CNN - Hillary Wins PA

[one...two...tree 2,762]

metta... maybe you forget, Hillary used to lead by 20+ a few weeks ago.

Well, he spent 4:1 against Clinton and still no win.

That defies Conventional Wisdom that money determines outcome.

The Democratic Primary isn't a winner-take-all, so what do you think the candidate who starts out trailing by more than 20 percentage points in PA should do?

well considering he has $45M MORE than his rival, I'd think a win isn't too much to ask.

Guess money CAN'T buy votes.

He spent $45M more than Hillary in PA?

Did I say that?

Dev, follow this thread (see above). If the argument is that he spent a lot more money than Hillary did in PA and still didn't win, then just how much did they both spend in PA?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some MSNBC analyst just said Obama is showing surprising strength in Pitt suburbs and that will keep her margin in the single digits.

[no name 1]

metta... maybe you forget, Hillary used to lead by 20+ a few weeks ago.

Well, he spent 4:1 against Clinton and still no win.

That defies Conventional Wisdom that money determines outcome.

Say what? Who keeps her from raising funds? If you believe for even one minute that she wouldn't have spent more if she could have, then you're kidding yourself. Her problem is that her coffers are empty and that campaign put the last couple of weeks of campaigning on a credit card. If her campaign can't raise funds then that raises some questions about her overall support.

Money aside, she WON an election today. She was outspent & yet her supporters came out in record numbers to still VOTE FOR HER. The writing is on the wall if you choose to read it.

This one contest aside, her projected margin of victory makes it all but impossible for her to take the lead in any category of this primary. She is and will remain behind in popular vote, pledged delegates and contests won. Period. That writing is all over the wall and yet you refuse to take notice.

and yet, she is still very much a viable option! Funny, that.

well considering he has $45M MORE than his rival, I'd think a win isn't too much to ask.

Guess money CAN'T buy votes.

He spent $45M more than Hillary in PA?

Did I say that?

Dev, follow this thread (see above). If the argument is that he spent a lot more money than Hillary did in PA and still didn't win, then just how much did they both spend in PA?

Stop twisting my words. Do your own research if you want the numbers Steven.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

metta... maybe you forget, Hillary used to lead by 20+ a few weeks ago.

Well, he spent 4:1 against Clinton and still no win.

That defies Conventional Wisdom that money determines outcome.

The Democratic Primary isn't a winner-take-all, so what do you think the candidate who starts out trailing by more than 20 percentage points in PA should do?

well considering he has $45M MORE than his rival, I'd think a win isn't too much to ask.

Well, considering that he's ahead in fund raising, I submit that his candidacy has stronger support. Which is reflected in his lead in pledged delegates, popular vote and contests won. Her only way to the nomination is that against the expressed will of the voters. Only by declaring the primaries irrelevant can she be nominated. That little detail is stubborn and won't go away.

Where were his supporters today? Oh yes, there weren't ENOUGH to support him.

Last I checked, the US reaches beyond PA. Most of the US - most of PA even - didn't get to vote today. As much as you'd like to make it so, PA is not the center of the universe. It's one state in a primary season that has produced a candidate who leads in popular votes, pledged delegates and contests won. He also leads in the ability to raise funding for his campaign - a not all that irrelevant dimension in the general election.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's the answer for metta and Dev...one how much both candidates spent on PA:

In Pennsylvania, Obama has spent more than $3.6 million, while pouring another $600,000 into North Carolina and $800,000 into Indiana for TV ads, according to CMAG. So far, Clinton has spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania, just under $200,000 in North Carolina and just recently went on the air in Indiana.

....

While 3.6 million is impressively more than Hillary's 1.6 million, that's not a 4:1 ratio.

[no name 1]

metta... maybe you forget, Hillary used to lead by 20+ a few weeks ago.

Well, he spent 4:1 against Clinton and still no win.

That defies Conventional Wisdom that money determines outcome.

Say what? Who keeps her from raising funds? If you believe for even one minute that she wouldn't have spent more if she could have, then you're kidding yourself. Her problem is that her coffers are empty and that campaign put the last couple of weeks of campaigning on a credit card. If her campaign can't raise funds then that raises some questions about her overall support.

Money aside, she WON an election today. She was outspent & yet her supporters came out in record numbers to still VOTE FOR HER. The writing is on the wall if you choose to read it.

metta... maybe you forget, Hillary used to lead by 20+ a few weeks ago.

Well, he spent 4:1 against Clinton and still no win.

That defies Conventional Wisdom that money determines outcome.

The Democratic Primary isn't a winner-take-all, so what do you think the candidate who starts out trailing by more than 20 percentage points in PA should do?

well considering he has $45M MORE than his rival, I'd think a win isn't too much to ask.

Well, considering that he's ahead in fund raising, I submit that his candidacy has stronger support. Which is reflected in his lead in pledged delegates, popular vote and contests won. Her only way to the nomination is that against the expressed will of the voters. Only by declaring the primaries irrelevant can she be nominated. That little detail is stubborn and won't go away.

Where were his supporters today? Oh yes, there weren't ENOUGH to support him.

Last I checked, the US reaches beyond PA. Most of the US - most of PA even - didn't get to vote today. As much as you'd like to make it so, PA is not the center of the universe. It's one state in a primary season that has produced a candidate who leads in popular votes, pledged delegates and contests won. He also leads in the ability to raise funding for his campaign - a not all that irrelevant dimension in the general election.

PS: She won more than PA.

He leads in $$ yet cannot follow thru nor win any key states in this primary season!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

PS: She won more than PA.

What other contest was there today? What state?

[no name 1]

Here's the answer for metta and Dev...one how much both candidates spent on PA:

In Pennsylvania, Obama has spent more than $3.6 million, while pouring another $600,000 into North Carolina and $800,000 into Indiana for TV ads, according to CMAG. So far, Clinton has spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania, just under $200,000 in North Carolina and just recently went on the air in Indiana.

....

While 3.6 million is impressively more than Hillary's 1.6 million, that's not a 4:1 ratio.

Other sources:

Clinton, who benefitted from the state’s large blue-collar and rural demographic, held off Obama despite his estimated three-to-one spending advantage in the state's most expensive primary in history.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-k...2008-04-22.html

----

The race featured more than $16 million in spending primarily on TV ads, with Obama holding a 3-1 advantage over Clinton.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stori...crats_0421.html

"We’ve been outspent in Pennsylvania by a three-to-one margin," said Nevins. "He (Obama) spent $7 million more than we have on TV. That's a whole other state's worth of spending. I think, in that context, a win is a win."

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politi...252/detail.html

Last I checked, the US reaches beyond PA. Most of the US - most of PA even - didn't get to vote today. As much as you'd like to make it so, PA is not the center of the universe. It's one state in a primary season that has produced a candidate who leads in popular votes, pledged delegates and contests won. He also leads in the ability to raise funding for his campaign - a not all that irrelevant dimension in the general election.

PS: She won more than PA.

He leads in $$ yet cannot follow thru nor win any key states in this primary season!

Most of the rest of the US *HAS* voted already, contrary to your implication.

Edited April 23, 2008 by illumine

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's the answer for metta and Dev...one how much both candidates spent on PA:

In Pennsylvania, Obama has spent more than $3.6 million, while pouring another $600,000 into North Carolina and $800,000 into Indiana for TV ads, according to CMAG. So far, Clinton has spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania, just under $200,000 in North Carolina and just recently went on the air in Indiana.

....

While 3.6 million is impressively more than Hillary's 1.6 million, that's not a 4:1 ratio.

Other sources:

Clinton, who benefitted from the state’s large blue-collar and rural demographic, held off Obama despite his estimated three-to-one spending advantage in the state's most expensive primary in history.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-k...2008-04-22.html

----

The race featured more than $16 million in spending primarily on TV ads, with Obama holding a 3-1 advantage over Clinton.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stori...crats_0421.html

"We’ve been outspent in Pennsylvania by a three-to-one margin," said Nevins. "He (Obama) spent $7 million more than we have on TV. That's a whole other state's worth of spending. I think, in that context, a win is a win."

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politi...252/detail.html

Ok, but I'm still wondering why metta claimed it was 4:1, particularly when he's fairly good about siting his sources.

[no name 1]

Here's the answer for metta and Dev...one how much both candidates spent on PA:

In Pennsylvania, Obama has spent more than $3.6 million, while pouring another $600,000 into North Carolina and $800,000 into Indiana for TV ads, according to CMAG. So far, Clinton has spent $1.4 million in Pennsylvania, just under $200,000 in North Carolina and just recently went on the air in Indiana.

....

While 3.6 million is impressively more than Hillary's 1.6 million, that's not a 4:1 ratio.

Other sources:

Clinton, who benefitted from the state’s large blue-collar and rural demographic, held off Obama despite his estimated three-to-one spending advantage in the state's most expensive primary in history.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-k...2008-04-22.html

----

The race featured more than $16 million in spending primarily on TV ads, with Obama holding a 3-1 advantage over Clinton.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stori...crats_0421.html

"We’ve been outspent in Pennsylvania by a three-to-one margin," said Nevins. "He (Obama) spent $7 million more than we have on TV. That's a whole other state's worth of spending. I think, in that context, a win is a win."

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/politi...252/detail.html

Ok, but I'm still wondering why metta claimed it was 4:1, particularly when he's fairly good about siting his sources.

Speaking of, where's your source? It's obvs way off, considering what I had above quotes $16M.

[no name 1]

With spending estimated at $20 million state-wide, this battle of primary ads is expected to be one of the biggest ever.

link

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Last I checked, the US reaches beyond PA. Most of the US - most of PA even - didn't get to vote today. As much as you'd like to make it so, PA is not the center of the universe. It's one state in a primary season that has produced a candidate who leads in popular votes, pledged delegates and contests won. He also leads in the ability to raise funding for his campaign - a not all that irrelevant dimension in the general election.

PS: She won more than PA.

He leads in $$ yet cannot follow thru nor win any key states in this primary season!

Most of the rest of the US *HAS* voted already, contrary to your implication.

Exactly. And she's irreversibly behind after all those votes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[no name 1]

Shocking that CNN & it's Obama-lovers are applauding her speech...!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary Clinton's fundraising is "exploding," says Clinton aide Phil Singer, with $500,000 in since the race was called.

And the campaign is pushing hard, with a new fundraising e-mail and constant mentions of the website.

How much she raises tonight will be a key factor in her strength going forward.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/040...500k_today.html