U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2008, 11:58 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,323 posts, read 20,436,499 times
Reputation: 18436

Advertisements

It has been agreed for quite some time that Hillary will take PA. It is the type of demographic that supports her. Older, white, uneduated, blue-collar. So how does the outcome of this state's primary, an expected win, somehow mean that Hillary has the "momentum"?

Anybody see the lunacy in that?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2008, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,071,521 times
Reputation: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus View Post
It has been agreed for quite some time that Hillary will take PA. It is the type of demographic that supports her. Older, white, uneduated, blue-collar. So how does the outcome of this state's primary, an expected win, somehow mean that Hillary has the "momentum"?

Anybody see the lunacy in that?
She wont gain anything by winning PA unless she wins by like 60% and thats highly unlikely. Obama will still lead in delgates and Once all the states have voted it is projected that Obama will be within 100 points of securing the needed delegates to become the nominee. PA is Hillary's to lose. A Hillary win wont be a big deal but a Hillary loss in PA would be a SIGNIFCANT blow to her campaign because she was expected to win there.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 12:34 PM
 
1,545 posts, read 2,121,509 times
Reputation: 117
the older white voters will come out to support Obama in PA, you wait and see

it will be close: 5 % point, bitter remark will help make them see
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Washington state
7,208 posts, read 8,696,888 times
Reputation: 1894
According to this projection a win of 55%-45%, which seems reasonable, will give her a net gain of a whopping 9 delegates on Obama.

The Clinton campaign is attempting to sell all this "momentum" BS to the superdelgates because there is no other way she can win. Pretty sad when your only path to victory is an undemocratic one.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,071,521 times
Reputation: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton View Post
The Clinton campaign is attempting to sell all this "momentum" BS to the superdelgates because there is no other way she can win. Pretty sad when your only path to victory is an undemocratic one.
agreed, she has to rely on party elders to appoint her as the nominee instead of the votes from the people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 02:34 PM
 
3,566 posts, read 3,433,735 times
Reputation: 1364
Everybody agrees that the superdelegates will decide the nomination. Clinton has to convince them that they should vote for her. Pennsylvania is part of the persuasion. First, it is a big state in terms of electoral votes. While Obama has won more states (and many of those are likely to vote Republican in the fall, i.e., Georgia, South Carolina, etc) Hillary has won most of the large states. She can build an argument that she stands a better chance of winning the decisive big states in the fall election than Obama does. She's already won them in the primary election.

The second part of the argument is based on the numbers of voters who cast votes for her in the primaries. If at the end of primary season more people voted for her than for Obama she can plausibly argue that the will of the people is better represented by those numbers than by the delegate numbers, which reflect some pretty arcane vote counting.

Winning Pennsylvania and Indiana strengthens both of these arguments. She's not fixated on delegate counts at all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 02:42 PM
 
1,545 posts, read 2,121,509 times
Reputation: 117
her win in PA will be offset by her BIG LOSS in NC, and her likely loss in Indiana....

where will her argument take her?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Washington state
7,208 posts, read 8,696,888 times
Reputation: 1894
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
Everybody agrees that the superdelegates will decide the nomination. Clinton has to convince them that they should vote for her. Pennsylvania is part of the persuasion. First, it is a big state in terms of electoral votes. While Obama has won more states (and many of those are likely to vote Republican in the fall, i.e., Georgia, South Carolina, etc) Hillary has won most of the large states. She can build an argument that she stands a better chance of winning the decisive big states in the fall election than Obama does. She's already won them in the primary election.

The second part of the argument is based on the numbers of voters who cast votes for her in the primaries. If at the end of primary season more people voted for her than for Obama she can plausibly argue that the will of the people is better represented by those numbers than by the delegate numbers, which reflect some pretty arcane vote counting.

Winning Pennsylvania and Indiana strengthens both of these arguments. She's not fixated on delegate counts at all.
A Clinton primary win does not necessarily mean she would do a whole lot better in that state come Nov. For example, a recent Rasmussen poll (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/election_2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election - broken link) showed Clinton leading McCain in Pa. 47%-38% while Obama led McCain 47%-39%. Virtually no difference.

BTW, the reason she's not "fixated on delegate counts" is because she is hopelessly behind. You can be sure if Hillary was leading in delegates her campaign would remind us of it everyday.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,071,521 times
Reputation: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
She can build an argument that she stands a better chance of winning the decisive big states in the fall election than Obama does. She's already won them in the primary election.
understand that there is a difference between the primaries and the general election. Keep in mind that the same democrats that voted for Hillary in the primaries would support Obama in the general election. Winning primaries means nothing in that kind of arguement because a candidate can win a state primary but lose that state in the general election and a candidate can lose a state in the primaries and win it in the general election. For example, in 2004 John Kerry won Ohio and Florida in the state primaries but lost both those states in the general election. Obama lost New York in the primary but does that mean New York is going republican in November? I dont think so. Democrats mainly vote in primaries and the candidates are spliting democratic votes in the primaries. This "I won the big states" strategy just doesnt hold water and the super delegates know it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2008, 03:09 PM
 
3,566 posts, read 3,433,735 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsoboi View Post
understand that there is a difference between the primaries and the general election. Keep in mind that the same democrats that voted for Hillary in the primaries would support Obama in the general election. Winning primaries means nothing in that kind of arguement because a candidate can win a state primary but lose that state in the general election and a candidate can lose a state in the primaries and win it in the general election. For example, in 2004 John Kerry won Ohio and Florida in the state primaries but lost both those states in the general election. Obama lost New York in the primary but does that mean New York is going republican in November? I dont think so. Democrats mainly vote in primaries and the candidates are spliting democratic votes in the primaries. This "I won the big states" strategy just doesnt hold water and the super delegates know it.
I didn't say it was a good argument. I just said that is the likely significance Clinton will attach to a win in Pennsylvania.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top