Clinton won Pennsylvania, the only question is by how much
Printable View
Clinton won Pennsylvania, the only question is by how much
Looks like she won by 8%... Not all that impressive of a victory. "Experts" were saying that anything over 10% would have helped her run out dramatically and anything under 5% would kill her. Sounds like she's right in the middle.
IMO, winning by only 8% is probably more of a blow for her, especially since she at once led by up to 20% and was favored to win heavily.
The Dems continue to mismanage their Presidential races. They should seriously sit down with all the super-delegates and come to a final "who is the best candidate for us" decision, instead of allowing these political charades continue...
As more numbers are coming in, looks like it is going to be a double-digit win, could be 10% or higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by USAF Pilot 07
With 98% of the votes counted
Clinton 55%
Obama 45%
A double digit victory is huge for Clinton.
This is big for her but bad for the DNC...neither one at this point is going to concede at this point.
Was it cold in that room where Hillary and Natalie were?
If the DNC had the winner takes all rules, the election would be over already.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
The proportionate voting is what is keeping the election going for as long as it is, & the Super Delegate system that was put in place is another strange system. Caucus voting is another strange voting concept and it leaves out many voters.
And lastly, the media have done a terrible job of covering both Clinton & Obama, in 2007, they took it easy on both candidates & refused to ask the tough questions in both print media, television, & the debates.
Couple of points:
How the Democrats were allowed to not debate on Fox news is beside me.
Why the media did not cover Obama's racist preacher until 2008 is an embarrassment to the media.
How the hell in the world is Hillary Clinton still able to lay claims that she has 35 years of experience?
In 2004 military experience was important when John Kerry was the candidate & attention was given to President Bush's National Guard experience. Fast forward to 2008 & not once has military experience has been mentioned.
I do not support Obama or Clinton, but, I am a political junkie & follow the elections, so, I try to look at things objectively, and, if the Democrats lose the election, it was well deserved.
The big question is why are there ANY primaries this late in the year? Why can't they all just do it the same day in January and not even be in this situation to begin with?
Well Phil, that is a pretty good point, if they want to elections to last very long, why schedule Primaries this late into the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Scheduling everything in January would not give the candidates to hold debates & visit the states, and , the excitement of a Presidential debate would wear off as the main election is not until November & the conventions are not until later in the year as well.
Which is why they spread it out.
Hillary can't win.
I wonder what her agenda is... Ensure an Obama defeat and run again four years later?
Tom
Well, neither one can win the required amount of delegates, there is not enough delegates out there, so, if Clinton wants, she can stay in the race till the convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
120 delegates separate Clinton & Obama, somehow, the everybody is going to have to come together to figure this mess out....
True... but if Obama is not the Democrat candidate in the General Election, the perception will be it was stolen and for that to happen, they might as well anoint McCain President without an election.
I'd think the party would want her to step aside.
Tom
After all this, Hillary gained only one (1) delegate by winning PA.