Anything else there is a loss for her. This state is supposed to contain "Hillary voters".
I do not trust these "closer" polls. Hillary will win in Pennsylvania, but anything but an enormous win for her will be a loss.
If she is so popular in Pennsylvania and Obama is so "unelectable", why isn't her lead in the polls increasing? Perhaps the actual voting will give her the huge victory that she needs to make her case.
...michigan and florida did not follow the rules, and therefore should not have an influence over the outcome.
If they want to follow the rules, the state parties can hold caucuses. As for the costs, at the caucus I attended, a hat was passed around the room to pay for the caucus; we more than offset how much it took to print out the voter register rolls.
The state parties really have no excuse for their behavior.
Also- there really is no such thing as a popular vote count except in states that held primaries; Since caucuses are not included in this parameter, I am not sure how this really is an indicator of too much except that it currently agrres with the pledged delegate.
...Michigan and Florida did not move their primaries to before february 5th to give their voters more influence over the nomination. If they had been concerned about their voters, they would not have moved their primary dates.
They moved their primaries up so they could capitalize on the campaign cash. And now they are upset that they missed out on that.
As was clear at the time, the primary held in Michigan in January by the state of Michigan was never an official primary that would be allowed to award delegates to the convention.
Any suggestion of a "re-vote" is nonsense. If it is a new election, it is a new election and I would assume that the Democratic Party of Michigan would get to choose who can vote in that process.
However, they seem very disingenuous to me.
First, they complain about the cost, but they rule out caucuses or some other simple, cheap form of primary.
Next, they decide to escalate the cost by saying that only those people who voted in the democratic primary in January, or did not vote at all, are eligible to vote in their new super-duper primary. This sounds like a nightmare from a logistics standpoint to me.
Either they want to do a primary or caucus that will follow the rules of the Democratic Party or they don't.
Either they want people to participate in the process or they don't.
From the very beginning it appears that they really just don't want to follow the rules and are seeking a pre-ordained outcome.