http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ *** 9,179 out of 9,263 Districts (99.09%) Reporting Statewide *** CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) 1,235,067 54.3% OBAMA, BARACK (DEM) 1,041,366 45.7%
What happened to the theory that said that the longer Obama spends in a state, the better he does? He just got titty whipped by Hillary after he spent a record amount of money and time in the state. Obama's free media pass is over and people are finding that there is nothing behind the rhetoric. Yeah, blacks and latte liberals will still vote for him, but that's not going to deliver the General Election. The balloon has popped, folks.
I don't think it's highly dubious at all to give the candidate a state where he or she won a majority of the votes.
Yeah, that theory has been pretty awful. If you've noticed, in almost every state where both have campaigned, the late deciders (final week/days/day) have consistently broken around 60/40 for Clinton. Yesterday was no exception.
Wasn't Hillary the she-devil according to you a while back? Ok maybe you didn't exactly call her that, but it was pretty close.
I want to go back to the tired argument that Obama would "change the map." Pennsylvania is a good barometer because it's a state where both spent significant time campaigning. Here's the county by county map from last night: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#PADEMMAPprimary Here's the map from Kerry vs. Bush: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/PA/P/00/map.html You tell me, which candidate looks like they're playing out of the Kerry/Gore playbook and which candidate is expanding the map? This isn't to slam Obama -- I'll vote for him and I feel very confident he'll win in November. But the argument that he's the better candidate because he can expand the electoral map simply isn't reflected when you look at the evidence in places both have campaigned. Dominate big cities and college towns and lose 85 percent of the counties in a state -- mostly rural, middle class white voters -- that's what Obama has consistently done. Sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what John Kerry and recent Democrats did.
Hillary just took over the popular vote lead. OH SNIZZ-AP!!! What a race people!!! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html This has to go to the convention. It has to. Hillary has the popular vote. Obama has the tainted pledged delegates from the caucuses and from pre-Jeremiah Wright/Bittergate voters. His lead is not legitimate. It simply is not. If you re-voted today, in a primary, in each state, he would not win. Period. He just got blown the F out last night in PA, after spending tens of millions of dollars there and basically camping out there for 6 weeks! He lost CA, NY, MI, FL, TX, OH and PA. He lost all the big states. How can he represent the dems when he can't close the deal against a polarizing first lady?!? WEAKNESS
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI rightfully included) Hussein 14,973,720 47.4% HILLAROID 15,095,663 47.8% Clinton +121,943 +0.4%
You forgot this part - "**(Senator Obama was not on the Michigan Ballot and thus received zero votes. Uncommitted was on the ballot and received 238,168 votes as compared to 328,309 for Senator Clinton.)" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Spin it however you want, Hillary has the popular vote LEAD. She has it. And she has the BIG MO. And Obama's campaign is wilting over waffles and in need of a SMOKE.
you can't just pick and choose which states you include in the popular vote count. Obama looks r****ded trying to end this race, given that more people have voted for Hillary than him.
