Comments on: Clinton Pennsylvania Victory Means Democrats Split Could Deepen (Analysis And Roundup)

By: skippy

skippy — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:18:49 +0000

i would disagree w/the nation on anything substantial, including whether the opinions found in the nation are of any importance whatsoever.

as to hillary's question, why can't obama close the deal, one might ask the same about her.

By: idaho

idaho — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:18:49 +0000

[...] [...]

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:37:32 +0000

pyronite,

The Nation would disagree with you about immigration not being an issue. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/bahadur2

By: Pyronite

Pyronite — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:42:28 +0000

Superdestroyer:
I like how he loses one race on April 23, 2008, in which none of those things were even mentioned, in which Hillary Clinton holds many of the same beliefs, yet you still assign blame to those things.

Lame.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:43:52 +0000

Runasim,

Obama is running as a defacto open borders, unlimited immigration proponent. That is why the elite whites vote for him. They are the least negatively impacted by unlimited immigration. However, middle class and blue collar whites are negatively impacted by unlimited immigration. They voted abotu 70% against Senator Obama.

Maybe Senator Obama should listen to the Democratic voters and scale back on his support for entitlement spending, drivers licenses, free tuition, etc for illegal immigrants.

Also, maybe Senator Obama should spend a little more time talking about improving academic learning in the U.S. and a little less time talking about diversity, social engineering, and the dumbing down of Americans.

By: runasim

runasim — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:29:17 +0000

SD-

Hint: Obama is not running as a xenophobe.
That should clarify what amazes you.

By: superdestroyer

superdestroyer — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:39:17 +0000

If Senator Obama was less gung ho for open borders and unlimited immigration, less infatuated with social engineering, and less an elitist in his personal lifestyle he would have won a larger percentage of the blue collar white vote and would have, to use the term de jure, closed the deal by know.

However, I guess that many of those blue collar whites in PA realized that a massive increase in the size of the government coupled with huge entitlement increases along with open borders and an administration filled with social engineer wannabes will be a vary bad deal for them.

It is amazing that Senator Obama does best with people who do not fill out the 1040 long form (the young and blacks) and with those who pay others to complete their tax forms. Senator Obama seems to do worst with people who make enough money to fill out a huge number of tax forms but do not make enough to be able to afford an accountant.

By: Tennessee Bloggers React To The Primary Results Out Of The Keystone State : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:45:40 +0000

[...] Say Uncle Instapundit NY Times Huffington Post Washington Post McClatchy Moderate Voice LA Times Philly [...]

By: Superdelegate » Blog Archive » Clinton Pennsylvania Victory Means Democrats Split Could Deepen…

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:27:38 +0000

[...] Obsidian Wings wrote an interesting post today on Clinton Pennsylvania Victory Means Democrats Split Could Deepen…Here’s a quick excerptIt’s not like Obama is radioactive in Red states (at least judging by his current superdelegate endorsements). [...]

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:34:17 +0000

I just saw a neat stat on the NY Times Results site from the polling data. Of the people who had decided their vote more than three days ago, the votes were almost exactly split between Clinton and Obama (51/49, which is likely within margin of error, but probably real considering the results). Of those who decided within the last three days, they went 56/44, which is almost exactly the margin of victory. So, as Joe wrote about a couple days ago, the undecideds broke for Clinton just as in Ohio.

There's another interesting result in there. In both Texas and Ohio, about 20% of voters thought that the race or gender of the candidate was important. This is matched in PA. In all three states, those who thought gender was important voted more for Clinton. However, it was a 60/40 split in the earlier two states, while a full 71% in PA went with Clinton. Hints that gender as an even bigger player in PA than previously. One difference between TX and OH was that, for the "race is important" people, they split evenly in Texas, while they went with Clinton in Ohio. Pennsylvania followed the Ohio pattern. If race of the candidate was important, they went with Clinton.

But all that said, the most important difference seems to be economics. 55% of PA voters said the economy was the number one issue and they broke significantly for Clinton. Similarly, non-union voters split evenly between the two, but if they were in a union, they broke heavily for Clinton. Obama is going to need to work on his economic message.

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:54:01 +0000

What Pennsylvania showed most to me, though I haven't studied the exit polls in great detail, is that everything is staying the same. Pennsylvania was predicted to go for Clinton weeks ago and it went to Clinton. Before that, Miss. was predicted to go for Obama and it went for Obama. There's really only been about 2 genuine surprises in the last 15 contests — Wisconsin, for instance. And unless something radical happens, this will continue on. North Carolina will wipe out Clinton's PA gains. One of them will take Indiana by a very small amount…. And it all ends up with Obama slightly ahead by about 100 delegates.

But it looks like we're just going to go on, spending millions upon millions of Democratic dollars to beat up other Democrats, with the pundits continuing to analyze what each margin of victory means, and it all comes out the same.

By: elrod

elrod — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:42:35 +0000

A response on the point about union voters. Many of the union voters going for Clinton were in the Scranton area, where Hillary Clinton claimed a hometown advantage. I don't think those voters went for he because they're union so much as she's the hometown choice among a lot of union members.