« ABC News: Obama Wins North Carolina But Indiana Too Close To Call
Barack, It’s About What’s Best For America »



CBS News: Clinton Wins Indiana

May 6th, 2008
By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief


CBS News has projected that Senator Hillary Clinton will win the Indiana Democratic Presidential primary — a result that means the evening of the North Carolina and Indiana primaries ended in a split decision for what increasingly appears to be a split political party:

Clinton pulled off an Indiana win in what was a virtual must-win Midwestern state. With 50 percent of the votes being reported in the state, she was leading Obama 55 percent to 45 percent.

Obama’s win mirrored earlier triumphs in Southern states with large black populations: Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina among them. With 14 percent of the votes in North Carolina being reported, Obama was leading Clinton 63 percent to 35 percent.

CBS News exit poll results show that most voters in both states made up their minds a while ago. Only 17 percent in Indiana and 14 percent in North Carolina decided in the last three days. Twenty-four percent in Indiana and 18 percent in North Carolina decided in the last week.

Late deciders backed Clinton in Indiana by a margin of 62 percent to 38 percent for Obama. In North Carolina, Obama won late deciders by a much smaller margin of 49 percent to 48 percent.

And the important issues?

As it has been throughout the Democratic primaries, the economy was the most important issue in both states with 65 percent of voters in Indiana describing it as such and 60 percent in North Carolina. In Indiana, 50 percent of voters said Clinton would be more likely to improve the economy and 46 percent said that Obama would. In North Carolina, 52 percent said that Obama would be more likely to improve the economy and 42 percent said that Clinton would.

Nearly half of voters in both states said the situation with Obama’s former pastor Reverend Wright was important in their vote, while half said that it was not. In Indiana, 48 percent said that it was important and 49 percent said that it was not, while in North Carolina, 48 percent said the Wright situation was important in their vote and 50 percent said that it was not.

What happens next?

The Obama camp will point to his big North Carolina win and the rocky patch he has endured the past few weeks and suggest it shows he can handle anything. That spin is already going out.

Expect to the Clinton side to discount North Carolina without flatly coming out and saying Obama won in a state with a large black vote. Expect to hear the words “demographics” and fill in the vague word yourself.

Also, expect the Clinton campaign to signal ASAP that it intends to play hardball since Clinton did not get a double win tonight.

Is this the first salvo? Via The Page:

Clinton delegate honcho [Harold Ickes] tells The Page that his camp believes 2,209 — not 2,025 — is the magic number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination because they’re counting Michigan and Florida.

“I know the Obama people like to use the smaller amount. We don’t even like the implication of it, much less the amount. It implies he doesn’t recognize Florida and Michigan. We don’t see how he can do that politically…So our target is 2,209 and we think Hillary is in a good position to get there.”

This is called changing the goal posts. AND:

Also repeats his calling card to supers: “We don’t know enough about Senator Obama yet. We don’t need an October Surprise. And (the chance of) an October Surprise with Hillary is remote.”

So it could boil down to whether Superdelegates will allow the up-until-now conventional wisdom on the delegate count to be changed and to tilt to a candidate because the other side suggests there could be an October surprise.

FOOTNOTE: The total picture will be far more clear once the votes are completely tallied.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 at 6:09 pm and is filed under Nevada, Primaries, Newsweek Blogitics, Conventions, Brokered Convention, Indiana, Superdelegates, Spin, Democratic Party, Democrats, Race, 2008 Elections, Republicans, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 6 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Man I was really praying for this to be over by now. Honestly, I'm almost hoping the chaos of the primaries causes the GOP to win in November. Serves the dems right for such a stupid primary process.
    • ^
    • v
    What's wrong with the primary process? Gives more people a chance to participate, it is invigorating our damaged democracy I think. Just look at the turnout, the first time voter registration for evidence.

    btw, msnbc just changed Indiana to 'too close to call'
    • ^
    • v
    Interestingly enough there are 8 counties in Indiana that according to CNN still haven't reported any votes. I have no idea what their populations are but as close as things are in that state and that two of those counties border on areas that went to Obama it could get even closer at the least. And what that might mean to the delegate count given the way things are going in North Carolina has yet to be seen. What if the delegates are split evenly in Indiana and Carolina is a big win for Obama? Will Clinton still have an argument to make to the superdelegates or the DNC if things do break that way? I don't think so. As surely as her people can try to imply something by asking why Obama can't close the deal the same certainly applies to her.
    • ^
    • v
    You don't HAVE to pay attention to the primary.
    • ^
    • v
    "the chaos of the primaries causes the GOP to win in November."

    Perhaps the rationale is a bit short-changed, but since you arrived at the correct answer, I will give you a passing grade nonetheless.

    OK, back to the NBA playoffs for me..........
    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, so it looks like things continue on just as they've been predicted to continue on. Clinton picks up some delegates in Pennsylvania, Obama picks up about the same amount in NC, and they split Indiana (maybe 1 or 2 vote difference to the winner). Looking at the rest of the primary season, next up we have WV, where Clinton will pick up a few again. Then it's KY and OR, which each have almost exactly the same number of delegates up, and it's 10 to 1 that they offset each other, putting us right back to where we are now. Next PR, where I assume Clinton will pick up a few, but then we finish in Montana and SD and Obama has won every Western state so far, putting us right back to... where we were 4 weeks ago.

    Has anyone forced Clinton to answer yet if her plan is to have the superdelegates overrule the pledged ones? My guess is that she will frame the issue differently, but the facts remain that that seems to be her only path to the nomination.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« ABC News: Obama Wins North Carolina But Indiana Too Close To Call
Barack, It’s About What’s Best For America »

By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.