Obama Expected To Lose Big In Today's West Virginia Primary
Although Barack Obama is now widely expected to be the Democratic nominee, the campaign is in for a bit of embarrassment tonight in what is likely to be a very bad showing in the West Virginia primary -- indeed, if the polls are accurate, he'll be lucky to get more than 30%:
Clinton 60%, Obama 24% (Suffolk, May 11)Clinton 66%, Obama 23% (ARG, May 9)
Clinton 56%, Obama 27% (Rasmussen, May 5)
Expect the Clinton campaign to use tonight's result as an argument against Obama's electability, and as evidence that Hillary can reach out to rural working-class voters where Obama can't.
The polls close at 7:30 p.m. ET.
Advertisement
The polls close at 7:30 p.m. ET.
And the race will be called at 7:31 p.m. ET.
May 13, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. It will be called at 7:30:01.
And Eric, I'm sure you have that handy chart the Obama campaign put out in February. Didn't they EXPECT to get blown out in West Virginia? More to the point, the estimates I see around the tubes is that she will net something like +12 on pledged delegates. That's less than HALF of the superdelegates he's picked up since Tuesday.
At the end of the day, she will win this battle, but she lost the war a long time ago.
May 13, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
That spreadsheet has been an excellent predictor of determining delegate allocations out of states.
May 13, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think John Titor was consulted in drafting that spreadsheet.
May 13, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
CNN says that Republicans are voting in this election to get Obama's numbers up. They crossed over and joined the party temporarily to vote in our primary.
Republicans have been doing this throughout this primary process.
Since the democratic party has so little respect for its entity that it does nothing to protect our primaries, they should understand why I it will be a cold day in hell when I give one red cent to this party.
May 13, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary will give her victory speech using the southern accent she's recently adopted.
May 13, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he's expected to lose by a wide margin today. Why is this such a surprise to you, Eric?
Also, of interesting note, Bill Clinton lost Massachussetts to Paul Tsongas in 1992 after becoming the nominee.
May 13, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've got that wrong.
link
May 13, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Woh, I'm an idiot. Never mind. Continue.
What is true is that Tsongas was from MA, so the win isn't all that surprising.
May 13, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he also lost Connecticut to Tsongas.
May 13, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So long as pledged delegates are jumping ship from Clinton to Obama, I'd guess that Clinton could win WV by 98% and it still wouldn't make much difference.
May 13, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton needs something like 92% of the remaining pledged delegates so unless she gets everylast delegate her situation, in terms of percentage of remaining delegates, will have gotten worse.
May 13, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the odds of Obama backing up a dumptruck load of delegates he has tommorow morning to make this "victory" have no impact? Gotta love good strategy. That's how a real CIC operates.
May 13, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say the odds are excellent that tomorrow will see a flurry of politicans declaring for Obama.
I just hope they aren't pledged delegates for Clinton switching sides. I think that's rank.
I'm also going to go out on a limb and say that Clinton suspends her campaign after tonight and leave on a high note.
May 13, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I think you've been drinking a wee bit too much kool-aid. ;)
(That said, I hope you're right.)
May 13, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, I think she'd like to bask in a Kentucky victory as well, even if it would be paired with Obama's victory in Oregon and his attainment of the majority of the pledged delegates.
May 13, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Climb back off that tree. This ain't gonna happen. She's in it until the party tells her it's over. If she says something damaging tonight, the party has warned her.....
Wolfson on MSNBC today got practically laughed out of the studio: "It will be so damaging when Obama loses WV by 15 points." Chris Matthews was falling out of this chair. There's spinning expectations, there's also the Looney Tunes Math.
Matthews said, "The confetti will fall. And it won't change a thing."
May 13, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will be amazed indeed if she suspends her campaign before the 21st and suprised if she does so before June 4. She is in it till the end and should go for as long as she wishes. It is here career to damage as she sees fit.
May 13, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to say; as individuals, party members, citizens of the United States and tenants of this planet we're past the point where we can continue to shoot ourselves in the foot indiscriminately and expect we won't die of it. We're about to go through some massive changes as a species. The only real question is, will we be living underground (or dome) in a heinleinian dystopia or will we exhibit a little self-control, put a spike through this centralized consumer society and recover our balance within the scheme nature has provided us.
May 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That has been my thought. I have heard of three more that will announce today. Obama has carried states by huge margins (SC, GA, WY, HA, MS, UT, CO, ID, KS, HA, AK, MD, VA,NB). So, it is nothing new for a candidate to win by 60+ to 30+. What is new is that it has only been done by Clinton in Arkansas, but Obama has done it over and over again throughout the country (both in caucuses and primaries.
May 13, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dumptruck loads are OK, I guess. But what I really want to see is the clown car full of supers pull up in front of Obama headquarters and unload. :)
May 13, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC just asked "Does a blowout victory in West Virginia even MATTER?" Seems to me that this will be the narrative coming out of tonight. Especially when they cut to his townhall meeting in Missouri tonight...
May 13, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. The HRC camp's big concern today will be whether or not her win, given it's been so widely assumed, will be enough to shift the media narrative back to a horserace state to game perception. They have plenty of flacks who'll push the line, but if turnout is lower than expected it'll have even weaker legs than it already does.
May 13, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, Clinton thinks they'll win by eighty points.
May 13, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was a bazillion points. Or something like that.
May 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will win the GE without the states of KY and WV. These whites rural voters will become less relevant.
May 13, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Obama nor Clinton can win in WV against McCain. It is deep red this year.
May 13, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree.
West Virginia is very winnable. I suspect some folks may change their minds on this once Obama's VP is introduced. Virginia has gone Democratic in 5 of the last 8 General Elections. Bush only beat Gore by 6% in 2000. (I would have preferred Obama spend one less day in Oregon last week and gone promenading through places like Parkersburg instead.) Nevertheless, I am confident West Virginia will return Obama in November.
Kentucky will be more problematic, with race being much more of a factor. But Kentucky is far from a lost cause. At the very least, Obama can make Kentucky competitive.
May 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the latest West Virginia poll showed her losing the state to McCain in the general election.
May 13, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just curious, as much as I know how lame a black guy playing the race card is - supporting a candidate that has refused to use that particular card in his quest for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.. But I was wondering, with all this talk about how Obama has a problem with working class white voters, and the impending blow out in West Virginia - can we just admit that there is a segment of America that will never vote for Obama based on his skin color? As Pundits regurgitate the "Obama just isn't reaching certain people" talking point, why is it taboo to just say that a lot of those folks would have never voted for the guy in the first place?
May 13, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the great mysteries of punditry. It's almost like they are CELEBRATING that thick-headedness of certain voters. Why can't Obama win the racist vote?
Just baffles me.
May 13, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having known some reformed racists, I'd have to say that being a racist isn't necessarily set in stone, nor is it a purely on/off type of trait.
It doesn't hurt for us Obama supporters to try to educate some of these people.
May 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the only people who can really effectively change the mind of a racist, is the racist him- or herself.
May 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our chances of converting racists often depends on how young that racist is. I'd like to think I can take credit for converting at least one. His pastor (in a sermon) had told him that the Bible talked about blacks being marked by God for the crime of Cain murdering Abel. I found the passage in the Bible for him so he could read it himself and realize that his pastor was pushing a load of malarkey. This particular guy is now one of the more liberal people I know.
May 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm speaking solely to the issue of change. No one can be FORCED to change their mind. They have to control the process, otherwise, they just resist. You see the effect play out on these threads all the time.
May 13, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. It requires finesse, and this can be very tricky when dealing with people whose opinions can often be so repulsive.
May 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Replied to quickly. I should say that it doesn't mean that one shouldn't HELP or be OPEN to talking with these folks. On the contrary, I think it is critical that they be treated with respect, but that their ideas be debunked for what they are.
May 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ed Rendell did just that, and Obama supporters erupted with criticism of Ed playing the "race card".
An Obama supporter myself, I thought his comment was refreshingly candid. And I wish that people would just admit that there are some folks who, in 2008, will never vote for a black man, and a different slice of the population that will never vote for a woman.
In 2008.
We can't change until we admit reality.
May 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense - except nationally Hillary has done better with Hispanics than with whites. Is that racism or is it Hillary's experience speaks more to a group that is traditionally more conservative politically and less likely to look for "change" in elections?
If you think it is just whites Hillary has in her coalition, you are wrong. African Americans are the only race that Obama has won. Demographically, he has younger voters, first time voters, liberal elites, etc. Hillary has blue collar and middle class whites, hispanics, asians, older voters and women.
BOTH have strong coalitions and to insult Hillary as saying she can only win the white racist vote is stupid and shortsighted. If that's your appeal to Clinton voters, you need to do some tweaking.
May 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lighten up, would you?
I'm not making an appeal to Clinton supporters or voters. Simply making an observation that some people won't vote for a black man and others won't vote for a woman.
To turn that into some sort of criticism of Clinton or as somehow a knock on her leadership abilities or her abilities to attract the Hispanic vote or WHATEVER you just wrote is reaching. Seriously.
May 13, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've decided if you can't been em join em. I too will follow the Obama playbook at finding an imaginary racist slight at every opportunity. You told me to "lighten up". That is a racist comment. You are a racist!
May 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally feel that equating Hillary's national latino support to some of the support that she is getting in West Virginia just doesn't work - especially considering some of the anecdotal evidence we are seeing out of WV concerning racism. Plus, to assume that anyone was saying that Hillary's vote consisted of only white racists is both misguided and fundamentally silly.
May 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think that is a fair statement, and I don't know why some people are so against saying it. THERE ARE RACIST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, both actively racist and passively racist. The latter are more problematic, because they'll never admit that they're racist and they take offense at anyone who calls them on it. "I'm not racist, I just don't like them!"
May 13, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"there is a segment of America that will never vote for Obama based on his skin color?"
Clearly Obama has problems with working class whites in the Appalachian states. I am not sure if that segment is large enough to cost him the election, though.
May 13, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what if the worst happen? What if Clinton tries to use tonight to further the "whites don't like obama" Meme?
Is it concievable to think that at that point the superdels will purt her out of her missery?
May 13, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is clearly conceivable. They could grow a backbone any day now.
May 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, somebody help me out here. Does West Virginia matter or not? Early on in this election, I thought states with a tiny (1.8 million) and non-diverse (96.3 % white) population didn't count, but, now, apparently they do. I'm so confused. Oh, Hillary, why oh why did you have to go and "fire" Mark Penn? He made these things seem so clear back when he was allowed to talk to the press.
May 13, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are consistently one of the funniest commenters around. Thanks for always making me laugh.
And in answer to your question: States matter when the Clinton campaign says they matter. So stop wondering about whether a state matters, and just track down the latest Clinton campaing talking points. There's your answer.
May 13, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like Eric does here with his 24 point headline as if it is a friggin' breaking news.
May 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the quality snark.
May 13, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, considering the Democrats haven't won a presidency without winning WV since oh about 1916, I would think WV should matter. It's not just that they are overwhelmingly white why they are voting for Hillary (Obama has done very well in overwhelmingly white states like Vermont and Maine, which also have racist traditions as I can attest to from personal experience). WV voters are also older, more conservative on national security issues and lower income without a liberal elite high income to balance it out. For the Obama folks and supporters to write them off as stupid racist hillbillies is incredibly DUMB.
The states Mark Penn were arguing are no big deal inthe primaries are the hardcore red states like Wyoming that are overwhelmingly republican. Doesn;t matter how big you win the Democratic primary - you won't win the general election there.
May 13, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
NC STeve? Here's your answer.
Sigh.
We Obama supporters aren't even supposed to joke about this.
May 13, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, the old "As goes West Virginia, so goes the nation" theory. I apologize for my inappropriate levity. This is obviously a very, very serious matter. Now that I think about it, I realize that everyone I know gets up on election day and checks to the polls in West Virginia before making up their own minds. Why, just last election, I was about to vote for Kerry until I checked the Internet and found out West Virginia was about to vote for Bush. Same thing happened in 2000.
Indeed, I think we should stop having national elections altogether. Just think of the time and money we could save by just giving all the electoral votes to West Virginia and waiting for them to do right by the nation.
And all I can say is thank God West Virginia was there for us when we got President Carter reelected in 1980 and Presidents Humphrey and Stephenson elected in '52 and '68. If not for their votes, we would surely have lost.
And for all those who say this is just all just a ridiculous talking point that the Clinton campaign has spun out of a spurious correlation in a pathetic effort to try to magnify the importance of this tiny, insular, increasingly Republican state out of all proportion to reality, I say "bosh." Why, this is the Clinton campaign, we're talking about here. To accuse them of spinning the facts harder than a military grade jet engine's turbine is simply unacceptable. Next thing you know, you'll be questioning Joe Lieberman's fidelity to the Democratic Party.
Yes, I hear you people saying that its just a meaningless historical curiousity indicative of the fact that it was an extremely Democratic state back in the days before strip mining and continuious mining machines slashed coal mining employment and UMW of A membership, combined with a tendency since then to only vote Democratic when we're winning in a landslide, but you're just talking like crazy people. Hillary said it, so that's the end of it!
May 13, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that every Democratic candidate supported by WV wins. The point is that when WV goes Republican, Democrats lose the general election.
WV is a quick "snapshot" of those blue collar white low income workers nationally because the state is so demographically similar. The disparity in votes here in this category translates to other pockets of blue collar whites across the country in OH, PA, MI, MO etc etc etc. So even though it is itself a small state, WV is important to see how these voters are leaning.
May 13, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This argument is pure, unadulterated bunk. See my comment below for explanations of why the argument here is nonsense on stilts.
May 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama does not need to win WV in order to win this election. If his strategy works (and there's no reason to assume that it can't), then he can win this election hands down...
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4374
May 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you do stand-up for a living? If not, you have a great career option!
May 13, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
West Virginia has been drifting RED for the last two election cycles and all predictions are that it will go RED this fall. Even with Clinton at the head of the ticket, she's getting her clocked cleaned by McCain in recent polling.
And frankly, I'd encourage you to read up on what some of the great voters of West Virginia have been saying about Senator Obama and why they aren't voting for him. It ain't because they don't like his healthcare policy.
May 13, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG Hillary has a solid 8 point lead on McCain. Obama is losing significantly. Bill Clinton carried the state. Jimmy Carter carried the state. Al Gore lost narrowly largely becaus eof his concern with the environment and the fact that coal mining keeps WV out of poverty. John Kerry...well he was John Kerry and he was hurt by the perception that he was elitist and not intouch with WV and the swiftboat attacks/anti-vietnam war actions in a state that is very pro-military and national security.
Both Senators are democrats. The governor is a democrat. I don't see how you justify saying WV is trending towards being a red state.
May 13, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to go with what former Gov. Warner called the "17 blue states and hope for a triple bank shot in Ohio or Florida" strategy. He's going to redraw the map.
http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/11/features/obama-over-the-top
"Poblano’s simulation engine has produced some fascinating results. According to his current data, the model predicts that Clinton would win four states against McCain that Obama is favored to lose (FL, AR, WV, OH). Meanwhile, Obama wins eight states where Clinton would likely fail (MI, WI, IA, CO, NM, NV, WA, OR)."
May 13, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is pretty amazing stuff. I have been screwing around on 270towin.com for months and now I have some data to back up all the scenarios showing it is possible for Obama to win despite these mythic "white working class voters" in OH, WV, IN, etc.
May 13, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That article's listing of states that Clinton would "likely lose" seems like pure unsubstantiated spin.
May 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where are you getting this number? I am able to find only one head-to-head survey from WV (a SurveyUSA poll from late Feb) and it shows Clinton ahead of McCain there by 5 pts, not 8. I have no idea where you are getting that "8 pt" figure or how you purport to know that it is "solid."
May 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad you are correct it is 5 points not 8. But she still leads as opposed to obama with an almost 18 point deficit. How does that strengthen your argument that WV is destined to go for McCain in the fall?
May 13, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you have me confused with someone else. I have never argued that WV would surely go for McCain regardless of our nominee. I was simply unclear as to where you were getting your numbers. That said, don't you feel a little silly asserting that Clinton would win the state based on one poll taken over two months ago?
May 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmm, because it is now the second oldest state in the nation demographically, has a typically Appalachian habit of exporting all of its young college graduates to other states, is--contrary to your imaginary Hillary by 8 poll--is consistently showing a prefrence for McCain over the both of them and because IT VOTED FOR GEORGE W. BUSH TWO ELECTIONS IN A F*KING ROW?
Or did it escape your attention that it is not at all uncommon for southern states that consistently go Red in presidential elections to continue electing Democrats to lower offices?
May 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last democrat that the people of WV voted for was BILL CLINTON. The voted against Gore because of environmental concerns since they are a coal based economy. They voted against kerry because they are strong on national security and don't care much for his "elitist" style or his flip flopping or the swiftboat & his anti vietnam war stance.
Hillary is beating McCain in polls. She has a 72% favorable rating among democrats. Democrats outnumber republcians there. They LIKE her there because they see her as a fighter for the working class - much like her husband. Are you really from WV or are you pulling my leg? I can't believe anyone who is actually from the state would be arguing that it is a "red" state. I can't be saying anything you don't already know.
May 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Obama will lose WV and KY but he can make other previously "reliable" red states competitive: CO, NM, NC, even VA. There are plenty of ways he could hit 270 ev's without redrawing the Clinton 92/96 map.
May 13, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
New Mexico is not "reliably red", having gone Democratic in every race since 1992 except for 2004. Colarado is close to tipping Democratic, already having gone for a Clinton once, and with the Democratic candidate always coming close.
May 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you attached this to NC Steve's comment, can you highlight for me where he, or any of the people who have replied have written WV voters off as "stupid racist hillbillies"?
May 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if anyone is entitled to write them off as "stupid racist hillbillies," it would be me, being as how I'm an actual Appalachian (more or less). But you'll notice I didn't.
Plenty of stupid in the mountains, but I haven't noticed stupidity being in short supply down in the flatlands. Plenty of racism up there, too, but its far from universal and pretty abstract, given the rarity of actual black people in the mountains.
Whatever. The fact is that neither Hillary nor Obama can carry either Kentucky or West Virginia against Straight Talking Maverick Hero John McCain this fall. B.F.D.
May 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But one precedent established by Adams and Jefferson would not be repeated for over three decades; although both men won election as president immediately following their terms as vice president, no sitting vice president would repeat this pattern until 1836, when Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson. (The gap thereafter was even longer. More than 150 years elapsed before George Bush won the presidency in 1988 at the conclusion of his eight years as Ronald Reagan's vice president.)"
Everyone say it with me: patterns, especially demographic patterns, are patterns until they are not.
The overt racism of KY and WV voters has a silver lining: an increasing number of white voters do not, or do not want to, identify with it. Calling it by what it is makes it a lot more difficult for Clinton and her supporters to see that kind of support as an asset.
May 13, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot call a state a "RED" state when they have a currently sitting Dem governor, two Dem senators and the majority of the representatives as Democrats. That is not reading a pattern; it is just reality. To say WV is a republican state is to be ignorant of the facts.
May 13, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you'd apply that same logic to Virginia, then. Surely, since it has more electoral college votes than West Virginia, it's more important. Obama has a serious chance of winning Virginia, whereas Hillary does not.
May 13, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Ben. WV has 5 electoral votes. It is not going to be the linchpin of the election this Fall.
May 13, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
His support is dropping in VA and has been since the Reverend Wright scandal broke. I'm thinking many would be Obamacans and Obamapendents were turned off by his association with Reverend Wright. I'd always thought either Obama or Hillary could win the general election at teh beginning and would have been happy with either candidate (although I preferred Hillary). After Reverend Wright I don't think Obama can win the general election, so even though Hillary has a very very very minute chance of winning, I'm riding with her because to me nominee Obama = President McCain
May 13, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any drop due to Wright was purely temporary. Obama has already bounced back from that nontroversy and is out-polling McCain in Virginia. Hillary is not out-polling McCain in Virginia, and never has been.
May 13, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have not started campaigning yet. He. Cannot. Win. And if he is the nominee and he loses, I hope that you will pledge not to place the blame on Hillary for "weakining" him. Obama's inflicted more damage to his campaign than she ever could have.
I for one will place the blame on naive Obama supporters with their heads in the sand thinking he can win despite Reverend Wright and the democratic party for nominating a kamikaze candidate. Just when I think there's NO WAY we can lose, my party goes and does this stupid $#!@. Thanks for your contribution in electing 4 more years of GWB policies.
May 13, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
They haven't started campaigning yet? Really? It seems they've gotten a head start on us, or haven't you been paying attention?
May 13, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think the Republican swiftboating of Obama has begun already you have lost your mind. The Republicans don't get into the below the belt attacks until after the nominee is named. Swiftboating. Willie Horton. etc. Be honest - is this your first election? Your naiveness is adorable yet scary.
May 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not even close to my first election, but your belittling is noted.
I know they're going to get nastier. I don't know if they'll get nastier than Hillary did, but I do know they'll get nastier.
To ignore the fact that they have a head start on us demonstrates a problem in your thinking, however.
Do you think Hillary has a chance of winning in November? (This means she also has to win the Democratic nomination, presumably.) If so, well, I think you need to reconsider who is being naïve.
May 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't know if they'll get nastier than Hillary did, but I do know they'll get nastier."
Okay that's not just naive; that is just plain STUPID.
May 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for taking the insults a notch further there. It really helps your case.
That said, I assume you are not suddenly suggesting now that it won't get nastier, so I can only assume that you take exception to the idea that Hillary's campaign has been quite nasty to him. Do note that, just as with the Republican campaign, I'm including the various 527s that are not technically part of her campaign in that. Just like Hillary claims to not be part of any of the negative attacks (except for the ones coming directly from her or her campaign staff), McCain will make similar claims as he lets the 527s do their work.
Do you honestly not see the severe negativity that came from Hillary's campaign and/or her supporting 527s? You're probably one of those that thought Ferraro was being brave. Well, let me tell you, I know people who think the swift boat veterans were also being brave.
May 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, you keep getting caught in these narrow arguments.
May 13, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! ;)
May 13, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, Ben's done this before.
May 13, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What can I say? I'm on the straight and narrow.
May 13, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
About as narrow as it gets! (the thread, not you, Ben)
May 13, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, not too condescending and patronizing, are you? And you're calling some of us elitist? It is attitudes like yours that make me SOOO very gleeful that Clinton is not going to be our nominee. The sense of entitlement that Clinton supporters (and Clinton herself) have toward this nomination process is astounding and it is truly poetic justice that she is getting her ass handed to her. And why Clinton supporters should be angry with Obama supporters is beyond me. Did we make your candidate lose? Did we force your candidate to make shitty decisions? Did we put race-baiting words in your candidate's mouth? Did we force her to hire Penn and Wolfson? Did we send Bill out to make a fool out of himself? The person with whom you should be angry is Hillary Clinton - she's the one who's destroyed your dreams and hopes. Not us.
May 13, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, this post was meant for dijamo - just wanted to make sure you knew that. Dijamo, you can blame Obama supporters all you want but the fault for Clinton's failure to secure the nomination belongs to Clinton and Clinton alone. No one else. If she had such a fabulous message and was such a fabulous candidate she would have won. End of story. Her message did NOT resonate with more than half of the democratic party and Obama's did. Pure and simple. And even with all of her attacks and dirty campaigning he will still win the nomination. Deal with it. If you don't want to vote for him in the fall, fine - don't. But don't blame his supporters - the blame rests solely with her and her lousy campaign.
May 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's naiveté, btw, not naiveness.
May 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good god I hate grammar, spelling, typo police. But please get a clue - or at least a dictionary. Both naiveness and naivete are both nouns and can be used in this instance.
Naivete does seem more like the obama supporter word though it has an air of elitism of latte sipping coffeehouse liberals about it. And you get bonus elitism points for your condescesion in asserting that naivete was the word I meant to use.
May 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that everyone else is savoring the irony of that remark as much as I am.
May 13, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll admit I can be a tad bit snarky, but really who corrects grammar or spelling on a blog? I judge something by the quality of the thought or position expressed rather than the number of typos or grammar errors. But that's just me.
In terms of condescending - that only comes out when someone argues something so incrediby outlandish that no one can be dumb enough to believe it. Like questioning whether the Hillary campaign against Obama is nastier than the republican's will be. I have every right to ask someone who posts such nonsense 1. are you on drugs 2. have you ever witnessed an actual political campaign 3. are you dumb 4. are you writing something you absolutely know to be false. That's not condescension - it's a well needed reality check for someone who has obviously overdosed on the kool-aid.
May 13, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like Hillary said.
Sad.
May 13, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
this thread may have gone cold, I'm not sure. but, djamo, maybe you can anser this question for me.
you said: "He. Cannot. Win. And if he is the nominee and he loses, I hope that you will pledge not to place the blame on Hillary for "weakining" him. Obama's inflicted more damage to his campaign than she ever could have."
So if Obama can't win against McCain, how did he beat your candidate? How did he overtake the best known female politician in the world, with an ex-President husband and the support of the Democratic Party establishment?
If the Repubicans never beat a Clinton, and Obama beat a Clinton, how exactly do you arrive at the conclusion that the Republicans will beat Obama?
May 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy to answer that:
1. The democratic primary is not the general election. The primary attracts the more committed supporters in the liberal move on.org wing of the party - pro Obama.
2. Not many states in the general election have african americans making up 50% of the electorate. The democratic primary has a number of states where the impact of 92% black support for Obama means overwhelming wins. See SC, MS, LA, NC etc etc etc. No such advantage in the general election. In other states, the democratic primary awarded a higher number of delegates to precincts that wer 4emore democratic. African Americans are very democratic so they got more delegates per capita. This is how Hillary can win the popular vote and still lose the delegates in a state.
3. If Obama is the presumptive nominee and voters are still not flocking to him and jumping on the bandwagon THAT'S A PROBLEM.
4. Much of Obama's lead was established pre- Reverend Wright. The only states voted since then are PA, NC & IN. His favorable ratings have fallen. His support with white voters has fallen. It causes people to question his authenticity - doe she really believe what his speeches say in public or does he agree with Reverend Wright. If not why did he only distance himself due to political reasons rather than principle.
That about sums it up. Hillary was not going to have a cakewalk to the nomination and at te beginning I would have thought Obama had an easier road. I don't believe that anymore.
May 13, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
those are all likely valid reasons, but they don't get at the bigger question. as you said, the primary election is not the general election. The idea, insultingly put forth by Hillary and her supporters, that the big states somehow matter more in a primary election speaks to this. Clinton winning California in the primary does not mean Obama won't win it in November, but that's about the level of logic coming from Clinton.
It also avoids the key point I'm raising -- if Obaba is so weak, why couldn't Clinton beat him?
The fact that Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination *after* the Wright stuff is more proof that he is a stronger candidate than Clinton. You have it absolutely backward.
That's ok, though, most people have this election season exactly backward. When Obama wins with 70 percent in November -- blowing out the outdated swing-state electoral red-blue map, you'll see what I mean.
May 13, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo wrote:
This argument has no basis in reality. The argument that Senator Obama has won all these states, especially caucus states, because he has the support of "committed party activists" has been occuring while, simultaneously, the media, the Clinton campaign, and REALITY have shown us that the "committed party activists"-- i.e. county party chairs, state party officials, DNC members, Senator Clinton's immediate lead in superdelegates at the beginning of the campaign--have been with Senator Clinton, NOT with Senator Obama. For anyone to believe what you're pushing up there is to IGNORE the fact that Senator Obama's campaign has been responsible for turning out brand new voters and upping Democratic voter registrations in every state of the union (not that other candidates didn't have their share of influence there).
I worked for Senator Obama's primary campaign in Iowa, Kansas, Texas, and finally, Pennsylvania. What I have been told consistently by field organizers from other campaigns--and saw for myself--is that no one knew what to expect from Iowa because the Obama campaign blew all their estimates out of the water. Every campaign has strategists and people employed solely to crunch numbers, determine vote goals, etc. in certain areas. Not one campaign, save the Obama campaign, put Iowa caucus turnout at/over 175,000, an increase of nearly 50,000 from 2004. So, 230,000 some odd people turned out for the caucus. More than a few campaigns thought they'd pick up a decent number of delegates because they'd reached their number goals. But the Obama campaign outperformed even our own best estimates.
This has happened in nearly every state. I would like this b.s. argument showing Senator Clinton with NO support from the Democratic Party activist base/establishment to disappear. Especially when I've seen the same people boo and heckle Obama surrogates in PA. It's a sad day when elected party officials, county central committee members (also elected), and the like are BOOING another Democratic candidate.
May 13, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Block quote was broken.
This is Dijamo's comment:
"1. The democratic primary is not the general election. The primary attracts the more committed supporters in the liberal move on.org wing of the party - pro Obama."
May 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did I argue that she had no support from the Democratic party machine? Nowhere. Hillary had tremendous support from them.
My argument is Obama had the support of moveon.org. The liberal fringe is more active in the primary and they supported Obama. Moveon.org wing of the party will have less of an influence in the genral election.
May 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being someone who lives in the great state of Virginia, pretty active politically - your claim that his support in Virginia is diminishing is either wishful thinking on your part or just you being intentionally misleading. He has an outstanding chance of winning Virginia come November.
May 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Virginia. You don't know what you are talking about.
May 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well then save this page. I certainly will so I can repost your naive comments when Obama loses the great state of VA in the fall.
May 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Well then save this page. I certainly will so I can repost your naive comments when Obama loses the great state of VA in the fall."
I'll save it as well, even though I have to say that you are off to a pretty bad start - talking about a state that you know absolutely nothing about. I like Obama's odd in November even more now.
May 13, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say he would win outright. I think it will be a close race, but it will be closer with Obama than Hillary Clinton, who is not well-liked among many of her "natural constituents" here because we saw her up close and personal for 8 years of her "government service" (which many of us share), and we don't really want the Clinton family circus and psychodrama back in town.
May 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to win with a margin and a map that looks more like FDR in '32 than Clinton in '92. You ain't seen anything yet. Let the percentage of the electorate who feels we are in a recession grow the way it surely will and don't get burried in the landslide.
May 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah because we were living the highlife economically in 2004 and that catapulted Kerry right into the White House.
May 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the average perception of the economy had been as bad in 2004 as it is now, there would have been a different result in that election. My argument at the time was that the reason Kerry lost was that the GOP had not screwed things up badly enough yet. It took another two years for it to get bad enough for the swing voters to wake up. It is even worse now than it was in 2006 and that will lead to even larger gains for Democrats than we saw in 2006. It is a long tiem from now to November. If Bush and Co do not wake up competent one day soon then we can expect things to get worse and even seats that are now viewd as safe will swing to the Dem column, and the presidential race will be a sweep. Some one can send an e-mail to McCain encouraging him to vote for Obama and make it unanimous.
May 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is talking about this: just as a matter of hard fact, Obama currently trails McCain in the polls in VA and while McCain's lead is shrinking, Obama's own trendline has a negative slope. I have every confidence that you Obama supporters in VA will deliver the state for our man in Nov, but Dijamo has good reason to be skeptical (much better reason, in fact, than she has to be sanguine about Clinton's chances in WV in Nov).
May 13, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
r u serious? Look up NC and find out whether or not it's considered a red state...
Then find out who's governed the state.
It's really clear that YOU are the one who doesn't follow politics...
May 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who in the hell argued NC was not a red state? NC currently has a democratic governor, but they have 2 republican senators. They've voted republican in every presidential election since 1976 Carter.
NC is a true red state. WV is not.
May 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The overt racism of KY and WV voters has a silver lining: an increasing number of white voters do not, or do not want to, identify with it. Calling it by what it is makes it a lot more difficult for Clinton and her supporters to see that kind of support as an asset. "
So is not voting for Obama "overt" racism that can only be corrected if Obama wins? Hillary is not calling racist support an asset - she is calling white blue collar workers an important part of her coalition that is supporting her. But as I said above it's not only whites but also older folks, hispanics, asians. To say Hillary is appealing to racists as her base is just dumb.
As I've said before WV is made for hillary to succeed - older voters, conservative on national security, lower income, rural, white. She's done well with this demographic nationally. WV dems have a 72% favorable view of Hillary (and that was before it was a two person race with her against Obama). WV likes Hillary. Why do you have to dismiss her achievement in this state as racism?
May 13, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a heck of alot easier to give Hillary credit for this voter demographic had she not campaigned like a Republican to win them.
May 13, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Hillary is SO Republican. Republicans are all about universal healthcare and freezing ARM rates and a 90 day foreclosure moratorium and raising taxes on the upper classes to pay for social programs. Sounds just like a Republican to me.
May 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps because Hillary Clinton spoke about "hardworking Americans, white Americans" as drifting away from her opponent?
May 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a snippet of her response as to how she is electable. And yes, white blue collar workers are supporting her over Obama. That's what you call a fact and an important part of her base. so are hispanics, older voters, women etc. she has a strong coalition which is why right now the nominationn is 51% Obama, 49% Clinton. despite what you many think this is not a runaway victory.
David Axelrod of the Obama campaign has said ""The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years." First, that's not true as Bill Clinton did very well with the working white class demographic. Second - he's writing them off! Who cars about white blue collar voters. If that's the way the Obama campaign feels, is it any wonder they are not making inroads?
May 13, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Axelrod is not a candidate for president so whatever he says is not a simportant as what Obama or Clinton say.
2. What Clinton siad was at the very least a furhter demonstration of her lack of political skill. It took manny errors on her part to lose this election. Obama is a fantastic politician but even he would not have been able to beat the Clinton machine if she had been meerly competent as a campaigner.
May 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that's right Obama has been very careful not sterotype voters in this campaign PUBLICLY. Like when he made these insightful comments to a closed door fundraiser to explain why he wasn't gaining traction with white blue collar & rural voters:
"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I'm sure when the people of WV (and around the country) read that they say - this guy understands me and speaks for me!
May 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is one gaff for Obama to enough to lose for Clinton.
May 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nooooo, he would be talking about all the people in E.Ky and W.Va we've seen quoted in the paper saying things lik "I won't vote for him because he's black and I'm afraid he'd put too many blacks in positions of authority over people of the white race" and "he's a muslim."
May 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know what - as of 1992 no Democrat since 1844 had won the presidency without carrying North Carolina. But Bill Clinton did it. Don't buy into these historical definitions of what states are going to be the difference makers. Just because Obama redraws the map and is unlikely to carry Appalachia does not mean he can't win. It doesn't even mean he is less likely to win. To the contrary, his map is a more natural fit for the emerging Democratic coalition.
And no one is saying all - or even most - of Hillary's supporters are racist. But she does seem to be catering to her racist supporters these days . . . .
May 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the same token, the Democrats have not won the presidency without winning Minnesota since 1916. Obama beat Clinton in MN on Super Tues and by a wide margin. In current head-to-head polls there she loses to McCain by 2 pts (and his margin over her is growing) while Obama beats McCain by 11 pts (and Obama's margin over McCain is growing). In other words, your "bellweather" argument is pointless because it simply pits WV against MN.
May 13, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MN has not voted republican as a state since Richard Nixon. Hillary is within the margin of error with McCain and Obama is admittedly doing better with a 10 point lead right now.
But MN and WV could not be further apart unless you assume all whites are the same. MN has the 8th highest median income in the country - which says to me that Obama's support should be higher in that state since he performs better than Hillary with that demographic. WV is 48th in median incomes. They are low income blue collar white workers. That is why people look to WV to see how this demographic is voting and they call the state a bellweather. Is there a way to get this more simple?
May 13, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, WV is just as unrepresentative of the nation as a whole as MN is. Somehow, however, because Clinton runs better in WV than in MN, you have decided that WV counts as a "bellweather" and MN is an exception to be explained away. Your designations here are as arbitrary as they come. As Merle pointed out elsewhere, until Clinton did it no democrat had won without carrying NC. "Rules" like these are made to be broken.
May 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except WV because it is so homogeoneous is a bellweather for how the reagan democrats blue collar voters will vote NATIONALLY. Did I say that they are a bellweather for the nation as a whole? No. I said for that demographic WV gives insight into how the Reagan Demcarts are voting and many of them have McCain as second choice:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/
This does not bode well for the general election for Obama unless those voters don't matter - and given how his campaign has dismissed them outright, I guess he's not even going to make an attempt for their votes. Why actively campaign in WV (although there was an Obama sighting and he did touch down for a few hours yesterday). You can build a new coalition that doesn't include these folks. Good luck with that.
May 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If WV is a bellweather for its demographics, then presumably MN is just as much a bellweather for its demographics, which are just as important an element of the democratic coalition as WV's are. Your argument here is pure twaddle.
May 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, Obama has more staff and more offices in WV than Clinton does.
How is he not campaigning there??
May 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has an enormous budget to open offices anywhere. The question is how many hours has he spent in the state? How many voters has he reached out to? His "campaign" in the state is bullshit. It's a throwaway for them and he admitted as much. he was not even scheduled to touch the ground in WV but did so yesterday because he caught flack for violating his own 50 state strategy.
May 13, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is your point here? It is not as if he is ignoring working class voters. He is campaigining in Missouri and Michigian - home to an awful lot of blue collar voters, but with more electoral votes than just WV. If you are really concerned about the prospect of a McCain presidency, ought you not to want him to be trying to win as many electoral votes as possible?
May 13, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
coincidence is not causality
May 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama countdown continues....
Indiana Congressman Joe Donnelly Endorses Barack Obama
CHICAGO, IL — Today, Indiana Congressman Joe Donnelly endorsed Barack Obama for President, citing his commitment to working families and building a real coalition for change:
“Today, I am pleased to announce my support for Barack Obama. At a time when too many Americans have lost faith in their government, Senator Obama can move us beyond the politics of stalemate and gridlock that has kept us from meeting the monumental challenges of our time: our dependence on foreign oil, a health care gap that leaves tens of millions uninsured, the steady deterioration of our manufacturing base, and an economy that is not working for working people.
The Democratic Party’s strength comes from its core commitment to the American Dream and from a coalition that is ideologically, economically, geographically and ethnically diverse. Barack Obama will stand with working families while building that coalition so that we can change this country, and that’s why he’s the best choice for America.”
Barack Obama said, “I am honored to have the support of Congressman Joe Donnelly. Joe has brought an independent, principled, and pragmatic voice to Washington that is more focused on getting results for Hoosier families than scoring political points. As President, I look forward to working with Congressman Donnelly to build bipartisan majorities to create jobs, make health care more affordable and accessible, and to give our veterans the care and support that they have earned.”
Donnelly is the 282nd superdelegate to endorse Barack Obama, who is 149 delegates away from securing the Democratic nomination.
The Page on the Go
May 13, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Indiana Rep. Joe Donnelly endorsed Obama this morning, moving Barack's gap to the nomination 149 delegates"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/obama-starts-day-of-with_n_101472.html
May 13, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad they had to redistrict back in the day. He would be our congressman if they didn't. Instead, we are stuck with a corrupt corporatist... I mean Republican....
Our county, which has a little of his district, went heavily for Obama (I'm very happy to say). It went 59%-41%.. Only 9 of the 92 counties went for Obama and only 4 others went the same margin or better.
May 13, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
....I was also chagrined when Rendell caught alot of heat for his comment regarding Obama, he was exactly right and besides his comments on FOX about them being fairest to Clinton IMO he has been her best surrogate. Would someone on Obama's campaign been roasted if they said there are juss some men out there who would never vote a woman for President?
May 13, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they would've been similarly roasted.
May 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And rightfully so.
May 13, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like you can add another superdelegate as well as a MD pledged delegate. While I don't like the idea of pledged delegates switching support, Jack Johnson wasn't selected by the voters. Read the Washinton Post story to understand it a bit better. I guess there are some pledged delegates selected by the states in conjunction with the campaigns. At any rate that's three more delegates today for Obama.
May 13, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link:
http://www.obamaiswinning.com/
May 13, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may have been acceptable on a spreadsheet in February but it sure doesn't look good in May to have that number of Democratic voters flipping a big "Eff you" to their presumptive nominee.
Really would be nice to keep the margin under twenty.
May 13, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am looking for closer to 50%.
May 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC's coverage starts at 6pm and runs through 2am. What the hell are they thinking? Considering the race will be called at 7:30 on the nose, this means there will be more than SIX hours of mindless jibberjabber. I hope Olbermann at least drops acid. Tonight will be a TV train wreck of epic proportions.
May 13, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahha
May 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, WV "doesn't matter" in any meaningful way, to the primary at least. Obama is the nominee. We know it, the MSM knows it, almost everybody knows it.
But wait until tomorrow. Everybody but us will have forgotten it. It will be a new day, a blank slate, HRC will spin it, the MSM will buy it and revive the tiresome "can she still win?" questions, and last week's Obama Inevitability will be, temporarily, inoperative.
Wait for it.
May 13, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine, it will just boost turnout in Oregon and the Montana and South Dakota caucuses.
May 13, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, will depend on turnout. The win is widely expected, but the game in WV is to pad the "popular vote" metric to keep that sham argument on the table. If turnout is low, the flacks won't have a receptive audience when pushing the "OMG Obama has GRAVE ISSUES!!!" line or the sadly predictable "Comeback Kid" spin.
The biggest question the analysts will have on the table tonight - the actual analysts, mind you, not the Tea-Leaf readers that will fill all that air-time tonight - is what was the turnout after a week of the prevailing narrative being centered on the race being over. If it's higher than expected, all bets are off on how well they'll be able to push the spin. If it's at or lower than expected, don't expect any real traction in trying to shift the narrative.
Given WV only had 50k voters (or thereabouts) show up for early voting, it's not looking like turnout is going to be anywhere close to what the HRC camp is hoping for.
May 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone's going to bother trying to push the "comeback" angle on a WV win. Obama's been losing in the polls in that state since the day he was born.
May 13, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not as sure - reality and history have not been hallmarks of HRC talking points this cycle. I'm not saying the campaign proper will try to push it, but I'm certain we'll hear at least one of the fringe flacks push the line regardless of how the numbers shake out tonight. They'll float every trial ballon they have if it'll get them any traction in the narrative at this stage.
May 13, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that some of the superdelegates (Rahall and Rockefeller) in WV have already declared for Obama. How's that for flipping off the voters?
And, please, we're not all racist here in WV. The issue here much more one of class, aka socioeconomic status. Many West Virginians are BITTER, about poverty, say, since we're living in an extraordinarily rich state -- yep, it's filled with nice clean, shiny coal. (But maybe you haven't heard that lie perpetrated by the wealthy coal companies who run our state.)
I'm only bitter when I hear people say rural white voters are irrelevant.
Signed - A West Virginia voter.
May 13, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey man, join the club. I live in CT, and no one ever for a moment suggested we were "relevant".
So, get over it, WV doesn't mean squat this Primary season, and is not likely to make much of a difference in the Fall either.
May 13, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
How cow! Since I live in CT, I'm not relevant?
I was already irrelevant because I'm a college graduate...now I'm doubly irrelevant?
May 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. And triply irrelevant if you drink Espresso-based beverages.
May 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm jealous. I'm in Indiana and she won that. (I'm so sorry, but at least he won my county, 59-41%, one of the 9 counties he won out of 92).. I guess all this time I thought I wouldn't matter but I do.
Maybe since I do like espresso-based beverages and am male and a college graduate I can go back to my dark little cave in obscurity.
May 13, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rural voters are increasingly less "relevant" because they make up a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.
I can attest that not all West Virginians are racist, and I would even venture to say that the "real" issue has to do with being asked to choose vanilla versus, say, espresso nib ice cream. If you try it you might love it, but in WV and KY, they are a lot less likely to try. We may call that racism, and it may truly be as such, but it's also a form of sticking with what you know, which I believe is particularly pronounced all over Appalachia. They are traditionalists in a way that few other groups of Americans can really identify with.
Re: natural resources. To some extent, WV reflects what is clearly prevalent in the developing world, which is the focus on investing in the extraction of "natural resources" in the ground without quite internalizing the fact that the greatest natural resource that any place has is its people. Outside of the Mon, which flows to PA, West Virginia is also mountainous and land locked.
All my life, I have lived in states that border WV.
May 13, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That sort of traditional isme gets more and more pronounced with each generation because those who disagree flee to where they can get the espresso nib ice cream they crave.
May 13, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
McAuliffe and Wolfson will make absolute fools of themselves tonight as always. The pundits may push back though as they have done for the past week.
It will be interesting to hear the spin about how they still can win if Florida and Michigan are counted, the causcus state not counted, and Puerto Rico votes counted double. And how being less 100 behind in pledged delegates means they're close enough.
May 13, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, he's going to get his butt kicked today. I'm just praying he can hold it to 35 pts.
May 13, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even Carville is stepping on their message now, so the Terry and Howard Show will look even dumber than ever before.
May 13, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Early reports say turnout ain't that hot. My guess: Hillary will win, but she'll win among a less-than-enthusiastic electorate.
May 13, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My theory (possibly based on wishful thinking): low turnout helps Obama.
The reason: Many tepid Clinton supporters would see little reason in bothering to go to the polls today as their candidate has no path to victory at this point that doesn't involve a fight at the convention. Tepid Obama supporters, however, can be motivated by the more enthusiastic supporters by pointing out that the narrower we can make this win for Clinton, the more likely she is to drop out pre-convention.
May 13, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude.
Who's been sneaking sips of Kool-Aid while we weren't looking?
: )
May 13, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like my flavor better. :P
May 13, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The folks that did not drink the kool aid know the one term Senator has nothing in the Senate.
They actually want a leader who has done something.
May 13, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"McAuliffe and Wolfson will make absolute fools of themselves tonight as always. The pundits may push back though as they have done for the past week."
Some may push back, but in general a 20 - 30 point win is a story easily, if falsely, understood, it fits too neatly into the "comeback" narrative that the MSM knows we already have memorized, and it will be impossible for most "pundits" to resist...
May 13, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Define white, blue collar for me, and then define away Clinton's shattering loss in Wisconsin, a state that is much larger than WV.
2. Outside of Appalachia, "white blue collar" workers have not voted in overwhelming numbers for Clinton. What makes Appalachia different?
Look, I grew up very close to Appalachia, some people would even say it was part of Appalachia, except that it was too urban and too Catholic for that to be really true.
My favorite WV story: Idiot friend driving too fast on mountain roads nearly destroyed his wheel in order to avoid going over the side of the hill. Stranded at 1:00 a.m., they were rescued by a couple of brothers just out driving their truck. They helped get friend to their house where, remember, it's WV, they salvaged all the spare parts they needed to fix friend's vehicle off a junked version sitting in their backyard. They worked in the dark by one of those hanging lights fixing his vehicle, and then, at 4:00 a.m. their mother got up and made everyone a kick ass breakfast.
What WV and KY have in common is insularity, and a distinct lack of in-migration from anywhere, outside of a few pockets in Northern Kentucky and the border areas of West Virginia. They are a "looking backward" kind of people. I have real doubts that they would vote for Clinton in the GE against McCain.
May 13, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well first - Wisconsin was before Reverend Wright emerged as an issue.
Second Wisconsin has poor, middle class voters and some upper middle class & high income / highly educated voters. WV not so miuch - it is a very low income state. Obama does better with the liberal elite / high voters and as I've said many times he has in the past won the white vote like in WI.
Third - blue collar whites HAVE voted for Hillary at the 60% and above margin. The difference is most staes have a broader range of people balancing out their votes while WV is demographically very very similar all the way around. Therefore, the state as a WHOLE goes for Hillary at 60% and above margin.
It's all good to stereotype th folks of WV as being backwards and against change - but they did vote for JFK in a state where Catholic was a dirty word back then. They voted for Dukakis. They voted for Jimmy Carter in 76 & 80. They voted for Bill Clinton with his message of change (I don't think he was running on the same old same old was he?) because he spoke to the concerns of low income voters. How do you expect to woo these voters in the fall if you don't even care to understand their concerns and write off their non-support of Obama as they are just insular racist hillbillies?
May 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You keep bringing up Rev. Wright. You really don't seem to have much faith in the American public, do you?
May 13, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have way too little faith in the American people and way too much faith in John McCain.
May 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just goes to show that Clinton supporters were really banking on Rev. Wright to do Obama in and they are pissed off and in denial that he didn't.
WV voters are backward looking -- which is different from being backwards. I would like to know whether dijamo has ever even been to West Virginia.
May 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
OKAY when we elected GWB in 2004, yes I lost a great deal of respect in the intelligence of the American voters. The attacks on John Kerry were based on widely proven lies, yet still had an impact. You really believ ethe American people will look at those Reverend Wright videos and not question the character of Barack Obama for staying in that Church for 20 years. Are you just naive and willful blind to the truth?
May 13, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I blame 2004/the swift boats more on John Kerry being a wimpy candidate than the American people being stupid.
If Obama had handled Wright like Kerry handled the swift-boats, then, yes, I'd say we were fucked. But he hasn't. And because he hasn't, the issue has all but died.
May 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter what you say to her - she will continue to spout the same bullshit about Rev. Wright from now until November. She has learned well from Hillary, hasn't she?
Dijamo, even Newt Gingrich wrote an OpEd piece saying that it would be a mistake for the Republicans to use the Rev. Wright issue against Obama. I'm not saying they won't try, but if Gingrich thinks it's a loser than that says something about the way Obama handled the controversy, doesn't it? I really don't think it's going to have as much traction as you think (or hope) it will. If it did they'd be using it right now. When local Republicans have used Rev. Wright against democratic candidates whom Obama has endorsed they have lost those elections. Instead, they're trying to use the stupid Hamas "endorsement" to test the waters. And I will say it again - if you honestly believe it wouldn't be open season on Clinton if she somehow eked out the nomination then you are truly and sadly delusional.
May 13, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add Pat Buchanan to that list.
After Wright's weekend binge and Obama's press conference, Buchanan said that Obama handled it great and that Clinton or McCain would look incredibly craven to bring it back up. Not to say they won't, but if Buchanan and Gingrich think it's a bad idea, that says something.
May 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except 46% of Indiana voters thought it was important. The voters of WV think it's important. Fair-minded democrats who hate to see people's patriotism called into question because of not wearing a flag pin (I consider myself in this category) question Obama's character because of the Wright episode. It was not a done deal after his speech in PA. It was not a done deal after he disavowed Reverend Wright not because of the substance of his speech, but because Reverend Wright said out loud hat many people thought - Obama criticized his remarks not on principle but because they were a political liability for him.
May 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Except 46% of Indiana voters thought it was important. The voters of WV think it's important. Fair-minded democrats who hate to see people's patriotism called into question because of not wearing a flag pin (I consider myself in this category) question Obama's character because of the Wright episode."
The people who claim that Rev Wright affected their vote are lying their asses off, they never intended to vote for Obama in the first place. Plus, that Indiana poll about Wright doesn't suggest that them thinking the issue was important affected their vote - another nonsensical poll that doesn't prove much of anything.
May 13, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and only 28% thought it was very important ... 18% said it was "somewhat important", and 51% thought it was not important. And this was while the controversy was still being flogged by the media and by the Clinton campaign surrogates. By the summer this controversy will be all but forgotten. Oh, there will be new manufactured controversies that the Republicans will dig up, but I don't believe that the Rev. Wright story is going to have any traction.
May 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
46% of the people in Indiana thought Rev Wright was important and Hillary won Indiana by 1.1% despite being up in the polls by 5 to 10%. Wow, can you imagine what would have happened in Indiana if there had been no Rev Wright controversy? You quote statistics that mean little in the long run. Hillary has lost. If it hadn't been for Rev Wright she would have been long gone. As it is it barely breathed life into a losing campaign.
May 13, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Among white voters Hillary won 60% to Obama's 40%. Of those folks who thought Wright was important, many of them voted for Hillary and many of them said they would rather vote McCain than Obama if Hillary was not the nominee. How is that good news again?
May 13, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
She won among white voters in OH by an even larger margin, and that was pre-Wright. How is it that you manage to conclude that Wright must be costing him white votes when his percentage of the white vote has been progressively larger in each subsequent election since the Wright story broke?
May 13, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last election pre-OH (where he got hit with the NAFTA issue) was Wisconsin - solid middle class blue collar base and guess hwat? HE WON THE WHITE VOTE 54%. OH he got hit with NAFTA-gate and strong Hillary union support lost 61% of the white vote there. Then Rev Wright happened. He lost white voters in PA 62%, white voters in IN 60%, white voters in NC 59%. This is progress when someone is the presumptive nominee??? Are you kidding me? His improvement with white vote correlates to income of the state in question - the more "elite", highly educated, higher income, younger the state is, the more likely that Obama will do better with the white voters there.
What normally happens is the party coalesces aroung the presumptive nominee and that is what WI started doing. Since then, he has been losing white support by a larger margin. Your argument is bull and you know it.
May 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. That is the very point I was making yesterday which you pooh-poohed. The whole margin can be explained totally by recourse to income and education without ever invoking Wright. The reason why he won "the white vote" in WI and lost it in PA is that the well-educated make up a larger share of the white population in WI than they do in PA. Rev Wright has nothing to do with it. If the election were held again in WI today he would still win by more-or-less the same margin, despite the emergence of the Wright story because these trends are really much more about demographics than media narratives.
So you are saying that he was regarded as the presumptive nominee in mid-February? Surely you do not mean any of us to take this seriously, do you?
Whatever...
May 13, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am assuming you are a Missouri voter. Care to comment on the trendlines for Obama in MO after Reverend Wright and still argue that Reverend Wright doesn't matter?
May 13, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you actually looked at his Missouri trendlines? They do not bolster your point at all. If you look at them, you will see that he was running ahead of McCain in MO until January, at which point McCain overtook him. This trend continued, with McCain's support rising and Obama's falling until mid-March (i.e. just about the time that Wright emerged as a story), at which point McCain's support levelled off and started slipping while Obama's levelled off and began climbing. If you want to attribute Obama's re-surgeance to Wright, you are entitled to your opinion, but I am afraid that such an idea makes little sense to me. In any event, there is no evidence that Wright is hurting Obama in my state.
May 13, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
[holding my breath for dijamo to admit she's wrong]
May 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
tsetsegbrawtbvtbtwtwtinwhigkjnsdgnsklhiwoehtnknf;nd;jlkfnsdl
May 13, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
1/11 - 1/13 McCain 51 Obama 40
1/21 - 1/24 McCain 42 Obama 47
2/15 -2/17 Mccain 43 Obama 49
March 2008 Rev Wright hits the fan
3/14 - 3/16 McCain 53 Obama 39
3/24 McCain 53 Obama 38
4/11 - 4/13 Mcacin 50 Obama 42
5/6 McCain 47 Obama 41
I'll grant you that he has started to recover slightly in the most recent poll on 5/6 (which I was not aware of before commenting MO). Can you admit that the issue is not over, has had an impact and will likely be used in a general election against him?
May 13, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can neither admit nor deny as much. I have no idea whether Wright will still be an issue in November and neither have you. I will note, however, that back in February Obama's campaign put together a spreadsheet predicting the course of the rest of the primary. It has been remarkably accurate so far. It predicted that Obama would get 75 delegates out of PA and Clinton would get 83; in reality he got 73 and she got 85. It predicted that he would get 61 delegates out of NC and she would get 54; in reality he got 66 and she got 49. It predicted that he would get 39 delegates from IN and she would get 33; in reality he got 34 and she got 38.
In other words, he was able to project with the outcome of each race 3 months out with remarkable accuracy. Was that because he was able, with eery prescience, to predict exactly when the Wright story would break, peak and the re-emerge? Or is it more likely because, for all the breathless talk about such inanities as Wright, the race is and always really has been about demographics?
May 13, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a winner! You are correct. Wright did not influence peoples choice of candidate. Peoples choice of candidate influenced their perception of wright.
May 13, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRONG at least in my case (and I'm sure there are others like me out there). I had much respect for Obama before Reverend Wright. It's not just that I don't think he can win. I respect him less.
May 13, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not there are some others like you, there evidently cannot be many. As I just pointed out, these elections were amenable to very accurate prediction months ago, well before the Wright story broke. In other words, no matter what folks might tell the pollster, it seems that their votes were determined by factors that were already in place as early as February.
May 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way prior to Reverend Wright, I was for Hillary but would have happily supported Obama win win situation. I do not think anyone can be a part of a church espousing bigoted and divisive views for 20 years without hearing them and then have the nerve to campaign as a uniter all about realing the racial divides in the country. I thought the grand speech on race in PA was a load of bull. Reverend wright changed my percepetion of obama. Obama did not change my perception of Rev wright.
May 13, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, Clinton supporters are pissed off that Rev. Wright didn't have more of an impact in many states and are still in denial.
Have you heard the term issue fatigue? I might have believed that GWB's failure to complete his national guard service, or getting arrested for drunk driving, would have had an impact but they didn't because it was possible to spin them as "old news" by the time they should have mattered.
In answer to your question: I don't think Rev. Wright videos would have more of an impact than the cutting and pasting of scenes of Bosnia that will make it clear that Clinton was lying outright about her trip. Can you prove I'm wrong about that? Neither of us knows for sure.
May 13, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm just willfully blind to your particular version of "truth".
May 13, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry lost to Bush because Kerry was not a dynamic enough candidate (I voted for him, but it was painful to listen to him) and because people had not yet figured out just how completely FUBAR Iraq was. Most Americans were very slow to come around to an understanding of just how bad an idea the Iraq war was. In 2004, they still believed it was a winnable thing, and about half or more of the people still approved of Bush, and so they didn't really want to change commanders midstream.
There's no comparison to today.
May 13, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign has outfoxed the Clintons in just about every way imaginable and West Virginia is a primary example, so to speak. In states where Hillary was a sure loser, she campaigned like crazy (or sent Bill), spent money and made it look like she had been thrashed. It was the worst of both worlds -- losing AND looking bad. Now comes West Virginia (the poor man's Kentucky). Obama does not compete, but makes a token appearance so as not to offend anyone. If he gets 30% it will be characterized as a foregone conclusion by 7:32.
May 13, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it will be fun to see Oilbama get slaughtered tonight in West Virginia. He will also get thrashed in Florida and Michigan should he manage to steal the nomination. Ther candidate of hope and change could care less about disenfranchising entire states and of course is much to busy and important to campaign in every state, especially in ones he will lose.
May 13, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who was it who rejected the latest plan to seat the delegates in Michigan?
May 13, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seating the Flrida and Michigan delagates as they voted already or as they revote is fine with me. It is a compltete travesty of a democratic society to not count those that voted votes.
Obviously any attempt to deny the votes of those that have voted is bullshit. Of course this is what the Oilbama campaign is all about.
May 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a scary version of gotalife that seems to have figured out how to complete a sentence.
May 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're learning....[cue scary music]
May 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is done for...get in tune with obama. check out his campaign song and register to vote at http://www.obamarocks08.com
May 13, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the race of SD, today 5 for Senator Obama and - minus 1 for Senator Clinton...
Obama 08
May 13, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the groups you continually spit out: asians, hispanics and older voters, have documented higher than average 'friction' with the Africa American community, so obviously it is only Hillary's 'reaching out' and no other reason that they shy away from Obama...
May 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama is the uniter because the only race of people he wins overall is Blacks. Hillary's coalition of whites, Hispanics, and Asians are supporting Hillary because they are racist or have "friction" with blacks. Not because they like the clinton's. Not because they prefer Hillary's plans and policies. You tie it all into race, yet you call Hillary a racist.
And guess what - it was a pro-Obama ad trying to appeal to a black-brown coalition in NV that said Hillary doesn't respect Latinos. That's not playing the race card? And Hispanics still voted for Hillary over Obama in large numbers.
May 13, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo-You have become tiresome, insulting, tedious, impervious to reason and just generally obnoxious. Clinton has lost. Really. She has. Deal with it.
May 13, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll add to that:
Hillary-Can't-Win..
May 13, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
To borrow a phrase from Hillary Well that hurts my feelings. But I'll have to find a way to go on somehow.
Your validation means so much to me. My self worth and my ideas are solely dependent on the value that you put on them.
I thought the point of TPM was a discussion and exchange of ideas topost on the facts - which is what I try to do. I find value in dissenting opinions and they are desparately needed in the obama echo chamber to bring some nption of reality. Like after the great race speech of PA when all the Obama folks were saying the Wright issue was done and over with and then it blew up again (as it will many many times over in the general election campaign) .
So I will continue to advocate for Hillary until the last vote is over beause Obama has not yet won the nomination (despite your premature celebration). If he is the nominee, I will argue against McCain, write in for Hillary (since I am a NYer and my vote in the GE won't matter), encourage other Hillary supporters in swing & red states to bring a post it called "NOT MCCAIN" and put it over Obama's name when pulling the lever. I'll also be providing grief counseling and a sobering reality check when Obama eventually loses to hold a mirror up to the democratic party and ask them to be honest with themselves - you saw this coming but nominated him anyway. Thanks for electing President McCain.
May 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To elvigy,
It looks to me as though anyone who disagrees with the Obama point of view becomes tiresome, etc. I find dijamo's comments to be a refreshing couterpoint to the messianic narcissism of the Obamaelites. I have a fairly decent education, but I still find myself trusting the judgement of people who work for a living as opposed to that of the obviously superior class. I find myself distrusting this guy mostly because he just came out of nowhere, and since he's been on the national stage, all he's done is look and sound good. I don't want to be part of any movement. I just want someone to take the reins for a while and repair some of the damage the most recent movement has done.
May 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sory that that was not a majority view among the voters who selected our nominee. Obama has won so Clinton is now irrelevant. Who are you going to support in the only contest left Obama v. McCain?
May 13, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand which of Hillary's policies they "prefer" to Obama's. I guess they really like the mandatory buy-in w/r/t healthcare? I like it too, but not enough to not vote for a Dem. They must really, really like that buy-in.
Maybe they just want to "obliterate" Iran? Surely, nuking Asia must rank way up there on the scale of Asian-American priorities. I imagine the Japanese are particularly keen on throwing nukes around. Them, and America's large and powerful North Korean expatriate community.
Hispanics, also, have a well-documented tendency to want to nuke Middle Eastern countries and engage in land wars, thus giving rise to the colorful Texas truism, "happy as a Mexican embroiled in a Middle Eastern land war."
May 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Academically, black children at 17 perform no better than a white 13-year old." Economist, May 10, p. 29. Considering that American children generally perform poorly compared to children in any other industrialized democracy, this is telling.
and p.30: "... studiousness is stigmatised among black children. It would be hard to imagine a more crippling cultural norm."
and " "... when the bar is lowered for black applicants to law school, they are admitted to institutions where they cannot cope."
May 13, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I have to say this - fuck you. And fuck the horse you rode in on. Go back to your cave with all the other troglodytes. You are a loathsome, reprehensible excuse for a human being. Greg, Eric, can't we do something about this person permanently? This is really, really beyond the pale.
May 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What on Earth are you talking about?
This is just data, and does not constitute an argument one way or the other. In my view, this kind of thing is exactly why we have affirmative action. It's not often talked about (RACE CARD OMG RACE CARD HOLY CRAP) but electing a black guy President may in fact have a positive effect on the black community in America through image alone. Let alone what he may do if actually put into a position of power. All I know is, I would like to see it.
At the beginning of the campaign, that was pretty much the only rational reason to vote for him over Hillary, with whom he still shares a majority of policy positions. Honestly, it was good enough for me.
May 13, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this was meant for my post, this "person" has been spouting racist, bigoted shit on this site for months now under different screen names (Milo Buggeroff, Mila, Ludmilla, etc.) and he spams every thread with the same crap. Greg and Eric have probably banned him a half a dozen times now. He's not presenting "data" (with no attribution, I might add); he's a white supremacist with a very skewed and frightening world view.
May 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
He may in fact be a crazy serially-posting white supremacist, but what he says is true enough. Also, as far as I know, naming a date and page number in a magazine constitutes sourcing, so he isn't just pulling this out of his ass. Flame if you want, but personally I think this kind of data makes an easy argument for the benefits of an Obama Presidency.
To wit: "... studiousness is stigmatised among black children. It would be hard to imagine a more crippling cultural norm."
I bet putting a black dude in office might help to change that. I don't understand why this is off the table for discussion.
May 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also a bit out of context to post any kind of statistics like that without going into the various and sundry reasons WHY blacks generally perform more poorly on standardized testing than whites. There are many reasons, which I won't go into here. My point is only that by posting statistics without a context, there is clearly an attempt being made to portray blacks as stupid or inferior or some other racist crap. And I agree with Carol Soprano-fuck him/her. This is bullshit.
May 13, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out Yilla's other comments for context. It's not posting these things out of concern for the well-being of blacks.
May 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed - thank you, Ben and Elvigy.
May 13, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamites do not care if Obama is a uniter. They want to win and that is all. The power hungry masses are no better whether they a right-wing nuts or Wright-wing nuts.
the sensible center of America will once again suffer through an off-balance regime if Obama is elected.
Clinton remains the best choice.
May 13, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are mistaken Clinton is no longer a choice. Feel free to stalk her nomination like you did the last lover who rejected you but it will serve you no better.
May 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Protect" our party? We'd prefer people join. That leaves room for mischief, but telling people they're not welcome only leaves room for ....losing.
May 13, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad I missed the Shrillary/Taylor Marsh Troll Fest this morning.
She's finished even if Obama gets zero votes in WVA today.
The Supers are speaking LOUD AND CLEAR!
The house has landed.
Ding-Dong!
May 13, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is so different in W.Va? One would expect that there will be states that are for Hillary and states that are for Barrack; it has gone back and forth with Barrack coming out on top in more instances and, usually, with larger margins. I don't remember Hillary ever winning by such huge margins as is expected to happen in W.Va. What is so different about the electorate there? Why are the people in W. Va, so different than the rest of the nation?
May 13, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I pointed out on my blog (http://thinmansblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/four-corners.html), Obama's strategy of letting West Virginia go heavily to Clinton and looking the other way could seriously come back and bite him. Sports teams fall into the trap of gliding to the finish far too often. Obama would be wise to at least look like he's trying.
May 13, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He campaigned in Charleston yesterday and has run TV ads there for several weeks.
That's enough of an effort to counter the naysayers.
May 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This WV victory could assuage the bitterness of Hillary's supporters. One last victory lap, and then bow out gracefully. So I think it is not a bad thing.
May 13, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wishful thinking, that.
May 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I predict Hillary's victories today in W.Virginia and Kentucky will turn the conversation to attacking Hillary's supporters as racists. I also predict that those Obama supporters who are saying that will completely ignore the impact Jeremiah Wright and some of Obama's remarks had on people's perception of Obama. Instead they will say that those working class whites who voted today for Clinton did so only because of racism, and would never have voted for Obama under any circumstances. In short, I'm calling those Obama supporters blind. And the racial division they are decrying is partly of their own doing.
May 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, my good man, you have made this same error and been corrected on it at least three times now. Do you never read the follow up to your own posts? KY does not vote today. There is only one race today - the one in WV. She will not win in Kentucky today because Kentucky does not vote until next Tuesday.
May 13, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. Actually, quite thoroughly understand the argument. I simply think its so utterly fatuous, so entirely ridiculous, so typically consistent with the Hillary campaign's disasterous belief that its still 1998, and so pathetically desperate in its attempt to inflate the importance of this electoral afterthought, that it is worthy only of derision and satire.
May 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still 1998, or 2000, or 2004.
Living in the past, man.
May 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When I went to lunch the headline on CNN politics was "Clinton win in W. Virginia wont derail Obama". When I got back the same article had been changed to 'A Clinton win in W. Virginia could raise doubts.' ".
That's from another thread. Thought it bore repeating here. WV and KY ultimately will not matter, but be prepared for at least another week of "New Doubts About Obama" (yeah, NEW...) and "Can She Still Win?" (oh, the suspense...) as the MSM jumps from one shiny bright cliche to another like an ADD kid on Christmas morning...
May 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democratic Party can't win in November because "white working class voters" can't support Obama, then the Democratic party doesn't deserve to win. I don't need t