Even though it seems nearly impossible for Clinton to catch up to Obama as far as the pledged delegates are concerned, her victory “does reinforce questions she has raised about whether the Illinois senator can appeal to white working-class voters and carry the big industrial states,” says USA Today. The New York Times points out that Clinton “used the words ‘fight,’ ‘fighter’ and ‘fighting’ repeatedly” in her victory speech “to convey that she had the resolve and confidence to stay in the race.” But there’s already been plenty of fighting, and if there’s one conclusion everyone can agree on, it is that the long campaign in Pennsylvania “left both candidates bloody,” as the Wall Street Journal puts it.
Clinton won in Pennsylvania by relying on her base of whites, women, older voters, and the less affluent, which allows her to continue questioning whether Obama can win with voters who have always been essential for Democrats. “Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Clinton asked yesterday. While it’s true that Obama didn’t manage to make many in-roads among white, working-class voters despite the fact that he vastly outspent Clinton in advertising, the LAT says it’s significant that he didn’t lose support among that group “even after navigating some of the worst weeks of the campaign so far.” And Clinton still clearly faces an uphill battle if she hopes to convince superdelegates that Obama is a flawed candidate. The Post‘s Dan Balz says that “even some of her most loyal supporters privately expressed doubts last night that she can prevail.”
Do NYT, que parece estar revisando o seu apoio à Hillary:
Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.[…](…)It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.
A CNN fez uma análise detalhada da vitória da Hillary na Penn., e parece estar na mesma linha do NYT quando diz que a Hillary ganho apenas tempo para continuar correndo até a convenção. No entanto, ela dificilmente consegue a nominação lá, e a troca de tiros entre os candidatos democratas obviamente benefecia o Mc.Cain.
(…) the real winner of the Democratic race in Pennsylvania is John McCain. The most significant number coming out of Tuesday night wasn’t Clinton’s 10 point margin of victory, but 43. That’s the percentage of Clinton voters who say they would stay home or vote for McCain if Obama is the party’s nominee in November. It is no longer just the Chicken Littles within the party who openly worry about an outcome that leaves large blocks of women or African-Americans frustrated and alienated.
Todo o barulho da HIillary implicou em um ganho de 80 delegados, contra 64 do Obama, na Penn. Com isso, na contagem geral, o Obama tem 130 delegados de vantagem sobre a Hillary. O Ambinder, na The Atlantic, fez a melhor consideração, sobre o quanto as coisas não mudaram, e como a vantagem que a Hillary ganhou ontem, que diminui a diferença no número de delegados, certamente será revertida quando os votos de North Carolina entrarem no prelo:
One theory of the case holds that, after Pennsylvania, a lot happened but only a little has changed. Barack Obama is still in the catbird’s seat for the nomination, although Clinton earned herself two more weeks to make the case that she ought to be heard — or, two more weeks to damage Obama’s candidacy, depending on your point of view. Obama hasn’t sealed the deal; a plurality of the superdelegates remain undecided. There’s no way Clinton can make up the pledged delegate difference. Obama has a lot of money; Clinton has very little. The demographic stasis of the Democratic primary hasn’t been altered. Obama still is less attractive to older voters, less affluent voters, less educated voters — the Democratic white working class. (Remember: PA was a closed primary.) Obama had six weeks and an unlimited pool of money and a media that was on side, and he still did not win. Obama still has the burden of explaining why he cannot beat Clinton in one of these states. (One potential answer is that the general election will allow Obama to make a contrast with McCain that he can’t make with Clinton.)
Clinton has the burden of explaining why a potentially quixotic quest is worth the damage that might be accruing to the Democratic Party. Two weeks from tonight, the overall delegate number will probably not have changed much, and Obama, if he wins Indiana and North Carolina, will have made up the net popular vote gain that Clinton takes away from tonight. Obama will focus heavily on John McCain over the next two weeks; Clinton will do largely what she’s been doing.
No espírito de entrar na briga, o campo do Obama resolveu falar que com mais 300 delegados, o que eles podem tranquilamente conseguir somando os estados que faltam, não tem mais o que discutir, e a eleição tá ganha.
Matematicamente, a Hillary dificilmente consegue virar isso, resta saber se ela tem capital político para derrubar todos os critérios convencionais na convenção.