Clinton wins PA but falls short (with poll)

Yesterday was Hillary Clinton's last best chance to catch up to Barack Obama, and she fell short.

Depending on who you ask (CNN or the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania) Clinton's margin of victory is somewhere between 8.51% and 9.39%.  Clinton spin doctors and some media commentators have been doing some creative rounding in order to award Clinton the "double-digit victory" she needed, but did not earn.  That does not change the fact that Clinton failed to rack up the numbers she needed to even begin catching up to Barack Obama.

The "double-digit" goal was a phony goal in any case.  To realistically have a chance of catching Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton needed to get roughly 63% of the vote in yesterday's contest (a roughly 26% margin of victory).  Clinton's 8.51% to 9.39% was nowhere near what she actually needed.

Pennsylvania, with its 158 pledged (i.e. elected) delegates, was the last so-called "large state" on the primary/caucus schedule.  There is only one state remaining on the primary/caucus calendar with more than 100 pledged delegates up for grabs--North Carolina with 115 delegates--and Barack Obama is on track to win North Carolina with a margin of victory of 15-20%, effectively erasing whatever Clinton gained yesterday, both in terms of delegates and popular vote.

Sadly for Democrats, the only real winner in yesterday's contest was John McCain.  As the Democratic contest is stretched out further, more bad blood is generated between the supporters of Obama and Clinton.  Unfortunately, it may be that the process has progressed beyond the point where leadership can heal the wounds that are being generated every day.  The Democratic Party's elected leaders and super delegates should have acted to end the process before it became a blood feud.  June may very well be too late.

Cross posted from Raising Kaine and The Richmond Democrat.

•  Let me get this straight

  we have a race between two very strong candidates, but you think that's a bad thing.

  We keep getting record breaking numbers voting in the primaries, and that too I suppose is bad.  Let me fill you in on a little secret- people who vote in the primaries generally vote in the elections.  The more Democrats that participate in the process, the greater our chances in the presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections.

  by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

  •  I think the bad blood is a bad thing

    This primary season could have been handled very differently.  It could have been pursued without the bad blood, the scorched earth and the kitchen sink.

    Exit polls from yesterday's primary in Pennsylvania suggest that only about 53% of the people who voted for Clinton will definitely vote for Obama in the general if he gets the nomination.

    Yes, I think that is a very bad thing.

    by JCWilmore on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM PDT

    •  53% will definately vote for Obama

      46% will almost certainly vote, and 1% will have died of old age by then.

      0.00012% will vote for McCain.

      by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM PDT

      •  I am double checking your math and spelling..

        by Johnny Rapture on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

  •  There is an element to truth to that.

    However, this thing is more charade than contest, because she can't beat him on any metric that matters, and if the superduperfantasticdelegates chuck those metrics, the party is superfucked in November.  And they know it.

    She's in it for vanity and an unwillingness to quit until she can retire some debt.  She won a PR victory last night, but she's even further behind in the metrics that matter.

    The real problem isn't that the contest goes on.  The real problem is that she's attacking like a Republican and tearing down the nominee.

    She lost a long time ago.  Were her name not Clinton, she'd be long gone.

    by jre2k8 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:17 AM PDT

    •  and honestly I just don't get why so many people

      still support her. Is it because she's white? Is it because they secretly like that she's co-opted the Republican fear card? Are they low information? Can people not see how negative she has taken this race? Even the NYT has come to that conclusion. More importantly, can people not see that she's just not going to win the nomination?

      I have respect for people like Romney (though I would never vote for the guy and don't particularly like him) who know when it's time to do what's best for your party. That means swallowing your pride and stepping aside.

      by mertmh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:50 AM PDT

      •  Maybe because she's been promoting party issues

        for something like 25 years.

        by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:49:15 AM PDT

        •  maybe

          but she doesn't seem to be supporting the party right now.

          by mertmh on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM PDT

•  Tip jar

  For your reading pleasure.

  by JCWilmore on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

  •  Nevur seen whiter whites..! Does blood wash out ?

    by Johnny Rapture on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:20 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, I don't understand your comment

      Maybe my snark sensor is out of whack.

      by JCWilmore on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:34 AM PDT

•  I like your non spin assessment

  Hillary I want to say as a Democrat go ahead run till the end....That's what you want....spend all your money...it's your decision....The end is near...so just si I warned you.

  by Parisgnome on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:23 AM PDT

  •  Barack Got Crushed in PA

    End of story.

    by tailor324 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:43 AM PDT

    •  She went from leading by over 20

      to winning by less than 10.  And the delegate math got even worse for her.

      Crushed?  I think you refer to Hillary's presidential dreams with that characterization.

      by jre2k8 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:39 AM PDT

      •  Depends upon your benchmark

        hey last week we had polls showing he'd compete if not win PA.  So someone with a differing perspective could just as rightly say that she turned him back, and he lost significant ground.

        If you haven't learned this by now, polls are WORTHLESS.

        by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM PDT

        •  One poll showed him in the lead, all the other

          last week and heck even Monday, had her up by 6 to 14 pts.  So how did she turn him back when the election results jive with what the polls were showing right before the election?

          by True Independent on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM PDT

          •  Have you been here the last few weeks

            Every single day we had a half-dozen or more diaries giving us each and every single poll's intimate details.  And the majority of them had her winning by a bit less than this margin.

            by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:06 AM PDT

    •  Who's is the lead? Tell me I want to know

      by Parisgnome on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM PDT

    •  Wrong. She was up by 19 after Ohio,

      she had the benefit of Sen Obama having to deal with Rev. Wright, bitter gate, the ABC "debate" and still despite all that political mana from heaven her lead in PA was cut in half to 9 pts.  Tell me why Clinton cannot keep her leads even when her opponent has been swamped in negative news coverage for 6 weeks!

      by True Independent on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM PDT

      •  She wasn't "up" by anything

        because truth be told, polls are just snapshots of random individuals, massaged by pollsters into giving a message they can sell.  They have almost no meaning, and they can change based on who's name is given first, through push-questions, or by simple name recognition.

        The only thing that really matters, is the final poll taken at the polling booths.

        by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:53:19 AM PDT

        •  And by extension . . .

          the only that really counts is the delegate total, both pledged and super delegates, when all is said and done.

          by JCWilmore on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM PDT

          •  Ultimately, yes

            Which is why historically, the candidate with the most delegates at the convention has represented it in the general election.

            Why would you want to run a candidate who was less popular to your own party?

            by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:07 AM PDT

•  what do the states she's won have in common

  diebold with no paper trail

  by bradical on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:44 AM PDT

  •  Obama won MD

    ALL Diebold and no paper trail in MD.

    Also, PA isn't all Diebold - there are at least 5 different systems being used and I believe the most common is the ES&S DRE.

    by reahti on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM PDT

    •  Yes, thanks for the reality check

      It really is best not to give into conspiracy theories at this point.

      by JCWilmore on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM PDT

•  Will GOP rally behind its candidate?

  The fact that two has beens, Paul and Schmuckabee got a combined total of more than 25 % suggests a deeper rift in the Republican Party than the MSM, a subsidiary of the GOP, has reported.

  Watch McCain turn off at least one third of the GOP with his running mate.

  by Dirk McQuigley on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:05 AM PDT

  •  There is some hope in this . . .

    but I genuinely wonder which party is more divided against itself at this point.

    by JCWilmore on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM PDT

    •  The democrats sadly....and Hillary is to blame

      400 Million dollars has been spent. 10 of thousands of hours have been expended for what? So the Democrats can win in November...to gain control of our fucked up government. We could have run Elmer Fudd and done that. But no Hillary has a machine.....and has to be a fucking c*nt and screw it up! It that's just how I feel.

      by Parisgnome on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:06 AM PDT

  •  Depends upon what you mean by "rally"

    (Sorry, nightmarish thoughts of Nurenburg dance in my head.)

    I think many will sit on their hands. You can tell a lot by the money coming in, or in McCain's situation, the money not coming in very quickly.

    by Dcoronata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:14 AM PDT

•  Hillary wants to change the rules of the game.

  Her message to superdelegates and pledged delegates: a black man should NOT get the nomination, even if he wins playing by the established rules. If a black man is winning, change the rules. It's as simple as that. Her racist message.

  by Virginian in Spain on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:47 AM PDT

•  Just when I think this campaign can't get worse

  ... I see something like this. Does anyone know if the story of the Obama website being hacked has been diaried yet?

  And yes, I read the part where the person who did it denied hacking, but it still seems to come uncomfortably close to the line for me. I sure hope the Obama tech people are learning from this and strengthening the security of their servers, especially those used for online fundraising purposes.

  All that aside, can you imagine what the Clinton campaign's reaction would be if an Obama supporter went to a pro-Hillary website and caused it to redirect visitors to his candidate's site instead? I strongly suspect we'd have a 10-alarm media firestorm and quite possibly legal action taken as well.

  by philimus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:33 AM PDT