« Sierra Club Endorses Tom Udall for Senate on Earth Day 2008 | Main | My Take: Clinton's Rovian Path to "Victory" »
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
PA Prez Primary Day Here at Last
UPDATE: After leading just a few weeks ago by 20 points, Clinton's lead was cut to about 10% as the final results trickle in. She "won," as expected, but she didn't win by enough to change the basic math in this race.
********
Here's one place you'll find PA results starting at 6:00 PM our time tonight, when the polls close. Take a deep breath.
It seems like an eternity since the last contest in the Dem presidential nomination race was held, although it's been only six weeks or so. Six long weeks filled with slash and burn campaigning from the Clinton camp, innumerable rallies and town halls, an ABC debate on nothingness and a daily trickle of superdelegates to Obama.
The math is as daunting as ever for Clinton. Unless she wins Pennsylvania by 20 or so points, she won't make a meaningful gain in pledged delegate or popular vote totals. Even if such a miracle were to occur, she'd still have to win all the remaining contests by significant margins to get close to Obama's numbers. Not likely. No, as before today's contest, Clinton's only path to the nomination would be to convince a huge number of superdelegates that Obama is "unelectable" and that they should annoint her as the nominee despite all evidence to the contrary.
The trad media likes to pretend there's still a horse race going on, but the horse race was over long ago according to the metrics that matter. The only thing at issue is when -- not if -- Clinton will give in and admit defeat. If she wins by 10 points or so in PA today, she'll convince herself this means she should stay in the race because she has "momentum, Certainly not momemtum towards a victory by the numbers, but momentum enough to permit her to raise enough funds to keep bashing Obama with GOP talking points and imagery as the months drag on with McCain out there on his own.
Given the realities in play, I don't think we can completely discount the possibility that her campaign's new goal is to try and damage Obama so profoundly that he'll lose in November, thus giving her another chance to run for prez in 2012. What else can we think when she's fallen to the level of using trademark Repub fear tactics to the point of using an image of Osama bin Laden in her closing ad in PA? I find it very sad and disturbing.
Technorati Tags:Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Pennsylvania, Democrats, primaries
April 22, 2008 at 02:36 PM in 2008 Presidential Primary | Permalink
Comments
My issue with Obama is it seems he is having a very difficult time convincing crucial states and demographics that are tradtionally labeled as BATTLEGROUND and SWING.
States such as Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio were "scary-close" during the 2000 and 2004 elections DESPITE having a very unpopular George Bush on the ballot. Given the scenario we are now facing in November...we are facing a much more moderate and popular dude of McCain who some may feel is suitable and acceptable.
In aaddition....exit polls indicate that Obama is seriously lagging among demographics of WHITE FEMALE voters, religious voters(incl.Catholics), the reliable Senior citizen vote, and among Latinos.
Maybe I am being too much of a worry wart....but I am just concerned.
As CNN indicated.....I am afraid Obama reminds me too much of the Dukakis campaign that still gives me nightmares to this very day.
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/22/is-obama-shaping-up-to-be-another-dukakis/
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 22, 2008 10:18:21 PM
Don't start drinking the media and Clinton kool aid. Do you really think that the majority of women who have voted Democratic for decades won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it's not Clinton? Plus, in Penn. and elsewhere she won closed primaries where independents were a much smaller factor than they will be in the general.
How do you think Obama would have done in PA if he had the Rendell machine working for him instead of against him? This is what will be when he's running there in the general. The fact is that between the two of them Democrats are voting in crushing numbers in these battleground states. PA gained more than 300,000 Dem voters.
What will be scary is that if Clinton manages to push Obama out of the way despite his wins in pledged delegates, the popular vote and number of states, African Americans and young voters will rebel and stay home.
Posted by: Old Dem | Apr 22, 2008 11:31:06 PM
I am certainly a supporter of Obama, and I definitely want to see him win over Clinton... I'm just wishing he was more gun-friendly.
Posted by: | Apr 23, 2008 3:43:47 AM
Nobody will mobilize the Reptilians like Ms Clinton should she manage to weasel her way into the nomination. Now THAT (Pres McSameasbu$h) is a scary thought, one that ought to make EVERYONE a little worried. I think most progressives know that given the chance the Reptilians will hand us 2004 redux, stolen election. The best way to counter that is with a large enough vote margin to make it impossible, I don't think Ms Clinton could do that nor do I think her brand of business as usual is what this country needs for the next four years. I know some have said that if Obama gets nominated they will vote for McSame, some might, but I have a real hard time believing that large numbers would actually want to suffer more of the Bu$h like disaster over a vote.
Posted by: VP | Apr 23, 2008 8:31:11 AM
What does "gun friendly" mean? Do you really think any president is going to get into office and make a big push to take people's guns away at this point in time? Most people want some protections to try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally incompetent and to keep AK47s off the streets. Other than that this isssue isn't even on the table that I can see.
Posted by: Josie | Apr 23, 2008 9:14:51 AM
For me, gun friendly would mean realizing that guns (no matter how much scarier some may look) are tools, and nothing more. That they are not the enemies... criminals who use them are.
As far as AK-47's go, there is a lot of propaganda against them that is simply not true. The ones you find here in America at any gun store are semi-automatic only. Upon being imported, a certain number of parts are replaced to prevent them from being fully automatic, and sale or ownership of any of these specific parts making one capable of fully automatic fire without a Class III license is a felony. I know this partly because I have a semi-automatic AK-47... a Romanian WASR 10/63, to be exact. I enjoy taking it out to the range for target shooting when I can. Also, AK-47's are not nearly as powerful as they are made out to be... they are considered to be medium powered rifles... significantly less powerful than many common hunting rifles.
Call me a NRA type nut-job for this if you like... but I handle firearms responsibly, and I'm not committing any crimes with the guns I own, and quite on the contrary would be happy to come to the defense of someone that's being violently assaulted.
Posted by: | Apr 24, 2008 3:02:16 AM
The limitations you cite re AK47s represent the kind of gun regulation that many favor. Again, I'm not aware of any push to "take people's guns away" or anything of the sort at the national level.
The complications with this issue come with region and heavily urban vs. less populated areas. That's why there's not a one size fits all solution. I don't see how regulating certain aspects of firearms buying and selling and trying to see that these "tools" are harder to get for those who don't have the capacity to use them wisely should be any threat to any responsible gun owner.
I think it's an issue that has little to no relevance in this presidential race, but it's useful as a wedge issue. The real solution to many of our urban gun crime problems is to take actions that will serve to uplift our growing underclasses or at least give them a more level playing field. Instead we've gone the opposite direction under Republicans, favored the rich and build a huge system of private prisons.
We know how to mitigate many of these problems but many profit greatly from things just the way they are.
Posted by: Josie | Apr 24, 2008 8:39:29 AM
A big part of the problem is that unfortunately, Obama has said that he intends to bring back Clinton's misinformed "Assault Weapons Ban."
I agree with you that the solution is not to take away any guns for any people, other than those who have proven themselves to be violent.
It's not a matter of urban areas vs. being out in the country. For instance, my rifles are, for all practical purposes, for target/recreational shooting only. I am well aware that for home security purposes, they may over-penetrate and hurt someone I do not intend to. For home defense, I have a pistol with bullets designed to fragment upon impact, so as not to go through walls or anything like that.
The key really is to educate people about guns- what certain kinds are good for, and what they are not good for. Let me stress- I support Obama... while I do not agree with him on this, which is a very important subject in my view (not just because I like guns, but because I believe in the Constitution and the reasoning for putting that Amendment in the Bill of Rights), I do trust that he at least has good intentions. I just wish that he'd reconsider this issue. Also, from a more political standpoint, it may be a decisive factor in whether or not he wins... both the primaries and the general. Both him and Hillary have F's from the NRA, and justifiably so... McCain has something like a C+... so even he's not all that great on it.
Posted by: | Apr 24, 2008 9:06:13 PM
On a side note, Richardson had a great score with the NRA last I knew... so Richardson for VP maybe? lol
Posted by: | Apr 24, 2008 9:08:01 PM
