Axelrod: "Our goal in PA was to limit her margin there. We did that-got it to single digits..."

[jenmito]

He was on Face the Nation with Howard Wolfson who tried to spin Obama's loss in PA as something for SDs to be "concerned" about. :eyes: I'm glad Axelrod set the record straight! And Wolfson didn't respond. They went to commercial. :D

I think SDs should be concerned about Hillary not being able to get out of single digits with the BLACK vote, a VERY important part of our base, how she is unable to win the majority of young voters, and how NEGATIVE she and her husband are being to a fellow Dem. (And I think they ARE, which explains Obama's constant gaining of SDs to the point he's down by only about 22 now.)

[SoFlaJet]

1. ummm...EXCUSE me....

but I still keep hearing it was a double digit win...

[Bensthename]

3. 9 points.. But close.

[jenmito]

7. I THINK he's being sarcastic. n/t

[Pisces]

4. 9.2 is not a double digit win.

[bhikkhu]

29. How about 9.24% - Three digits!

[jenmito]

5. I don't hear that as much anymore. I've heard "about 9 points" more and more often since many

people complained about the lie by emailing the MSM. (I'm sure the Obama campaign complained as well.)

[ginnyinWI]

49. Stephy said "9 pts." this morning on ABC n/t

[jenmito]

69. I heard that.

:)

[futureliveshere]

6. Nope - 9.2%. C - 54.6 & O - 45.4. Here's the link!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html#polls

[Liberal Veteran]

9. In the Hillaryverse, 9.2 rounds to 10,

Math is very strange in the Hillaryverse. It's a bit like Bistromathics in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[dansolo]

28. Even if it rounded up to 10, it still isn't "double digits"

The margin was <10%, and even if it was close enough to round up, it is still not a "double digit" victory.

[BlooInBloo]

67. You haven't heard of the round-to-most-favorable-to-me method?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

75. was Hills ever good at Math?

[rainbow4321]

26. That's OK, we also hear that she won Texas...

even though Obama got 99 delegates to her 96.

Spin, spin, spin.

[PseudoIntellect]

38. Hillary's claim of a win in Texas is actually consistent if her belief is that

delegates don't count for anything.

[Zhade]

60. You have been misinformed. It was not.

clinton fans are apparently very bad at basic math, let alone the electoral.

[Bensthename]

2. She won PA though Supers are still going toward Obama.. LMFAO..

Time for her to pack up.. Though some still like to throw their money away on her.

[jenmito]

10. Yup. Because SDs see through the Clinton spin.

:hi:

[CK_John]

8. His job was to win and they didn't. n/t

[jenmito]

13. No. HER job was to win every remaining state with about 65%. PA was her best chance.

She failed.

[Writer]

11. Congrats, bro. You did it...

by eight tenths of a percent!

Woo-hoo! :woohoo:

:rofl:

:sarcasm:

[Liberal Veteran]

12. Cutting her 20+ point lead to under 10 (even by 8/10ths) is remarkable.

Why can't Hillary close the deal?

[jenmito]

14. Your "girl" needed a HUGE double digit win. She didn't even get LOW double digits!

:rofl:

[redqueen]

84. She blew a 25 point lead in her home state. Be proud. (nt)

[Double T]

15. Double digit WIN in PA.

BO and his supporters are so in denial. HRC to the COvention, the nomination then the WH. BO will soon be a memory.

[jenmito]

17. 9.2 points is NOT a double digit win! Who are you-Karl Rove with "the" math?

:rofl:

[Double T]

20. Let's see WHO is laughing AFTER the COnvention.

10% is Double Digits.

[jenmito]

22. Hillary and her supporters won't be laughing. They'll be crying.

I'm going to feel sorry for you. :(

[PseudoIntellect]

31. And the sky is also blue, but that doesn't mean we're talking about it.

We're not talking about whether or not 10 is a two-digit number. We're talking about 9.28 or 9.2 or 9.4 or whatever the devil it is is a two-digit number. Whatever it is, it's under 9.5 and isn't the double-digit victory many Hillary backers claim.

It's like saying you won a basketball game with triple-digit points on the board if you won 93-85.

[Liberal Gramma]

32. 9.2 is not 10%

It's not double digits. Yes, she won. No, it wasn't double digits.

[Zhade]

64. Except that it wasn't 10%.

We'll be sure to stock up on tissues for you.

You'll need them.

[CakeGrrl]

27. Sure it is. I see a "9" and a "2" - that looks like two digits to me!

:crazy::crazy::crazy:

[Double T]

33. NOW we're fighting over decimal point placement.

CRAZY? No doubt.

[Zhade]

63. Dude, seriously, take remedial arithmetic. The decimal is *between* the 9 and the 2.

NT!

[mtnsnake]

16. What's Obama's goal in the General Election? To keep their loss to single digits there, too?

"Our goal was to go out and get our asses kicked by Hillary in PA, as long as it's only by a WHOPPING 9+ points. Against McCain, we hope to only lose by 6 points."

OTOH, Hillary's goal is to WIN, not lose by single digits :smoke:

[jenmito]

18. Um, no. In his memo seen MONTHS ago, he predicted a loss in PA. It wasn't a surprise.

It does NOT mean he can't beat McCain in the GE, duh!! :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

21. He should have no trouble predicting his loss to McCain either, if he gets that far, that is

I wonder if he and Axelrod will have to consult on how much they plan on losing by. lol

[jenmito]

23. If he predicted a loss to McCain he would've have run for president.

[mtnsnake]

43. Only the Obamaites would be proud of predicting a 9+ loss. lol

I'll bet if Obama only lost by 7 points, instead of 9+,you Obamaites would've been celebrating in the streets, eh, jen? :evilgrin:

[jenmito]

47. Stop with the insults. He correctly predicted a loss in PA as well as wins in 30 states. If you're

happy with Hillary's plan of "wrapping it up" by Feb. 5th, more power to ya! :rofl:

ETA: He correctly predicted 29 states. He predicted a loss in Maine but won it.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. And yet which candidate consistently has a higher unfavorable rating than favorable?

I'll give you a hint: the candidate is not a male.

[mtnsnake]

34. Favorability is good for popularity contests. This is about beating McCain, not losing by 9+ points

That's where Hillary comes in and you can throw any preliminary favorability polls out the window. She won't run around predicting losses, she'll predict a win and get it.

[Liberal Veteran]

36. Best spin of the day: High negatives are actually good.

I learn more about Hillarymathics every day.

[mtnsnake]

41. That's your spin, not mine. Are you and Jenmito related by any chance?

:evilgrin:

[jenmito]

46. We're obviously both smarter than you.

:D

[jenmito]

37. Are you retarded? Are you saying that because Hillary beat Obama in one state she was expected to

win in the primary, Obama can't win that state in the GE? :rofl:

[mtnsnake]

40. And you're Gods gift to rocket scientists, I suppose (snicker)

[jenmito]

44. Compared to you, yes.

:hi:

[mtnsnake]

53. lol

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

61. Obama's favorability is tanking since the vetting began

Only Obamites ignore the trajectory and think his favorable ratings in April will miraclously be the same in November if he makes that to the GE (tell that to Kerry, Bush 00', and Dukakis, and any other "new" candidate else who ran against a non-incumbent). See this mtn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5702184

Obama's favorables

Current: 53/40
4/16/08: 57/36
3/5/08: 61/28
7/07: 56/19
5/06: 34/10

Even at 53/40 he can't beat McSame right now. How could he win if his November rating is 42/58?

[D23MIURG23]

71. Why don't you post Hillary's negatives so that we can compare?

[Bensthename]

19. And Hillary's goal is to win half the amount of states Obama does..

She has fulfilled her goal.. Go Hillary.

[journalist3072]

45. You and I are SO on the same wavelength! I just posted pretty much the same thing! eom

[jenmito]

48. That's not something you should be proud of!

:rofl:

[journalist3072]

50. Keep it moving. Supporting Barack Obama is not something YOU should be proud of. eom

[jenmito]

51. I see you didn't respond to my post below. You unable?

:rofl:
Try replying to THIS thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5684671&mesg_id=5708111

[mtnsnake]

54. Being on the same wavelength with you, journalist, makes my night!

:)

Someday maybe you and I should hold a joint clinic to see if we can help out some of these disenfranchised Obamabots, although it might take more time than is humanly possible to get them started in the right direction....that and a couple of major miracles ;)

[annie1]

56. his goal of losing florida by a landslide is a step in the right direction.

[KittyWampus]

25. Obama surrogates NEED TO MENTION SINGLE DIGITS.

every fucking day and call out the mediawhores for lying about it.

[jenmito]

30. They are. Even members of the MSM are now doing so.

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

62. Barack Obama: "Winning is 50+plus one" (regarding NC)

[jenmito]

70. He was being magnanimous. Hey-why don't YOU be the only Hillary supporter to

address THIS thread?: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5684671&mesg_id=5712005

[jackson_dem]

77. Magnanmious about what? He was setting the bar for NC

If "winning is winning" in NC then surely it must be in PA.

[jenmito]

80. By not spinning. He was NOT setting the bar. That's Hillary's specialty.

He's going to win in NC by more than Hillary beat him in PA. Count on it.

[jackson_dem]

99. Saying "50 plus 1" is winning in NC but losing PA by 9 is "winning" is not spin?

The funny thing is Obama could win NC and still not prove his electability...

[Coexist]

35. here is the video if anyone is interested:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4048537n

[journalist3072]

39. This reminds me of Bush's "soft bigotry of low expectations."

So their goal was not to win PA?

Their goal was just not to lose by so much?

If Obama is the nominee, is that how he's going to run in the GE?

Is he going to say "Our goal was to limit John McCain in Kentucky."

What the hell kind of strategy is that?

I thought the goal of a candidate was to WIN?

[jenmito]

42. His goal is to win the nomination. He predicted which states he'd WIN against Hillary and which

ones he'd LOSE against her. Out of about 45 states, he's won 30, predicting every state's outcome correctly except Maine, where he predicted a loss but ended up winning. He, unlike Hillary, had a long-term plan. Hillary didn't plan past Feb. 5th! :hi:

[Gore1FL]

52. That's all they needed

PA does not stand alone, it is a journey along 50+ contests. The trick is to come out ahead in the entirety, not a single contest.

The Clinton win in PA put her further out of the race. After NC and Indiana, even if she won both states by less than 69% (and she'll likely lose NC) she would need to win every contest after that by an even higher total. OR, MT, and SD won;t be easy to win for her, much less by the margins needed.

According to the numbers on Realclearpolitics.com, there are 3319 delegates going for Hillary or Obama. 4048 - 3319 = 729 delegates remaining. To win a candidate needs 2025. Hillary has 1592. 2025 - 1592 = 433. Obama has 1727. 2025-1727 = 298.

433/729 = 59.3% 298/729 = 40.8%

Any time Hillary wins at a rate that gives her less than 59.3% of the delegates, and Obama receives more than 40.8% of the delegates it put him closer to victory.

I am guessing Obama is not counting on winning ID, UT, or WY. but I would consider it an accomplishment if he lost those states in the GE by less than 10%. I don't consider it important if he does, however.

If Hillary had tried or had been able to actually win more than a handful of states, 9.2% victory in PA would have an impact. She and her campaign foolishly chose not to, and her 9.2% win was not only meaningless, it was detrimental to her hopes of winning.

[annie1]

55. That was their big goal? to get their ass kicked by 9 points in an important swing state?

[jenmito]

57. It was their expectation, which he was right about. Hillary, on the other hand, expected to

wrap up the nomination Feb. 5th. Once again showing poor judgement. :hi:

[jackson_dem]

65. He spent $16 million to lose?

"I think winning is winning, 50 plus one," Obama said.

[jenmito]

66. He spent it to keep it within single digits-which he did. He was down by 30 many months ago.

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

78. He was down 4-6 two months ago. He spent $16 million to lose by 9?

[Mick426]

58. Clinton swindled PA.

[jackson_dem]

59. Obama on NC just yesterday: "Winning is 50 plus one".

No one spends $16 million to lose by 230,000 votes.

The concern is Obama has won the white vote in primaries only five times. His high is 60% in VT. His next best results are a pair of 55's. Even at his zenith he wasn't having that much appeal beyond his ethnic group (peak with Latinos: 54% in VA). Since he began to be vetted he has tanked and who knows how low he will go. He has gotten 34% of whites in Ohio, 37% in PA, 38% in RI, 60% in VT, and 26% in MS. He lost Latinos 32-66.

Clinton won't be running against a black person in the fall. Dukakis also got as little support as Clinton does from blacks when he ran against Jesse Jackson in the primaries. So did Mondale in 1984, again against Jackson. In the general election they both won 90% of the black vote. Mondale? He won 37% of the white vote. What happens when you win that low a percentage of whites? Mondale lost 49 states...

[jenmito]

68. You can say that a million times. It doesn't change the fact that he kept her margin within single

digits when she needed to win with 65% of the vote which she failed to do.

The concern is Hillary can't win the Black vote ANYWHERE. Obama won the white vote in most of his 30 wins.

He won't be running against a woman (nor a Dem.) in the fall so he won't have to hold back.

[jackson_dem]

76. You made that out of thin air

First listen to yourself. What kind of front runner makes not losing 35-65 a goal? Did Kerry ever enter a state saying "I hope I lose by nine points"? Did Gore? Bill Clinton? The candidates Obama resembles in this respect are weak front runners Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter 80', and Gerald Ford. All three lost the general election...

He has lost the white vote almost everywhere. This is especially true in primaries. There will be no low turnout caucuses dominated by latte liberals in the general election. Of 24 primaries for which we have exit poll data here are his ten best results with whites:

VT 60
UT 55
NM 55
WI 54
VA 52

CT 48
CA 45
TX 44
GA 43
MD 42

These are his best results in 26 primaries for which we have exit polls. Why this is terrifying is it suggests Obama may have a ceiling of 55% of the white vote, and at best 60% if you count VT, a state that voted for Jesse Jackson so it is hardly reflective of the rest of the country on race. Also note that only Texas has voted since the vetting began. In primaries since then he has gotten 34% in OH, 44% in TX, 38% in RI, 60% in VT, 26% in MS, and 37% in PA.

He does similarly poorly with Latinos (peak 54%, during the height of Obamania during his 11-0 streak).

Obama won't be running against a woman in the fall. Hence his numbers with white women should improve slightly. However, he would be running against a white male. Whatever he would gain among women would be offset with white male losses. In other words, if the Clinton he were running against were named Bill not Hillary he would be doing slightly better with white women but worse with white men.

Obama supporters act as if Obama is the first serious black presidential candidate. Jesse Jackson ran twice, and was very strong in 1988. Each time he got the same level of nearly unanimous black support that Obama now enjoys. When the general election came and Mondale and Dukakis faced a white Republican opponent they both won nine out of ten black votes.

Kerry won 41% of the white vote. If he won 43% he would have won the popular vote. If you think Obama will exceed Kerry's performance among whites you are really "hopeful". As to blacks there isn't much room to improve. Kerry got 89%. Gore won Latinos 62-35, Kerry won them 53-44. Guess which one Obama will resemble?

[jenmito]

79. No I didn't. Obama won many states with 60%+.

Look at the huge margins he won by in all these states: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5706579&mesg_id=5706579

Some of these states are largely white.

You must be joking when you say Jesse Jackson was a serious candidate. He didn't win a majority of the white vote ANYWHERE, unlike Obama.

And with the number of NEW and YOUNG voters Obama is bringing in to the process, you can't compare him to ANY past candidate. Nice try, though! :hi:

[jackson_dem]

100. There are no caucuses in the general election

He won Wyoming. 2.5% turnout and only 9,000 people voted. That tells us nothing about how he would do in the general election, especially since they are dominated by latte liberals. Real primary elections have 26-41% turnout and the GE will be around 55%.

Obama didn't even get 60% of the white vote in his home state of Illinois. In primaries, even including his home state, his record with whites is 6-19. Since the vetting process began it is 1-4 in primaries.

Jackson wasn't serious? He took the lead at one point. He won Michigan with 55%, he won very white states like Vermont and Alaska.

[D23MIURG23]

73. He bankrupted Hillary in the process.

Looks like good strategy to me.

I'd like to have a candidate who thinks strategically in November.

[jenmito]

81. Yup! Very smart of him to make her spend money where she couldn't afford to!

He's playing chess. She's playing checkers-and losing.

[Gore1FL]

74. And thus far

he is 50% + 132. Only 729 left (including those pledged to Edwards to make the numbers more favorable to Hillary.)

[rocktivity]

72. I love the smell of vindication--I said as much

It smells like--moral victory:

Obama did all that stumping in PA not to win, but to ensure that Hillary didn't get the 65% of the vote that she needed to order to START getting close enough to him to impress the superdelegates. Now she'll need a popular vote of AT LEAST that much in ALL NINE of the remaining contests. Technically, Obama doesn't have to win for rest of the primary season as long as he can get at least 45% of the vote!

:rofl:
rocknation

[jenmito]

83. EXACTLY. How could Hillary supporters not understand that?!

I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Hillary doesn't seem to understand, either.

[bridgit]

82. Oh Yeah! That Axelrod is a real genius alright. He pushed a 10pt win...

allllllll the way down to a 9.2pt win, and for the price of mere millions :spray:

[redqueen]

85. You mean a 25 point loss into a 9.2 pt loss. In her home state. (nt)

[bridgit]

87. Why Gore lost Tennessee

I believe the reason Al Gore lost Tennessee, is because the mass corporate media waged a relentless smear campaign against him, obfuscating, trashing and outright slander for the better part of two years. I believe their primary motivation for doing so, was because he empowered us; the people when he championed the internet. Information is power and they wanted to retain their monopoly hold on it and be the sole gatekeepers to the truth, the internet threatens this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=137166&mesg_id=137332

Now you're saying HRC *only* won by 9.2pt's in her state where she was running against the greatest black thing since white sliced bread? Please...

It is as though people have neither sense of matter, nor history. HRC pulling it off against BHO in PA was important. It matters not how some care to perceive it.

[redqueen]

88. "...the greatest black thing since white sliced bread?"

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

She was the one getting all the help from the RW media. Her talking points are echoed by Kristol, Buchanan, Limbaugh, etc.

You can try to pretend that she was the one facing the long odds in that state if you want. Reality will be reality whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

[bridgit]

91. Negative as usual and predicted. You all thought BHO would *win* PA and he did not...

end of story, your guy lost boo-hoo :cry: It is clear after so many months now, that you all thought you could chide & belittle people into their corners and make them shut-up with your left-handed insinuations of racism & race baiting, but you cannot. I'm not even a Clinton supporter as yet. I just get a kick watching you Obama peeps trip all over yourselves trying to tie up all these disparate snippets of American life into one quilt you are able to feel comfy inside.

If it didn't involve the waft of so much nervous busy work it would almost be inspirational to witness

[redqueen]

92. Who all thought Obama would win? That is a very stupid thing to say.

And that "greatest black thing since white sliced bread" shit is questionable at best. Might wanna think about at least explaining to yourself what you meant by that.

Your response is sad. Boo hoo? Are you 12?

Would you care to address something I said, or are you going to keep on with the nonsense?

[bridgit]

94. And you're a filthy mouthed loser. What office are you a MGR off?

The office of an adult, XXX porn shop? What a hack. And to think I used to enjoy your point of view. You're a potty mouthed know-it-all that thinks she's all that, a bag of chips, and the trash can to throw it all into.

Get over yourself 'redqueen', do the men (assuming) you hang around with actually find your unbridled ego so appealing?

"Would you care to address something I said, or are you going to keep on with the nonsense?" You know what. You say something worthy of a response...and I'll consider it.

[redqueen]

95. WTF?

And you're a filthy mouthed loser. What office are you a MGR off?
Posted by bridgit
The office of an adult, XXX porn shop? What a hack. And to think I used to enjoy your point of view. You're a potty mouthed know-it-all that thinks she's all that, a bag of chips, and the trash can to throw it all into.

Get over yourself 'redqueen', do the men (assuming) you hang around with actually find your unbridled ego so appealing?

"Would you care to address something I said, or are you going to keep on with the nonsense?" You know what. You say something worthy of a response...and I'll consider it.



What the hell are you fucking talking about? The men I hang around with? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[pilar007]

101. Hillary was always slated to win PA.....

by 20 points. PA wasn't Obama's to win. He lowered her "win points". Thats all. Nothing more nothing less.

[bridgit]

102. welcome to du, but I gotta tell'ya, anyone that thought the numbers would not tighten?

Is living in a parallel universe, oh yeah!

[jenmito]

86. Um, he told the truth. It's a BIG difference between the psychology of "double digit win" and

"single digit win." :hi:

[lolpop4]

89. 55-45, Clinton won by ten.

[mkultra]

98. She won by 9 and lost the nomination

[Mudoria]

90. I guess you have to spin it

to where it looks good considering the money spent and you still lost by a decent sized margin.

[jenmito]

96. Um, Hillary said HERSELF that she "won by double digits like the media said I needed to do."

Kind of blows that argument out of the water.

[GoesTo11]

93. It's actually 9.1% - same rounding error that moves 9 to 10 moves 9.1 to 9.2

Just take the vote totals and calculate for yourself. 9.1% (54.55% - 45.45%, not 54.6 - 45.4).

[jenmito]

97. Thanks for that!

I didn't have those detailed numbers. :hi: