Clinton’s Lead in Pennsylvania narrowing…

Of course the media is still going to run with the “double digit” win by Clinton even though it stands at 9.2 points as I type.  I guess that 10 just wasn’t so “solid”. 

So the Pennsylvania finish is now clearly closer than was reported on election night, and it could end up even closer.

The Pennsylvania Department of State is currently posting the unofficial results from the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary as:


Hillary Clinton — 1,238,232 — 54.6%


Barack Obama — 1,030,703 votes — 45.4%

The Nation

But there is another wrinkle, there are still 45 districts unaccounted for, 40 of them are located in Philidelphia, where Obama was running at 279,921 votes (65.2%) to 149,657 (34.8%) for Clinton.   It’s only .5% but it should be enough to ensure that Clinton’s win is squarely in the single digits.

Why nitpick?  Because the Clinton campaign touted this “double digit” win to the media as a reason to stay in the race, which she is perfectly entitled to do so, but it doesn’t change the fact that after six weeks of campaigning Obama closed a much larger double digit divide to just under 10%.

It just keeps getting tighter and tigter and new polls indicate that Indiana is now up for grabs for either.  I don’t by the polls though, the only way to know for sure is for people to vote.

Obama leads among likely Democratic voters in Indiana, with 41 percent to Clinton’s 38 percent. However, the Indianapolis Star poll’s 4.2 percent margin of error makes the Illinois senator’s edge statistically insignificant.


  5 comments for “Clinton’s Lead in Pennsylvania narrowing…

  1. Northcountystorm
    April 26, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Heather, nitpicking is for losers, people who lost and are trying to rationalize the loss. Your current candidate Mr. Obama was right when he said 50% + 1 vote is a win. This 10% figure was pure fish wrap/talking head b.s. fueled by the Obama campaign’s efforts to lower expectations for the frontrunner and raise them for Clinton(Barack was saying one thing and his campaign another…shocking). If Clinton had gotten 11.2% I suspect you wouldn’t be posting a “Clinton exceeds talking heads bar” article. Clinton’s people may have responded to the 10% comment but a) it was within the range and b) they usually said(which you failed to note) that the 10% figure was bull.

    I’m used to the Obama campaign and its mouthpieces minimizing Clinton’s acheivements. And I consider the source and react accordingly. People should question a campaign’s talking points because they are always one sided. And that goes for the Clinton campaign as well as Obama’s.

    It sure would be refreshing to get some posts by bloggers at LOC which don’t parrot the two campaign’s talking points. This is not to suggest that Heather and Andrew should stop—its healthy to have discussion and they raise some important issues, ,although there seem to be more horse race posts than where do the candidates stand on the issues posts. Andrew’s though seem to have more non-horse race ‘issues” mentioned in them. Am I wrong about that?

  2. April 26, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    NCS – Um, I actually believe you to be the lead in giving Clinton talking points at the LOC. I clearly stated that this was a clear win for Clinton campaign. Both sides are spinning this as much as they possibly can but it doesn’t change the fact that Clinton’s donors are jumping ship to Obama.

    More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton’s lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

    I’m not minimizing her achievement, I’m highlighting why I think the primary in Penn was an achievement for Obama. It’s my opinion and yes, I’m biased, I haven’t been shy about who I support.

    But I’ve also been clear that if Clinton is the nominee I will donate, volunteer and vote for her for the GE.

  3. Northcountystorm
    April 27, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Heather, you’re still spinning more then David Axlerod. Where in YOUR post do you say she scored a “clear win?” In Andrews’ post you commented “a win is a win” but even in the same thread tended to minimize the effect of the win. And of course there is your post here which says everything but that it is a clear win. Which you’re absolutely entitled to do, just please own up to it. But I will stipulate to your admission that you’re biased.

    As for talking points, read my comment. I am not a blogger here. I don’t post. You do. All my comments respond to posts or comments by you, Bill, Chris or one of the commenters. If you hadn’t posted your Obama talking points I wouldn’t have commented. Andrew is the born again Clinton guy, bless his heart. he’s much better at this than I am since I don’t mind taking a shot at the Clinton campaign(I didin’t like their “nitpicking” after Maryland and Mississippi).

    And thank you for changing the subject to donors. As for donors jumping ship, there is one donor the Obama campaign can be assured won’t jump off the HMS Obama and that’s Chicago “entrepreneur” Robert Blackwell. And readers don’t have to read a Beltway paper for information, its right in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, a refreshing break from their pro-Obama editorial page.

  4. April 27, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Um, wow, talk about changing the subject. I was trying to prove a point about the race, you were the one who brought up an attack on Obama.

    I do own up to it and I do say I’m entitled to my opinion just as everyone else. This is blogging, it’s meant to have an opinion injected into it, or at least, that’s how I feel about it.

    I think they are both great candidates and I’ve not been shy about saying that. And personally, I think I’m a lot more fair to Clinton than many other Obama supporters.

  5. Northcountystorm
    April 27, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    Heather, sorry but you led with you chin on that one.

    But I will concede that you are ” a lot more fair” to Hillary than many other supporters. At least the Kossacks. You don’t use profanity, you’re not crude and you do note on occasion that she’s a great candidate. And when you really feel like trashing her, you’ve been nice enough to go to Calitics to do your business.

Comments are closed.