WV Primary thread

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:44:26 PM EST

The CNN exit polling for West Virginia, and the results are now coming in. Obama's ahead in Randolph county, with 3% reporting, so I might be wrong about his not winning a single county.

Update [2008-5-13 21:51:26 by Jerome Armstrong]: It's 64-29 with 35% reporting. Obama has declined to give a speech this evening following the WV results. Clinton is ahead in every single WV county reporting. Obama may not even break 30 percent, despite being practically anointed with the nomination?!?! Look, this is a partisan blog. Nearly everyone will come around to supporting the nominee here, but if Obama doesn't recognize the serious problem this presents in the world offline, and his supporters as well, I am speechless (which may not be a bad thing considering).

Update [2008-5-13 22:55:26 by Jerome Armstrong]: It's 66-27, with 65% reporting. Clinton has gained over 90,000 votes in the popular vote total thus far tonight. In Mason County, Clinton leads by a 72 - 19 margin.

Update [2008-5-13 23:44:26 by Todd Beeton]:Clinton is now up 41% over Obama and has exceeded a net of 120,000 votes. Pretty incredible margin.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 254 Comments :: Post a Comment


It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

with Hillary winning 70% to Obama's 30% but in the end the Hillary would have only won 19 delegates to Obama's 9.


by puma on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM EST

Re: It's going to be a blow out (1.50 / 6)

Obama has declined to give a speech this evening following the WV results

This is pretty much in character. Just ask the members of Illinois NOW in his home state if he'd stand up and give a speech on the reproductive rights of women:

During Senator Obama's 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman's right to choose and repeatedly voted `present' on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.  In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 2)

Weird that he has 100% ratings then...


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

His lack of leadership is the issue.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 2)

Weird the Planned Parenthood IL was the lobbying group for NOW IL and worked with him on the strategy. Would have been a pretty obvious strategy if only the at-risk legislators voted present. And again, weird that he has 100% ratings.

Oh. I'm from IL so your BS won't work on me.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 4)

Your BS excuses for Obama don't work for women. The Illinois National Organization for Women has endorsed Sen. Clinton because she has the strongest record on women's reproductive health.

Senator Clinton has a long history of support for women's empowerment, and her public record is a testimony to her leadership on issues important to women in the U.S. and around the globe. She has eloquently articulated the need for full economic, political and social equality for women in every institution of society, taking action throughout her career -- as a lawyer, community leader, First Lady, Senator and candidate for the presidency -- to advance the civil and human rights of women and girls.

illinoisnow.org


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Heresjohnny's BS excuses, or Planned Parenthood's BS excuses?

Believe it or not, KnowVox, the crowd here at MyDD is smart enough to realize that telling someone they're full of "BS excuses" isn't the same as actually refuting the points they presented. Call them namby pamby all you want, you haven't won the argument; talk about Clinton's strength on the issue all you want (which no one denies), that doesn't state a thing about Obama.

You're getting awfully close to troll land with these "debate" tactics...


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

If you've got a beef with Illinois NOW, state it. They've made a compelling argument about why Senator Obama is a coward when it comes to standing up for the reproductive rights of women. It's his home state, after all. Candidates who don't support that funadmental right come awfully close to not being progressive democrats with those tactics.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Nobody has a beef with Illinois NOW.

You have a beef with Barack Obama.  It's not on the issues, as this argument makes clear.  Who knows what it's on, but the point is he has a 100% rating from both them and Illinois Planned Parenthood.

The only person who doesn't support the fundamental rights of women are the people who flirt with McCain.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Obama brought these credibility problems on himself.

Illinois NOW said it best:

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass, He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

Illinoisnow.org


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Why do you hate Planned Parenthood so much?


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (1.25 / 12)

Why do you adore your candidate so much that you keep making excuses for him?

Do you honestly think it's an act of integrity to vote "present" on an issue? If so, then you have no more integrity than your candidate.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Here's a TR for the personal attack.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

This is not a personal attack. It's a question, and you've just answered it by your bogus TR.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

You're really not doing your candidate any favors.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:28:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 2)

And your candidate's "present" votes aren't doing women any favors. He lacks leadership and integrity, as the Illinois NOW clearly points out. He can't be counted on.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

KnowVox: "And another thing, have you stopped beating your wife?!?"

Everyone else: "Odd that you haven't convinced the SD's with your Socratic wit."


by Brannon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

You keep changning the subject. Did I say anything about IL NOW? No. I said something about Planned Parenthood. Now tell me, since when does citing PP mean opposition to NOW? You are the worst spinner I have ever seen.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:45:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Did I say anything about PP? This thread is about Obama's cowardly vote of "present" on numerous abortion measures. The National Organization for Women in his home state of Illinois refused to support his cowardice and called him on it. Obama was M.I.A. when it comes to the reproductive rights of women.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Except ILPP did the lobbying for ILNOW and ILNOW didn't have a problem with it back then.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not true (none / 0)

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:30:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not true (none / 0)

Right right. Too bad that ILPP was the lobbying group not ILNOW so ILNOW is full of shite.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:19:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not true (none / 0)

I think it's clear who's FOS, and it ain't Illinois NOW.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

You're trying to use Obama's lack of a West Virginia primary speech to attack him on abortion? Boy, that's a stretch.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

He ducked the speech and he ducked the vote. I don't want a President who's not even "present."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Is McCain giving a victory speach?  Are you going to vote for him if he gives a speach because he is present?  Is he mentioning that Obama beat him?  Is he going to stand up for women's rights?  Are you going to help McCain win?


by stationakl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 2)

I wasn't aware that declining to give a speech to a crowd of supporters after a primary the candidate didn't compete in was considered a "duck," but ok, gripe away, I won't stop you. One question, though: given that Planned Parenthood devised the "present" strategy, does this mean you don't want anyone even remotely affiliated with the group in the White House?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (1.00 / 3)

You are a perfect example of why many HRC supporters here are viewed with such contempt.  All bluster and no substance, so very typical.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

This comment hardly deserves mojo, but saying someone is all bluster and no substance is hardly worthy of a 0, either, so I'm balancing it out.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Why do you keep misrepresenting Obama's present votes? I've posted this at least a half-dozen times:

"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."

Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec ker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_abor ti.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Unfortunately, your information is incorrect:

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Politicsmatters didn't say NOW supported the strategy. He (she?) said Planned Parenthood supported the strategy. That's incorrect how, exactly?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Politicsmatters accused me of misrepresenting Obama's vote. It wasn't misrepresented at all, as the N.O.W. of Obama's home state verifies.

Voting "present" and not taking a stand on issues relating to the reprodctive health of women is an act of cowardice. They called him on this issue, and they were correct.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

The strategy was put together with Planned Parenthood is far more involved in legislative strategy than NOW.  NOW is more of a get your contributions and make endorsements kind of organization which always supports women candidates.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Obama has had great difficulty explaining his 129 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on issues such as promoting school discipline and prohibiting sex shops near places of worship. This is just another instance where he utterly failed to provide leadership.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Then your beef is with Illinois Planned Parenthood.  If you have a problem with them, state it.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Planned Parenthood doesn't vote. Obama did, and he voted wrong. Period.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Not according to Planned Parenthood.  He voted exactly the way they wanted him to.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Not according to Illinois National Organization for Women. He ducked the vote and blew it.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

He didn't "duck" the vote.  He voted it down.

Why do I even bother?  If he had voted the way NOW wanted, you'd be writing about how he'd turned his back on Planned Parenthood.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

He ducked the vote by voting "present" and turned his back on the reproductive rights of women. He failed to obtain NOW's endorsement in his home state, and they had a very compelling reason why he failed to earn it.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Of course, there's the former president of Chicago NOW.... she switched her support from Clinton to Obama because of attacks like yours from the Clinton campaign.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Once again, debunked by Illinois NOW:

Brett was not Chicago NOW President during Obama's present votes

Statement of Bonnie Grabenhofer, IL NOW State President

Much has been printed in both the mainstream and alternative media and many have watched videos of Lorna Brett's comments on important votes that occurred while Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois State Senate (see article below). Ms. Brett continues to present herself as the President of Chicago NOW when IL State Senator Barack Obama was making decisions on votes that were critical for women and girls in Illinois. As the current Illinois NOW State President, it is essential that I clarify for the record that Ms. Brett's assertions are not correct. Lorna Brett was president of Chicago NOW from 1996-1998. She was not, as she represents, the president of Chicago NOW at the time IL NOW activists were meeting and talking with legislators about the abortion bills in the early 2000s. Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.

Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. Our records indicate that Ms. Brett has not been a member of NOW since 1999. Ms. Brett was not involved with either Chicago NOW or IL NOW when we were fighting to stop these bills. Ms. Brett is misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills and as a platform for her personal criticism of Senator Hillary Clinton.

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate. Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

This is so old...get the facts why don't you??  His present votes on these seven issues was a planned strategy he agreed on with planned parenthood - PP has said he was 100% in the no column but agreed to vote present as in the IL leg that is the same as a 'no' vote and is done to prevent such votes to be used against them in the future (in this case, planned parenthood).  He has a 100% rating as stated by another poster.  This whole thing has played 100X already!


by mariannie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

Yes, please "get the facts."

During Senator Obama's 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman's right to choose and repeatedly voted `present' on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.  In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

review (none / 0)

Hillary tonight underperformed Obama's best TEN Victories

What does tonight's final tally look like?  After reviewing the 2nd Exit Update, Tonight is going to be

65% Clinton
32% Obama

Obama built his 179 Delegate lead on much larger victories than Hillary's 33% Victory Tonight in West Virginia, Home to 5 Electoral Votes... Let's Recap the Scoreboard.

Idaho  4 Electoral Votes
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%
 Obama +62%

Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 76%
Clinton 24%
 Obama +52%

Alaska  3 Electoral Votes
Obama 75%
Clinton 25%
 Obama +50%

Washington 11 Electoral Votes
Obama 68%
Clinton 31%
Obama +37%

Georgia 15 Electoral Votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%
 Obama +36%

Colorado 9 Electoral Votes
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%
 Obama +35%

Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes
Obama 66%
Clinton 32%
 Obama +34%


by dearreader on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 3)

This is the best she has done.

Here are the best he has done.

Idaho  4 Electoral Votes
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%
 Obama +62%

Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 76%
Clinton 24%
 Obama +52%

Alaska  3 Electoral Votes
Obama 75%
Clinton 25%
 Obama +50%

Washington 11 Electoral Votes
Obama 68%
Clinton 31%
Obama +37%

Georgia 15 Electoral Votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%
 Obama +36%

Colorado 9 Electoral Votes
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%
 Obama +35%

Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes
Obama 66%
Clinton 32%
 Obama +34%

So when she gets a 62% margin she is level. Til then she is underperforming.


by telfishbackagain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (2.00 / 2)

Getting these numbers in sparsely attended caucuses is underwhelming.

She is winning the swing states and winning an amazing margin in a contested primary with high turnout.

This is after the media declared the contest over and yet people came out and voted for her.

Obama is a very weak candidate.

His lead is all based on caucus wins.


by BigB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (none / 0)

Georgia held a primary. Obama won by around the same margin as Clinton is winning WV. Impressive wins in both cases.


by letterc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (none / 0)

Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana, S.C., N.C. - all because of AA vote, which is great, but can't carry those states in the general unless hell has frozen over.


by Tolstoy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (2.00 / 1)

Without the AA vote the last Democrat in the Whitehouse would have been LBJ.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (2.00 / 1)

Both what I said and what you said are true.


by Tolstoy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (none / 0)

I know.  I think to win in November we need both Clinton's coalition and Obama's.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All but Georgia are anti-democratic caucuses (none / 0)

Tell that to Childers...


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Why are we demanding that West Virginians vote for who will win rather than who they want to win? That is the complete antithesis of democracy, and is highly patronizing to the voters of West Virginia. Let the them support who they want, not who the rest of the country wants. That's why we don't have a national primary. The term "frontrunner" should have no bearing on any state's results, and as a former supporter of Biden and Dodd, shame on the voters who let it influence them.

Obama's vote is further depressed by the fact that he barely campaigned in the state. Had he gone all out the way Clinton did, the gap would certainly have narrowed.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (2.00 / 1)

He didn't campaign because he knew he'd be trounced. Which he was. Stop making excuses.

It's 64-29 with 35% reporting. Obama has declined to give a speech this evening following the WV results. Clinton is ahead in every single WV county reporting. Obama may not even break 30 percent, despite being practically anointed with the nomination?!?!

Obama needs to recognize he's in serious trouble come November if he's our nominee.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

RCP has Obama over McCain by 4.4, and Clinton over McCain by 4.5. The media will cover Obama more favorably than they will Clinton (which is admittedly unfair and decidedly not cool), so his numbers are more likely to move up than hers. If Obama's in serious trouble come November, she's right down there with him.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Link?


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Apologies. Here they are:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_clinton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_obama-225.html


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Neither link substantiates your claim:

"The media will cover Obama more favorably than they will Clinton (which is admittedly unfair and decidedly not cool), so his numbers are more likely to move up than hers. If Obama's in serious trouble come November, she's right down there with him."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

No, the link substantiate the poll numbers. What you quote isn't a cite with a source, it's personal analysis. I'm surprised you disagree with it - are you the one Clinton supporter who actually thinks the media treated her better than Obama over the past six months?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

No. I disagree with your fairytale "analysis" that Obama's numbers will magically go up.

The media will cover Obama more favorably than they will Clinton (which is admittedly unfair and decidedly not cool), so his numbers are more likely to move up than hers.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Did I say they "will" go up, or did I say they are "more likely" to go up? Those words are hardly the same thing - "will" implies at least a 51% chance, whereas "more likely" is a relative term: 20% is more likely than 10%.

So don't distort. Until you take issue with my actual suggestion, there's really nothing for me to say.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

RCP does support this - she's only polling .1  better than he in a General, so whatever trouble he's in, she's got too.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:48:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

YOU of all people ask for a link?  Please.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's going to be a blow out (none / 0)

Another way to look at it is that the media might turn against him, but they cannot turn against her. They HATE her already.

Her numbers are pretty much immune to media attacks, because the people who have stuck with her to this point have heard it all, up to and including accusations of multiple murders. But his are not.

I am not harboring any illusions about Clinton's nomination chances at this point - I would put them at maybe 1/10 at best. I just hope for the sake of our party that Obama got all the Wright stuff out into the open this spring. If there are a bunch more controversial tapes that have not seen the light yet, it could get ugly.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

delegates... lol (2.00 / 1)

spin spin spin


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: delegates... lol (none / 0)

Delegates... spin?  No, the delegate count is the cold, hard truth.

Spin would be to point out that Obama has won five states with greater margins than this.  But nobody's saying that.  I didn't just say that.  You didn't read it.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:27:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (none / 0)

come on obama just hit 35 for me!


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:31:54 PM EST

Oh he's way past 35 (none / 0)

votes that is.

Percent?  He'll be lucky if he hits 25.  

I'm wondering whether he'll end up with fewer votes than McCain...


by DaveOinSF on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (2.00 / 1)

So guys, the end of Obama right? No way he can recover from this, is there????


by grass on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:32:28 PM EST

I'm ok with that. (none / 0)


by Molee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm ok with that. (2.00 / 1)

I wonder if B.O. is going to drop out tomorrow?

He should. He can't close the deal.

/snark


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (none / 0)

Who's got the other 8% of the votes?  Is Edwards still on the ballot?


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:33:01 PM EST

any chance Edwards will beat Obama? (2.00 / 1)


by Molee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0)

That would mean that hillary got >80% of the vote which isn't going to happen.


by puma on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (none / 0)

Yes, Edwards is on the ballot (he was not in PA), and was polling at 4% before the vote. Additionally, WV lists hometowns on their ballot, and that "Chapel Hill, North Carolina" sure doesn't hurt.

I'm trying to remember where I read that today - I thought it was First Read, but I can't find it there. Politico, maybe? Apologies for the lack of a link.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary says the race goes on... (2.00 / 2)

I like Jeralyn's take on this,

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/13/ 202125/679

rather than 9 out of ten unqualified pundits or Democratic Party men who lost the WH (Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy , McGovern) telling her otherwise.

Go Hillary to the White House!


by Molee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:35:53 PM EST

Re: Hillary says the race goes on... (2.00 / 2)

You are absolutely right. I know 9 out of 10 scientists will say that global warming is real and that evolution is all but proven, but I prefer the one that has the courage to say those other ones are wrong.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary says the race goes on... (2.00 / 1)

Chris Matthews had a funny exchange with Terry MacAuliffe.  It was Terry MacAuliffe saying "why won't you guys let her run?" and Chris Matthews saying "You know very well, being in this business as long as you have, that there is nothing more in the world we want than a brokered convention!  We want her to run!  Who are you arguing with?  You're arguing with NO ONE!"


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary says the race goes on... (none / 0)

So it's true because Chris Matthews says so?

The news executives may want a brokered convention, but the reporters on the campaign trail?  The talking heads?  They're sick of Obama/Clinton.  They've been doing this story for almost a year.  Combine that with the hatred many of them hold for Clinton, and they want to wrap this up soon.


by therealdeal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary says the race goes on... (none / 0)

PLEASE. They just want ratings, and a happy Democratic resolution is the last thing on their minds.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary says the race goes on... (none / 0)

Well I think Chris Matthews is a better authority on what political reporters want than Jeralyn Merritt is.

Jeralyn Merritt is a partisan, and right now the Clinton strategy is to run against the media. It's a time-honored strategy.  It works.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:38:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary wins 13% among Independent Voters (2.00 / 2)

so much for BO's appeal....


by nikkid on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:36:23 PM EST

Re: Hillary wins 13% among Independent Voters (none / 0)

C'mon, he has appeal, obviously. He does have a problem with non-AA working class voters, and I think he realizes it. But it is hard for him to come out and say so during the primary. As a GE strategy, (assuming he wins the nomination) he would do well to confront this problem head-on.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary wins 13% among Independent Voters (none / 0)

I'd amend that to non-AA working class white voters, east of the mississippi.  At least if you're going by exit polls, and I assume you are.

Not all white people are the same.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:39:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary wins 13% among Independent Voters (none / 0)

By "non-AA", I mean Asians and Latinos as well. Obama's coalition is narrow but deep. The depth is one reason (among several) that he won so many caucuses - caucuses measure activist enthusiasm better than they measure broad public support. The narrowness is why he has had trouble winning large states that are not home to a high % of AA voters.

I am not saying he cannot win those states, but they will be hard for him.

> Not all white people are the same

Yes, that is a truism, but irrelevant to the topic. I was talking about statistics and demographics, not absolutes.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (1.50 / 2)

Hillary would make a mighty fine governurr of West Virginy.  YeeeeeHawwww!


"I'm all for the delegate battle, and now that Obama's campaign is too, I'm all giddy. It's going to be the supers as kingmaker." J.Armstrong 01/19/08
by obscurant on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:37:08 PM EST

Re: CNN exit polling (2.00 / 1)

Herein lies the problem.  The mockery, the condescension.


by Susan in Oregon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (2.00 / 1)

That's A problem.  Not THE problem.

If you look around this thread you'll find the usual suspects taking shots at Obama for no reason.  People who voted for him are going to get annoyed.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (2.00 / 1)

What you say is true, and I for one try not to take gratuitous shots at Obama. However, if you agree with the common wisdom among Obama backers that he has the nomination locked up, why not start trying to work on his potential GE weaknesses now?

I would submit that dismissing Democrats who voted for Hillary as a bunch of ignorant hicks is not the way to make friends.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (none / 0)

I agree.  That's why I said that saying so is a problem.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (none / 0)

Yes, I was addressing that post to the general readership, not you personally. Apologies for not being clear.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (none / 0)

Yes, she would. But she'd make an even better President.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (1.00 / 1)

and you would be a fabu elitist jackass, snif


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Congratulations Hillary Clinton! (2.00 / 2)

Hillary ran a fine race.

She is a formatable opponent.

The party will need her tireless support in the run up to November.

She has earned a powerful place in this party's future.

Now...  it's finally time to...

Rally around the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee.

Barack Obama!


by Silence Do Good on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:37:53 PM EST

Obamaspin (none / 0)

how cute


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamaspin (none / 0)

Okay then, don't rally around the nominee.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamaspin (none / 0)

Once we have a nominee we will all rally around her. In the meantime I don't think we need a guy who started posting two days ago to telling us what to do.

One of the nice things about MyDD, people here will  take a critical look at the nominee and how she carries out her general election campaign. Boosterism is not this blog's primary purpose.


by souvarine on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're kidding with this piece of S**T comment (1.50 / 2)

Look at the person who ran her campaign best?

Sycophants in key positions.

Inevitiability?

No plan beyond Super Tuesday?

$20 million in debt?

A list of small businesses a mile long left in a lurch waiting for payment?

What a joke this comment is.


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamaspin (2.00 / 1)

With as much respect as I would give anyone, I don't see how anyone can possibly take a "critical look" at this blog and say that boosterism is not its primary purpose.

God almighty, look at the rec list.  Any day, any hour, non-stop for the past five months.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamaspin (none / 0)

Oh dear, things have got really bad for Hillary when Teresa can only manage a "how cute".  What was it that finally did it for you, the turnout figures?


by interestedbystander on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was on the DKOS, and people over there (2.00 / 3)

have gone totally nuts and crazy. I am an Obama supporter, but i have to say this clearly and loudly: Obama supporters on the DKOS who are accusing West Virginians of racism and call them names and spreading disparaging remarks (incestuous marital relations, bad hygiene and just plain hicks) and stereotypes about them are WRONG and i am ashamed that they even call themselves supporters of Obama.


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:40:00 PM EST

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Look up these diaries:

-Not worth reading WV EXIT POLL DATA
-West Virginia


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Just go the DKOs and look for those diaries


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Are you calling me a liar? what the hell do you want from me...i told you, you can go over there and look for them and i gave you the titles of those diaries...

Goodness gracious...are you working for DKOS? Do you feel that you need to defend them? Have some independent thoughts for god's sake.

And here is freaking link for you

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/ 19834/8609


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (2.00 / 3)

All the comments are calling that diarist a troll and tell him/her to delete the diary.  Sorry, but the DailyKos community rejected that ugly sentiment.


by CA Pol Junkie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

and half the comments say "delete please".

I read your comment and now all I can think of... "puhleeze..."


by Pragmatic Left on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)


You know what?  EVERY candidate's supporters have their lowest common denominators.  They're not indicative of a damned thing other than their own ignorance.

Someone from the campaign itself says something this ignorant, I'd say it's news.  Otherwise...


by rlamoureux on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Not all comments were supportive and i agree with that, but there were some that were pretty bad and the puzzling fact that there were 3 diaries written which were pretty disparaging. And i see that 2 of them were totally deleted.


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

like I said before...at least the bad ones are deleted.  over at the other anti-Obama sites they are there in all their glory - proud of it!


by mariannie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:21:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

I think it's obvious what we "want from you." When you mention a story or make a point, link to it, as you finally, eventually got around to doing. It's not incumbent upon your audience to research your claims. Insinuation will get you nowhere. Links will give you credibility.  Calm down, that's nothing to get huffy about.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (1.50 / 2)

I gave him the titles of those diaries, he could have gone and looked them up. If i did not give him any reference, i would be mistaken.

Do i need to spoon feed him? I taught college for about 6 years before moving to the private sector and when  students ask me about some references, i just give them the title of the article or the journal and they usually research for it and find it. This guy is just too lazy to do a bit of research and he rubbed me the wrong way tonight. I apologize though, but i resent his insinuations.


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Oh, come on, blueinboston, this comment isn't TR-worthy, that's TR abuse.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Nope, that link was not good enough - it was in blue pixels. I refuse to follow your link until you render it in orange pixels. With flowers and unicorns.   :-D


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

Go take a look at HillaryIs44 sometime, if you want to see what unhinged really looks like.

There are some crazy people on both sides.


by tysonpublic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:36:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

I just saw some of those comments...pretty scary, but let me tell you...they are NOTHING like the hatred spewed at Obama and Obama supporters by taylor marsh, hillaryis44, noquarterusa, hillary1000 - that hatred is directed at a candidate.  taking shots at voters in West Virginia is what it is...a bunch of air and venting.


by mariannie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No surprise there. (none / 0)

After Kerry managed to lose to Bush, it was all the fault of "Jesusland", with all of the subsequent stereotypes and vitriol towards the people that they have appointed themselves to advocate for.


by georgiapeach on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

"Obama supporters on the DKOS who are accusing West Virginians of racism "

Certainly it's bad if they accuse all West Virginians of racism. But it's not as if 20% of the West Virginians are even bothering to hide it in the exit poll questions.

And I'm tired of hearing Democrats argue that we must close our eyes to racism whenever that occurs in the Democratic party. Perhaps 80% of all racism has found refuge in the Republican party, that doesn't mean they have it exclusive though.


by Aris Katsaris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS, and people over there (none / 0)

My neice (Asian) went to college in West Virginia-five years.  Trust me, its pretty racist.


by mariannie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN exit polling (2.00 / 1)

Hey Huckabee is on MSNBC.

Fitting.

Let's see what the Huckster has to say.


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST

Jerome (2.00 / 1)

I bet Obama doesn't win more than 5 counties. And he will lose by over 30% of the vote (it is easy to make safe predictions but truly daring ones deserve more praise).


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:58:04 PM EST

Re: Jerome (2.00 / 1)

Well, I predicted he'd win 0 counties, and my guess is looking better than yours.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome (none / 0)

Yeah, I thought that, too.  And I thought he'd lose by 40 points as he has in Appalachia so far.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah it does... nt. (none / 0)


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:43:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on the DKOS.... (none / 0)

Likelihood zero let those self-righteous idiots accuse WV of racism.  When Obama looses Missouri, Florida, and Ohio in the general will they accuse them of being racist to. Or is it the fact that we must begin to connect with rural America like HRC is currently doing rather than relying on big city high populous votes.


by nzubechukwu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:58:08 PM EST

Re: I was on the DKOS.... (2.00 / 3)

Obama won Missouri.


by stationakl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Surprisingly enough (2.00 / 1)

A vote from "rural America" counts no more and no less than one from those "big city high populous" places, also known as, you know, AMERICA.

So very tired of this bullshit.  Hillary has her supporters.  Obama has his.  Obama's supporters are greater in number than Hillary's and thus he is the nominee.  Have a problem with that?  Join a party where they don't have a problem with awarding the election to the candidate who receives fewer votes.


by Drew on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Surprisingly enough (none / 0)

Then I suppose you will support urging the Super Delegates to all support whoever ends up getting the most votes in all the caucuses and primaries in this campaign?

I will.


by markjay on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's put it this way. (none / 0)

I find these apples-to-oranges comparisons problematic.  That goes for the comparison of pledged delegates to the popular vote and the comparison of caucuses to primaries.

I hope the nominee will prevail by every possible metric, so as to avoid that mess.  If the nominee can't do that, then I hope the superdelegates vote with what they believe to be the majority of the Democratic electorate.

And then I hope they go to Congress and reform this fucking mess of a primary.  And the elections process generally.


by Drew on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Surprisingly enough (none / 0)

> A vote from "rural America" counts no more and
> no less than one from those "big city high
> populous" places

You are wrong about that, at least when it comes to the General Election.

WY 2004:  80,983 total votes cast per EV
CA 2004: 225,464 total votes cast per EV

In fact, the Constitution intentionally gives a bigger vote to states with smaller populations.

So Obama having a problem with rural America is a real problem for November - no BS. Rather than complain about it, why not try to think of some ways Obama could deal with it? I guarantee you that Obama's campaign is thinking about it alot. Personally, I think coming out and straightforwardly admitting he has work to do to win this constituency would be a good first step.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By the same metric (none / 0)

Clinton has a problem with black America, with young America, with college-educated America, etc., and yet there are no demands that Clinton's supporters "deal with it," nor are there any demands that they "com[e] out and straightfowardly admit[ she] has work to do."  Instead, they merely trumpet support for her among the demographic who does support her, all but arguing that said support entitles her to the nomination and that Obama's support, even if it does constitute a plurality of the Democratic electorate, is unimportant.

I'll take the concern seriously when Clinton's supporters show that they are serious in their concern.


by Drew on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the same metric (none / 0)

You really do not think Clinton is thinking about how to win back AA's and college educated voters in the GE, should she get the nomination? Of course she is.

Look, neither one of them can come out and admit a major weakness while the primary result is still in doubt. The difference is that many Obama backers have been saying for weeks that the primaries are de-facto over, and it is time to focus on the GE. Clinton is trying to come from behind; she has to accentuate the positive to keep her supporters on board.

Obama himself was not nearly so sanguine, and continued to campaign hard in the primaries, but now he seems to have been convinced of his inevitability by the NC results. He is going to important GE states like MI and FL, and kind of "mailing it in" for the final half-dozen primary contests. Maybe that is a sign he has started to work on his GE weak points. For the sake of a November victory, I hope so.

But he will have a tough time writing off Appalachia, if that is what he is contemplating. That region runs through several big EV states, and could tip the balance if it goes huge for McCain. I do not think Obama needs to win the working class white demo outright, but he should at least give the appearance that he wants their votes, if only to make McCain work for them.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look, let us be honest please and (2.00 / 1)

try to talk about difficult things without really shooting at each other and in the calm and with intellectual honesty.

Here is my problem tonight:

If Senator Clinton wins very big tonight (which looks like she is going to), it means to me that Senator Obama has not achieved unanimity in the ranks of the democratic voters.

Look, usually the front runner of the party in the latest contests usually wins big. We call them sweeping contests usually...Even Carter in 1980 won those late contests by huge margins (some of them were not huge victories, but they were victories nonetheless) against Kennedy who did not drop out...remember those primaries....And here we have the presumptive leader of the party, Senator Obama, losing by a huge margin in this late primary. I don't want to say it, but it seems to me that tonight's vote and the margin of victory of Senator Clinton looks almost as a vote against Obama than a vote for Clinton. The democratic voters are almost saying "not to fast."  

I have been involved in politics for a long time now (closely since 1984) and i don't recall the front runner of the party losing by a huge margin a late contest to a candidate who is totally broke and given for dead by everyone.

This is almost humiliating to me.


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:18:30 PM EST

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

Well, that's what I see too. People try to pigionhole me as some sort of Clinton diehard, which is hardly correct. I come to her at last resort, and I'm not alone within the Dem rankings.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (2.00 / 4)

I don't think a Clinton diehard, you've made that clear with having had other choices.  But yes, an anti-Obama diehard.  It looks very good for the two Democratic congressional candidates tonight (fingers crossed) and Obama has brought a ton of new blood into the party, and his fundraising from small donations is tremendous.  He seems a very good thing for this party, but there is nothing about him you seem to be able to be positive about.


by mady on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The difference is he isn't running against (2.00 / 2)

Governor Huckabee or John Edwards where people just rally around who will win.

The person who wins will win by .1% of the vote and less than 150 delegates.

What part of thousands of delegates, millions of votes and a small victory don't you get?

Why should we expect a rallying around someone who's going to win by .1%?

Can you give it a break? The Obama supporters haven't been making this amazing statement that we're going to win by 2:1 margins in the delegates or popular vote.

What we have been saying is it is impossible for her to overtake the leads in any metric since the 12-straight victories in February.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

Why don't you give Hillary a little credit Jerome?

It's been a closely-watched primary with two absolute heavyweights duking it out.  Millions and millions of people have come out and passionately supported their candidate.  They're both rock stars in the eyes of millions.

It's not like he's losing to Kucinich, and it's not like people that have supported Hillary from the beginning just "go away".

DC was Obama's stomping ground, WV is Hillary's.  Obama just had more stomping ground overall.

The end.  No "unelectability" at all.


UNITY!
by The Great Gatsby on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

And no other election did race enter into the equation. Look, without the bigots Hillary still wins West Virginia easily. Obama failed to campaign effectively there. He didn't even try, and that's a shame. Hillary even won among the "very liberal," and Obama actually faired a bit better among the "somewhat conservative" segment than among liberals! But when a quarter of Clinton's voters say that race was an important factor in the decision, you can see why Obama-Clinton is different than Carter-Kennedy. If you're a racist, you NEVER support the black candidate.


by elrod on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

Obama failed to campaign, yet he beat McCain.  Isn't that proof the republicans are doomed in W VA in the Fall?


by stationakl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (2.00 / 1)

We can't blame everything on race and racism. Senator Obama won in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi and god knows that those states have some serious racists in them and even South Carolina where the rebel flag is still flying on the capital. I think Rev. Wright has hurt Obama. I never believed those who said it didn't. I also think that Senator Obama has not connected with working class voters because his message is light on concrete kitchen-table issues. As my wife said (disclaimer my wife support Hillary, i support Obama) he is selling Victoria's Secret lingerie in a farmers market.

Those who appreciate the message of post-materialism (post-partisanship) are people who have advanced degrees or making high dollar salaries or political junkies. It happened that i earn a very good living and recession would never touch my job sector so i have the time, the financial security, and the resources to listen to what Obama is saying. However, those who are struggling to pay their bills and who do not know whether their jobs are secured do not have the time or the resources to listen to Obama's post-materialistic message. He needs to put some serious meat on those bones otherwise those working class voters will defect to the populist message of McCain.


by likelihood zero on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

I agree with you except for the "working class" part.  There's an east of the Mississippi vs west og the Mississippi divide in the electorate: west of the Mississippi he beats her in every demographic except women over 45, 50, 60, depending on the margin of victory.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

> If you're a racist, you NEVER support the black candidate.

What about if you're a black racist? Just sayin'.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

Then you'd never support the white candidate.

Which is why black people aren't being accused of racism in this primary.  They vote for white people all the time.  They vote for white people over black people all the time.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

I was pointing out a flaw in the poster's logic. The implicit assumption was that all racists are white. Perhaps the poster just misspoke - elrod seems to be a thoughtful person generally, so I would guess that was the case. You seem to agree with me, and then you turn around and seem to agree with the poster.

What I sense in the your attitude is approval of presumption of innocence for people of one skin color, and presumption of guilt for people of another. I just think that is wrong, both factually and morally. If you truly think that 0.00000% of AAs have voted for racist reasons in this primary, there isn't much point in discussing it further.

There is nothing wrong with identity voting, if the motivation is based in reason.

OK - I voted for X because X is like me and understands the problems of people like me.

Not OK - I voted for X because my and X's race/sex/whatever is inherently smarter/braver/harder working/whatever.

Also Not OK - I voted for X because my and X's race/sex/whatever is due for payback.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

And if you're a misogynist, you'd never vote for Hillary. Let's remember, that white women with college degrees earn as much money as African American men with high school degrees. There is probably more bigotry towards women in general than people of color.

Clinton's been called a fucking whore by a nationally syndicated talk show host with a huge following in the progressive community at an event organized by Obama supporters for Obama supporters and advertised on a bulletin board paid for by Obama.

I think we know where the primary bigotry lies.


by Little Otter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look, let us be honest please and (none / 0)

And she was immediately fired for it. I strongly disapprove of what Randi Rhodes said, but trying to use it as somehow representative of the Obama campaign is more than just a little stretch.


by tysonpublic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:44:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Where was the surprise when Obama won (2.00 / 6)

all the states he won by 20+ points?

I don't get it. Senator Obama has won more states by 20+ point blowouts than Senator Clinton.

Their demographics and constituencies are pretty much locked up - and the final contests, any moron could predict the outcomes of and come within the margin of error.

Fake surprise doesn't make sense. A few weeks ago, people were saying Kentucky and West Virginia would be blow outs.

And yet, here we are - this being the only place in the world where this blowout is a surprise and a cause for concern.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:54 PM EST

Re: Where was the surprise when Obama won (none / 0)

It's not concern, it's projecting. Part of the appeal of Hillary to many of the folks here, I think, is that they really have issues with Obama.

Let's call it, "electability." His race, his experience, his name... whatever reasons go into it, there's a real concern here about his electability.

So Jerome and others -- including the Clinton camp -- point to the her one demographic of strength, and as if this demographic is the only arbitor of victory, lament his showing.

Never mind the numerous other age, social, economic, religious and gender groupings where Obama is strong. Never mind the states where that is strong. Rather than look to our union as states AND demographic regions, we get crazy picking one group -- Hillary's group -- and pretend they are all that matters.

Blue collar whites. They won't vote for Obama but not cuz they're racist. They're hardscrabble down home awesome folk who just like family, denim and getting completely raped by the US Government, who then charges them for the pleasure.

So, if you believe in your heart that Obama can't get elected, and the main datum that also has a news hook is Appalachian support, by gum this is the flagon within which to pour all your Obama concerns and fears.

Sure, the record registration and mobilization of Obama's organization -- most often done without any existing party support -- should have all of us creaming our respective drawers, but we're a little too caught up in WEST VIRGINIA, which, though chock-a-block full of awesomeness and unregulated industry black lung, really is not that important to most electoral victory scenarios.

So, that's what I think is going on here. Could be wrong and elitist and whatever, but isn't that the point of being a political wonk?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the surprise when Obama won (none / 0)

If the blue collar whites you mention hate the government so much, they won't vote democratic no matter WHO the nominee is...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the surprise when Obama won (none / 0)

They hate government, but do nothing to fix it by electing folks like GWB. But maybe the Childers win means something is really changing.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where was the surprise when Obama won (none / 0)

The reason lies in the dynamics of the race itself.  Prior to Super Tuesday, supporters of each candidates were happy with the other.  Then when Super Tuesday put Barack Obama into the lead, and February was... well everyone remembers February, you suddenly started seeing the first big split: supporters of Senator Obama were fine with Senator Clinton winning the nomination - the reverse was less true.

As the contest has gone on, the further behind Clinton falls, the more her supporters are likely to be anti-Obama.  Why?  Because her path to the nomination runs right through him.  She can only win if he turns out to be unacceptable in some way, and little-by-little her supporters are going to internalize the logic of her campaign.

It takes an incredibly strong will to be able to hold both thought simultaneously in your head, that on the one hand "yes I support Senator Clinton and realize that Senator Obama has to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy in order to lose the nomination but I'm still supporting her" and "But I like Senator Obama too" on the other hand.  Most people can't do that, at least not for a sustained period of time.

It's a dilemna that Obama supporters don't have to deal with.  It isn't necessary for Hillary Clinton to be destroyed for our guy to win.  If it was, then you'd see the kind of "our guy or NO ONE" stuff in the recent exit polls that you see among Clinton voters.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter. (2.00 / 3)

She could win by 95 to 5 tonight, and it still won't matter.

The race is over. Her campaign is of the walking dead.

Obama will be our nominee, and everyone who wants a Democrat in office will do everything s/he can to elect our nominee in place of McCain.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:56 PM EST

Re: It doesn't matter. (none / 0)

Hehe....

"major combat operations have ended in the 2008 democratic primary. (may 6th, 2008)"

Why don't you fly a big "Mission Accomplished" banner somewhere?  Dissing the remaining states and voters, and possibly losing the popular vote, is not the nominee I want representing me.


by mikes101 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Donna Brazile just said that she hopes the superdelegates will wait until all the primaries are over before they come out and declare who are they for.  Is that some sort of reverse psychology trick or is she serious?


by JustJennifer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

I think the reason for that is so that Hillary's supporters don't feel cornered and unfairly manipulated (I'm assuming it's her supporters not his, the math seems to lean that way).  Let the primaries and caucuses play out then the supers can announce and at least everyone will feel the process has been fair, or at least I would hope they would.


by mady on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Poor Donna Brazile, the most misquoted person on earth.

What Donna Brazile said tonight is merely a repeat of her statement back in January that got her in such hot water with Clinton supporters.  "If the superdelegates choose a nominee before the voters have their say, I will resign my position as a superdelegate".

I thought that was a fine sentiment.  Let the voters vote.  Back then that was seen as pro-Obama.

Since then, that's been misquoted as "If the superdelegates choose a nominee..." and the last part is cut off.

I love Donna Brazile.  I think she's a great Democrat, and I love the irony of the fact that the same statement that got her branded as an Obama supporter is now seen as pro-Hillary.

But it's the same exact statement.  Having principles puts you in funny positions sometimes.


by Jordache on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with Brazil's statement (none / 0)

I don't want this looking like the SD are anointing Obama, when he clearly won in a legitimate election cycle.  Not that he can win without the SD at this point, but you get my drift.


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

There is so little time left before the primaries are over.  I agree with Brazile on this.  For one thing, the more SDs declare at this point for Obama the more it creates an appearance of trying to push Clinton off the cliff.  The more the appearance is reinforced, the more entrenched her legion of supporters will become.  They will harden against Obama -- only a percentage of them to be sure, but that percentage could be very important for Obama come Nov.  What's the rush?  The superdelegates should sit tight and keep their traps shut... just for a few more weeks.

I don't support Obama, but to do otherwise is cutting their nose off to spite their face.


by Susan in Oregon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Be speechless, Jerome! (2.00 / 1)

It's a good thing.


by RT on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:58 PM EST

What serious problem? The Appalachians won't (2.00 / 1)

vote for him isn't a serious problem. It's an issue but not a serious problem.

The other thing you said will only be believed when it's seen.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

I see only one exit strategy for Democrats: nominate  Hillary if you want White House.
Anything else will be crime against voters and against party, because else means losing election in a year when everything suppose to in favor of Democrats.
I hope they are not THAT stupid.
Landslide of lies
by engels on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:35 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

The republicans don't have a chance in Hell.  U


by stationakl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

There really is no way to tell which candidate will do better in the general.  All you can do is add up the votes cast in the primaries and caucuses, figure out an equitable solution to FL and MI, and then let the supers vote.  The winner of that process, win or lose in the general election, is simply the winner and has won the right to proceed.  Period.  You can predict your choice might do better, but the process is the process.


by mady on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

As stupid as the voters you mean.

btw, "Exit strategy" is an odd choice of words for someone who claims to be a Democrat.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:25:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, at what point... (2.00 / 2)

do you stop poisoning the well?

If you continue to whip up anger and dislike against the eventual nominee is it not in some sense poisoning the well, even if you will later "come around."

If people are somehow angry at or disliking Obama, how much is this to be laid at the feet of opinion leaders who won't find a way to start supporting him now?


by denniswine on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:58 PM EST

Define the problem (2.00 / 5)

According to the ABC poll Obama does better among working class whites against McCain than did Kerry or Gore. Just because Obama loses them to Clinton doesn't mean he is doomed in the general election.

When you add up: working class whites, elderly, Appalachian, you get Clinton's base.  Can you win in November without elderly, working class Appalachian whites? Of course you can.


by elrod on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:08 PM EST

Re: Define the problem (2.00 / 2)

"When you add up: working class whites, elderly, Appalachian, you get Clinton's base.  Can you win in November without elderly, working class Appalachian whites? Of course you can."

So Obama has to win without:

  • working class whites
  • elderly Americans
  • Latinos
  • women

Look, we are all here we will obviously support the nominee. But I tire of supporting loser nominees. I voted for Dukakis. I voted for Mondale. I will vote for Obama. With no doubt, the same result .....

I hope against hope that you are right. But the math doesn't seem to add up to November. Not everyone is repelled by McCrypt-Keeper.


by redwagon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You forgot the Appalachian part (2.00 / 1)

Obama will do at least as well with working class whites as Kerry and Gore. The ABC poll showed him doing better among them.

Obama will work hard to win over Latinos and will do better than Kerry did against Bush.

Women already support Obama in head-to-head matchups against McCain and will continue to do so - especially once Hillary backs Obama.

Elderly voters will vote depending on location. They'll be strong for McCain overall, but in a Democratic year won't overwhelm Obama.

Then you have Obama's strength among Independents.

And younger voters who have already shown a willingness to come out to the polls.

And of course black voters who have already helped give us two special election pickups in the Deep South.

And then you have Bob Barr and the fractured GOP base.

No, Obama will not win elderly, non-college educated Appalachian whites.  And no, that won't matter in the fall.


by elrod on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

THANK GOD that CNN finally has put Howard Wolfson on to shut Donna up.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:21 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 1)

You're actually happy to see Howie?  He reminds me of Baghdad Bob in his creativity for squeezing talkingpoints out of bullshit


by HGM MA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

If you know the fact on the ground, the facts about the popular vote, the facts about Michigan and Florida, the fact that nothing is set in stone until Barack Obama reaches 2209, and the fact that this is not truly over until August, then you know the pundits are just ringing the funeral bells on Hillary like they have since THE VERY FIRST CONTEST.

And it's kind of funny, I was compared to Baghdad Bob by an Obama supporter in my diary.  Is it just that anyone who doesn't buy what CNN spoon-feeds you is immediately a whacko?


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 1)

So long as a guy who has been out for months is pulling more than five percent, I'm not too worried.

Looks like some West Virginians just couldn't stomach the woman or the black man.


by DeskHack on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:51 PM EST

part of "the problem" (2.00 / 1)

If Obama has to face his "serious problem" well, then, we need to talk about one element -- race.

See my diary - Why can't progressives talk about race? http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/13/2127 14/914


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:26 PM EST

A Vote of No Confidence (2.00 / 1)

1. Obama is the de facto nominee, per the media.

  1. West Virginians come to the polls in record numbers anyway.
  2. Clinton will win by a greater than 2:1 margin, and Obama will be hard-pressed to hit 30%.

Democratic leaders take note - this is a vote of no confidence.


by DaveOinSF on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:39 PM EST

so in other words... (none / 0)

the Appalachian white voters that hadn't voted for Obama repeatedly still aren't voting for him against Clinton... If any party leaders haven't heard that message they haven't been listening...

...or rather, they're listening to a broad range of demographics.


by Casuist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They should probably also note (none / 0)

That Obama remains ahead in both the popular vote and pledged delegate count.

You know, before they decide to overturn the will of the people and install Hillary because her voters, for whatever reason, count more than his.


by Drew on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote of No Confidence (none / 0)

Dave,

It's also a vote of confidence.  I've found that West Virginians of all walks of life are quite enthused about Hillary Clinton.  


by mgee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Fact Is (2.00 / 1)

West Virginia is a small state that has a positive history with the Clintons. It would have taken way too much of Obama's current resources (surprise...not money, time) for him to spend there at this point in the larger presidential campaign.

Once again, the Obama campaign is running a smarter campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if he does concentrate enough resources in the GE to win WVa in November.

You don't believe he's running a smarter campaign?
Well, Hillary will net 10-12 new delegates from WVa, and her campaign is beyond broke, and Obama's campaign is still flush with primary funds from the multi-millions of small money donors.

Q.E.D


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM EST

If you believe that (2.00 / 1)

- you know absolutely nothing about the state.  Obama had time to campaign here; he just didn't have the political courage to do so.  He threw money at the state, but didn't try to understand it.  I was listening to local talk radio all night, and all the Republican guys who hate HRC and like (kinda) Obama were all over what a slap in the face it is that he: ignored the state, and that he didn't even bother to address his supporters.  And he did have supporters here - who canvassed and phone banked and spent his money for him.  At the least, those folks deserved a word of thanks from him.


by mgee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you believe that (none / 0)

Actually, I saw him on TV last night at a veterans event. He very clearly and gracefully thanked them for their votes.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you believe that (none / 0)

If you don't understand why Republican talk radio guys would talk about how much the almost certain Democratic nominee slapped the good people of West Virginia in the face, then you know absolutely nothing about politics.  Or....

The state of Oregon, which votes entirely by mail.  You get far more bang for your buck campaigning there, where it's simply a matter of turnout.  They're voting today too.  If you were Obama, where would you spend your time?


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 2)

Jerome,
What will you do when the football field runs out and you have to give Obama his dues for beating the Clinton's within the party they basically own.  
Its clear Obama did not win every part of the party (as the fact we care what W.VA did clearly shows) and i will give you he may have only won the more vocal minority but we have a process and he won it aganist someone who had been through the process twice prior and that is an accomplishment you should recognize with more respect.
Finally this reality though you do not have to admit it now, you will have to and the time is drawing near, and i truly wish you well (incase that does not work out i will buy stock in Kleenex)
by affratboy22 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 2)

Newsflash: Obama can't win in the Appalachians!  

OK - it's too bad he won't win in West Virginia.  Instead we'll take Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, and maybe Virginia and North Carolina.  I'd say that's a fair trade.


by CA Pol Junkie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:09:44 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 1)

Don't forget WA, more than double the EV of WV.


by Seeking Cincinnatus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

at least deal in reality (none / 0)

he will not take those states, at least now more than two of them.  He loses OH, FL, WV, possibly PA and there is no trade off for those states.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome (2.00 / 4)

I am glad you are recognizing that BHO has won the nomination.

At this point you should stop pointing out his flaws with snide comments and start proposing ways we can decrease the effects of his flaws or how we can fix them.  Just poking at him because he is not your preferred candidate does not help us.

As a community we should have a discussion about Obama's problem with working class whites and how we can appeal to this demographic.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 4)

Speechless huh....can we get that in writing?

I'm curious to know if you thought it was a "serious problem" when Clinton lost landslides in swing states like WA, MN, CO, and WI?  


by Seeking Cincinnatus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:06 PM EST

it should be obvious (none / 0)

even to Obami, that things have changed since then.  Obama has inflicted himself with cultural wounds.  He is losing groups of people who used to be his supporters.  


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it should be obvious (2.00 / 3)

Please provide exit data or voting results to support your claim that he is "losing groups of people who used to be his supporters".  I can't seem to find evidence for this.

I also would point to Childer's win today to refute your "cultural wounds" argument.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it should be obvious (none / 0)

TeresainPa doesn't deal in evidence beyond her opinion.  Enlightened, isn't it?


I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com
by LtWorf on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Prove it... (none / 0)

Show me the polling data that has Hillary winning those states after Obama won them handily.  I await your proof.

What is truly laughable is your assertion that somehow NC is a victory for the politics of division while at the same time claiming that the WV victory for Clinton is anything but.  

Which one is it?


by Seeking Cincinnatus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Prove it... (none / 0)

....thinking the same thing.


by Jordache on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 2)

Again, look Appalachian whites (which is really the core HRC constituency) go heavily for the GOP. Blacks make up a quarter of the Dem totals in elections.

Any discussion of the white Appalachian vote troubles with regards to Obama should also not forget to include HRC troubles with African Americans.


by MNPundit on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 3)

Actually, anyone paying any attention whatsoever knew Clinton's margin would be about this large. At this point, Poblano's predictions are actually getting kind of scary. I'm pretty attached to "campaign narratives" and such, but this election pretty much boils down to demographics and West Virginia's is about as bad for Obama as they come.


by Hocabsurdumst on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:18:32 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Yeah, and when you figure that Poblano made this prediction without using polls -- instead only past primaries and the demographic composition of Congressional Districts -- to get these predictions within one or two points is stunning. I work with statistical data and I'm just amazed by this.

But as you say the real import here is that this was predictable, in that both candidates got about what the territory permitted, and this was Clinton's turf for sure.


by Hobe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:13:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Hate is Stronger Than Ever (none / 0)

I've read that, tonight, the folks over at DailyKOS are out of their minds over Clinton's huge win in West Va. DailyKOS used to be one of my favorite blogs. Over at another former favorite blog, Americablog, owner John Aravosis had this headline: Go away you horrible human being [Hillary Clinton]. So, it looks like the Hillary-hate is exploding over there as well. I hope this kind of hate is limited to the blogs. Otherwise, we're in big trouble come November.


by zenful6219 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:46 PM EST

Re: Hillary Hate is Stronger Than Ever (none / 0)

You know, you could actually go to DailyKos yourself to see what the community is saying about West Virginia.  They accept Clinton's big win but frankly, they're not very concerned about it.  


by CA Pol Junkie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You read that? (none / 0)

Really.

Go visit the orange site.  They've moved on completely, with hardly a mention of WV results.

Or, stick with your delusions.  It's what people here are good at.


by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

<<if Obama doesn't recognize the serious problem this presents in the world offline, and his supporters as well, I am speechless>>>

wish the speechless part was the worst situation this WV showing presents....

lets hope he does recognize the serious problem he has...


by longplay on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST

Halperin set Clinton bar (none / 0)

Major MSM source said the other day:

Number (as a percentage) Hillary Clinton has to get of the vote in West Virginia for the press to take notice and assign it some meaning: 68
http://thepage.time.com/the-week-by-the- numbers/

It doesn't look like she's going to make it, nor get the popular vote margin she wanted.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM EST

Re: Halperin set Clinton bar (none / 0)

How about 67% now?  Close enough?  Let's see if the media notices 67% vs 68%..


by daria g on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 1)

Now that we've gotten confirmation from the Clinton campaign that all states matter (thanks for another confirmation via the Clinton campaign, Jerome) I'd like to point out several contests where Clinton's weak showing is very concerning to me and to the Democratic party:

South Carolina: 26.5%
Alaska: 24.7%
DC: 23.8%
Hawaii: 23.7%
Idaho: 17.2%
Virgin Islands: 7.6%

She attracted less than 30% in six contests and less than 20% in 5?  Unacceptable.

I'd like to point out that Obama has been below 30% only once this campaign (twice if the results from tonight hold).


by RussTC3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:29 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

AK, HI, and ID were caucuses. I forget what VI was.

SC, VI, and DC have very large AA populations; in addition SC was a three-way race.

Does this mean that Clinton would have trouble with the AA vote in a general election? Possibly, esp. if she becomes the nominee in a way that is perceived as unfair.

But I think we have to be honest here. To be crushed by 40 points after being named the nominee is pretty staggering. You may argue that Obama has won the nomination anyway, and this shouldn't be a concern. But you can't deny that he has a big electoral vulnerability.


by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Sure I can.  I already have.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that West Virginia is representative of the United States of America.


by RussTC3 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 2)

if Obama doesn't recognize the serious problem this presents in the world offline, and his supporters as well, I am speechless

Is there some reason to assume that Obama does not recognize the problem? Has he given a speech saying "no problemo, dudes"?

There have been enormous variations in the vote from state to state. Why is West Virginia supposed to be uniquely reflective of the so-called white working class concerns? What about the white working where I live (Oregon)? Are we irrelevant? Or do you suppose every white person here is some "creative class" twit working for an advertising agency?


by joeldanwalls on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:48:12 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

I can't wait for the talking heads to try to explain how Obama has no trouble with working class whites in Oregon.

Oh wait though, is Oregon one of them "not important because I can't win it" states?  It's so hard to keep track of them all.


by RussTC3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

20% of the WV voters ADMITTED they voted based on race. That accounts for nearly everything Clinton got above 50%.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Clinton actually won 59 to 30 among voters who said race didn't matter.


by letterc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Yeah, and 59% of her total of 67% is less than 40%. So excluding non-racial motivated votes Hillary Clinton would have received no more than 40% of the vote. And that's just among the people that would ADMIT to voting based on racial bias.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

You are misreading the stats. If voters influenced by race had not voted, Clinton would have won 59% of the voters. Likewise, if voters who were influenced by race had not been influenced by race, we can assume they would have voted like voters who were not influenced by race (actually, we'd need better crosstabs to guess how they'd have voted, but this is a decent first approximation).

Your interpretation assumes that if the racially motivated voters had become non-racially motivated voters that they would have uniformly voted for Obama, which is simply silly.


by letterc on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

You can juggle the numbers anyway you'd like. The fact remains that an unprecedentedly high number of Democrats admitted in the exit poll that they based their vote on race and voted for Clinton. Any precise discussion of where those votes woulda should coulda gone is beside the point. Moreover, you miss the pretty obvious fact that if 20% admit they based their vote on race, how many more did but didn't admit it? It's pretty "silly" to suggest that  all racially biased people own up to it.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (1.66 / 3)

Yeah its bad a thing. Bad because lot of the folks in that state won't vote for a black guy, particularly one they're convinced is muslim.  

Yes Obama could spend more time talking bread and butter economics and try to be more down to earth, but that really won't help him that much with folks in this region unless he finds a way to crawl out of his skin. Sad but true.

Obama is going to need to pick a VP like Strickland who can be real blunt with the crowd and call them out as racists. Shame can be a powerful political tool.

I love WV, but come the GE, forget it. Obama can work on Colorado and New Mexico instead. The best we can do is beat on McCain so bad that those so obessed with race will just decide to stay home.


by alexmhogan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:52:02 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

As a son of appalachia it saddens me to no end that 20% of the voters in West Virginia ADMITTED they voted based on race. That's not even counting some share (hopefully not quite as much, but who knows) we can presume just didn't admit it. That accounts for nearly all of the votes for Clinton over 50% in just those that admit it, not even counting those that don't admit it.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

enough of the politics of division (none / 0)

stop calling democrats racists.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:09:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: enough of the politics of division (none / 0)

"stop calling democrats racists."

What nonsense. If getting registered to the Democratic party immunizes people from accusations of racism, then that's a surefire way for the party to attract more racists.


by Aris Katsaris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: enough of the politics of division (none / 0)

I'd rather these racists leave the Democratic Party. And yes, some of these folks are downright racists.

Clinton would have won WV convincingly no matter what. She fought hard for it and deserves a big victory. Obama abandoned it for all intents and purposes, and that was a shame. But there are certain voters who let race cloud their judgment. I know Democrats like this (I live in East TN and we have similar redneck Democrats.)

That 22% admitted that to race defining their vote says more about West Virginia and, sadly, Appaalchia, than it does about Barack Obama.


by elrod on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The truth hurts, (none / 0)

if you're a Clinton supporter.

Can't we simply compare the fates of previous black candidates in WV to see if Obama has a particular problem?  That ought to indicate whether it's Obama in particular WV voters don't like, or black candidates overall.

This isn't racism, it's simple data analysis, no matter what hysterical Teresa will say.  No Clinton supporters ever bother to answer this.


by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Frankly abortion is a non issue in this campaign.....nice trying to make it one but it isnt. What is an issue is the economy.......


by adb67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:08 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

A vote of no confidence in a small state in the hills.  Listen, it's no secret that Obama doesn't do well in Appalachia...  dDos had a map up where Obama's worst counties were, and it follows the Appalachian mountains perfectly.  Hillary doesn't do well in "latte" states or most states west of the Mississippi...  If you feel that WV was a no confidence vote, then certainly Obama's blowouts in the Western states should have served the same purpose as a no confidence vote against Hillary.

And she will get blown out again in SD and MT... similar demographics to WV, except west of the Mississippi.... so, will that be a no confidence vote, too... this time against your candidate?


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:09:14 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Hillary doesn't do well in most states west of the Mississippi

She did just fine in CA, NV, AZ, NM, TX, and OK,
each west of the Mississippi.  

The ones she has struggled in were primarily caucus format (e.g. KS, NE, ND, WY, ID, AK, WA). In primaries, she would probably still lose each of those, but as WA primary showed, it would be by 4-6%, not 35%


by reggie44pride on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

WA primary was uncontested and was indicative of nothing.

Obama dominates Clinton out west because voters out there actually gravitate toward reform-oriented politicians. Rust Belt and Appalachian voters spurn reformers - sometimes for good reason and sometimes not.  Fortunately for us, McCain is a "reform" politician too, so he doesn't have much draw in the Rust Belt.

Where Hillary did well in the West was among Latinos. That was her margin in CA, NC, AZ, TX and NM. Only OK went to Hillary based on white voters, and OK is more of a Southern state than a Western state.

Obama wins white voters in the West, regardless of class.


by elrod on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Disappointing nevertheless. (none / 0)

Hill's on track to win by 120K. Bill said she needed 600K. So it has to be a disappointment within the inner sanctum.

It will look good for her resume. But it's just another negligible gain that will be erased next week in OR.


by Nomo Clintons on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:10:42 PM EST

Re: Disappointing nevertheless. (none / 0)

But it's just another negligible gain that will be erased next week in OR

KY votes the same day.  She will more than hold her own there, winning by a larger margin there than he does in OR.


by reggie44pride on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disappointing nevertheless. (none / 0)

Bill said she needed 600K votes today. She got 2/5 of it.
One week from now she'll still be where she is tonight. Hopelessly behind.
by Nomo Clintons on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, Enough already!!!!! (1.00 / 1)

Seriously, who the fuck do you think you are kidding???  Please drop the hillbot bullshit and help us figure out how we're going to paint McCain as the moronic fool we all know him to be.


Sean Robertson
by Sean Robertson on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:12:06 PM EST

Re: Jerome, Enough already!!!!! (none / 0)

BTW, start here:
http://www.dischargemccain.com

We're all in this together, and the sooner we all realize that, the better. ;-)


Sean Robertson
by Sean Robertson on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Talking sense (none / 0)

gets you a trollrating around here.  I'd uprate you, but they don't let me.  :-)


by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poblano for President! (none / 0)

With over 70% reporting, Poblano (www.fivethirtyeight.com) is DEAD ON at a 39% margin.

This after he beat all the pollsters in both IN and NC.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:32 PM EST

Re: Poblano for President! (none / 0)

yup. he's the brightest bulb around. His demographic breakdowns have been leaps and heads above anything out there.


!
by alex100 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Almost every progressive will come (none / 0)

around to support the nominee (With Senator Obama likely to be the nominee). However with bruised feelings running deep on both sides, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton would have to do lot of heavylifting to unite the party. One of the ways would have been to follow the Unity ticket but Senator Obama's campaign through its leading surrogates have quashed that idea. I'm not sure how the healing would start unless the leading candidate's campaign start acknowledging that it might be incumbent on them to start reaching out. The leading candidate has most to lose in the General Election if the party is not united.


by louisprandtl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:53 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

The Clinton margin is really a big deal because it is so late in the race. I heard one of the pundits on CNN pointing out that Obama didn't campaign in WV. He started to; he had more offices, more ads and spent more money than HRC. It was only when he found he couldn't win that he decided not to campaign so it cannot be used as an excuse. it was a choice.


"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."
by LadyEagle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:34 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Unlike Clinton Obama knows when to cut his losses and move on.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

You don't walk off the field in a 51-49 game just because the pundits say the race is over.


by mikes101 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (1.66 / 3)

Cut your losses and run?  Some 50 state strategy.


by therealdeal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 1)

Hey Jerome Hillary currently is BEATING Obama in the Nebraska PRIMARY with 74% of the vote in there. More proof caucuses are undemocratic and that Clinton would be the nominee if we had all primaries where everyone can vote!


by rossinatl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:39:59 PM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

We all (should) know that Primaries that don't count are not a true test of anything, since many of the would be voters stay home


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

And nor are caucuses reflective of anything, since many voters cannot participate at that time or do not have the patience to sit in a caucus meeting for 5 hours (or cannot afford a babysitter for that time period, etc...).


by mikes101 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

I'll grant that, but the downballot part of the primary did count, so that drew out a lot of voters. Considerably more people have voted in the NE primary than showed up for caucus.

Obama is currently ahead 50-46, or about 3000 votes.


by OrangeFur on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama leads.... (none / 0)

Obama: 78323
McCain: 74051

Looks like Obama might pull this one out!


by DaveOinSF on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:41:56 PM EST

Re: Obama leads.... (none / 0)

And that proves Clinton would have won a.. something.. mumble.. I have to give props to all the Clinton supporters still hanging in there. It is incredibly tough to avoid reality when it keeps insisting on smacking you in the face on almost a daily basis. They can't look at superdelegates.. pledged delegates.. state won.. and a precious little comment about 'how Clinton would have won Nebraska' didn't survive for an hour and a half. And now that poster has to pretend this thread never existed. Baghdad Bob had it easy compared to them.
by Wayward Son on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Here are the headlines at Google News

Clinton cruises to easy West Virginia win
Reuters - 3 hours ago
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton scored a big victory over front-runner Barack Obama in West Virginia on Tuesday, but it could be too little and too late to stop his march to the Democratic presidential ...

Little Gain In Big Win For Clinton CBS News

Clinton wins West Virginia, with race a factor International Herald Tribune

The press does seem to get it, at least...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:51:04 PM EST

How did this get moved above pertinent news? (none / 0)

Hmmmmmmm?

Kleeb/Childers FTW.

Obama/ABC for the coat tails.


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:05 AM EST

Hillary is ahead in popular vote now! (none / 0)

with FL&MI she is now ahead again in Popular Vote,
see 5th line below header here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Landslide of lies
by engels on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:24 AM EST

Re: Hillary is ahead in popular vote now! (none / 0)

And if you eliminate everyone who voted for Obama in all the other states, not just Michigan, Clinton wins easily! And every Clinton supporter gets a magic pony!
by Wayward Son on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Wow!  A large margin win for Hillary... finally.  Congrats!  The margin is so large that if it keeps up throughout the counting she may net one third as many delegates as Barack has tacked on in Superdelegates since North Carolina!

It's a shame two thirds of the states that have voted so far have been so rude as to not have the exact same demographic as West Virginia.

Your candidate sucks and you don't know what you're talking about Jerome.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:17:33 AM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

You know, it's the "your candidate sucks" remarks that cause damage to the party's prospects in November.  How about showing a little class, congratulating Senator Clinton on a big win, and moving on?


by beerwulf on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:30:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

I tried to smile in a genial manor as I said it.  Perhaps it was the kitchen sink that was blocking your view.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

Stay speechless, you'll make less of a fool of yourself.

I prefer maple frosted donuts over the chocolate ones.  That means exactly nothing about my preference when comparing glazed donuts to chocolate ones.  Ever studied math before?  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:18 AM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (none / 0)

The great progressive state of Oregon. Will do it's job.
Oregon it's over to you to now. Romp home for Obama and give him a big stumping finale finish as we know you will.

Oregon is the future.


Obama/Warner 2008
by MissVA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:57:06 AM EST

Re: WV Primary thread (2.00 / 1)

This is why people have a hard time taking you seriously, Jerome. You never once wrote or said, when Obama blew Clinton out of the water by huge margins, that she had to take this seriously, etc.

I do understand that he is the apparent nominee, and that counts for something, but the reality is these two candidates have had their respective constituents for awhile now. And it is a testament to BOTH of these candidates that this has been the case. However, you never seem to write about how "if Clinton can't win North Carolina, she really needs to look at that and take that seriously, etc." I mean, this is obviously a double standard.


by DrPolitics on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:10:52 AM EST

Oh brother (none / 0)

Talk about moving the goalposts.  First, Hillary and her friends here say that Barack is winning states Democrats won't win in November, and thus he's not a strong nominee.

But Hillary wins big in a state the Democrats won't win in November, and suddenly, it's Barack who's weak again?

Give it up.  It's over, and he'll beat McCain in the fall.


by rayspace on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM EST

Jerome, how does Obama compare (none / 0)

to other black candidates who've run for office in WV?

If he underperformed the norm for black candidates in WV, then I will agree he has a problem with that demographic.  If not, then this is just more continued bullshit from MyDesperateDelusion.

This is the fifth time I've asked this question.  No Clinton supporters ever answer.


by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST

Like, ever. (none / 0)

They never answer this one.  It's easier to compare apples to rutabagas.  At least we won't have to hear about it any longer now that WV is done.

This was nice to hear today from Senator Clinton:

"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."


by McNasty on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: