Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Re: Monopolies Are Bad for Con... | The Only Thing That Pisses Me ... »

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

None Taken!

posted by on April 15 at 10:23 AM

Helpful PA reminders this morning:

1) A majority of Harrisburg, PA Dems say they weren’t offended by Obama’s characterization of economically hard-hit small-town voters.

2) So far, Obama’s remarks aren’t having much of an effect in statewide polls.

3) A new district-by-district analysis by CQ has Clinton netting only three delegates (plus the 55 tied to the popular vote, which she has long been expected to win) in Pennsylvania. (She’s presently behind by 150 or so.) Since delegate allocation is proportional by congressional district, and many districts have only 3 or 4 delegates, huge popular vote margins are required to affect the distribution. Three delegates might be conservative, but I bet you won’t see a margin bigger than ten.

All via TPM, in one way or another.

It’s easy to get caught up in news cycles and forget the big picture. The truth is, starting a couple of weeks ago, Obama was beginning to close the gap in PA. He’s still in a much better position in the state than he was even at the beginning of this month.

Barring some enormous gaffe (and it would have to be pretty enormous, given how little impact Jeremiah Wright and this “bitter” nonsense have had), Obama has the nomination locked up.

RSS icon Comments


Hillary is just a moderate Republican. Please deal with it. I mean she runs attack ads like a Republican, votes for GOP wars like a Republican (and still has never ever appologized for it) has played the race card like a Republican..guess what? She is a Republican!!

Posted by Andrew | April 15, 2008 10:29 AM

Before someone points out that Harrisburg is not a small town: Yes, I realize that, and that's why I included the specific location the survey was taken (unlike TPM, which just said "Pennsylvanians.") But I actually think that's one reason people aren't taking offense: they just don't think they fit into the category Obama was describing.

Posted by annie | April 15, 2008 10:33 AM
Posted by Westlake, son! | April 15, 2008 10:37 AM

I'm so glad that Hillary keeps running. Her ads and rhetoric are keeping the media and the party discussing important issues, like ... errrrrm, well, anyways, she's certainly entitled to run. Even if she keeps embracing Republican frames. And even if she can't seem to do so without putting forth ads that might as well have been aired by Republican 527s.

Posted by tsm | April 15, 2008 10:40 AM

Hillary is not a Republican. She uses Republican tactics, but tactics do not a policy make.

Posted by Fnarf | April 15, 2008 10:49 AM

3 delegates plus 55 more for winning the state, according to CQ

Posted by chicagogaydude | April 15, 2008 10:51 AM

But Annie is actually understating her case. Clinton could win PA by 50 or 60 delegates and she'd STILL be toast. She has NO CHANCE.

Posted by Fnarf | April 15, 2008 10:52 AM

Thanks, clarified.

Posted by annie | April 15, 2008 11:12 AM

obama is the first dem in a long time to stand up and respond to these kind of lame attacks, as opposed to either ignoring it defensively back-tracking. i think people respond more positively to these actions, rather than negatively to those words.

i also think since the guy's been in the news every day now for over a year, people know better than to be hoodwinked by the asshats in the media who want to pick apart a single sentence and instruct people to be offended, while kindly disregarding every other thing he has said over the course of the campaign. i just don't think people are as stupid as the media wants them to be.

Posted by brandon | April 15, 2008 11:28 AM

I'm kicking myself for not buying into Obama on Intrade months ago.

Posted by w7ngman | April 15, 2008 11:49 AM

I don't usually post comments but today I will simply because I'm sick of hearing the same idiotic nonsense from the Obama fanboys: "She has NO chance", "she should quit already, she's hurting the party", "mathematical impossibility."

First, it's not true that she has no chance. She has virtually no chance and that's just when it comes to pledged delegates. Second, I seriously doubt this is hurting the Democrats' chances. Third, you know whose chances to win a majority of pledged delegates are also a "mathematical impossibility"? SEN. OBAMA'S. What's this rubbish about him having the nomination wrapped up and Sen. Clinton being finished?.

The last time I checked, you need a MAJORITY of delegates to secure the nomination. I don't remember it being "get a plurality and then whine about how you should automatically get the rest of them, 'cause you know?, you wouldn't want to "reverse the will of the people!." Oooh, spooky language. Well, let me tell you what the will of the people has been so far: to split almost in the middle all across the board. Some states voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton, some for Obama, some were nearly equal. Like it or not, this looks as if it's going to be decided by the superdelegates. Since neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Clinton won a majority, they should make their case to them because.

As far as I know, the superdelegates were created so that prominent figures in the party would have a say in who would be the best nominee not to be useless ceremonial automatons who vote exactly like their respective contituencies. You can argue on the usefulness of superdelegates and whether it should only be the voters who count, they're valid points. Keep them to advise the party or get rid of them, just don't go around demanding that they instantly vote for your guy when he wasn't able to scare up the necessary delegates for himself.

Before a flame war starts, let me point out that I'm NOT a Clinton supporter, I'm an independent liberal and I actually rather dislike both of them for a myriad of reasons. For once I'd like to see a liberal in the White House.

Posted by Josh | April 15, 2008 12:05 PM
She has virtually no chance and that's just when it comes to pledged delegates. Second, I seriously doubt this is hurting the Democrats' chances.

Well then! I stand corrected. Clearly, Democrats are likely to benefit from having one candidate with "virtually" no chance at the nomination buy one ad after another telling voters that the virtually certain Democratic nominee is elitist, naive, and not as experienced as McCain.

My mistake.

Posted by tsm | April 15, 2008 12:13 PM

I'm using "locked up" because the odds are vastly in his favor, but I'm not claiming he'll have the pledged delegates he needs to put him over the top. Both candidates need superdelegates. That said, there's very little evidence the remaining supers will exercise their will to thwart a perfectly viable candidate who leads in the popular vote, pledged delegates earned, states won, and superdelegates won since Super Tuesday--each of which Obama is on track to achieve.

HRC has every right to continue the contest. I was mostly replying to doubters in the comments over the last couple of days who seem to think the race has swung in Clinton's favor. It hasn't.

Posted by annie | April 15, 2008 12:14 PM

Thanks for the heads-up, Annie. So it has been written; so it shall be done. Now I can scrape the Hillary bumpersticker off and get on with my miscreant life.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | April 15, 2008 12:41 PM

right, so I think of the 55 based on the state vote, she nets a handful more, and i think there's 29 supers

Posted by chicagogaydude | April 15, 2008 1:07 PM

Josh @11, the problem with your "she could win with the superdelegates" scenario is that it ignores the facts. Fact number one: Obama is going to end up with something like 2/3 of the superdelegates. Fact number two: he's beating the pants off of her in superdelegates recently. Fact number three: almost all of the undeclared superdelegates are undeclared for the stated reason that they're waiting to see who wins the pledged delegate race -- which is Obama. So he's going to get almost all of them.

Seriously: she cannot win. If she wins PA by thirty points, she's still toast. She has to win EVERY REMAINING STATE by thirty points.

She's done.

Yes, she is entitled to carry on; no one can make her do anything she doesn't want to do. The question is, WHY does she want to do this? Well, obviously, no one wants to lose, and she's hardly the first candidate to have trouble seeing the inevitable. But she is destroying the Democratic Party and its chance at winning in November -- not by prolonging the contest, but by the incredibly negative tactics that are divisive in a way that Karl Rove would (and probably does) adore. She's tearing down the winner, which is boosting McCain.

I dont' think it matters in the end, because I think the economy and the imploding war are going to put an end to McCain. I think the Republicans are headed for a Goldwater-style implosion.

Posted by Fnarf | April 15, 2008 7:36 PM

I'm in Pittsburgh campaigning for Obama. My interactions with folks has been positive. There have been a few negatives, but the organizations that I'm working with discussed inaccuracy of the ARG poll. I'm feeling positive about his prospects here. I've been out all day canvassing, so I have not had the chance to catch up on media clips. I'm pleased that he's not running away from it. He's got to talk about it more and in a manner that engages economic issues. I would also like to point out Hillary's vote on bankruptcy reforms earlier this decade. How does it affect the working class? It makes it harder for them to file for bankruptcy. Corporations are not burdened in the same way. Also, what is McCain's bullshit with reducing the federal gas tax? What happens when the gas tax is reinstated? What if gas prices are higher afterwards? Does that cause more shock later? Does it mean that we're living on more credit? Immediately, it sounds great, but over the long term, that would not be a viable solution for our energy concerns.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | April 15, 2008 8:23 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).