Game over. Hillary's ridiculous theory that carrying primaries in certain big states means anything has irrefutably been proven to be complete and total bullshit.
http://blogs.tnr.com/...
I'd love to see the crosstabs for this Pennsylvania poll, but, just looking at the top-line numbers, it strikes me as pretty good news for Obama. It's not so much that he's down three points in a hypothetical match-up with McCain, which is better than Hillary's six-point deficit but still not great. And it's certainly not that he's down 18 points to Hillary in the upcoming primary, which isn't going to impress anybody. It's the combination of the two: A poll showing that Obama can get blown out in the Pennsylvania primary and still hold his own there against McCain suggests working-class white Democrats simply prefer Hillary, not that they find something inherently objectionable about Obama, whom they're apparently happy to support in the general.
Everytime gasbags like Rendell brings up "electability" as being something that is proved by primary wins this poll result should be thrown back in his face, along with asking if Hillary can win Wisconson, Minnesota, Iowa ect......Unless Hillary catches Obama in votes or pledged delegates by any reasonable standard her nomination would be illegitimate and would disenfranchise millions of Obama voters. This theory that a voter in Ohio somehow matters more than one in Wisconson in determining the Democratic nominee is a farce even if it actually meant something in terms of percieved electability. Now even dispensing with the morality of the Hillary big state theory it turns out what they are saying has no basis in fact to begin with.