Sen. Hillary Clinton (NY) won the Dem primary in PA – an important swing state - with a respectable 10-point margin (55 percent to 45 percent) over her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama (IL).
Both Hilary and Obama held onto their core supporters, and neither made inroads into the other's base. Women, senior citizens and less educated voters went for Hillary, whereas men, those under age 30 and highly educated voters clung to Obama. But considering that Obama spent $11.2 million on TV ads - more than twice the amount his rival spent - he should have been able to "close the deal," as Hillary put it.
Exit poll data from voters in 40 precincts across PA showed that one in 10 – half of them Republican, half of them independent - changed their party registration so they could vote in the state's closed primary. Sixty percent of them said they voted for Obama.
Other exit poll results:
† Although the candidates spent six weeks campaigning in PA, 20 percent of voters decided for whom to vote within the last week. Nearly 60 percent of them supported Hillary, suggesting that his weak performance in last week's debate and the ensuing tit-for-tat advertisements the two candidates ran had a negative effect.
† According to 2005 census data, PA is 86 percent white, and Hillary won 60 percent of these votes, including two-thirds of those without college degrees and an equal number of those whose household income was less than $50K. She also beat Obama amongst white men by a 10-point margin. For his part, Obama won 9 out of 10 black votes overall, and had a strong showing in Philadelphia - which has a large black population - as well as in the city's suburbs, home to well-educated, liberal whites.
† Gun owners – roughly four out of 10 voters – regular churchgoers and those living in rural areas of the state residents all supported Hillary by 60 percent to Obama's 40 percent.
† With the candidates bashing each other's brains out all week, Dems are becoming increasingly polarized between the two. Roughly half of each candidate's supporters say they could support the other candidate in the general election.
Hillary overwhelmingly won the votes of Reagan Dems in the NE part of the state – particularly in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area – voters who are the likeliest to cross over to John McCain (R-AZ) in the general election, should Obama be the alternative. Hillary's win adds weight to her claim that she is better able to defeat McCain in the fall. The pressure is now on Obama to win decisively in IN and NC on May 6th – meaning, he must significantly erode Hillary's blue collar support regardless of the margin – so as to render moot her argument to the superdelegates that he is unelectable.
I would recommend that the writer refer to the winner in Pa. as Sen. Clinton or Clinton. (You don't know her well enough to call her by her first name.) While all of her campaign slogans say "Hillary," and even the TV news people say "Hillary," this is still journalism, and if you call her opponent Obama, call her Clinton. Also, change the bullets. We don't need miniature crosses to highlight certain key facts.
by
Brasch (63 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 48 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 4:35:09 AM
The bullets are "daggers" - The Stiletto, daggers, get it?
Your point about Hillary vs. Obama is well taken. From the start, The Stiletto consciously chose to refer to her as "Hillary" since it is sometimes difficult to keep her and her husband separate, especially when they cris-cross the country double-teaming Obama. The Stiletto can continue this practice on her own blog, but when she posts on a news site such as this one it is probably a good idea to stick to last names upon second reference. Thanks for giving The Stiletto a chance to re-think this.
by
The Stiletto (37 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 30 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 6:05:57 AM
Brash sounds a bit too angry for a Wednesday Morning!
bullets, daggers, crosses.... Seriously, is this all you have to complain about on a Wednesday Morning?
What should be concentrated on, instead, is the fact that the Democrat Party power structure is being fought over right now.. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, to name two, are trying desperately to hang on to their perceived positions of power in the party... Reality teaches that they have no power in the party, and the fact that they are in the positions that they happen to be in is just a matter of timing...
Everyone knows that Hillary had not a hope in winning without super delegates... EVERYONE knows this, which is why we have some people telling the super delegates how they should vote, when, the whole point of the super delegate is to be able to vote independently of what the "will of the people" happens to be...
This mess was created in the late 60's early 70's... If you want to be irate, I would suggest that you direct your anger toward the current system in place that allows a chess player who has only two pawns (against a queen, a rook and a bishop) to continue playing despite the insurmountable odds...
Direct your anger at the Clintons for taking advantage of this type of system.. (for all the good that will do) What you should NOT do, is direct your anger toward the messenger regarding the format of the message... That is completely absurd! This is journalism? PLEASE this is NOT the Wall Street Journal, this is NOT the Washington Post, and this is most definitely NOT the New York Times, I am sure Rob would appreciate it being elevated to that level, but it is not there.. If it were, there would be checks written in payment for stories like this, and there would be editors who would make changes... (probably not about the crosses though... ;-) )
So, If I were Barrack, right now, I would be stewing.. I would be figuring out exactly what I needed to do to eliminate those last two pawns, and destroy any possibility of another Clinton win.. ESPECIALLY one as decisive as the one seen here in PA , last night....
Barrack needs to make sure she does not gain the super delegate support, and the only way he can do that is to convince the super delegates that HE, BARRACK, can win....
These are simple observations, DO NOT SHOOT the messenger.... (especially if you are interested in more gun legislation....)
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 586 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 8:28:52 AM
Time for her to give it up. She's a loser in every sense of the word. Any respect or admiration for her or her husband has goooooooooooooooone. Obama is head and shoulders above this sub-species of woman.
by
Helen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 7:29:55 PM
Well, The Clintons are the same as they have always been...
The playbook is a couple of decades old, actually... If you have not learned, by now, she will not be going ANYWHERE... She will stay right where she is, and she will either walk away with the nomination, destroy the Democrat Party, or BOTH...
The Clintons have proven that they could care less about the party, it is ALL ABOUT THEM! She will not give up, not now, not ever...
Now, while many people have been wishing, hoping, whatevering that she would leave the race, you all have to remember two things from now till the convention..
1. NEITHER candidate can win without the help of the super delegates....
2. Obama outspent Hillary 3-1 here in PA, and he not only lost, he was CLOBBERED...
Oh, on a side note, the exit polls were screwed up here like they were in NH, though there was not the problems with the ballots like there were in NH...
(BTW, the party asked for this when they allowed her to seek the nomination in the first place... What did you THINK she would do???
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 586 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 10:20:20 PM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
