Subscribe by RSS
The results are still coming in, however, Hillary Clinton is the projected winner along with, of course, John McCain for the Republican side. Looks like Clinton will take the state over Obama by about 9 to 10 points, as nearly predicted by the polls.
Here’s the announcement of Clinton’s win from CBS News from earlier this evening:
A report on the outcome from Fox News:
Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania Democratic primary Tuesday, riding to victory with a big boost from her core constituencies.
Barack Obama and Clinton, though, are carefully watching their margins to gauge success in the Keystone State. Pre-election surveys showed Clinton leading for weeks in Pennsylvania, but her margin will be critical in shaping how her flagging campaign is viewed going into the remaining nine primaries and caucuses.
With 66 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton had 54 percent and Obama had 46 percent.
“It’s a long road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and it runs right through the heart of Pennsylvania,†Clinton told cheering supporters at a rally Tuesday night in Philadelphia, declaring that “the tide is turning.â€
The wider Clinton’s lead, the stronger her argument can be that she is dominating in large swing states critical to Democrats in the general election. Though she’s trailing Obama in pledged delegates, she’s trying to win over uncommitted superdelegates by arguing that she’s more electable against presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.
“Hillary has won all the states we have to win in the general election,†Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told FOX News after the race was called, touting the fact that Clinton won Pennsylvania despite being outspent in the state by Obama.
Clinton has given a victory speech which I will be posting shortly. Barack Obama will be speaking to supporters soon as well, I’ll also have that video when it’s available.
Update
Here’s video of Clinton’s entire victory speech:
Update
Here is Obama’s entire speech to supporters:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Full steam ahead. Nice win for Hillary. She needed it and she won by 10 points, not bad. Now bring on the negative from the media even though she won pretty good.
we predicted this would happen. Good for HC.
now its off to more states…and convention time is quickly approaching…
yahoo:
Hillary’s margin is still 54-46 and that is emphatically not a double digit margin. So did she still lose while winning? Expect Barack to make that argument and that he beat expectations.
Theme for the Hillary campaign tomorrow: “Barack hasn’t won a significant race since February”.
HILARY 2008! People are talking s*** to quit and your still here! You go!
Jennifer Hillary won by ten points by the end. So she did do good. Now Hillary is going to use this supported to her advantage and it will help her. If you look from last election Bush almost won Pa. So they are looking at it that way as Clinton almost won all of Pa except for the majority of African American votes.
Wow…brought tears to my eyes! GO HILLARY! I’m voting for you in the Oregon primary in May!
Obama wasn’t predicting a win, as certainly didn’t happen, but… she won almost all of Pa?
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t she win only with a 10% of difference?
As I said before, is a good thing she won Pennsylvania. That way, her desperation will diminish and so will her fondness for doing whatever it takes.
Congratulations to Hillary for a great win last night! I listened to her victory speech live and think that she exhibited a seasoned grace and integrity I wish she would show more of. The negativity was gone, and she made good points in a positive way. She looked Presidential.
I agree with the question from the many commentators last night. The win for Hillary, hitting double digits, begs the question of why can’t Obama win these big states, and what does that mean for the general election. And I think the Superdelegates will be forced to ask themselves the same question. I also listened to Obama’s speech last night with an open mind (I promise), and was disappointed. Still no real substance, and his wave of enthusiasm at the beginning of this campaign is visibly waivering. He seemed to build momentum in his speech only when boosted by the crowd to do so. And the boosts seem to only come on the heels of a slanted comment by Obama - against John McCain mostly. Someone should tell him and Hillary both they’re not running against John McCain, they’re running against each other.
If I had not already chosen my candidate, I would choose Hillary. And support Obama for govenor of Illinois. I think a Clinton/McCain matchup would be more of an issues campaign, and I’d really like to see this be about issues.
This campaign IS about issues, and so will the general election, unless you let yourself get distracted.
Obama should be able to carry these key states if nominated. Ed Rendell and the many other Democratic office holders would surely campaign and urge voters of PA to vote Democrat. Similar Democratic pushes would happen in California and Texas. If they were basing it on issues (and not a personal grudge held over from the Democratic primary), the Democratic voters would most likely see more of there views in which ever Dem was elected. Same should be true (in states where she fell behind) if Clinton gains the nomination.
Dems and Dem-leaning Indi’s should think about what a personal vendetta against their unfavored primary candidate would do in the general election.
Yes, Whobody, the campaign is about issues, but the candidates themselves are not always about issues. Obama is taking a bit of heat this morning in the press over his very negative speech last night. I hope it’s not a sign of things to come if he is the nominee. He pretty much trashed both Clinton and McCain last night in non-issue fashion, and it looked like he was very comfortable doing it.
Judging from the primary, don’t you think Clinton is capable of the same? And are you willing to say that your man McCain will stay above the fray when the sights are on him?
It’s up to us as citizens to show these candidates and the media that we don’t care about the non-issues (and that we, not the media’s propaganda, will decide was is or isn’t an important issue).
I agree, Whobody, and oh yes, Clinton is capable of the same. The point was Obama was thought NOT to be capable of the same. He ran on a different platform, remember? Now that he has “taken off the gloves” as the Washington Post and CBS news are touting this morning, it seems to be believed that Obama has changed his entire platform from the original one. I think we always knew Clinton would sling a little mud, but the surprise is Obama promised not to. That’s all I’m saying. =)
Hillary has won beceause she won the Billfans and people who actually think that Obama is a radical Elitist.
Negative campaigning does work afterall. Its sad.
I’m an Obama supporter and, although I would rather see a Democrat in the White Hosue, I’m not happy that Hillary won. I don’t like her anything-to-win tactics. I don’t believe she’s run an ethical campaign, using Republican tactics to win an election, yet decrying these very same tactics when used against her. She is such an opportunist, taking advantage of whatever the current political trend is, and exploiting it for personal gain in such an obvious way. I know it’s politics & Obama wants to win, too, but he seems to have at least maintained some of his dignity. If Hillary wins and it’s a Clinton/McCain race, I’m voting for a 3rd party candidate. I can’t in good conscience support either Hillary or McCain, and I’d lose respect for Obama if he took the “Hillary’s VP position”.
No doubt she won as we all expected, but one should try to put this in a bigger perspective as a pyrrhic victory. The math is simply against her - she didn’t win by enough to ultimately matter at the convention. Obama’s 10-state streak just can’t be rendered null by a 10-point spread in one large state.
By CNN’s delegate count, Obama is still up 133 delegates (including supers) and there’s only 725 delegates left to be apportioned. The handful of delegates she netted in Penn will likely be made moot by North Carolina in two weeks, where the latest polls show a 25-point spread in favor of Obama.
Mike,
Hillary is fully aware that she can’t win based on the delegates. She is going to try and make a case to the DNC that she has a better chance of going up against McCain. I think that this will be a long slog through the Puerto Rico primary. Then both campaigns will get on the phones and try to get superdelegates on their side. Finally you will see Obama and Clinton whip out their lists of pledged delegates and you will have a nominee right before the convention. If Clinton is successful in stealing the election, which I think she will, there are going to be massive protests and possible violence in some cities. Maybe Obama’s statement of clinging to our guns isn’t far off…
One question Babs… what was exactly non-issue in Obama’s speech? I’m no saying there wasn’t anything, I’m just saying I don’t know what it is. Right now I’m trying to find the article in the W. Post.
Look here Obamabots, Obama took the easy road in PA by just spending money and not connecting with the people like Hillary. He actually needed to win more of Pa if he is going to win the White House if he is the nominee come general election. He only won in a few places here and there. Hillary took almost all of Pa. The super delegates will look at this now. A Pa win for Hillary was big.
You Obamabots know you like these two candidates going to head to head with one another, even though you want this over with. It gets you excited and you have something to talk about that’s not related to sports in your conversations these days. Just admit it you want this to go all the way to the convention.
The Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.....v=hcmodule
and a reprint of it on cbsnews.com:
http://www.cbsnews.com/st.....6535.shtml
“Don’t Hate” your name is an irony when I read your post. Obamabots? I don’t know if there are people out there who want this race to keep on. They would be wrong. What I DO know is that the person who doesn’t want this to end is Hillary. If the race ends now, she’s losing. Obama has more votes in the country, that’s all If you want to challenge the opinions of the majority, that’s your issue. So, I tell this to you: … Don’t hate.
Commenting on that thing you said, Babs: I looked at the article of the W. Post and nowhere is to be seen how Obama took off his gloves and started to make it personal and non-issue.
I don’t believe he is perfect or holy, but compared to Clinton he has shown more class and more respect. Did you watch his speech? Unlike Hillary when she lost in her states, he thanked his supporters in Penn, acknowledged that Hillary ran a good campaign, hushed his supported when they booed at her name, and gave just an overall classy speech.
Clinton’s speech was all about Hillary. I found Obama’s speech to be quite awesome. It was serious. It was about the future of an United America. There’s a war, a shattered economy, and endangered Planet. And it encouraged not his possible victory, but the victory of the party. No time to fuss about flag pins.
It’s too bad that so many people just want the same old politics.
Note: If you are going to bring up how he have said Hillary has directed her politics in the past after insurance and oil lobbysts have paid big bucks to her, please think before you do that. Do a favor to me and watch Sicko, by Michael Moore. Hillary is great in that movie. And the evidence shown is great too.
A quote from the article:
“… Plouffe would not say the campaign planned to address that period, but seemed open to the possibility in the future: “The Republicans certainly are going to look at those issues, the Clinton finances, the record issues. We have chosen not to go there.” …”
Can somebody explain to me how a phrase like “We have chosen not to go there” can be interpreted as they are threatening to “go there”.
That article doesn’t make any sense. I hope they are just wrong and not partial.
Don’t Hate,
I’m really not sure what you mean by “Hillary took almost all of Pa.” A 55% win is not almost all. If you’re talking land area, then that’s the most arbitrary metric I’ve heard of yet.
Saying that Obama “only won a few places here and there” is being very disingenuous. Of 45 primaries held so far, Obama has netted delegates in 30 of them, Clinton has netted delegates in 13 of them, and 2 were tied for delegates. Moreover, Obama’s wins have been big…Popular vote-wise, Obama has won 21 primaries by greater than a 20% margin, Clinton has only won 2 by such a margin.
But let’s get “meta” for a second…by using terms like Obamabots you’re reducing the conversation from an intelligent issues-based discussion to an emotional my-team-can-beat-your-team argument. Name-calling might work well on the playground, but please, try to silence yourself while the grown-ups are talking.
Oh, one other aside:
I actually do hope the Democratic primary race continues, but not for the reason you’re suspecting.
In Pennsylvania, 33,300 new voters signed up as Democrats and 46,000 switched to the Democratic party on the last day to register for the primary, Compare that to only 6,000 new Republicans and 1,800 who switched to Repiblican that same day.
It’s statistics like these that will help Democrats clinch the presidency (no matter who the nominee is) come general election time. Yes, you can argue, “Well, I’ll vote for McCain if ____ becomes the Democratic nominee!”, but if that’s your attitude, you’re very much in the minority according to every poll so far.
You can bet that had there already been a presumptive nominee, we wouldn’t be seeing nearly these kind of numbers…contested primaries are good for the party.
Mike,
Many of the new democrats may have been part of Operation Chaos.
http://time-blog.com/real.....chaos.html
Babs, I’ve been over the speech a couple of times now to try and find what you could have been referring to, and I’m not seeing where Obama is off-topic on the issues. Also, what in that speech would have you saying that he has changed his “entire platform”??
Whobody, did you read the article from the Washington Post? That’s the article I was referring to about changing his platform. If you’ll go back to my original post - which was entirely my personal opinion - I didn’t say he had changed his entire platform, but the article does allude to that as I stated later, and they even questioned his campaign on it.
Saying he pretty much trashed Clinton and McCain in a non-issue fashion meant that they were personality comments, not issue comments or arguments. And I’m not alone in that opinion, sorry. All of our opinions here of performances by the candidates are interpretative, and I interpret last night’s speech by Obama to be far from his best.
Yea. I read the Post article. Just b/c the W.Post writes it doesn’t make it viable. He changed his “entire platform”??
I don’t mind that it’s your opinion(or the W.Post’s opinion), I am just trying to better understand that opinion. If you agree with the article, then what are the non-issues that you’re speaking of?
Of course you didn’t like last night’s speech, b/c he’s starting to focus on McCain.
Did you watch Obama’s speech? Where did he go personal? He didn’t even attack Hillary, and defended her from some of his supporters when they booed her. And he he thanked the pennssylvanians that votes for him, and showed no resentment over the state in his words. That article has no real substance to back up its conclusions, and you can find Obama’s speech just right here, above the comments. Can you quote where he changed his platform?
Some things the press say ar just plain irrational. Pleas, Babs, stop playing their game.
“Of course you didn’t like last night’s speech, b/c he’s starting to focus on McCain.”
There ya go, Whobody, you answered your own question. He focused on McCain, but what specific issue did he address while he was doing that “focusing”? None, he just did his regular pop offs of calling McCain another 4 years of Bush…..what did he say to back that up? What issue did he quote McCain stand on, and what did he say to refute it?
Michel, if there’s one thing I don’t do, it’s play games. And if you think for one minute I’ll sit through his speech again just to quote something for you, think again. =)
I have to answer my own questions, because you won’t. You still didn’t tell me what the non-issues were that you and the W.Post were referring to.
I don’t remember all the issues he spoke of in reference to McCain, but not trying to remove our troops from Iraq and maintaining that Bush’s presidency has improved our economy were a couple. Are you diverting my original question?? If so, maybe you should run for office.
He didn’t needed to say that McCain would be continuation of Bush, because everybody knows that. And he has stated the reason too many times. I if you haven’t read HIS reasons, maybe you have read MINE when I posted them for you here.
Just a question: how can you ask him for backing up his statements now, when the article you linked from the Washington Posted didn’t, and you don’t back up you conclusions about his speech. It’s very convenient for you, of course. At least Rev. Wright had arguments for what he said.
Slate mentioned something about Obama’s gloves-off style of speech too
http://www.slate.com/id/2189690/
Personally, I’d say the statements he made were pretty straightforward and accurate given the sorts of ads she’s been running, but they don’t really allow Obama to place himself high above the fray. Just like Clinton, he’s been content to take the high road until he began to feel threatened. That’s certainly when Clinton’s nastiness began showing.
Indi is cIndiMinded is correct; it’s easier to stay positive when you are on top. I’m a bit conflicted becuase I, as many others do, feel iffy about Obama going negative. I feel he’s go so much to go off of, but he avoids using it. I know to some it makes him look “weak”, but I really think it’s because he doesn’t want to attack Clinton if it’s not neccessery. He doesn’t, after all, want to alienate her voting base and possibly lose it in the fall.
Best case scenerio for a DEMOCRATIC WIN IN NOVEMBER: Obama seals the deal with NC and Indiana, gets the offical nomination, and Hillary runs as VP. Think about it: you will not have overturned or ignored ANYONE’s votes - you will keep the entire voting base of young, elderly, white, black, middle class, and college educated.
You will have Obama’s advantages of improving foreign relations, his excellent judgement, and his ability to turn people like myself towards building America up from the inside out rather than wait for something to happen.
You will also have Hillary’s experience in politics, her knowledge on the economics, and … pantsuits? J/K, but if I’m missing something here let me know.
Best of all, we’ll have a power duo that will get us out of Iraq, which is the main issue with our economy as well as foreign relations and the energy crisis.
The question is: Will Hillary do it? Barack has said time and time again she is a formidable candidate. Truth be told, they both think the other will win, but they both also WANT to be the winner. Thus, something’s gotta give. Whoever reaches the magic number first should take the top of the ticket.
That’s the straight talk! I totally expect rebuttals, so bring it if you must *.~
I agree with you, Michelle. I’ve been thinking for a while now that a joint ticket is probably the only real way for the democratic party to heal itself, divided as it’s become. Actually, the suspicious part of me wonders if this hasn’t been Hillary’s plan for a while - to continue running until there’s enough political pressure on Obama that he has to offer her the VP spot (as she’s already unofficially offered it to him).
Certainly democratic leaders like Howard Dean are banging their heads against desks across the country trying to figure out how they can gather up all their voters into a single pool again after this is all over and done with - and the best way that can be done is keeping both their candidates together.
Obama and Hillary seem like a very odd ticket, but at the same time, the house divided seems much more likely to fall. Many people question if Hillary would accept the VP spot, but that doesn’t stop others from accusing her from plotting Obama’s downfall this election season with hopes of getting elected after 1 term of McCain, right? (I’ve read that on here somewhere)
Well if we can believe that of her, why would it be so hard be believe that she would take the VP slot as a road to eventual presidency - 8 years from now rather than 4 - and settle for being the first woman vice president in America’s history? Is that really too small a position for her?
Yes, IndiMinded I think it is too small for her ego. And it’s my personal opinion it’s too small for his ego, too. I say this because everytime its brought up at a debate they both have the same expression on their faces like “no way”, have you noticed? They look like they almost want to roll their eyes at the idea of either being second string.
I agree, I think that too much has been said for these two to come together on a joint ticket and I don’t think it would be a good idea. The past 2 elections have shown that far left liberals can’t win. I can maybe see Obama accepting the VP spot, but definitely not Hillary. I get the impression that she feels entitled to the precidency, so I don’t think she would accept the VP spot.
You might both be right about that, it’s something people have been saying all along. I just wonder what sort of pressure both candidates must be under to run together.
But if you’re right that Obama would accept VP but Hillary would not - than this more than any other factor may weigh heavily on the minds of the superdelegates.
I don’t think that Obama beign a liberal has anything to do with his chances of winning the election. The past to elections were bad for liberals because they did very poor performances, specially later on (Both Kerry and Gore didn’t fight at all). I don’t think that’s the problem with Obama. Yes, compared to Clinton he is not an agressive rival, but compared to, say, the moderate McCain.
And, who do you convince more easily to get the VP spot? The candidate with more popular votes and pledged delegates? Or the one whith less? Hillary has to move all her influences to REALLY turn that tide.
I don’t know Stalin, I don’t see Obama taking it either. I think if he gets bumped out of the nomination, he’ll go back and run for govenor of Illinois, get a term under his belt, and try again. I’m not so sure Hillary won’t do the same, and she probably has a good chance in New York. After Spitzer, anyone looks good. =)
Indi, I wonder how much this is being considered by the DNC and Howard Dean. I think if a solution like that is put to the superdelegates, they will fall in line with it, don’t you?
I think the superdelegates are in a bad position at the moment, and they’re waiting for an obvious “good choice” to emerge that will please everyone and alienate no one.
Basically they want to bet on the right horse, take some money, garner a few favors from the next president, sit back and enjoy the prestige their position offers them. Most of them aren’t really leaders, and they don’t like actually having to make a tough decision about the future of their party and country. So yeah, I think most of them are standing back and waiting to see what happens, hoping that the situation becomes simpler for them.
On the other hand, it’s not a hard time to be endorsing Obama. I suspect that lots of them would like to endorse Hillary, but they’re afraid of what will happen to them in the aftermath if they do. Many of these superdelegates have political careers to think about.
A bunch of old white men overrule the popular vote to take the candidacy from the first black nominee and hand it to a Clinton? That might not turn out so well for anyone involved.
But Hillary must be hoping for it, I can’t see why else she’s still running. What other chance at winning does she have?