Clinton grinds out victory over Obama in Pennsylvania

I could be mistaken but...

Assuming that it comes out to 55 to 45 -- doesn't that indicate that whites are voting for Obama. PA doesn't have a high percentage of black voters, does it?

In a State that was heavily tilted towards Clinton until not long ago, this seems like a pretty marginal victory on her part -- and I'd guess she lost a lot of white voters as part of that.

Why is it that 92% of Blacks voted for Obama? Because he's the same color?

In a State that was heavily tilted towards Clinton until not long ago, this seems like a pretty marginal victory on her part -- and I'd guess she lost a lot of white voters as part of that.

This can be spun either way. One could easily say for a presumptive nominee to be thumped like this in a state the party needs to win in November is pretty serious stuff. Rick Santorum said on TV tonight that Clinton's appeal to Reagan Democrats could make the difference in the general election in PA, and Obama's weakness with that group could cost him the state against McCain. This is not a minor issue.

Rick Santorum said on TV tonight that Clinton's appeal to Reagan Democrats could make the difference in the general election in PA, and Obama's weakness with that group could cost him the state against McCain. This is not a minor issue.

Why should I trust anything that comes out of Rick Santorum's mouth when it comes to the Democratic nomination process? Surely you concede the man has a bias and a vested interest in saying whatever will aid the GOP?

Beyond that, I find the man to be repugnant, so I don't particularly take what he has to say all that seriously.

I don't care about Rick Santorum. The question is , is he right about this? I think the past history of Reagan Democrats indicates he may be. Obama supporters have lived in a psychological cocoon, thinking that THEY are all that matters to secure a victory. This is why they dismiss Obama's untenable position on Rev Wright. IT is EASY to make the argument that Rev Wright is a racist and anti-American. Yet when Obama made his famous speech he focused more on the prejudices and fears of working class whites than he did on the fatal flaws of Wright's philosophies. The working class whites will not embrace someone who stands behind Rev Wright. If Obama never realizes this, he will never get their vote and he will never be President.

That's because people make smart bets and don't donate to her campaign. For me, it depends on the issues and justice, at least I think basically.

The outspending by BHO did not translate into votes.

Not considering Hillary was outspent 3 to 1.

Not considering she's had 16 years of national name recognition via Bill, what was Obama supposed to do play broken telephone to get his name out there? advertising and branding cost money... closing a 20% gap cost money, Obama did exactly what he set out to do, Hilary started a huge head start, Obama closed the gap substantially, the net gain in delegates is marginal,

Slate's nifty counter shows Clinton netting about twelve pledged delegates out of this primary.

That and the fact that, in order to tie the pledged delegate count, she'd have to win 61-39 on average for the remaining primaries (not including FL and MI). Things don't look good for her.

Hillary Clinton is within her rights to state the following tonight -

more Americans have voted for her in primaries this year than have voted for Obama. That is a fact.

There are great arguments on both sides.

My biggest argument for Hillary--

Obama has not won the popular vote in a major state since February 12th, more than two months ago. Obama won the early primaries because his candidacy was shiny and new, but over the past two months his candidacy has tarnished.

My biggest beef with Hillary and some of her supporters--

Only the states Hillary have won seem to matter. And never mind that everyone knew Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were all demographically Clinton states--a win is a win no matter how much your lead dropped.

JohnRussell:

I don't think you can make that claim without citing any sources. Obama's won the popular vote so far by far.

Vincent, Clinton won the popular vote in Texas, but due to their crazy (and some would say undemocratic) caucus system, Obama "won" that state.

galley-cat:

Texas isn't the whole United States popular vote for one. Secondly, I don't think a state should go by undemocratic results, if that's how Texas does it. I haven't heard anything about it.

Speaking of scams...

Wow - No wonder Clinton won

Speaking of Scams 2

(look at the first image!)

But Clinton won support from two of three whites without college degrees, and about the same number of whites from families earning under $50,000 a year,

The group that are overtiered, overworked and still have faith that the MSM gioves them the issues they need to decide. That reflects how well propaganda and spin work, they're the folks who probably make up the 2/3 of Americans that believed we went to Iraq to avenge 9/11 too!!

So, in a state where Clinton lived and nearly 50% more women than men came out to vote - it looks like she will win 10%. Not to mention, there were more people over 60 than under 45. Considering she was supposed to win 30% just two months ago, that just shows how people are not really supporting Hillary.

Even with this win, she is still over 100 delegates behind Obama. And the big states are behind us.

You have to remember something. Any superdelegate can change their mind at any time. If it were to appear at the end of the primaries that Clinton had virtually tied or beat Obama in the popular vote, and had the momentum at the end of the process, any or all of them would be free to choose her, including the superdelegates already leaning towards Obama.

I think everyone knew all along. What no one knew is "by how much" and the answer seems to be that she won by a heckuva lot less than might have been expected.

There's no sense in trying to say that some people (of a significant number) were boasting (or even expecting) an Obama victory, or claiming that Hillary was going to lose.

I think what people were fearing (and what came to pass) is that she'd win by enough to drag this process out for a couple more months.

Guess you didn't see this.

Or that 15% of Americans still think he's a Muslim, AFTER Wright for Christ's sake. (no pun intended)

Your two rebuttals are pointless.

The point I commented on wasn't about whether people think accurate things about Obama, but whether he really needs to fload the airwaves with TV ads when people all around the world know who he is. You people are so silly sometimes.

Hell, Obama-girl has been singing and gyrating her hips in praise to him since long before the primaries began.

Name recognition helps. Sure. But it goes beyond name recognition. If all you know about the candidates is Hillary was first lady and Obama has a funny name, who are you really gonna vote for?

I'm a native North Carolinian (though I've been a Floridian since 1989), and I can tell you there are a lot of people who fit the following description: small-town, Baptists who are regular churchgoers, love their deer hunting, don't particularly like elitists, especially elitists like Obama, very patriotic in the old-fashioned way, such as love for America, July 4th picnics, flying the flag proudly, opening meetings with prayer and the pledge of allegiance to the flag with their hands over their hands..

Those people will not vote for Obama.

I predict another great victory for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina.

don't particularly like elitists, especially elitists like Obama

So let me get this straight, Obama grew up poor and in some impoverished nations. He was able to rise above his conditions and make an impact on his community, eventually entering into public service. He's the elitist?
Then you have Hillary, born into the upper middle class, worked for large corporations, who now reports having made 20 times what the Obama's have made. And Obama is the elitist?

What kind of backa$$ward logic is that?

And another reason I mentioned that Clinton won't have the free ride is because Governor Rendell, her top proponent in PA, was implicated with her as taking part in campaign fruad. In Peter Paul Vs Clinton, California Superior Court case BC 304174, in which Clinton under-reported campaign donations of $700,000 by Peter Paul for promise of contract awards, both Clinton and Rendell have been implicated.

Obviously Clinton bought her endorsement of Rendell, or was one of the many whom the Clinton's can cash in for a long line of political favors. With reports that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in some polling stations, and even worse poll management situations, I think it's fair to say that there was some shady dealings in the PA primary.

With record numbers of new registrants for a primary election, voter-protection groups have logged some 750 voter complaints across the state today, including at least 150 about malfunctioning machines.
Given the tremendous numbers of first-time registrants - more than 215,000, some glitches were to be anticipated. And similar problems have surfaced in other states, said Jonah Goldman, of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, based in Washington.

...In some instances, voters whose names were missing were not being offered provisional ballots, he said.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20080422_Few_problems_in_Pa__primary_elections.html

Really?

Really! :)

I don't believe that!