8 Questions About The Pennsylvania Primarymedia.washington...
8 Questions About The Pennsylvania Primary
Made popular 1883 days ago in Opinion
washingtonpost.com — Conventional wisdom has taken such a beating in this campaign that setting expectations for today's primary continues to confound the experts. The only thing everyone can agree on is that, given the makeup of Pennsylvania - an older population with a significant blue-collar constituency and a sizable proportion of Roman Catholics - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should win the popular vote. But as Democrat Matt Bennett put it, the candidates are like publicly -traded companies that need to hit an earnings target to lift their stock price.

But just what are the targets? Some say Clinton needs to win by 10 points - which was her margin in Ohio last month. Others say eight points. Some say, given the amount of money Sen. Barack Obama is spending on television ads, anything over five points would be a respectable victory for Clinton. Staying within five points would give Obama the opportunity to assert that he overcame a state whose demographics tilted heavily to Clinton.

But the margin in the popular vote ultimately will be secondary to how Pennsylvania affects the battle for pledged delegates. Pennsylvania is the biggest remaining prize on the calendar, with 158 pledged delegates. Clinton badly needs to make up ground in the delegate fight and, given the way they're distributed, that could be difficult.

In the words of one Democratic strategist, the popular vote margin is a "feel-good barometer that may play out over a few days and longer if there is a big win, but then we will be on to the next contests. Ultimately, the second indicator [delegates] is more

Report This Post
Posted by McNaab
Add To Favorites
931 Votes
Similar Issues
4 Comments
ShareThis
What is the meaning of a win for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania?
Obama lacks the populist message
1.9%
Obama is a risk with large states
15%
Obama is unlikely to carry the white male vote
3.1%
Clinton More electable
49%
Nothing
31%
This is not a scientific survey, click here to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding and voting descrepencies.
User Comments
Herbert
Posted 1884 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
Neither.
He is a neophyte junior senator from Illinois whose sole platform is change, but not change for the better of all.
Moreover, he has reiterated himself too often. I don't believe that Jack Kennedy was as poor an orator as O'bama.
AUpolls
Posted 1884 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
It means nothing. If it was between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton Hillary wouldn't have won Oh or possibly win PA and maybe not even TX.
bish66
Posted 1884 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
Sometimes, I would prefer a poll without radio buttons so that it would be possible to vote for different things.
tyme4change
Posted 1879 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
It doesn't mean anything. It's the math that counts. He is ahead of her regardless of states she won. To Herbert: Clinton has not even a clue what an orator can really do but I can tell you this, there has never been a candidate to win 11 states in one election and she wasn't one of them. It was a black man who did. As far as him being a neophyte, he is out there doing something that you could never do in a million years.....running for the white house. You are a so trival.
You will have 2 minutes to edit your comment.

Add your comments