Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Hillary Wins WV by Landslide

Hillary Clinton wins West Virginia tonight by a landslide. According to CNN, the New York senator is leading Obama 65 to 29 percent as of 10:00 PM. Even though Obama spent twice as much $$$, she leads by almost 100,000 votes.

Like the rest of Hillary wins, she "drew strong support from white, working-class voters." The New York Times observes that her huge margin of victory "raise[s] fresh questions about Mr. Obama’s ability to carry swing states...against Senator John McCain in the fall."

Now Barack Obama would have folks believe that Dems don't need Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia; however, the math of the electoral kind does not support this premise.

If Dems want to win against Sen. John McSame in November, they must vote for Hillary Clinton for president; she is the only Democratic candidate who can bring the party to the mountaintop with key wins in swing states like West Virginia.

Oh, and dear superdelegates, did the howler forget to mention that no Democrat has won the presidency without West Virginia since Woodrow Wilson...? Let that thought find rest in your mind for awhile.

Update: Dems picked up one more seat in the House. Travis Childers beat Republican Greg Davis in MS-1. This is strike three in '08 for GOPers in special elections. Tonight has been a very good night for Democratic bubbas and Susie Qs across the nation.

The delegate count for West Virginia looks like it will be:

Clinton 19

Obama 9

She has a net gain of ten delegates in WV. Obama has picked up 27 superdelegates this week, so he is up 17 against her for the week.

Let's not forget that Obama won Virginia by 28%, Maryland by 24%, South Carolina by 29%, Georgia by 36%. These are all larger states than West Virginia.

And Gore and Kerry both won big in the West Virginia primary and lost it in the general election.

Winning or losing a state's primary is not a reliable predictor of success in the general election.

You are free to engage in Hillary fantasies, but we live in reality.

The reality is that this nomination fight is over.

You gonna vote for Obama or McCain?

Having grampy McCain pick the next three or four Supreme Court Justices will do wonders for women's rights.
Hey, at least we'd get rid of Joe Lieberman. Additionally, your argument is not germane since Dems will increase their majority in the next Congress and would never confirm another Scalia or Thomas or Alito.
This analysis is so one-sided. Its funny how the Clinton supporters love to pick which states they deem to be important in the fall. Obama has won Virginia, Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington, Iowa, and Minnesota, key swing states that we also must win. He won Georgia by a 66-31 margin, and now that Bobb Barr is running for president and could drain votes for McCain, Obama is in a position to make the state more competitive. He ran strongly in Indiana and Texas, states he was supposed to be blown out in. I'm tired of the Kerry-Hillary strategy of only winning the Democratic states and hoping for Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Obama is the only candidate who is competitive with John McCain in Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. In Washington state, Hillary Clinton is only leading McCain 48-45, whereas Obama is currently leading 53-40. Obama leads McCain in Oregon 52-38 while Clinton leads by a much smaller margin, 46-40. She is very weak in the South other than Florida, and even then, McCain will have an edge in that state. Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat who can win, and the arrogance of Clinton supporters who claim this is truly ridiculous. Both candidates are also even against McCain in Michigan.

Also, North Carolina IS a swing state. The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama 3 points behind McCain, and the state is changing every year. It can be winnable, with the right candidate.

You say that no Democrat has won the White House since Wilson without winning West Virginia. Ok. Since Hillary lost Washington DC, a Democratic stronghold that EVERY Democrat must win, does that make her unelectable? When she said that the only hardworking Americans were "white and working class", many non-white voters got the message that they weren't valued to her. How is she going to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin without the support of black voters? That's right...she won't. Black voters aren't going to be dismissed and looked down on by anyone, let alone Hillary Clinton.
Last time anyone checked DC was not a swing state.
That wasn't the point--Hillary lost D.C. by 50 points so under the Terry McAuliffe-Howard Wolfson-Lanny Davis theory she has a problem with a major Democratic constituency. The Clinton surrogates are going around saying that since Obama didn't win California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, then he has a problem with the Democratic base. West Virginia has gotten redder and redder since 2000, and Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 with 48% in part because of the Perot vote. Same with Kentucky--in 1992, Clinton beat Bush 45-41 and in 1996 Clinton beat Dole 46-45. Not once did Clinton get a majority of the vote in Kentucky, only narrow pluralities.

You said last week that North Carolina wasn't a swing state, when it clearly is based on recent polling and demographic trends. I hope you now know that Obama won many key swing states as well, and Hillary Clinton isn't the only one winning them. Last time I checked, Democrats didn't fare well by losing Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Oregon, Minnesota, and Colorado.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John, (and of course)Howling Latina, you are both making the same mistake:

A primary win has very little to no implications for the general election.

It is important to recognize that Clinton does better than Obama (with regards to white working-class voters) in the context of a Democratic party. It is impossible to infer general support among white working-class voters from performance in the primary.

If you need proof, a recent poll shows John McCain beating Clinton and Obama among working class voters by 12% and 8% respectively. Which implies that there is an entire segment of working class voters who like neither Obama or Clinton, and are likely beyond both candidates' reach.

This isn't difficult to understand, and we (Obama and Clinton supporters) could have a much better dialogue if we stuck to, you know, reality.
Hi Jamelle,

I have been telling people the same thing...a primary win doesn't equal a general election win. However, the Clinton campaign surrogates are making it seem as though the states that she won in the primary won't vote for Obama. I was trying to say that the states that Obama won were important as well, especially key swing states that Democrats have to be competitive in. President Bush lost New Hampshire by more than 25 points to John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary, and turned around and beat Al Gore there in the general election. If Gore had won New Hampshire, he would have won the presidency, without Florida.

The poll you cited is correct. People forget that Democrats haven't won the working-class white vote since 1964, meaning even Bill "Bubba" Clinton failed to win a majority of these voters. For some reason, the media makes it seem as though Obama has to win a majority of white voters or he isn't an acceptable candidate, despite the fact that white Democratic men have had trouble winning these same voters. No one on TV says this, however, and the Clinton surrogates have gotten away with spinning their "big" state arguments while dismissing the states that voted for Senator Obama.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?