Clinton “Wins” Indiana

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Hillary, Indiana

She’s up by about 22,000 with 99% reporting so MSNBC is calling it.

However, there’s a lot of absentee ballots yet to count, so we’re not going to know the real totals, but it’ll be hard for Obama to make up over 22,000 votes.

Amazing night folks. See you in the morning!


This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Hillary, Indiana. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “Clinton “Wins” Indiana”

  1. TheMiddle Says:

    Kind of a cheap shot to put that in quotes isn’t it? She won and deserves credit for it. Without quotes, or an asterisk. And hey, if Democrats were Republicans (chuckle) she would’ve won this thing already!

  2. Justin Gardner Says:

    I put it in quotes because there are still a lot of votes left to be counted, and I stated as much. Also, I would have the same thing to say if Obama eeked out a win in North Carolina. It would have seen as a loss, much like Clinton’s “win” in Indiana tonight will be seen as.

    A cheap shot would have been, “Hillary only won because of Limbaugh’s scheme,” which, by the way, I don’t believe.

  3. Avinash_Tyagi Says:

    Her margin is small enough that the Limbaugh effect does seem possible

  4. Rich Says:

    Don’t give me that crap. Hillary was in the lead in Indiana all along – by much bigger margins than the couple of percentage points she actually won by.

    The fact that she eeked a win in Indiana when she was forcasted to win by an easy margin shows that “Operation Chaos” had no effect in Indiana.

    You may be a mindless, kool-aid drinking follower, Avinash, and the way that you burp up of obviously flawed dem talking points readily showns that. Most people aren’t, though.

    Why don’t you try coming up with a unique idea.

  5. Grant Gould Says:

    Does anyone have numbers for what this means in terms of pledged delegate numbers? Who “won” or “lost” a state overall is just headline-fodder; it’s the delegates that count.

  6. Avinash_Tyagi Says:

    Rich you idiot, if you actually followed the polls you’d see that the pollsters all got the demographics wrong, the demographics in the end were more like Obama’s wins than his previous losses. Get your head out of the ground, this was aided, Hill took the morning off to thank all of her GOP pals for saving her last night

  7. Grant Gould Says:

    Hm, looks like Obama adds between 17 and 21 delegates in NC, Clinton 1 or 2 in IN, for a net gain of 15 to 20 for Obama for the day. That looks like a fairly sound thumping.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: