News – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has won Pennsylvania's presidential primary, a victory that analysts said she had to have if she were to remain a credible candidate for the Democratic nomination.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
leeharris1969
daviannewton651975
asolious
mekhifranks1975
pyuuuke
dokkyou08
naveedjavaid
fyuuuuut
soulkeeper009
alamala
tolyrose
infiniteseo
Torres54
pc25
CaMccullough
rbtburgess
dwemm
spkguy
incomplete_geodesic
mcarpentry
whodey08
Goppy
baddad59
moribull
AntiNeoCon
vvv63vvv
JessicaLaurie
Evbro
ChasityBowman
george87
georgia1rn
RickyDawkins
Wolfie2007
monkeychicken12
_kam0_
thinkingserious
optimumself
jeepndave
lindsber
nostalgia
JOEY EVANS
tonyjaret
msaleem
avpd85
globalwarmer
too_good_person
Eagle Eye
cosmogenium
DaveWingnut
BarbaraLampkin
440)
Vote
now we wait on the margin...as of 9PM eastern its 53% to 47%
Increasing in her favor, though an hour later. It'll be fun to see the final count. Especially with him spending as much as he did.
OPERATION CHAOS!
lmao!
Didn't you put out a story not to long ago about Hillary having a 20% lead according to some poll? B.S. it was and par for the course.
I was incorrect according to the good man from PA she had 33% lead in PA a few months ago. So all this talk about her big win is a bunch of dudu. she lost over 23 points since Ohio.
Sore looser
sore looser? we never expected to win PA, we just didn't want her to win by 33 points,and she didn't i am not bitter at all about our showing. This is politics you are here to promote and support your candidate so am I. Sorry you feel that way. We know we were in a catch up race and i think all in all we did well. You seem sore that I am pointing out this fact!
I wonder why Obama can't finish off Hillary?
All the republicans registering as democrats to keep Hill and Ob in a long nomination process. It the honorable thing for a conist to do, don't you know.
Hey people can vote for anyone they like,, just like the Dems messing with the Repubs earlier,,, you can't whine about it being done to you now, if indeed that's what it is. I personally think it's something else.
She is finished she just wouldn't go away! she cant win no matter how long she stay in the race. So i don't know how you view put away but to me if you cant beat me no matter what, you have been finished!
It's up to her to decide how long she wants to stay in, just like Huck, he stayed in way past the time when he had any hope, I didn't hear you whine about that.
With Hillary in, just like with Huck, it gives a chance to have some topics talked about.
Why would a progressive ever think of denying anyone from doing what is leagal for one and her right for two.
You on the far left that support Obama don't have the right to decide what Hillary does with her time and money or dny her supporters their hope of their choice still being in thte race.
Looks like the momentum is downward.
Spoken like a true Rush-bot
lol, how would you know? ; )
Oh come on, AG... Even I - liberal as I am - know about the so called "Operation Chaos" touted on Rush's radio show. And I truly believe the only reason Rush is doing this is that he might affect a win for the Republicans (or more to the point: another loss for the Democrats) with only lukewarm support for John McCain. And after all... even if Hillary should become the Democratic nominee and then be elected President, she'd be a hell of a lot better then "Barack Hussein Osama-Obama..."
Right? RIGHT?
...as Faye Dunaway said playing Joan Crawford in Mommy Dearest, "This ain't my first time at the rodeo!"
Actually, he did pretty good to close 10% better than just a few weeks ago. It assures him of a mathematical elected delegate victory barring Hillary now having to win 85% of the rest of the popular vote. Isn't going to happen. That, in my opinion, makes his money well spent.
That's a good point. He also got bloodied up quite a bit.
Let me see. He out spent her 3 to 1 and all he could manage was a 10 point loss?
Obama 08
hillary's victory was a mere 8%, including republican chaos crossovers:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2008/04/22/co...
Yet, the media is still reporting 10%. In fact, AOL's main story hasn't updated since the 10% margin, it still shows 99% of the vote count in.
Here is the complete link:
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2008/04/22/co...
Used your link - Go back and do the math its over 9%
Used your link - Go back and do the math its over 9%
You can say that again Van
A mere 8% you say? So if Obama, Hillary or McCain win by 8% in November then they can't say it was decisive like the Dems did in 04 with less?
It still goes to show you that Obama isn't as stong as you want to think if he can't 'put away' someone that as you say 'has no hope of winning" Why do you think that is?
The fact is Clinton didn't make the 10% or double-digit win everyone says she needed. 9.4 isn't 10%. At least some of the news stations are starting to get it right.
Hillbillery has launched a nasty negative campaign. But she isn't winning anything.
But why can't Obama finish her if he's so strong and she's supposed to be finished?
9.4 isnt 10%!
Wow neither is 9.95632659 would you still be saying see she didn't make it?
BTW who came up with the 10% absolute?
Well, if you are going to round off, then the 9.4 % gets rounded down to 9%. The reason Obama can't deliver the knockout punch is because she is a strong candidate with a former popular president in her corner and a well-oiled political machine, that includes media figures like Stephanopolous. It's not like there's some mysterious reason. EVEN WITH ALL those factors, Clinton is still the inferior candidate in the national election. She wasn't particularly strong even before Obama came along.
Predicted states in the national election (note Hillary gets the Pink, Obama gets the brown states). If you look at the brown and blue (democratic no matter who gets the nomination), Obama is the clear winner:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Your candidate reminds me of Romney outspending Clinton 3 to 1 and getting drubbed. Mitt Romney imitations won't go over to well with the supers that will decide everything!
Really? Do you know something I don't? Obama has won the majority of the states, he is ahead in the popular votes, ahead in delegates, and he out raises Hillary in money 2 to 1. Just how is she going to convince those superdelegates to vote for her when she can't even outdo Obama except in a few large states where her husband's Democratic machinery is still in place? How is she going to convince them to disenfranchise the black vote and the new younger vote in the Democratic party? Is her argument going to be that she should get the nomination because she is entitled? Or how about electability when she can't even decisively beat Obama over the primaries? So, I really don't see the comparison. Besides, Mitt Romney is a Republican and did not run agains Clinton.
Actually, that's a very inept comparison for more reasons than the fact that Romney never ran against Clinton.
Why was Obama able to outspend Clinton? Why is he ahead in states won, popular vote and delegates? Because he has organized and managed a campaign far more effectively than the Clintons have. This is pretty astounding considering that the Clintons are the consummate political family and have been in the business of winning political contests in the Democratic party since shortly after Moses landed the Ark.
Bill managed the McGovern campaign in Texas in 1972. He won the Governorship of Arkansas in 1983. They have a lock hold on the party machinery, which is a VERY powerful tool in the traditionally Democratic states Hillary has won.
We have three Senators to pick from this election cycle. Despite all Hillary's talk of "Ready on day one!" none of them has any real management experience. Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990-91. McCain commanded a naval aviation training facility in 1976. Clinton has never run anything.
So to assess how well each of them might run something as large as the US government, their respective resumes aren't much use. About all we can look at is ability to organize a campaign and fund-raise. And by that measure, Barack Obama has done so phenomenally better than any sane odds-maker would have predicted, so much better than Clinton or McCain, that he deserves a serious look.
except of course it was Noah and the Ark,, not Moses lol
Ha! I do believe you are right. I should never write a post after my second glass of wine.
Thanks for correcting the error.
I agree ML2007, what befuddles me is how the mainstream medias seem to neglect that little fact. That she has a very large lead not too long ago, and he whittle that down to 10 points. If you look at it from that point of view it's a remarkable showing on his part! I look at almost all the coverage and it was sickening to watch the gleefully celebration of the talking heads, it was like we got him! I miss Peter Jennings.
and it was sickening to watch the gleefully celebration of the talking heads>>
I haven't watched the little p*ss ants for over a year. It's too weird for me, having lived at a time when journalism was an honorable profession.
Amen, Jordan. I shut down my TV almost three years ago. And no one knows better than I the difference in today's "journalism".
I know that you two must be old to remember those "good ol' days". There is much that could be written about the differences in journalism today versus 40 years ago.
I don't know about BTV, but I'm 'old' enough, lol.
Me too.
I'm not old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow, but Walter Cronkite was always on in my house. I remember Neil Armstrong walking on the moon as if it were yesterday. Back then, news departments took seriously their commitment to serve the public interest.
Now, sadly, the media perverts this commitment or downright ignores it (after all, they are no longer even REQUIRED to). And thanks to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, the news media have now devolved to present "infotainment" as "news journalism"...
I remember Neil Armstrong walking on the moon as if it were yesterday
--
I do too.. I was making my girlfriend (first wife) pregnant..
oh great. A Clinton "gotcha" media lynch mob.
What will influence the Superdelegates is the fact Obama is not doing at all well in the battleground state where he has now lost all seven. He is not doing well with key constituencies, seniors, women, white men, and blue collar voters. He is un electable, and they will have to consider that in choosing a nominee.
Except for the fact that the primaries pits two people closely aligned in their political stands against each other. A vote for Hillary should not be interpreted as a vote for McCain. Unless, you are telling me that Hillary and McCain are similar.
It's a Bird! It's A Plane! It's a Double Latte! No It's Super Delegate!
She lost her lead with her Bosnia Gaff,,,, it had nothing to do with him doing something to close the gap if you ask me.
To me if it's 10 or under then he did well 3 months ago it was 20% at 10 he would have cut it in half...also I remember TX they called it as a big win and it turn out to be a 3% win
Obama won Texas-- the caucus votes put him over the top.