Pennsylvania results: What it all means
Posted: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:11 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:
2008, Primaries
Today's spin war... The Obama campaign will make the case the prolonged contest is hurting the party and damaging the nominee; the Clinton campaign will make the case the prolonged contest continues to energize the party and -- at a minimum -- toughens up the eventual nominee for the fall campaign. What do superdelegates believe? They will probably be talked into believing that every state should get their shot at voting simply because it's good for the local Democratic Party economies (that's the good news for Clinton); But these same superdelegates will want the race over on June 4; no prolonged debate about Florida and Michigan (that's the good news for Obama). No doubt Clinton will get a bounce out of her victory. The question is will it just be a boost for her or will we see Obama punctured at all in match-ups with McCain? That seems to be the definition of whether Clinton's bounce is useful or not -- does it not just boost her in the polls in both Indiana and North Carolina, but also boost her in match-ups with McCain compared with Obama?
A dead cat bounce? The Washington Post's Balz lays out the numerical reality facing Clinton. "Clinton's path to the nomination remains extraordinarily treacherous even after the victory in Pennsylvania. Her margin was decisive, but even some of her most loyal supporters privately expressed doubts last night that she can prevail in the long battle against Obama.”
“The senator from Illinois still leads in the number of pledged delegates and the popular vote. He is almost certain to hold the delegate lead and will probably maintain the popular-vote advantage when the primaries end in early June. Perhaps more important, Clinton's campaign is nearly broke, whereas Obama has an enormous amount of money in the bank to throw into the next two contests and beyond. "
The Los Angeles Times' Z. Barabak and Levey concur. "Mathematically, with just nine contests left, it appears virtually impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote and among pledged delegates -- those chosen in primaries and caucuses. Her best hope was to instill enough doubts about Obama to persuade the 300 or so uncommitted superdelegates to rally to her side."
Adds the LA Times' Wallsten: "Pennsylvania voters Tuesday gave Hillary Rodham Clinton every reason to continue her campaign for president. But they did not present any definitive new evidence that would compel Democratic Party elders to step in and anoint Clinton as their White House nominee, particularly when Barack Obama continues to lead in the overall delegate count and in the popular vote."
The New York Times’ Nagourney suggests that the biggest loser from last night may have been the Democratic Party. Clinton defeated Obama “by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain… ‘This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen,’ said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. ‘They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other, and no one is winning. It underlines the need to find some way to bring this to conclusion.’”
The Boston Globe's Canellos: “Obama didn't get the most votes. He didn't deliver a knockout punch. And he didn't make many inroads into such crucial constituencies as white women and Catholics.” Clinton did “about what she'd been expected to do.” And: “…[T]he clear losers were those who were hoping for a definitive result from this primary season.” More: “The next primaries, two weeks from now in North Carolina and Indiana, will now assume the same importance as Pennsylvania - a chance for Obama to address his weaknesses and Clinton to show greater strength.”
