obama is the nominee.  I just do not think there are as many openings as in the Dem nomination process.
by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 10:04AM | 0 recs
A 15 percent Clinton win today changes nothing.

She's still broke, disorganized, and too far behind. A 15 percent win nets her maybe 20 pledged delegates. She trails by 160 and nowhere to make them up. She'll probably lose NC by significantly more than 15 percent, tie in IN, win in KY, WV, and PR. lose in OR, MT, SD, and Guam. Over all, it'll be a delegate wash. If God drops everything else the next 8 weeks, she might get Obama's delegate lead down to 120.

The problem is the candidate. She stinks at this. She turned huge advantages in name recognition, fund-raising, party connections, and poll numbers into a losing campaign. Just imagine what she'd do to the Federal government!

by LongTom 2008-04-22 01:07PM | 0 recs
Via TPM

Remember, she said this in March:

"I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong. I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for."

by nonwhiteperson 2008-04-22 09:07AM | 0 recs
And yesterday on Larry King...

she refused to say she'd take it to the convention. She won't, because she knows the party will decide, at the latest, after the last primary.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: And yesterday on Larry King...

who made you spokesperson for the party??

Dean is that you?

Fine mess you got us into.

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:22AM | 0 recs
Believe me or not. I don't care,

but logic and responsibility are what will decide.

If it goes to the convention, we lose the general. Dean is dead right. The supers need to endorse whomever they are going to, and soon, certainly by the time the primaries are over. And they will.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: And yesterday on Larry King...

The adults in MI & FL are not responsible for their actions? Interesting.

MI & FL will be seated and the supers will go to Obama in sufficient numbers after June that Clinton will have nothing to hang her hat on. It's over by July.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 09:28AM | 0 recs
Dean's been Decidedly Neutral

otherwise hillary would have won already.

by RisingTide 2008-04-22 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: And yesterday on Larry King...

I have a feeling she's taking it to the convention even if Obama gets to 2024 through superdelegates going public before then.  She will state that "the superdelegates have not officially placed their vote."  I just hope that the supers won't suddenly change their mind in August.  And beyond that, I hope Obama just ignores Hillary and focuses on McCain when/if he gets to 2024.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 09:45AM | 0 recs
She won't.

Political suicide and she wants to run in 2012. Her money will dry up and she will be force by the party to support Obama. If that doesn't happen she loses all leverage to get anything at all as far as the convention, future power, etc., plus it will be remembered when she runs in 2012.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: She won't.

I don't think she can run in 2012 and I think she knows it.  That's part of the reason why she is so committed to winning now.  If Obama wins the election and is a good president he wins again in 2012, she's 68 in 2016 and will be perceived as "too old."  She'll still have the high negatives because Republicans irrationally hate her for some reason (because Bill was successful?).  

If Obama wins the election and is a bad/mediocre president, the Republicans will almost certainly win in 2012 as independents and conservative Dems will say "Look what happened when we gambled on a new idea."  

Her only chance for 2012 is if he loses the general election.  That's at best 50-50 and there is still no guarantee that the country will want a Dem in 4 years or that she'll be the choice by the Party.  That's a pretty low chance and I think that's why she is going all out now.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 10:02AM | 0 recs
I'm in the other camp,

that believes that she's staying in to damage Obama, elect McCain, and run in 2012. I wasn't there, but that's what I believe now.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 10:18AM | 0 recs
Obama's Powder is Wet

... the odds he'd be a great president are low.

Hillary's are lower.

That said, if she can sink Obama now, she'd be fine with running in 2012, and I'm sure that's what her supporters (like Scaife) want. They can't stand to lose a little influence in Washington.

by RisingTide 2008-04-22 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Powder is Wet

The funny (or sad) thing is, I think we just need an average president to make huge progress.  It'd be great if either of them was an amazing president, but even an average president would have us so much better off.  I believe Bush will be rated as one of the 10 lowest presidents of all time (or worse) by the time he dies.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 12:31PM | 0 recs
Most historians

say that he is the worst president ever.

An average president would send the world down in flames.

by RisingTide 2008-04-24 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Via TPM
She wouldn't be the first or the last politician to say they are going "all the way to the convention" and then drop out before getting there.
For exmaple: every poltician that ever ran for a presidential nomination.
by LandStander 2008-04-22 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Via TPM

Another DemUnity trollrate.

Please, administrators!
Ban this user.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Via TPM

She needs to start worrying about her Senate seat as well.....

by hootie4170 2008-04-22 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Via TPM

She "..needs to start worrying about her Senate seat.." ??

I am a New Yorker, and Hillary was elected by me and other New Yorkers and enjoys approval ratings between 60-75% here in New York.

We elected her KNOWING she would leave us for the White House.

She has nothing to worry about.

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Via TPM

As of Nov 2007 her approval rating in NY was 60% (SUSA) before any of the Democratic primary started and her rating was only 53% among fellow senators..And her approval ratings nationally have plummeted since then.....

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.x pd?id=300022

by hootie4170 2008-04-22 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Via TPM

Nationally, you can thank the Obama smear machine for that, and the MSM Press like Matthews, Olbermann, O'Really, and Limbaugh that has piled on her unmercifully.

But in her home state, I repeat, she has nothing at all to worry about.  She SWAMPED Obama here by almost 18 points and got over a million votes, including mine.

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 11:33AM | 0 recs
Huckabee said the same thing.

What else are they going to say? "I'm on the verge of giving up."? Try raising money with THAT as a slogan!

by LongTom 2008-04-22 01:10PM | 0 recs
Mostly fundraising and media support

Any win from Clinton here, even the most meaningless in terms of delegate, announces that she can continue the race to the next "firewall."  The media will dramatically track her "comeback" and money will flow into her campaign, and not be earmarked to pay back the small vendors that she's been stiffing.

And we'll repeat the process in NC and IN.  Clinton, a few days out from the election and not expecting to win, will say that it's really the voters in Puerto Rico, despite having no Electoral Collegeans, are critical to any general election candidate.

Quite honestly, we really need to stop looking at who won the popular vote in these primaries: the primary is decided by delegates, and everything else is a distraction.  If we wanted to play by cumulative popular vote, that's fine, but we'd need to implement it for starting in 2012, for the least of reasons being that caucuses dramatically alter participation levels.

I have a headache.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-22 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

It may strengthen the argument for a joint ticket.  Who knows.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:12AM | 0 recs
Never going to happen.

The joint ticket will never, ever happen.

I know my candidate.  He won't allow it.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-22 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Never going to happen.

I don't doubt that either would want to run together at this point, I just wonder how many people are going to run with this idea.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Never going to happen.

Whoops - I meant that I can't believe either would want to run together.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:16AM | 0 recs
I took your meaning, don't worry

Their answers at the last debate on the subject were telling.  Aside from the silence (Gibson is a moron for asking both at once), they agreed that it was "too soon."  

Even Clinton, who was floating the joint ticket stuff for a long time, has backed off.

Clinton doesn't want a rock star as her running mate and Obama doesn't want to have to be constantly looking over his shoulder to see if his veep is pursuing her own agenda.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-22 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Never going to happen.

Stranger things have happened before. Rule #1, you do what it takes to win. If it becomes readily obvious that Obama doesn't have a chance in hell unless he takes Clinton on as VP, or at least makes it obvious that it was offered to her, then he will. Ideals are great, but Ideals don't mean anything unless you get elected.

by Lost Thought 2008-04-22 10:03AM | 0 recs
Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

If we count all the votes Hillary wins.

She wins in pledged delegates when you add the 164 she nets from Florida and Michigan.  +37 Florida +127 Michigan.  Michigan had a legal election and very very few voted Obama and he denied them revotes.

She wins in total votes when you count the Florida and Michigan votes.

Its only if you think counting states has any merit that Obama has a claim IF you count all the votes.

Obama's claim rests on disenfranchisement of voters either in Texas or in Florida or in Michigan or in Washinton state or in any of the other Caucus states where he gets his lead only in states that don't have primaries.

Honestly are we the party where a voter in Alaska counts as 10 in California and more than all the voters in Florida and Michigan?

Obama would have you believe we are.

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:16AM | 0 recs
Sigh. Get over it. Ain't going to happen

MI and FL are never going to be counted the way their non-primaries were tallied. That ship has sailed. They had a slim chance of a revote and a fair mechanism paid for by the states couldn't be had. The MI and FL delegations will be seated by the nominee. There is no other route possible for MI and FL at this point.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh. Get over it. Ain't going to happen

Your statement is simply factually incorrect.

Hillary can take this to the floor and if she wins this issue she wins the election.

Its much easier for some SDs to vote Obama but also vote for Florida and Michigan and cost him the election than to not vote Obama.

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:25AM | 0 recs
It's not Hillary's call in reality

The supers will end it long before the convention. If you believe otherwise, bless you. Hang on to that as long as possible.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:28AM | 0 recs
But, she's not going to win this issue.

There is no issue. The superdelegates will choose Obama within a week of the last primary, at the very latest. He'll campaign all summer as the nominee. Nancy Pelosi will be chairing the convention, and the credentials and rules committees are made up of an equal number of delegates from every state (regardless of size), which means Obama's enormous advantage in number of states won (derided by Penn and Hillary) will give him overwhelming power in that committee.

Those actual humans from FL and MI may be seated, eventually, but their votes aren't going to overturn Obama's nomination. This is over. It ended long ago.

by LongTom 2008-04-22 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh. Get over it. Ain't going to happen

But DTaylor really wants it to happen!

by SeanF 2008-04-22 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

Let's just forget that the U.N. would never ratify the votes in Michigan and Florida if they were held in a third-world country.  This is a logical fallacy that I see a lot and just want to point out once again: you can't have it both ways.  I guarantee that more than 1 person would have voted for Obama in Michigan.  Therefore, making an argument that all of Clinton's votes in Michigan should count while 0 should be allocated to Obama disregards the will of those voters.  Either you're for representing the popular will of the voters or you're for changing the rules to give maximum advantage to your candidate.  Those two ends are mutually inconsistent with one another, so please don't confuse them.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

The voters actually voted.

I don't trust the polls that say Obama won California, Texas and Ohio when clearly he didn't.

Obama got less than 1% of the vote in Michigan.  

And when offered a revote he blocked it.

It will count and he will lose...watch and see.

Woulda Coulda Shoulda  boo hoo hoo

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

Wow, such a mature and compelling argument there.  No whiners here.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:35AM | 0 recs
You're not serious right?

He wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Not to mention that polls today in Michigan have Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary.

Peace. You hang on as long as you can.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:57AM | 0 recs
he's hanging on alright

... to a tinfoil hat.

by RisingTide 2008-04-22 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

If you give Obama a ZERO in MI maybe (but still maybe not) but that would never happen and would be a joke if it did.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

It did happen.

They held an election and he took his name off the ballot and discouraged his voters from voting for his name...

In future thats not a good way to become president.

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

Uh no. A pledge not to participate is a pledge not to participate. But practically speaking, at a minimum, the delegates that didn't go to Clinton will go to Obama.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

"They held an election and he took his name off the ballot and discouraged his voters from voting for his name... In future that's not a good way to become president."

And Clinton pledged not to participate and then broke her pledge, and then she said that the votes wouldn't count except now that she's saying they do count.

Which means that Clinton's a huge crook and liar -- but that is unfortunately a very good way to become president.

What I don't understand is why you seem to like her despite all that, and to dislike the person that actually honoured the pledge he made (same as Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richardson).

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-22 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

"Enfranchisement" means counting Clinton votes, disregarding reality.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

So I take it that you are also not much of a fan of the Senate? The same concept you just described. Damn those Democratic-Republics.

by zep93 2008-04-22 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates==Hillary win.

Your dreaming, hurry, wake up and shut your alarm off...

by hootie4170 2008-04-22 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

By any metric, Obama will be ahead when the primaries are over--delegates, popular vote, states won. Clinton has no viable path to the nomination. Why do we pretend otherwise?    

by fugazi 2008-04-22 09:18AM | 0 recs
Because...

a candidates die-hard supporters will continue to grasp at any straw until the candidate tells them they should not. That is what is missing. It'll come soon.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Because...

Think for a second.

If you were actually right and there was NO way for Hillary to win...

Don't you think it would be over?

Don't you think Obama would be saving his money for McCain?

Why is reality not matching up with your views?

Hillary controls more than 20% of the rules committee and can take this issue to the floor and have a real vote.

If she wins that vote and the votes count as cast with no giving delegates to people who didn't get any votes Hillary has already won.

Obama DEPENDS on disenfranchising Michigan and Florida.  If he fails to void their votes he loses.

by DTaylor 2008-04-22 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Because...

There is no realistic way. She can run herself into ground all she wants. That's her right.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-22 09:30AM | 0 recs
Why we're still fighting?

Because it's the Clintons. Only reason. Any other candidate would have been shown the door by now. We're wasting 10s of millions of dollars (probably $200 mill before we're done) to give Hillary a convenient exit point.

The Clintons command a lot of respect within the party and nobody wants to tell them it's over. They'd prefer she figure it out herself. So we'll go on, enabling McCain and wasting money, until either she misses one of her firewalls, like losing PA or Indiana, or we're out of reasonable contests in early June. At that point we will have a nominee. The party elders don't want to step in, but they're not stupid either, and spending all June and July without a nominee, then a bitter fight in August, then just 8 weeks of general election, is a recipe for a President McCain, and they know that.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 09:34AM | 0 recs
This isn't true...
she's got a lot of Respect on Wall Street -- and those are everyone's favorite donors.
Anyone with similar appeal would be seeing the same treatment (particularly with the media solidly in her court)
by RisingTide 2008-04-22 10:23AM | 0 recs
Not anymore.

Her fundraising and the way she's run her campaign is a joke. Obama has the far superior fundraising organization, and he's running a more efficient campaign, not spending $10 mill at a time for consultants like Mark Penn.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 10:52AM | 0 recs
her campaigning is awful

but that doesn't mean that scaife hates her!

by RisingTide 2008-04-22 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Because...

Please stop the disingenuous "disenfranchising" argument. The decision not to count FLA and MI was made by the DNC not Obama. And you know who supported it? None other than Harold Ickes.  

by fugazi 2008-04-22 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Because...

He's spending his primary money not his presidential campaign money...I know it might be hard to understand since your candidate has none.

by hootie4170 2008-04-22 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Because...

"Hillary controls more than 20% of the rules committee and can take this issue to the floor and have a real vote."

No, she can't and no she won't.  

DTaylor, I will try ONE MORE TIME like everyone here to try to get through to you.

1. MI and FL WILL BE SEATED AS IS! Last week, the MI committee voted to give all but one of the uncommitteds to Obama...that's the clear sign this is leading to that.

2. That will happen because BY THEN enough Supers will have crossed and enough switche that Obama has the magic number, so it's a moot point.

He needs only 20% or so of the supers to cross, and he is over the number?

Now, if you WANT to have a Clinton strategy for the nom LET GO OF MI AND FL as the magic bullet, and figure out how see can win by 15-20% in every remaining state?

So, someone needs to dig out a video of Obama hanging with Farakhan, or sitting front row when Rev Wright is bloviating..

She needs a bomb to drop on Obama, followed by crushing wins in the rest of the states.

That is her only route...

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-22 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Because it's becoming the official pastime of some here.

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

A Clinton Win is fairly meaningless.  Even if it was unprecedented and huge -- and all the supers were siphoned off and she was pronounced the winner, it wouldn't matter.

Generally speaking, very few (at least those that can make noise) are talking about this election in the terms it needs to be expressed.

It's a bellwether year.  A sea change.  'New Deal' Democrats dominated all political discourse for 30 years after 1933.  The Republicans were blind reactionaries for most of that time.  We still live with the language of FDR and his coalition.  That coalition died after Vietnam.

Politically, we, as a nation, were in a vacuum until the 'Reagan Revolution" That coalition dominated politics for 30 years.  For the last 30 years Democrats have been blind reactionaries to Republican talking points.  Bush Killed Reaganism.

We are in a vacuum now.  The electorate is changing.  Many old issues are no longer the wedges they used to be.  Playing a typical reactionary to Republicans in the general election will not work.

McCain is already talking about Global Warming, a new wedge issue that will trump many people's former political associations.  Things like Net Neutrality, Privacy, The Environment, Energy, Fair Trade, are the big voting questions.

The candidate that grabs these issues will build the party that will build the new ruling coalition.  

That is what this election is about.  This really, truly is an ideological divide about the Democratic Party.  That is what few in the press understand.  It's also something few Hillary supporters grasp.  The electorate is changing.

Hillary will not get the Nadar voters, she will not get the Deaniacs.  She will not get those that really want a 50 state party.

These people won't generally vote for McCain either, but if McCain pushes hard on Global Warming, he will get quite a few.  And he's starting to do that.

Democrats have to understand this is not an election on the old rules.  White men and woman are not a majority anymore.  Racial and Gender issues are taking a back burner with more progress.  Abortion is also taking a back seat to new issues.

I truly believe that we are far into a radical change in the electorate that started in 2000.

The party that grabs the new issues, and owns them, will be the leaders -- and opposition will become the reactionaries.

by MuddyWaters 2008-04-22 09:30AM | 0 recs
Intriguing

This is a really great post.  I agree that this is a change in the Democratic Party.  And I think it has the chance to being redrawing the electoral map divide, just the way JFK and FDR did.  There is a good chance after this election that only the Deep South will be truly untouchable for Democrats in the next 20+ years.  Obama is obviously not going to win all the Mountain West or all the Southwest, but I think this election has the chance to make those areas in play for years and years to come.  

And I think the Democratic Party has changed.  This primary is entirely about DLC vs. DFA, even for people that have no idea what those are.  If Obama wins the general election, the DFA wing of the party is going to have the momentum and the party will change.  If Obama loses the general election or Hillary wins the primary, the DLC wing will be re-energized and may continue moving the party toward them.

For me, that's why this primary is so important.  I like Hillary and Obama, but I want Obama's DFA politics to represent us rather than Hillary's DLC politics.  The general election is important in other ways for obvious reasons.  That's why I'd support Hillary if she won the primary.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 09:56AM | 0 recs
The truth is..

They both need supers to win the nomination.

These votes are used in arguments to sway the supers.

by gotalife 2008-04-22 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Jonathon,

you read the post there wrong I believe.

I think their analysis of the remaining contests included Pennsylvania. And they claim that she'll only be able to eat into his lead by 170,000 votes.

Which is to say that he'll still be ahead by 500,000 after the primaries are concluded, which she can't make up by just Florida.  Therefore she would have to include Michigan as well.

by jturn17 2008-04-22 09:33AM | 0 recs
was Obama's name on the michigan ballot?

 If so we should include those votes!!

by gnosis 2008-04-22 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean
Pa Delegate breakdown via Atrios
http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmu ltimedia/pdfs/penndem.pdf
by nogo war 2008-04-22 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

It would be possible for Senator Clinton to win the popular vote and lose the delegate count.

by nogo war 2008-04-22 09:41AM | 0 recs
Could a PA voter please let me know.....

 What are the negative ads that Obama is running?  I keep logging in to mybarackobama every day and i do not see anything negative there, so could someone tell me what negative ads he is supposedly running? please.

by gnosis 2008-04-22 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Could a PA voter please let me know.....

Here in PA there is an ad attacking her negative attacks.  (Could this be any more meta, by the way?)  It's the ad with her being jeered/booed when she references Bittergate.  And as an Obama supporter, I'm not particularly happy that he's going negative, even though I think some of it is justified because of her negative attacks.  She's got an ad attacking his health care as "leaving 15 million people uncovered."  I think there are other negative ones, but they all bleed together for me now.  She also has an ad about being a little girl here in PA which is not negative at all, so I find the repeated argument that she is "going 100% negative in PA" to be incorrect and uninformed.  Obama also has some positive ads going on, at least one on radio and one on tv.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Could a PA voter please let me know.....

I believe the 100% negative was in NE media markets where she didn't air the little girl ad (mostly a central/western buy), but I can't confirm that.

There are dueling Oil Company ads, where each accuses the other of taking oil company money. His is more positive than hers, in the "I don't take money from Oil Companies" vs. "He's lying, he really takes money from oil companies" sense. He has a negative one up directly claiming that she takes more lobbyist money than any other candidate (which is true, but its still an attack). Might be the same one as his Oil Company ad, but as you suggested, I find it hard to remember where one ad ends and another begins.

by Lost Thought 2008-04-22 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Open Left has done its own analysis of the numbers going forward.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =5278

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 09:43AM | 0 recs
Popular vote/caucuses?

Did I miss something here or is there a way of calculating the representative popular vote from caucus states into these figures?

by mady 2008-04-22 09:45AM | 0 recs
Of course you didn't miss anything.

All of this popular vote nonsense is based upon somehow "estimating" the vote in the caucus states that don't record it.

Popular vote isn't a valid measure unless you declare it at the beginning of the season, and even then it would be telling the caucus states, "Screw you."

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

The popular vote metric is stupid. It radically changes the equation in favor of states that had primaries instead of caucuses.

Counting Florida and Michigan won't work because those were beauty contests, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

As an Obama supporter, I really just laugh at all of this stuff. Obama's going to go into the convention with more pledged delegates. If the supers want to go the other way, that's their right, but they have to know that doing so would make it impossible for the Dems to win the Presidency in November, and would probably even result in the loss of the Senate too.

by dmc2 2008-04-22 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Why would the supers going Hillary make it "...impossible for the Dems to win the Presidency in November, and would probably even result in the loss of the Senate too."?

You really think Obama's voters are going to vote for McCain?  Or for GOP candidates??

Get real.

Oh, and take your Obama fearmongering somewhere else.

by dembluestates 2008-04-22 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win

You know damn well that if it's perceived that Clinton stole the nomination from Obama through the Supers, many of his black and youth supporters will just stay home and the independents will vote for McCain. It's not something I'm in favor of, I'd still vote for Hillary, but I think it'd be silly to think that's not how things would go.

And, no thank you on the invitation to get lost from MyDD. I rather like arguing with you all.

by dmc2 2008-04-22 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

If state political parties thought that popular vote was the key metric, they might have used different modes of selecting delegates.

If candidates thought popular vote was the key metric, they would have used different strategies.

That's why you can't switch from delegates selecting the nominee to popular vote.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-22 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

It is interesting to add up the populations of the states Clinton has won - though her number of states is smaller their combined population is about 55-60% (60 if she has future wins of PA and KY + WV) of the country and Obama's is about 40-45% of the country. I think Obama's wins are magnified by high turnout in certain areas and the delegate number is inflated by the fact that certain areas receive more representation in terms of delegates (and of course Fl Mi problem). I think the new Democratic Party process of selecting delegates seems to have a problem with it's 'fairness' - maybe the Republicans (god forbid anyone should say it) have a more direct selection process.

by sunnyaz08 2008-04-22 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

The difference is that when she wins, she wins by a little (5-10%).  When he wins, he wins by a lot (10%+).  That may not be the best way to go about it, but it's the way it is.  And many/most of her states will vote for Obama.  She does have a legitimate argument about being more electable in Ohio (and possibly Florida).  I think they both lose Florida and I think he has his work cut out to either convince Ohio to vote for him or pick up enough other states that he doesn't need it.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-22 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Yeah, I agree - some of his wins were by bigger margins - I think one could argue for either method of selecting delegates. I think the Republican method picks candidates that stand a better chance electoraly. Obama will have his work cut out for him if he gets the nomination. Though he seems to open up some smaller states Florida swings way over to McCain and Ohio doesn't look that great for Obama nor Missouri (but Hillary does well there with moderates) - Hillary is ahead of McCain in some FL polls. Obama also seems to loose a large percentage in some Eastern States that may be crucial (Massachussetts). I think there is something going on with democratic ideology rather than anything else. Democrats in Western States are much more entrenched and perhaps isolated than democrats in populous (democratic) states.

by sunnyaz08 2008-04-22 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

Yeah, if you just rely on the population numbers of the states that each won, you're really making a disguised argument based on all-or-nothing rules.  

by rfahey22 2008-04-22 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

My argument is not disguised - I think I said it plainly. Like I said you can argue both methods.

by sunnyaz08 2008-04-22 12:00PM | 0 recs
Florida definitely was not 'uncontested'.

Every Democrat in the race was on the ballot in Florida.  You cannot posibly call that an 'uncontested' race.  Folks wanting to pull a lever for Obama at that time, or Edwards or even Gravel were quite able to do so.

You need to stop discounting the Democrats in Florida: we are not going to be left at the back of the bus.

by emsprater 2008-04-22 10:11AM | 0 recs
This argument is over.

The FL and MI delegates will be seated by the nominee at the convention. That's all that's left. There's no point in arguing about it anymore.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: This argument is over.

I'm a Florida Democrat, and I assure you that until Dean and company make some very reconciling gestures, simply waiting to force the Florida delegates to be seated and then cast their votes for someone not representative of their voter's will won't cut it, not this time.

by emsprater 2008-04-22 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: This argument is over.

You'll get a whole lot further directing your ire at where it's warranted. At your state legislators who gave the wink wink nod nod to the Republicans knowing what would happen with the primary move. I trust you've seen the video.

The nominee will be decided long before the convention, and that nominee will figure out what to do with MI and FL.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-22 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: This argument is over.

Oh yeah, 'the video' that the rest of you folks think tells the true story.  It doesn't, not by a long shot.

I live in Florida, bud.  I know what happened.

I don't need your 'view' from the outside from afar to tell me what took place.

Letting the 'nominee', whomever it is decide what to do with the votes of millions of Democrats is not an appropriate action.  Our votes should ahve made that decision already.

by emsprater 2008-04-22 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

by emsprater 2008-04-22 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean
whatever
http://thepage.time.com/obama-campaign-m emo-on-clintons-pennsylvania-expectation s/
by nogo war 2008-04-22 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: What a Clinton Win in Pennsylvania Would Mean

It means little frankly, as long as it is under 15% or so.

by Darknesse 2008-04-22 11:07AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads