Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
The AP's words, technically: Yahoo just republishes stories.Oni Koneko Damien wrote:God I fucking hate the media:
"Clinton grabs crucial win over Obama", Yahoo's words, not mine.
It was probably accurate based on exit polling....and they ran this report with only 35% reporting in, 54 to 46.
I saw that too. The channel itself was going on about Clinton doing well in her key demographics, but the thing it, Obama didn't have his most critical demographic really turn out.Darth Wong wrote:According to CNN, only 12% of the Democratic voters so far are under the age of 30.
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
Montco and Chester counties are not reporting yet, and they should be Obama counties. So it should get closer.havokeff wrote:At 8% with 61% reporting. It better get higher before the final results are in, or in the next couple of days the DP may start calling for her to pack it in.
Perhaps even more importantly Indiana is starting to show an Obama lean which would be a victory in the last "swing" state of the primary cycle.Fire Fly wrote:I'm not too concerned about any losses in PA, so long as the margin is no more that 10%. Most people expected Clinton to win but any gains she makes in PA will be wiped out by North Carolina where the margin of victory will probably be quite large.
Considering she needs to win every remaining contest something like 63-37% without any superdelegates changing hands (or added) to overcome Obama's current advantage anything less than a 13 percentage point victory is effectively an Obama victory (and realistically she needs double that margin to be competitive). She may be claiming victory now, but she may as well abandon her campaign.havokeff wrote:At 8% with 61% reporting. It better get higher before the final results are in, or in the next couple of days the DP may start calling for her to pack it in.
) that the primary race goes onward. 
The only way she would've abandoned her campaign is if Obama won and won by over 10-15%. As it is, Clinton's going to take the state by something like 7% - 9% and the media's going to trumpet it as a smashing Clinton comeback victory, thus cutting into Obama's lead in the contests he's slated to win, and giving her an excuse to stick it out to bitter end, lending more credence to her case when she goes to steal the nomination in smoke-filled conference rooms at the Democratic convention. And the longer she can hang on, in spite of Obama's fund-raising advantage, the more minor gaffes the Obama camp makes that Clinton can pounce on and blow out of proportion, the stronger her case grows. After all, if Obama can't knock her out, even though she's got almost no money, what more against McCain, who's had all these months to campaign for President, and who's recently circumvented that campaign finance legislation with his name on it, so he can have more money?Vohu Manah wrote:Considering she needs to win every remaining contest something like 63-37% without any superdelegates changing hands (or added) to overcome Obama's current advantage anything less than a 13 percentage point victory is effectively an Obama victory (and realistically she needs double that margin to be competitive). She may be claiming victory now, but she may as well abandon her campaign.havokeff wrote:At 8% with 61% reporting. It better get higher before the final results are in, or in the next couple of days the DP may start calling for her to pack it in.
This strategy only works if the party itself won't move against her. Many supers already pledged to Clinton have claimed they will switch if she wins this contest by less than a double digit margin. They (the superdelegates) can just as easily turn the contest for Obama if they get sick of her shit just as quickly as they can give Clinton the advantage. At some point the party will draw the line and I don't believe they'll wait until June.GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:The only way she would've abandoned her campaign is if Obama won and won by over 10-15%. As it is, Clinton's going to take the state by something like 7% - 9% and the media's going to trumpet it as a smashing Clinton comeback victory, thus cutting into Obama's lead in the contests he's slated to win, and giving her an excuse to stick it out to bitter end, lending more credence to her case when she goes to steal the nomination in smoke-filled conference rooms at the Democratic convention. And the longer she can hang on, in spite of Obama's fund-raising advantage, the more minor gaffes the Obama camp makes that Clinton can pounce on and blow out of proportion, the stronger her case grows. After all, if Obama can't knock her out, even though she's got almost no money, what more against McCain, who's had all these months to campaign for President, and who's recently circumvented that campaign finance legislation with his name on it, so he can have more money?
I imagine she's counting on the fact that Democrats are going to vote for her in November anyway, even if she takes the nomination by manipulating the party machine. After all, it's either her, or at least four more years of Shrub-style conservatism, and Democrats may not be especially keen on sleeping through yet another election cycle like they did in 2000 and 2004.
Old Age Trumps Youth and Treachery Every Time.Mr Bean wrote:I think I'm going to have to travel to Pennsylvania and personally punch every registered young person who did not vote today. Why won't it end damn you!?
Umm, actually I think the saying goes something like, "Age and treachery will defeat youth and idealism every time."MKSheppard wrote:Old Age Trumps Youth and Treachery Every Time.Mr Bean wrote:I think I'm going to have to travel to Pennsylvania and personally punch every registered young person who did not vote today. Why won't it end damn you!?
The Democratic Party will seriously not dare to overturn the delegate vote. If Obama's supporters perceive that he won legitimately but the party elites decide to give the crown to someone else, a large minority or even a majority of his supporters will not vote for Hillary in November and then there's the danger that it will spill over for people running for the Senate and the House.Vohu Manah wrote:This strategy only works if the party itself won't move against her. Many supers already pledged to Clinton have claimed they will switch if she wins this contest by less than a double digit margin. They (the superdelegates) can just as easily turn the contest for Obama if they get sick of her shit just as quickly as they can give Clinton the advantage. At some point the party will draw the line and I don't believe they'll wait until June.
You have far more faith in the ability of the Democratic party of the US to act rationally then I do.Fire Fly wrote:The Democratic Party will seriously not dare to overturn the delegate vote. If Obama's supporters perceive that he won legitimately but the party elites decide to give the crown to someone else, a large minority or even a majority of his supporters will not vote for Hillary in November and then there's the danger that it will spill over for people running for the Senate and the House.Vohu Manah wrote:This strategy only works if the party itself won't move against her. Many supers already pledged to Clinton have claimed they will switch if she wins this contest by less than a double digit margin. They (the superdelegates) can just as easily turn the contest for Obama if they get sick of her shit just as quickly as they can give Clinton the advantage. At some point the party will draw the line and I don't believe they'll wait until June.
There's no doubt that Obama will be the nominee. The only question left is when Hillary will drop out because the longer she stays in, the less likely her supporters will support Obama; there's not enough time to mend the wounds.
"Some counted me out and said to drop out," the former first lady told supporters cheering her triumph in a state where she was outspent by more than two-to-one. "But the American people don't quit. And they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either."
"Because of you, the tide is turning."
Let's see, I count one outright lie (it is not a 'comfortable' win), and one possibly racist remark.Her victory, while comfortable, set up another critical test in two weeks time in Indiana. North Carolina votes the same day, and Obama already is the clear favorite in a Southern state with a large black population.
Umm... No.Oni Koneko Damien wrote:Let's see, I count one outright lie (it is not a 'comfortable' win), and one possibly racist remark.Her victory, while comfortable, set up another critical test in two weeks time in Indiana. North Carolina votes the same day, and Obama already is the clear favorite in a Southern state with a large black population.
Vendetta wrote:Richard Gatling was a pioneer in US national healthcare. On discovering that most soldiers during the American Civil War were dying of disease rather than gunshots, he turned his mind to, rather than providing better sanitary conditions and medical care for troops, creating a machine to make sure they got shot faster.
There are some commentators calling her a neo-con and comparing her to Dubya. I don't really think they're unjustified in their remarks.Hawkwings wrote:I really don't get this "I won't stop fighting for what I believe in, EVER!" speech from Clinton. Isn't this the attitude that got us stuck in Iraq?
Hillary won't dare to make that argument, though, because it's logic is so easily turned back upon her: if she had to struggle so hard against a first-time presidential candidate —a rookie senator— for a nomination that was supposed to be hers for the taking, and drained her coffers doing so, what's she got left in the tank to go against McCain?GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:And the longer she can hang on, in spite of Obama's fund-raising advantage, the more minor gaffes the Obama camp makes that Clinton can pounce on and blow out of proportion, the stronger her case grows. After all, if Obama can't knock her out, even though she's got almost no money, what more against McCain, who's had all these months to campaign for President, and who's recently circumvented that campaign finance legislation with his name on it, so he can have more money?
HA! For some reason I totally pictured Luke vs Vader with Palpatine waiting in the wings when I read that.Patrick Degan wrote:Hillary won't dare to make that argument, though, because it's logic is so easily turned back upon her: if she had to struggle so hard against a first-time presidential candidate —a rookie senator— for a nomination that was supposed to be hers for the taking, and drained her coffers doing so, what's she got left in the tank to go against McCain?GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:And the longer she can hang on, in spite of Obama's fund-raising advantage, the more minor gaffes the Obama camp makes that Clinton can pounce on and blow out of proportion, the stronger her case grows. After all, if Obama can't knock her out, even though she's got almost no money, what more against McCain, who's had all these months to campaign for President, and who's recently circumvented that campaign finance legislation with his name on it, so he can have more money?
