Kentucky Primary Results

     Much of the focus of tonight has been on Senator Obama, who is to be congratulated for his winning a majority of the pledged delegates (see CNN for confirmation). However, in this eagerness to certify Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee the Kentucky primary was deemed to be of little imporatance in the nominating process. While the logic behind this is reasonable(that the state does not have enough delegates for Clinton to catch Obama)the fact remains that Obama's inability to attract a credible retinue in the state mirrors his problem among blue collar whites in West Virginia. While this group has not been one of the Democrats' more reliable constituencies, their support is critical in the general election. The fact that Obama did not deign to campaign here shows that he is all too aware of the problems he faces among this demographic. However, I do not think that is fair to attribute Clinton's convincing wins in WV and Kentucky to racism, as many on this site (not mentioning any specifics for fear of additional undeserved troll ratings) have recently done. It is undeniable that to a small segment of the population in these states, race played a major factor in their votes but the overwhelming majority said that race ad no impact on their decision. This is somewhat exemplary of the double standard that has been utilized in many instances, such as the North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc primaries, in which not a word is breathed about Obama's heavy reliance on the African American vote in his victories. For confirmation of my statements, feel free to check out Cnn's exit polls or the NY TImes politics page. Again, I know that many on this site are eager for this marathon of a primary race to end but there are others, including myself, who would like to see the contest carried on at least until the end of the primaries so as to give every state a voice. I know many of you disagree with this reasoning, but the fact remains that Senator Obama's problems with white blue collar workers, as evidenced in the WV and Kentucky primaries, are quite serious and merit mention in arguments concerning his electability on the general election.

Tags: blue, clinton, collar, Kentucky, obama, Primary (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

/me screams

THE PARAGRAPHS? WHERE ARE THEY?

I SEE THEM!

---------------------------

Much of the focus of tonight has been on Senator Obama, who is to be congratulated for his winning a majority of the pledged delegates (see CNN for confirmation).

However, in this eagerness to certify Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee the Kentucky primary was deemed to be of little importance in the nominating process. While the logic behind this is reasonable(that the state does not have enough delegates for Clinton to catch Obama)the fact remains that Obama's inability to attract a credible retinue in the state mirrors his problem among blue collar whites in West Virginia.

While this group has not been one of the Democrats' more reliable constituencies, their support is critical in the general election. The fact that Obama did not deign to campaign here shows that he is all too aware of the problems he faces among this demographic. However, I do not think that is fair to attribute Clinton's convincing wins in WV and Kentucky to racism, as many on this site (not mentioning any specifics for fear of additional undeserved troll ratings) have recently done.

It is undeniable that to a small segment of the population in these states, race played a major factor in their votes but the overwhelming majority said that race had no impact on their decision. This is somewhat exemplary of the double standard that has been utilized in many instances, such as the North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc primaries, in which not a word was breathed of Obama's heavy reliance on the African American vote in his victories.

For confirmation of my statements, feel free to check out CNN's exit polls or the NY TImes politics page.

Again, I know that many on this site are eager for this marathon of a primary race to end but there are others, including myself, who would like to see the contest carried on at least until the end of the primaries so as to give every state a voice. I know many of you disagree with this reasoning, but the fact remains that Senator Obama's problems with white blue collar workers, as evidenced in the WV and Kentucky primaries, are quite serious and merit mention in arguments concerning his electability on the general election.

-------------------------

THERE THEY ARE

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-20 06:58PM | 0 recs
Just ribbing ya, but I get your concern.

But there's a difference between negative racism and positive racism, positive sexism and negative sexism.

Positive sexism is a woman voting for a woman because she's trying to help break a glass ceiling.

Negative sexism is voting against a woman under the belief that women are inferior, are less intelligent or are unqualified for a position.

Positive racism is a black man voting for a black man because he's trying to help break a glass ceiling.

Negative racism is voting against a black under the belief that blacks are inferior, are less intelligent or are unqualified for a position.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-20 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Just ribbing ya, but I get your concern.

But at what cost is the glass ceiling broken? I know that I am biased as a Clinton supporter but shouldn't people vote based on who they feel is more qualified, not on gender or race as is evident in nearly every contest in the Democratic Primary race?

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-05-20 07:02PM | 0 recs
Amen, comrade!

by lombard 2008-05-20 08:05PM | 0 recs
No, there isn't

You could argue that blacks voting for Obama because he's black are also voting against Clinton because she's white and opposing someone who is black.

You could argue that women voting for Clinton because she is a woman are voting against Obama because he is a man who happens to be opposing a woman.

Nothing much good comes from identity politics.

by lombard 2008-05-20 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: No, there isn't

You could argue that blacks voting for Obama because he's black are also voting against Clinton because she's white and opposing someone who is black.

Except that these black voters regularly support the white Democratic nominee by similar margins and often vote against black Republicans running against white Democrats (see Cardin/Steele and Rendell/Swan).

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-20 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky Primary Results

you forget PA, OH. If Obama cannot connect in these states he will be a tough sell.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky Primary Results

I was only mentioning the primaries that Obama lost in landslides but yes you make a good point.

by Ignored and Disgusted 2008-05-20 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky Primary Results

Odd, as Obama was just today polling seventeen points over McCain in Pennsylvania, and one point behind in Ohio. Weird. I guess, though, you're right. This is why Clinton would've won Texas and lost Illinois in the general election.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 07:06PM | 0 recs
I grew up in PA

And I guarantee you that it will be close.  They don't call it Pennsyltucky for nothing.

by lombard 2008-05-20 07:57PM | 0 recs
Obama has a 46 state strategy...

Don't count MI, FLA, WV OR KENTUCKY.

Or, a 53 state strategy if you believe BO that there are 57 states in the U.S.  

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-20 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a 46 state strategy...

I may have missed this. When did he say there are 57 states?

by Sandeep 2008-05-20 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a 46 state strategy...

Ignore it. It's just loser-troll psychosis.

by toyomama 2008-05-20 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky Primary Results
Must we go through this AGAIN:
The latest national numbers from Gallup show some startling movement towards Obama among Dems who have been among Hillary's most reliable supporters.
It finds that Obama is now tied with Hillary among whites (47%-47%); leads her among women (49%-46%); edges her among Dems with a high school graduate or less (46%-47%); and leads her among Hispanics (51%-44%).
Those groups, obviously, have been the bedrock of Hillary's candidacy. The only major demographic group that Hillary gets 51% or more of are women aged 50 and older.
These numbers suggest that Obama's support is broadening daily, and that the party's rank and file -- in addition to its institutional players -- appear to be coalescing behind him.

by venician 2008-05-20 07:40PM | 0 recs
I don't doubt those polls

What they show is that the majority of the Democratic electorate has now crossed over the La La Land River.

by lombard 2008-05-20 07:59PM | 0 recs
Racists Don't Like Obama

News Flash: Racists don't like Obama. We saw this in WV, and now we've seen it in KY. As I said after WV, I'd rather lose than win with the support of racists. Still waiting for Hillary to denounce the racists who voted for her.

by fugazi 2008-05-20 07:26PM | 0 recs
Maybe they are racists

But, then again, maybe they're just not sold on a preening, imperious metrosexual with little accomplishment and trite and hollow rhetoric.

I'm not surprised your such a big fan, though.  Since you chose a mediocre band as your screen name, you're probably easily impressed.

by lombard 2008-05-20 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe they are racists

You make me laugh Lombard. So, given your non-respne, I assume you're OK with Hillary's racist support.    

by fugazi 2008-05-20 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe they are racists

Hillary and her supporters are just fine with Appalachian redneck supporters who wouldn't vote for her against McCain, even if she promised them the repeal of the 13th-15th Amendmnts, and free gasoline for a year.

by toyomama 2008-05-20 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe they are racists

Oh, and that's President Metrosexual to you.

by fugazi 2008-05-20 08:11PM | 0 recs
OK, maybe, we'll see

by lombard 2008-05-20 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Racists Don't Like Obama

HEAR, HEAR. I'll expand on your point, if I may. The Republicans have shown us time and time again, that if you win with racist support, then you are beholden to the racists in office.

by xodus1914 2008-05-20 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky Primary Results

While the logic behind this is reasonable(that the state does not have enough delegates for Clinton to catch Obama)the fact remains that Obama's inability to attract a credible retinue in the state mirrors his problem among blue collar whites in West Virginia. While this group has not been one of the Democrats' more reliable constituencies, their support is critical in the general election.

No, it isn't. We don't need to win WV or KY and I highly doubt that Senator Clinton is capable of carrying these states in the general election either.

The fact that Obama did not deign to campaign here shows that he is all too aware of the problems he faces among this demographic.

Except, he did campaign there -- albeit not a lot (then again, he didn't have a lot of time).

However, I do not think that is fair to attribute Clinton's convincing wins in WV and Kentucky to racism, as many on this site (not mentioning any specifics for fear of additional undeserved troll ratings) have recently done.

Guilty as charged.

It is undeniable that to a small segment of the population in these states, race played a major factor in their votes but the overwhelming majority said that race ad no impact on their decision.

Yeah, 80% of Kentucky voters wouldn't admit to being racists to complete strangers so we can assume that none of them are. Riiiiiiight.

This is somewhat exemplary of the double standard that has been utilized in many instances, such as the North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc primaries, in which not a word is breathed about Obama's heavy reliance on the African American vote in his victories.

Welcome to reality: There is a double standard. Since African Americans have been historically repressed in this country, they're allowed all sorts of privileges that whites aren't. Since blacks are underrepresented on the boards of Fortune 500 companies and in the halls of Congress, they're allowed to form explicitly-minority organizations such as the NAACP and vote for minority candidates by 90% margins. These "privileges" are hardly a consolation for their socioeconomic status relative to white Americans, but that's where we are at this point.        

I know many of you disagree with this reasoning, but the fact remains that Senator Obama's problems with white blue collar workers, as evidenced in the WV and Kentucky primaries, are quite serious and merit mention in arguments concerning his electability on the general election.

Obama doesn't have a problem with white blue collar workers outside of the South and Appalachia. And to be perfectly honest with you, I could care less if he did. With the exception of committed union voters, these are the same yahoos whom the GOP leads around by the nose every election year with the God, gays, and guns flim-flam. When it comes to deciding whether to honor the wishes of a constituency that votes 90% Democratic every year or one that generally supports the Republican candidate, I don't think that's much of a contest.

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-20 08:27PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads