# Fork Hillary 3: The Final Forking **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726 "2008-03-18T00:01:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/721 "2008-04-08T01:37:19Z")
Fuck it…I’m done arguing. I’m just going to sit back and vote for Obama on the 22nd and enjoy watching him sail to the nomination. I have no idea why I’m so committed to chewing my liver out over the other candidate’s supporter’s delusions of possibility. My MD and my therapist will both thank me. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/722 "2008-04-08T01:50:31Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] \*So I’ve updated Survey USA’s Electoral College prediction based on updated results in 15 states. The results: Hillary Clinton 294 John McCain 231 Tie 13 John McCain 288 Barack Obama 238 Tie 12 - [/QUOTE] Actually, that update is from March 20th. The current maps, seen on the left and right, show that both would lose to McCain with Obama faring slightly better. Obama 265 vs. McCain 273 while on the right side is Clinton 262 vs. McCain 276. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/723 "2008-04-08T01:57:04Z")
My kid beat me in Scrabble the other day but if triple word scores didn’t count I would’ve won. Therefore I’m really the winner. :rolleyes: The supers could, within the rules, go against a significant pledged delegate decision and against a popular vote decision. They’d just be idiots to do so. You think risking that Michigan and Florida voters feel “disenfranchised” is bad? Telling an entire Democratic primary voting population that their votes didn’t really matter, now that’s disenfranchisement. l ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/724 "2008-04-08T02:05:58Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada – presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state’s delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn’t Obama cede the majority of the state’s delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he’s entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? [/QUOTE] And why doesn’t Obama just give Clinton all his campaign contributions too? Sure, it might be the “rules” that money donated him is for him to spend, but those silly rules are just technicalities that Obama went back in time and created to benefit him. What an absurd little article. Clinton has tried to play Calvinball and bend and undermine the rules at every turn. Obama, on the other hand, has played clean and by the rules. And for that, this person is criticiizing him, acting as if obeying the rules is somehow wrong. The particular criticism quoted is particularly absurd - he’s trying to imply Obama is guilty of wrongdoing for not handing over un-won delegates to Clinton, something no one would ever do. Obama has a lot to overcome within his own party if he wants to really impact politics, what with a seemingly significant fraction of Clinton supporters playing as dirty and illogical as she has. The article also implies that the nomination process isn’t that useful because it doesn’t follow the winner-takes-all format of the general election. Can anyone make the case that this is a logical statement? It’s a completely different election. It’s not a mock for the general election. It’s done among a subset of voters for different reasons. Why should the same rules apply? Can anyone make a case for that? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/725 "2008-04-08T02:10:10Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] Fuck it…I’m done arguing. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I hit that limit a month or so ago. I feel extremely fortunate that others (like **DSeid** , **Phlsphr** , **Shayna** , etc.; especially **Shayna** – thank you for your tireless diligence!) have assumed the mantle. Come to think of it, it’s not so much that I’ve given up arguing. It’s that my threshold has gone up quite a bit…so much so that I find that others post essentially what I would’ve long before that threshold is reached. I’ve come close to posting objections a few times, particularly when the Clinton camp emphaiszes their “popular vote” argument – y’know, the measure that totally ignores any and all caucus results. Now, granted, Texas has one inexplicably fucked up voting system, but it’s _really_ irritating to be told that my vote – and the votes of other Washingtonians – don’t count. Particularly when the argument almost always concerns, at least tangentially, disenfranchisement of FL and MI voters. Ah, well, “pick your battles” and such. ---
**Author:** ![stolichnaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bcef8e/32.png) [@stolichnaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stolichnaya)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/726 "2008-04-08T02:27:04Z")
I look forward to the committed effort by all of these folks once the nomination is settled to fix this unfair system which allocates delegates according to the way that the system said that the delegates would be allocated before the process started, disenfranchising people and kicking little metaphorical puppies in their little metaphorical puppy balls all along the way. There will be a reckoning, Democratic party. Expect wholesale upheaval in the name of fairness. Because it turns out that all of these arcane rules and antiquated unfair caucuses established specifically to give the old guard and the party insiders a leg up (wink-wink), strangely they can be manipulated to allow an outsider access to the table. Lo, the blade shall fall and the blood shall jet. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/727 "2008-04-08T03:48:54Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Nice. :dubious: Is there any chance at all this is true? :rolleyes: I think not. [/QUOTE] [Oh, really?](http://s297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/borell12/?action=view¤t=obamascan.jpg&track=tag_email_clickthrough) The recipient, who wrote the Daily Kos diary I originally linked to, has updated it to link to the letter itself. But of course it’s all a fake and a phony; nobody is actually that scrupulous, right. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/728 "2008-04-08T04:22:41Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] \ Here is an interesting site, one that show what I have ben saying all along- that Obama likes “the system” when it gets him delegates, but decries it as “undemocratic” when it doesn’t. :rolleyes: > **[Off and running? - Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/1999/04/17/hillary/)** > > Hillary Clinton moves to hire a New York campaign staff. "\*Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama’s narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party’s rank and file. If, while heeding the party’s rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama’s supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart. These arguments might be compelling if Obama’s leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama’s advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot. … The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee. Two democratic options are available to clean up the mess: Either relent by including the existing Michigan and Florida results or hold new primaries there. Yet in this, as has happened more than once this primary season, the Obama camp’s reaction has not been to clean up the mess the party has created, but to benefit from it. Given the original primary outcomes in Michigan and Florida, Obama has rejected the idea of certifying the results. Although Obama’s supporters conducted a stealth “uncommitted” campaign in Michigan after he voluntarily removed his name from the state ballot, and even though, contrary to DNC directives, his campaign advertised in Florida, Clinton still won both states decisively. … Yet the Obama campaign has stoutly resisted any such revote in either state. In Michigan, Obama’s supporters thwarted efforts to pass the legislation necessary to conduct a new primary. In Florida, campaign lawyers threw monkey wrenches to stop the process cold, claiming that a revote would somehow violate the Voting Rights Act, and charging that a proposed mail-in revote would not be “fraud proof.” (Obama himself, it’s important to note, proposed a bill in 2007 to allow for mail-in voting in federal elections.) … Now consider the delegate count and its connection to the popular vote. In Nevada, Clinton also won a popular majority, despite pressure from union officials on the rank and file attending the caucuses to vote for Obama. Yet Obama claims, on the primary electoral map posted on his official Web site, that he actually won Nevada – presumably because rules that gave greater weight to rural than urban votes mean he won a marginal edge in the Byzantine allotment of the state’s delegates. Why, in deference to the clear-cut Nevada popular majority, doesn’t Obama cede the majority of the state’s delegates to Clinton? Because, according to the rules, he’s entitled to those delegates. But why are the rules suddenly sacrosanct and the popular vote irrelevant? Might it be because the rules, and not the popular vote, now benefit Obama? And what about Texas, another state where Clinton won the popular vote but has not been awarded the majority of pledged delegates? Once again, for Obama, the rules are suddenly all-important – because the rules, and not the popular majority, now favor him." \* This site shows that Hillary would do better in the general elction, and inf fact Hil woudl win over McCain while Obama will lose: [http://www.mydd.com/tag/2008%20Election%3B%20SurveyUSA](http://www.mydd.com/tag/2008%20Election%3B%20SurveyUSA) " \* So I’ve updated Survey USA’s Electoral College prediction based on updated results in 15 states. The results: Hillary Clinton 294 John McCain 231 Tie 13 John McCain 288 Barack Obama 238 Tie 12 - [/QUOTE] That is pretty interesting. I read it yesterday, and the whole time I was thinking to myself, “Is this author on drugs? Do they really believe the things they’re saying, or are they just trying to keep moving the goalposts farther and farther?” I mean, seriously. It’s _exactly_ like a golfer who’s behind on the scorecard, bitching about them not playing match play, because then they’d be ahead. And then making up more and more obscure ways for them to claim they’re in the lead, when really they’re just a shitty golfer. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/729 "2008-04-08T14:11:14Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Here is an interesting site, one that show what I have ben saying all along- that Obama likes “the system” when it gets him delegates, but decries it as “undemocratic” when it doesn’t. :rolleyes: [/quote] If we’re gonna do competing glurge, here’s [Matt Yglesias’ response](http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/alternate_reality.php): \*Sean Wilentz argues that if we had winner-take-all primaries then Hillary Clinton would be beating Barack Obama handily. This is definitely true if we just hold all the actual voting and campaigning constant, and then reapportion the delegates along Wilentz’s hypothetical lines. However, it seems likely that both campaigns would have adopted different strategies if the rules were different from what they actually are. Meanwhile, the actual race is close enough that I have no doubt that there’s some plausible alternative candidate-selection mechanism under which Clinton would win fairly comfortably. Equally, though, one can imagine alternative mechanisms under which Obama would win comfortably (something very much like the current system, say, but in which California holds a caucus instead of a primary). It’s just not clear what the significance of this sort of thing is. I definitely regard the current method of candidate selection as flawed and think we should change it moving forward, but the alleged desirability of some change (and the changes Wilentz proposes are not, I think, actually desirable) hardly retroactively invalidates outcomes already achieved. \* And [Scott Lemieux’](http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=give_it_up#105546) at _American Prospect_: _Sean Wilentz has an exceedingly weak piece arguing that Clinton would be the easy winner in any fair primary system. Now, the primary system is full of irrationalities, so one might think that it would be possible to come up with a decent argument, but alas he fails at the task. Rather, the core of his argument is to assert again and again that the GOP winner-take-all model is only only fair way of apportioning delegates because…that’s how we do it in Presidential elections! But, of course, winner-take-all plurality voting is notoriously the least accurate of vote count systems commonly used in liberal democracies, and it is precisely that feature that led to the popular vote winner losing in 2000 and given different weather patterns in Ohio could have very easily led to the popular vote winner losing in 2004. Indeed, not using winner-take-all is one of the very few defensible aspects of the current primary system, and certainly Wilentz doesn’t even begin to make an argument about why PR is so much worse as to render the winner illegitimate (and I’m not counting “we do it that way in other parts of our anachronistic election system” as an argument.)_ Normally, I’d make my own arguments, but since you’re not gonna bother, and I read various rebuttals yesterday, I thought I’d just respond in kind. Meanwhile, the latest Quinnipiac poll has Hillary’s lead in PA down to 6%, and Survey USA shows Obama up by 10% in Oregon. We’re closing in. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/730 "2008-04-08T14:37:22Z")
So, if Hillary wins by 5%, which seems not improbable, what are we looking at, delegatewise? Anyone have a district by district probable breakdown yet? And if she wins by 5%, is she forked more, or the same? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/731 "2008-04-08T14:43:11Z")
The conventional wisdom is that Obama’s strong districts are more reliably Democratic than Hillary’s and are somewhat overrepresented in delegates because of it, therefore If Hillary wins 53-47 or so, then Obama would get somewhat more than 47% of the delegates. ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/732 "2008-04-08T14:47:07Z")
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] So, if Hillary wins by 5%, which seems not improbable, what are we looking at, delegatewise? Anyone have a district by district probable breakdown yet? And if she wins by 5%, is she forked more, or the same? [/QUOTE] More forked. I don’t know the district breakdown, but if we talk pure percentages, and assume, (very generously) that Obama only splits North Carolina and Oregon, and won the rest of the states by FORTY (40) points, she’d still be behind in pledged delegates. > **[The popular vote was an accurate predictor of delegate counts.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/02/the-popular-vote-was-an-accurate-predictor-of-delegate-counts.html)** > > With the dust settling on the Democratic nomination, it's worth a retrospective look at how successfully our calculator was able to estimate delegate... ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/733 "2008-04-09T19:21:08Z")
[American Postal Workers Union endorses Barack Obama](http://www.apwu.org/news/forthepress/pressrel080409_obama.htm). > [@](#): > > (04/09/08) The National Executive Board of the American Postal Workers Union has voted unanimously to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president. > > “Sen. Obama’s message is one of hope and change,” said union President William Burrus. “His message is special, and the timing is right.” > > . . . _The Portland Tribune_: [Obama is best for Democrats](http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/print_story.php?story_id=120760314372978000). > [@](#): > > Oregon Democrats can do their part to encourage the nation to move forward by throwing their support to Sen. Barack Obama in the May 20 primary. > > . . . _The Charleston Gazette_ [Obama Presidential endorsement](http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200804070537?page=2&build=cache) > [@](#): > > . . . We think Obama’s instincts are more than sound. They uplift the best qualities that lie deep inside most Americans. Therefore, we endorse him in the upcoming West Virginia Democratic nomination vote. > > . . . ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/734 "2008-04-09T22:41:58Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] [American Postal Workers Union endorses Barack Obama](http://www.apwu.org/news/forthepress/pressrel080409_obama.htm). _The Portland Tribune_: [Obama is best for Democrats](http://www.portlandtribune.com/opinion/print_story.php?story_id=120760314372978000). _The Charleston Gazette_ [Obama Presidential endorsement](http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/200804070537?page=2&build=cache) [/QUOTE] I lost count on how many nails that is **Shayna** 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/735 "2008-04-09T23:18:33Z")
I heard [this](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89474042) on public radio the other day and thought it was interesting > [@](#): > > The message was clear. If Altmire supported Obama, the Clintons’ supporters might not back him come November. So, regardless of what the guy really thinks and feels is best for the nation if he doesn’t vote their way they’d rather see a republican win than him? and > [@](#): > > When he returns the calls of the Clinton supporters, Altmire says they frequently tell him that this is Clinton’s time and that she has earned this; Obama is young and can afford to wait. If I truly felt Clinton would surely win, and could and would bring about the needed and desired changes I could see the logic in letting her go this time and saving Obama for 2016. I don’t have that confidence in her. I can’t be sure Obama will succeed in changing things but I feel more positive about giving him the chance. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/736 "2008-04-10T00:18:25Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I heard [this](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89474042) on public radio the other day and thought it was interesting \ If I truly felt Clinton would surely win, and could and would bring about the needed and desired changes I could see the logic in letting her go this time and saving Obama for 2016. I don’t have that confidence in her. I can’t be sure Obama will succeed in changing things but I feel more positive about giving him the chance. [/QUOTE] This is what will make Altmire vote for Obama **from your article** : > [@](#): > > “Sen. Obama first called me in June 2007 and asked for my support,” he says. “At that time, no one thought Pennsylvania would be relevant. No one thought superdelegates would be relevant. He was already thinking to the long term.” That’s what is eventually going to make Obama win the nomination as well. People on his team don’t have to play catchup, they simply call back. Whereas HRC’s camp wasn’t even going to fill out a full delegate platform in PA. And she didin’t. Speaks volumes. She is lucky PA has a demographic that has been habitually supporting her…but that demographic is fading. Look at the lastest endorsements for Obama and the latest polls. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Rosewater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/898d66/32.png) [@Mr.Rosewater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Rosewater)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/737 "2008-04-10T06:05:21Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] I lost count on how many nails that is **Shayna** 🙂 [/QUOTE] It’s beginning to seem as if it’s more nails than coffin. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/738 "2008-04-10T06:15:45Z")
Good point. Maybe after this election cycle they can truck it out to Darwin, MN, set it out behind the world’s largest ball of twine, and charge people a quarter a look. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/739 "2008-04-10T10:16:37Z")
Things are getting really weird in polling. Real Clear Politics’ aggregate poll has just about stopped making sense for some reason. RCP Average 04/03 - 04/08 - 49.2 41.3 Clinton +7.9 InsiderAdvantage 04/08 - 04/08 681 LV 48 38 Clinton +10.0 PPP (D) 04/07 - 04/08 1124 LV 46 43 Clinton +3.0 Rasmussen 04/07 - 04/07 695 LV 48 43 Clinton +5.0 SurveyUSA 04/05 - 04/07 597 LV 56 38 Clinton +18.0 Strategic Vision ® 04/04 - 04/06 LV 47 42 Clinton +5.0 Quinnipiac 04/03 - 04/06 1,340 LV 50 44 Clinton +6.0 ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2008, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726/740 "2008-04-10T10:59:35Z")
[According to Team Clinton, Obama is catching up in the polls in PA because he’s a liar.](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-campaign10apr10,1,239337.story) They’ve also moved the goalpost, as expected. > [@](#): > > “He is doing everything he can to win in Pennsylvania,” Wolfson said. “And if he doesn’t win, it will be a significant defeat for him.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fork-hillary-3-the-final-forking/441726.md?page=38)