Hillary lead narrowing in Pennsylvania

[Lemon law]

Just back from Yahoo news where there were a few links on Hillary erosion of support with Obama rapidly closing the former 16 point lead Hillary had.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...VVZhgndJO9K9pAgzdh24cA

It looks like Obama is gearing his campaign over labor issues and it seems to be working.
The very issue that won in Ohio may not win for Hillary in Pennsylvania.

And if Hillary loses Pennsylvania, I very much wonder if she will have to withdraw?

Raw speculation I admit, but this one may be the ball game. I note I am in another late voting State, and already Obama adds are appearing on labor based themes. I have yet to see a Hillary ad yet and so rumor has, the Clinton campaign is short on money.

 

[Fern]

Yes, the trend now in the PA polls is that her lead is shrinking. I saw it in two polls yesterday. I think it's likely attributable in part to the whole Bosnia/Tusla sniper blunder, and then there's Obama uotspending her.

I live in NC, our primary is the same date as yours. I saw an Obama ad last night (we never get political ads down here, we're too late in the season). I didn't catch the theme, I was busy feeding my dogs or something.

I still think Hillary will win in PA; the margin is the question IMO.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

we need like a consolidated poll thread or something instead of 5 posts every time a daily poll shows something different 🙂

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: loki8481
we need like a consolidated poll thread or something instead of 5 posts every time a daily poll shows something different 🙂

Meh, it's fine as is. If we consolidated, P&N would have basically 5 threads. 😉

 

[Saint Michael]

Dammit, this is still going on? Just do it all on the same day for every state so we can move on.

 

[ElFenix]

these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: ElFenix
these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

I don't see the thread. Got a link?

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

I don't see the thread. Got a link?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...as_delegates_0401.html

Sen. Barack Obama has won the overall delegate race in Texas thanks to a strong showing in Democratic county conventions this past weekend.

Obama picked up seven of nine outstanding delegates, giving him a total of 99 Texas delegates to the party's national convention this summer. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won the other two, giving her a total of 94 Texas delegates, according to an analysis of returns by The Associated Press.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: ElFenix
these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

yes, because the democratic primary system is sofa king retarded. 😛

 

[Vic]

Speaking to the same unions a day earlier, Clinton said as first lady she had forcefully battled the agreement President Clinton labored hard to win.

"I did speak out and oppose NAFTA," she said. "I raised a big yellow flag and said, 'I don't think this will work.'"

The level of Hillary's lying has now officially stepped up from bald-faced to outrageous.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: ElFenix
these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

didn't win the popular vote, which is what i was refering to, as the popular vote is what was polled.

the rest of it is more due to structural issues with the weird texas caucus system. it was almost impossible for hillary to win more delegates in texas than obama due to the fact that inner-city houston and dallas get more state-convention delegates than any other senate districts in the state.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Speaking to the same unions a day earlier, Clinton said as first lady she had forcefully battled the agreement President Clinton labored hard to win.

"I did speak out and oppose NAFTA," she said. "I raised a big yellow flag and said, 'I don't think this will work.'"

The level of Hillary's lying has now officially stepped up from bald-faced to outrageous.

Shhhh, it's not lying, it's called 'triangulating' 😉

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: ElFenix
these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

Yep. On the San Antonio TV they said Obama netted 5 more delegates than Hitlery. So much for her claiming victory here.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Vic

Speaking to the same unions a day earlier, Clinton said as first lady she had forcefully battled the agreement President Clinton labored hard to win.

"I did speak out and oppose NAFTA," she said. "I raised a big yellow flag and said, 'I don't think this will work.'"

The level of Hillary's lying has now officially stepped up from bald-faced to outrageous.

numerous people inside the Clinton administration said that she raised concerns about nafta. of course she didn't hold a press conference to bad mouth her husband over it, though.

when you've got that on one said and Obama's doublespeak on the other, it seems like you're damned no matter which way you go (if you think NAFTA is a bad thing... I personally do not)

 

[Lemon law]

While I note there is some validity to not having too many primary threads, I cite Pennsylvania because its the only big one remaining. And could be another make break point for Hillary just as Ohio and Texas were supposed to be on March 5.

Coming into March 5, even the Hillary camp was conceding that Hillary had to get both Texas and Ohio to remain viable.
Hillary certainly won Ohio, and when the dust settled on March 6, Hillary had the popular vote in Texas also. So in the perception department, Hillary remained viable. Never mind the fact that more dust settled later and Texas might not have been a Hillary win, the point is she remained viable and met the March 6 tests.

The real question is can Pennsylvania become that next make break point for Hillary? Its a subtle perception thing and a Hillary wins all the big states the democrats need. And the only big State Obama won is his home State. And Obama can't win the blue collar labor vote is also put to the test. And with 158 democratic delegates at stake, Pennsylvania is by far, the largest single prize remaining. In a link I did not cite, for the first time, Obama had the lead in one of the many polls.

From what I can see, Hillary is assumed to have only a 5% chance of winning the nomination by existing delegate math.
And that math had already given her Pennsylvania. What Dean somewhat wishfully demanded by early July may be granted before late April.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Speaking to the same unions a day earlier, Clinton said as first lady she had forcefully battled the agreement President Clinton labored hard to win.

"I did speak out and oppose NAFTA," she said. "I raised a big yellow flag and said, 'I don't think this will work.'"

The level of Hillary's lying has now officially stepped up from bald-faced to outrageous.

I misspoke damnit... I MIS-SPOKE!!!!!!!11

/cue tears

 

[Lemon law]

While the last post may speak more to Hillary hatred, its still a matter of a many person field being winnowed down to only two. And since there was always just one prize to win, all but one must lose. Hillary may not have a lack of people who hate her, but she still has huge support. And the same may be said of Obama.

The real question is when is the last remaining losing candidate going to concede so the winner may be crowned? The sin is not in throwing the hat in the ring, but at some point, everyone but one must bow to that voter will and admit that they just did not have enough voter support to stay.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

Originally posted by: ElFenix
these 'cutting down double digit lead' things are retarded. the polls were conducted when basically no one was informed. here in texas obama basically claimed victory with a narrow loss by claiming he'd cut into hillary's huge lead. well, when the polls immediately after super tuesday showed them in just about a dead heat and the only polls before that were taken a year and a half ago, the claim of 'huge lead' is rather fallacious. no one down here knew who obama was way back then.

Obama won more delegates in Texas. He didn't just "claim victory", he actually got a victory.

He didn't win the popular vote there, which isn't that all the rage lately?

 

[Starbuck1975]

we need like a consolidated poll thread or something instead of 5 posts every time a daily poll shows something different

Or Hillary could just face the inevitable and drop out of the race...reducing thread counts and saving precious intertube resources is the final justification for her campaign's demise.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

we need like a consolidated poll thread or something instead of 5 posts every time a daily poll shows something different

Or Hillary could just face the inevitable and drop out of the race...reducing thread counts and saving precious intertube resources is the final justification for her campaign's demise.

because democracy is bad, amirite?

all she's doing is making Obama a stronger candidate against McCain... democrats need to grow a pair, they could have used someone with Hillary's attitude in the Florida recounts in 2000 instead of capitulating to the course that seemed easier.

 

[Rio Rebel]

I never saw Obama claim that he won the popular vote. So if he won the most delegates, it seems reasonable to me that he claim victory.

What is confusing is how Hillary is seen as having gained so much momentum, when in fact she has even lost ground in delegates from the Ohio/Texas primaries to now.

When you're losing, it's not enough to slow down the losses. You have to actually catch up the delegates. And there are precious few contests where she can do that. But mark my words - if Hillary wins Pennsylvania by single digits, and closes the gap by the expected 10 or so delegates, the media will act like it is a defining event. It is baffling.

 

[Starbuck1975]

because democracy is bad, amirite?

Democracy has run its course, and short of manipulating the system, there is no way for Hillary to secure the nomination...the people have essentially already spoken.

If Hillary feels that strongly about running, she can always go independent...I am sure her donors are salivated at the prospect.

all she's doing is making Obama a stronger candidate against McCain... democrats need to grow a pair, they could have used someone with Hillary's attitude in the Florida recounts in 2000 instead of capitulating to the course that seemed easier.

Ah the new battle cry of the Hillary supporters...she is HELPING make Obama a better candidate by using Rovian tactics against him...she is staying in to make Obama a better candidate against McCain.

But I agree...Democrats do need to grow a pair.

As for 2000, they did have people like Hillary disrupting the process, selectively choosing which rules apply and made a mockery of our political process...thankfully, the Supreme Court ended the shenanigans...granted, we ended up with Bush as a result, but hindsight is 20/20.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
While the last post may speak more to Hillary hatred, its still a matter of a many person field being winnowed down to only two. And since there was always just one prize to win, all but one must lose. Hillary may not have a lack of people who hate her, but she still has huge support. And the same may be said of Obama.

The real question is when is the last remaining losing candidate going to concede so the winner may be crowned? The sin is not in throwing the hat in the ring, but at some point, everyone but one must bow to that voter will and admit that they just did not have enough voter support to stay.

I'd have no problem with Hillary hanging on until the end, but only if she was running a clean campaign.

She started the mudslinging early, and now she just looks like a power hungry bitch desperately hoping she'll be able to squeak out a win. And when you consider that if she doesn't win her mudslinging could hurt the chances of Obama winning (thereby keeping the Republicans out of the White House) it's just more proof that she's in this for Hillary, not for the good of the country.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Article on Yahoo that Bill is pissed off that Richardson has backed Obama.

Betrayed - after all, Bill had a position for him in his cabinet.
Another example of the Clinton attitude that she is owed the nomination.