digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Hillary Clinton gained only one delegate in the PA primary

politics.nytimes.com — When all the confetti is swept away, Hillary Clinton gained just one delegate in the Pennsylvania primary election.

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 24, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

481 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • dsmyre, on 04/24/2008, -30/+231Hillary Clinton - 64 delegates. Barack Obama - 63 delegates. Some big win, hoo boy.
  • bluevillage, on 04/24/2008, -16/+129This is wrong. They haven't allocated a lot of the delegates yet. Obama predicts she will get about 12-15 delegates net.
  • bullcutter, on 04/24/2008, -21/+124.. and Obama picked up a superdelegate today, so the "win" goes back to being as meaningful as a "tie"
  • diggeradoo, on 04/24/2008, -19/+117It's over. Really. Someone phone Hillary, will you?
  • Peko, on 04/24/2008, -1/+97I'm waiting till 3am to make the call.
  • motivatedmama, on 04/24/2008, -16/+94How does she afford all that wasted confetti and champagne?
  • bitfreak, on 04/24/2008, -14/+72She's acting like she boiled the ocean. What she did was a spectacular loss of a 25 point lead down to a single digit lead. She scraped by, but yah, she did win.

    Hillary Rove 2008.....nah, I'll pass.
  • tcbishop12, on 04/24/2008, -8/+66The chances of Clinton's winning enough of the remaining delegates to overtake Obama appears out of the question.

  • Hillsfar, on 04/24/2008, -3/+56Actually, North Carolina is the last big state (it's one of the top 10 in population in the U.S.) but Obama is favored there.
  • Hillsfar, on 04/24/2008, -5/+58It's odd that the NY Times is saying 64 to 63, while CNN has 81 to 69.
    The Obama campaign e-mail I got (they are sending out e-mails to donors) indicates that at most, Clinton may pick up extra 12 delegates.
  • dsmyre, on 04/24/2008, -1/+47She's holding out for more money from her poor, misinformed supporters to pay back her loans to herself.
  • Pherdnut, on 04/24/2008, -10/+50Wow. Wonder how she feels about delegates going against their pledges now?
  • redcolumbine, on 04/24/2008, -29/+69Hillary? This is Donald. YOU'RE FIRED!
  • bullcutter, on 04/24/2008, -3/+42ooh... even if that happens Obama will still be up by 110+ delegates... as Pennsylvania was the last big state, please stick a fork in Hillary, she's done.

    honestly, what could she possibly be holding out for besides the opportunity to ***** Obama up? this is a serious question.
  • jsbee, on 04/24/2008, -2/+39This is the kind of story and gloating that will backfire on Obama.

    Guess what guys, when we're trying to argue that Superdelegate swaying is bad because it doesn't reflect the desires of the voters, gloating over delegate-distribution that defies the popular vote (like Pennsylvania's) is going to make everybody look pretty self-serving and hypocritical.

    That's why the Obama campaign isn't making this argument. They'd probably appreciate you all not making it for them.
  • Tweetimdw, on 04/24/2008, -12/+46Somebody please tell MSM to report this.
  • schroeder, on 04/24/2008, -0/+32So is your spam.
  • dBass, on 04/24/2008, -8/+39The CNN tools like Lou-ser Dobbs is calling HRC, Inc.'s PA win a "tremendous win". For good measure CNN is "rounding up" her 9.4 points to 10 points. Where the ***** did they learn 2nd grade math? Or maybe they figure their viewers didn't.
  • iwillrefuse, on 04/24/2008, -9/+38I am an Obama supporter. Who can do basic math:

    (64+63 does not = 158. And if it did, you can be damn sure we'd have heard about it from the Clinton campaign by now.)

  • jedreport, on 04/24/2008, -9/+38This is WRONG. Don't be fooled -- I'm pro-Obama. She one a small victory, but it was 11 delegates or so, not 1.
  • alwor, on 04/24/2008, -11/+40That is some serious tide turning there...
  • Orderless, on 04/24/2008, -3/+31If Florida OR Michigan get ANY delegates seated without a revote, I call bullocks.
  • phrstbrn, on 04/24/2008, -2/+29Yeah, okay.

    The majority of the "big states" ALWAYS pick the democratic candidate in the general election. So you can count on Obama/Clinton in winning those states no matter who is the nominee.

    The fact that Obama won the states that are traditionally won by Republicans (most of the South) shows that he has a better shot at winning these states in the general election compared to Clinton.

    Let's recap. Hillary wins the Democrat states (which Obama would easily pickup in the general election). Obama wins the mostly Republican states, (which would be tougher to pickup in the general election)...

    Yes, I see a huge problem with him being able to win the general election..... /sarcasm

    I'm an Obama fan, go digg me down now.
  • Bilabrin, on 04/24/2008, -1/+27It's funny how Hillary is claiming to hgave the popular vote by including votes cast in states where Barack wasn't even on the ballot.
  • CeeAyy, on 04/24/2008, -0/+26What's amazing is that she became the underdog at all. The outcome of this election was known prior to the results. What would have been surprising is if she actually lost. To say that Sen. Obama lost momentum is really kind of silly considering that this was the expected outcome BEFORE even the first vote was cast in that state. Also, Sen. Obama is still the underdog, even if he is currently leading. The title doesn't change because their positions do. Underdogs win too. The primary isn't over yet and Sen. Clinton hasn't exhausted all of her tricks yet. There is more spin to come.

    As for losing momentum, please... What was really expected, besides a win for her, was a double digit percentage lead by Sen. Clinton. It ALMOST reached 10%. This whole primary is a sham. There is no way that she should win the primary without the super delegates and they shouldn't be voting for her by any measure. She is far behind in the popular votes and in delegates. People are trying to change the rules at the end of the game. It's obvious who the MSM wants to win. If this was any other man or woman going against Sen. Obama, this primary would have been over already. The Clintons have a large amount of power in politics and in the MSM. Again, where would Sen. Obama be if HE lost the first 7 primaries? If she was the underdog and gained the lead?

    For those that say that Florida and Michigan should now count... Sen. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan! Clinton and Obama BOTH originally agreed that those two states should not count when Clinton was the front runner. Now that she is losing she wants them to count? Even though her rival wasn't even on the ballot in MI? Hmmm. Win at all costs I guess. Florida and Michigan were warned as to what would happened if they violated the rules and they proceeded anyway. The consequences are correct.
  • HonestAbe, on 04/24/2008, -6/+30But but... 9.4%! Double digits! DOUBLE DIGIIIITS!
  • anthonykpc, on 04/24/2008, -2/+25Ugh, I hate the effect media has on our country.
  • inactive, on 04/24/2008, -5/+28Damn those pesky numbers and that thing called math.
  • insomniac8400, on 04/24/2008, -0/+22The creditors are tying up the phone and filled up her voice mail. If she is president, no one of importance will be able to get through due to the collection agencies.
  • jon30041, on 04/24/2008, -5/+27Here's the thing... It's not a real substantial "win" in terms of delegates and votes. More than anything, it'll go on her short list of states won, and it sort of slows the Obama momentum. It's psychological. She can say 'I won by Pennsylvania!' and people can let that slide. Most won't ask how much she won. Flat out... it's all about the money blitz she got as a result.
  • imgstacke, on 04/24/2008, -2/+23NEWSFLASH: The news networks want this to go on until Nov 4th... This is perhaps the most profitable periods they have had in a long time. Some should take a close look at the financials when they report their quarterly reports.
    A Corporation is not concerned about a democratic process, only the bottomline matters.
  • achimvonarnim, on 04/24/2008, -0/+20NYT doesn't add delegates until they've definitely been allocated. As noted above, basic arithmetic will show this: 64 + 63 does not = 158. Once the official counts are released, expect their count to be updated.
  • Peko, on 04/24/2008, -1/+21Newsflash: NYT is MSM.
  • Gabberwok, on 04/24/2008, -1/+20Eh, RealClearPolitics generally has pretty good predictions and that NY Times delegate count is very conservative (only 127 out of 158 delegates). According to RealClearPolitics it is going to end up looking more like 69 - 81. :-/ Still less leaves Obama up 131 delegates overall and 154 pledged delegates.
  • slaizer, on 04/24/2008, -2/+21Buried as inaccurate. CNN:s Election Center shows that the delegates went 81-69 to Hillary, a 12 delegate gain, just as the Obama camp suspected.

    http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/res ...
  • Hillsfar, on 04/24/2008, -2/+21It's odd that the NY Times is saying 64 to 63, while CNN has 81 to 69.

    The Obama campaign e-mail I got (they are sending out e-mails to donors like me) indicates that at most, Clinton may pick up an extra 12 delegates.
  • inactive, on 04/24/2008, -2/+21But what now? Clinton will not give up. Is this prolonged election only hurting the Democratic Party?
  • prefan21, on 04/24/2008, -1/+19You completely miss the point that in virtually every state -- yes, even California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas -- Obama has won big among independents and Republican voters. In a general election, Democrats vote blue, Republicans vote red, but independents decide the presidency.
  • eternal464, on 04/24/2008, -9/+27While that is interesting, I'm gonna go ahead and say that ron paul had an even bigger story in that election(Please note, I am NOT a Ron Paul fruitloop). I mean, we all know McCain has the nomy, but for Paul to grab 15% is pretty remarkable.

    At any rate I'd like to thank the mainstream media for screwing up another election and sticking us with another neo-nazi president. All hail George Bush junior...
  • mreal197, on 04/24/2008, -9/+27Someone tell her? Last person who called Hillary to say she couldn't have something was Vince Foster.
  • inactive, on 04/24/2008, -1/+19You just hit the nail on the head.
  • Gabberwok, on 04/24/2008, -7/+24Sadly it will end up being closer to 81-69, but it's still only a drop in the bucket. When all is said and done, Obama will still lead her by >120 total delegates and >140 pledged delegates.
  • had3l, on 04/24/2008, -0/+17So it doesn't count.
  • jwolcott, on 04/24/2008, -4/+21If she won 54.7% of the votes, and Obama won 45.3% of the votes, then that means she won by 9.4% which rounds to 9%. How is that a "double-digit win" that she - and the media - claims? That bitch is such a pathological liar.
  • MaxPayne3476, on 04/24/2008, -1/+17way to umm... back you're own claim

    who should I trust. The NY time or Dayalsoap?

    NY Times > Dayalsoap
  • thdsn17, on 04/24/2008, -2/+17Alright guys, huge Obama fan here, but this is inaccurate. There are still 31 delegates unallocated because not all of the congressional districts, see here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/how- ...

    Hillary won Pennsylvania fair and square, but it's time for Obama to kick ass in Indiana and North Carolina and win this nomination!!!
  • insomniac8400, on 04/24/2008, -1/+16According to her budget, the middle class working man is paying for it, by not getting paid by her for banquet halls and other things.
  • jetsetsc, on 04/24/2008, -1/+15False. By delegate counts he has won 4 of seven primaries since February: Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, and won 268 delegates to HRC's 269. So she picked up one delegate. Whoopee:

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/re ...
  • archiesteel, on 04/24/2008, -0/+14"he won't stand a chance in the general election after his jaw-droppingly stupid comments dissing small town America."

    Except: a) he didn't disrespect small-town America, despite the spin McCain and Clinton have tried to put on it, and b) many in small-town America actually agree with what he said (even if "cling" could be misinterpreted as "rely irrationally on" instead of "hold on to").

    There's nothing staler than a six-month old political scandal. No one will care about bittergate come November.
  • Eiknujrac, on 04/24/2008, -0/+14Oh NO! Not the facts!!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 480 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.